CONCENTRATION OF MEDIA OUTLETS IN THE HANDS OF A FEW WILY POLITICIANS IS INIMICAL TO FREE EXPRESSION.

Thomas Jefferson once said that, "the only security of all is in a free press.” He further opined that “the force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." The import of this avowal cannot be gainsaid. We are all witnesses to what is transpiring in the Arab world, where two political regimes have already been disposed of by popular uprisings fuelled by the powerful mass media. Many other political regimes in the region are standing on political quick sand. It is only a matter of time before they are relegated to political Siberia thanks to the catalytic nature of the liberal media. African dictators are having their worst nightmare on how to contain this roguish foe. Many of them will elect not to encourage the freedom of the mass media for fear of the resultant political agitation. They will thus use every trick in the book to gag the liberal media. This may not be done overtly due to fear of international condemnations. In order to accomplish this objective without causing a furore, many heads of states and their ideological heirs will ensure that media outlets are highly concentrated and dominated by a clique of politicians and conglomerates whose ideological leanings are not a threat to the political establishments of the day. The intent will be to ensure that the listenership, viewership and readership of these outlets is widely dispersed and, in the words of T.S. Elliot, “like foxes that have an interest in prolonging the lives of poultry”, they will ensure that only opinions favorable to their political cause will be churned out to the unsuspecting public while all other opinions will be repressed. This view may look farfetched; however, the reality is that it is happening in Kenya. Mergers and acquisitions of media outlets by politicians either directly or through proxy is on the rise. The effect of these mergers and acquisitions has been that these newly acquired or merging media outlets have become captives to political interests. Scribes on the payroll of these media outlets are crying foul that viewpoint discrimination through discreet outlawing of opinion that is not in the best interest of the media owners is on the increase. They lament that most of their opinions do not see the light of the day or are edited beyond recognition especially if such scribes have unearthed potentially damaging information concerning certain politicians who are either friends of media owners or part owners of the media house(s) that these scribes work for. Moreover, editorial values are rarely subject to detailed exegesis in the Editorial Guidelines. From the foregoing, it can only be concluded that monopolistic control of the media market by wily individuals is likely to lead to the shrinking of the democratic space in the country. This is of course sweet music to the ears of despotic heads of states. Such leaders will not hesitate to facilitate an increase in concentration of media outlets in the hands of a few wily individuals and subsequently reduce the overall quality and diversity of information communicated through major media channels. Ultimately, this gives rise to a poorly-informed public, which is restricted to an array of biased media. Such media will be out to offer information that does not jeopardize the political interests of the incumbent and his or her ideological heirs. In his book titled “Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech” Edwin Baker opines that “media freedom must be that which is geared towards the creation and maintenance of a healthy democracy in which all citizens would flourish.” Media concentration that is an antithesis to media freedom is therefore sociologically detrimental and dangerous to any civilized society.