The Role of Mass Media in the Fight against Corruption
Abstract
The fight against corruption needs to be fought on several fronts. Institutional reform legislation and oversight—is one, but it will not be successful if it is not embedded in a broad change of culture. Corrupt practices are often embedded in institutional practices and every-day lives and are perceived as fixed and uncontestable. Citizens are not aware of their rights, are cynical about governments’ propensity to abuse power, fear repercussions, or are simply not aware that corruption is a social, economic, and political problem.
The media—traditional mass media as well as new technologies— can play a vital role in unveiling corruption, framing corruption as public problem, suggesting solutions, and generally empower citizens to fight corruption. Media are watchdogs, agenda setters, and gatekeepers that can monitor the quality of governance, frame the discussion about corruption, and lend voice to a wide range of perspectives and arguments. By doing so, media coverage influences norms and cultures, which in turn can influence policy-making and legislative reform.
Examples from some part of the country, among other places, show that media effects, ranges from public awareness of corruption to massive protests against the abuse of power. Those organizations in Nigeria (Code of Conduct Bureau, ICPC, EFCC) whose work is dedicated to the fight against corruption need to be aware of the power of the media to aid this fight and need to know how to utilize its potential. This paper provides an overview over the basic principles of media effects and presenting specific techniques of involving the media in the fight against grand corruption and every-day corruption.
Introduction: The media as a pillar of culture
Legislative change and institutional oversight are important cornerstones in the fight against corruption. However, no law will change society if it does not become part of a country’s culture, if it does not have an effect on people’s everyday lives. Corruption is not a legal issue alone. Corruption is also an issue of society, of culture. In order to fight corruption, we need to change the culture that enables corruption, not only the laws that prohibit it. Corrupt practices are often embedded in institutional practices and everyday lives. They are perceived as fixed and uncontestable.
Citizens are often not able to recognize corruption or to differentiate grand structural corruption–extensive unethical behavior by public officials—from petty everyday corruption—minor deviations from the rules
for the benefit of an individual or a small group of people—or simple inefficiency and incompetence. The result is a culture with entrenched corrupt practices and very few people to stand up and speak against them. Citizens are not aware of their rights, are cynical about governments’ propensity to abuse power, fear
repercussions, or are simply not aware that corruption is a social, economic, and
political problem.
Media are an important pillar of culture. Media are also an important political player. Media influence our perceptions of what is right and what is wrong. They inform us about corruption and about solutions to this problem. They make politicians pay attention through wide-spread coverage. They also provide platforms for citizens to voice their opinions and demand accountability from those in power.
In the modern media environment, the effects of traditional media on our norms and culture have been enhanced by new communication technologies. Cell phones and the Internet have become an integral part of the media environment. New information and communication technologies have become an integral part
of today’s media sphere. In many cases, traditional and new media reinforce each other and amplify each other’s effects: Television takes up stories from the web and brings them to the attention of a larger audience.
News stories from the traditional media are discussed online and create movements through online
communities. This paper gives a brief overview over why traditional and social media can be useful tools to create a culture of transparency, openness, and honesty. The main part of the paper provides hands-on practical suggestions on how anti-corruption organizations can work with the media to gain public support
for their work, and to work towards changing perceptions, norms, behavior—and culture.
Causes of corruption in Nigeria
Several reasons have been adduced for corruption in Nigeria, one of which is the sudden disappearance of good moral and ethical values. Nwaobi (2004) posited that Nigeria must be one of the very few countries in the world where a man’s source of wealth is of no concern to his neighbours, the public or the government.
Wealthy people who are known to be corrupt are regularly courted and honoured by communities, religious bodies, social clubs and other private organizations. This implies that people who benefit from the largesse of these corrupt people rarely ask questions. Sociological and/or cultural factors such as customs, family pressures on government officials and ethnicity constitute potential causes of corruption. In Nigeria, although traditional values of gift giving and tributes to leaders often lead to what Brownsberger (1983) describes as "polite corruption", the extent of such corruption is relatively small. Dandago (2008) revealed that traditional chieftaincy titles and membership of boards of directors of government-owned corporations are only for the ‘influential’ individuals in the society who have ‘made it’ economically or politically. Most of those people ‘made it’ through enriching themselves fraudulently, but enjoy public respect and accolades. The most
annoying thing is that honest and dedicated public servants, who have not accumulated dirty wealth, do not command much respect from the society. These attitudes serve to encourage a new-breed of public servants who engage in corrupt practices.
What can media do against corruption?
The media may not be traditional tools in the fight against corruption. However, they are crucial in achieving the cultural change that must accompany any legislative change to make laws and institutional changes sustainable. Media can amplify the effect of anti-corruption legislation by
a) Reaching and mobilizing a broader audience,
b) Motivating political leaders to act, and
c) Facilitating a cultural change that will improve the sustainability of change.
Media are crucial in changing people’s beliefs about the prevalence and legitimacy of corruption. The media’s ability to change perceptions, norms, and behavior is at the core of their relevance for the fight against corruption. Every society is built on norms. Norms are standards of expected behavior and regulate
the way we interact with each other. Research has shown that behavior is influenced mainly by our perception of norms: the norms that we accept for ourselves and the norms that we believe the people around us apply to their own behavior. Whether people accept corruption, go along with it, or stand up against it depends on whether we are aware that corruption is wrong and whether we believe that other people think that corruption is wrong, too. If we assume that most people do not mind paying a bribe to a local official or that most people think that there is nothing they can do against government corruption, then we will tend to just accept it ourselves and not do anything about it. If, on the other hand, we get the impression that many people are against corrupt practices and are willing to challenge them, then we are also more likely to do something about corruption.
Media coverage is a major factor in shaping our perception about norms. For instance, local news on television, on the radio, and in newspapers can pay particular attention to instances of corruption and give voice to people who complain about it. That way they can create the impression that corruption occurs
often and that people are upset about it. Social media can amplify this effect in particular through websites where citizens can report instances of corruption and through initiating a discussion about it. On the other hand, media can also propagate false perceptions about corruption, which can hinder the work of
organizations that engage in the fight against corruption. A typical misrepresentation concerns the differences between grand corruption, petty everyday corruption, and unfortunate, but legal inefficiency. If media
misrepresent inefficiency as grand corruption, they can mislead the public and set wrong priorities for the public and policy agendas.
The Mechanism that Influences Perception
There are three mechanisms through which the media influence our perceptions and norms:
(i) Media act as watchdog,
(ii) Agenda setters, and
(iii) Public forum for a diverse set of voices.
In their function as watchdog, media act as monitor of government behavior and guard the public interest by highlighting cases of misadministration, abuse of power, and corruption. By covering such cases they help ensuring accountability and transparency of governments and other powerful factions. The watchdog
function of the media is perhaps the most obvious with regard to corruption, and we can draw on many examples where the media acted as catalyst for policy change by highlighting malfeasance.
As agenda setters, media can put corruption on the public and the political agenda. Agenda setting is one of the media’s most crucial democratic functions. By discussing issues and putting them on the public agenda they draw attention to problems in society. Corruption is often not publicly discussed, either because
it is perceived as a social norm or because people are afraid of repercussions should they engage in public discussion about it. Media attention legitimizes corruption as a problem in the eyes of the audience: if the media think corruption is problematic, the public will pay more critical attention to it. Furthermore, politicians can be compelled by media pressure to reconsider existing legislation and policies. This is particularly efficient in democracies, where politicians need to be concerned about election outcomes.
Media also provide a public forum for citizens to voice their opinions on and experiences with corruption. This mechanism goes back to the idea of the public sphere, which posits that communication flows between state and citizens form a space where accountability and legitimacy are exchanged between both sides. In this ideal democratic public sphere, the media have a responsibility to
reflect the plurality of viewpoints and political persuasions in society. This way
they maximize the diversity of perspectives and arguments in the public sphere,
which can then inform public debate, deliberation, and policy-making. By
reflecting a range of perspectives the media can help introduce innovative
solutions to the problem of corruption and provide a wide range of suggestions
and arguments that citizens can use in their particular circumstances.
While agenda setting is a classic role of the mass media, ICT have been
shown to be very effective as watchdogs and, even more so, as public forum. New
media provide the infrastructure for a public forum in which different opinions
and voices can come together. They enable deliberation, which is a corner stone
of democracy, and which allows citizens to find acceptable solutions to public
problems. In many countries, online platforms allow citizens to report instances of
corruption by mail, phone, text message, and other channels. These reports are
then compiled into regional reports by the platform host organization so that
users can see what forms of corruption occurs in which region of the country.
How to engage the media in the fight against corruption
While media have a large potential to support the fight against corruption,
organizations working with them should be aware of some approaches and
mechanisms that increase chances of a successful cooperation with the media.
These recommendations fall roughly into two areas: understanding how the
media work and understanding how citizens use the media.
Understanding how citizens use the media
Before any systematic engagement with the media, organizations should
identify their audience: who do you want to reach with regard to the objective of
your organization? The definition of the audience depends primarily on the
objective of the organization and on the type of corruption that is the focus of the
organization’s efforts. Grand corruption, for instance, is a structural political
problem. Attempts to fight grand corruption need either a very broad public base
that has a chance to influence elections or an elite base of opinion leaders that
will be able to influence policies or specific politicians. Petty everyday corruption
cannot necessarily be corrected through elections or legislation and should
probably be addressed on a local basis. For instance, if the problem is about
doctors taking bribes for treating patients, local communities of those most
affected— possibly parents—are a more appropriate audience.
After defining the audience of anti-corruption efforts, the next step is to
explore the media environment this audience moves in: which media do they
mostly turn to, where do they get most of their information from? Influential and
opinion leaders, for instance, tend to read one or more national and even
international newspapers, usually those considered to be sophisticated and
politically influential. In poor rural areas, radio is much more likely to be the
medium of choice because it is cheaper and requires a lower level of literacy than
newspapers. Young, urban, and educated people can be reached through social
media, such as Facebook, Twitter, and platforms specifically dedicated to
corruption issues. It is very important to identify the media most relevant to the
intended audience, because only properly targeted communication efforts will be
effective and sustainable. Often a mix of media is most successful: corruption can
be discussed in radio or television shows and this discussion can then be
continued and amplified through social media. Interpersonal contact through, for
instance, village meetings, is also highly relevant for spreading a certain message
and for mobilizing people to stand up against corruption.
Understanding how the media works
Once audience and their preferred media have been identified, a
relationship with the media should be built. Long-term systematic change
requires a coalition of reform-minded partners. A coalition with the media— with
journalists or editors—can enhance the efforts of an anti-corruption coalition by
increasing its public profile and establishing it as part of the public discourse
about corruption. Coalitions are more sustainable and therefore more likely to
succeed than one-sided efforts, such as pushing out press releases in the hope
that a news outlet will pick them up. Steps toward forming a coalition with the
media include:
(1.) Identify and specify the issue: as outlined earlier, it is necessary to clearly
define the objective of an organization’s fight against corruption in order to
mount an effective media campaign. The issue determines which media are most
relevant: petty corruption is likely to be an issue of the local media, while grand
corruption might more successfully targeted through the elite media. Social
media complement all media campaigns.
(2.) Map relationships and stakeholders: Identify significant partners in the
media—which journalists are known to cover corruption? Which editors have a
reputation to reveal corruption in their news outlets? What is their place in the
national power hierarchy? The ideal media partner is dedicated and
knowledgeable, and does not hesitate to reveal corruption. The ideal media
partner also has some public clout in the community the organization wants to
target.
(3.) Form the coalition: Once media partners are identified, they need to be won
to join the coalition against corruption. They need to be convinced that it is in
their interest to cover and criticize corruption. Background conversations and
media breakfast are possible instruments to inform journalists about your work
and to forge a relationship with them. Relationships should be equal—no partner
should withhold information and all sides should benefit from being members of
the coalition.
(4.) Sustain the coalition: Anti-corruption coalitions with the media should not be
limited to one issue or instance of corruption at one point in time. Coalitions
become more sustainable and powerful if they work together over time and on a
range of issues. Relationships can be kept alive through, for instance, regular
meetings and co-hosted events.
List of Public and Private Anti-Corruption Agencies and initiatives
The involvement of media in anti – corruption crusade cut across the public and
private sector of the economy either directly or indirectly as listed below:
Public anti-corruption initiatives:
The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences
Commission (ICPC)
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)
Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB)
Office of the Ombudsman
The Auditor General
Nigerian Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI)
Budget Monitoring and Price Intelligence Unit (BMPIU)
E-Governance
Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission (NIPC)
Public Procurement
Whistle-Blowing
Private Anti-Corruption Initiatives:
Information Network
Media
The Convention on Business Integrity (CBI)
Zero-Corruption Coalition (ZCC)
Independent Advocacy Project (IAP)
Transparency International Nigeria
Conclusion
Media are crucial players in changing culture toward more transparency
and accountability. By changing perceptions of what is right and wrong, the media
can affect the norms that society is built on. Changes in norms will, over time,
initiate changes in behavior. This, in turn, can lead to less tolerance for
corruption, stronger vigilance, and stronger participation in anti-corruption
efforts. The media as watchdogs can create a broad coalition against corruption
and be a catalyst for reform by uncovering grand corruption and forcing
politicians into making changes. As agenda setters, media organizations can
support anti-corruption movements by bringing them to the attention of a large
audience. When the media act as public forum, they can introduce and spread
opinions, solutions, and innovations.
Organizations engaged in the fight against corruption can use media as
allies and as vehicle for their work to improve their chances of success, their
effectiveness, and their sustainability. To use the media, organizations need to be
aware of the way people use the media and of the way the media works.
No comments:
Post a Comment