Media’s struggle to survive in the ‘red ocean’

Media freedom was among the topics at a National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) seminar this week, being booted about, as usual, like a political football. There was genuine concern, though, about the wind of change sweeping the news industry and the dire financial state in which it’s left some media outlets.
The fear is that money is now the guiding factor in the selection and presentation of news stories, more so than the public interest and even more so than political expedience. Reporters’ and editors’ freedom to choose what stories they cover, and how, has diminished in the fiscal heat. Media independence has become a rarity. The news media rest atop two pillars of income – from subscriptions and from advertising. The Internet and the digital audience it feeds continues to chip away at newspaper and TV subscription revenues, forcing them to battle one another for shares of the advertising investment. The “blue ocean” – the uncontested, potentially high-profit market share awaiting fresh and innovative players – has turned the traditional revenue streams into a red ocean, bloodied in a frenzied fight involving both established print and television news outlets and newcomers that are brave, wealthy or foolhardy enough to risk the waters.
All of this bodes ill for media freedom, of course. The print business in Thailand, long the torchbearer of integrity and independence, is now also threatened with the loss of reporters in a significant migration to financially sounder broadcast outlets and the trendy allure of digital platforms. Subscription revenue is immaterial in such places because corporate sponsors are picking up the tab, but that invariably means that news reporting is adjusted to meet the sponsors’ requirements. Controversial topics – such as suppression of rights under the military government – are kept to a minimum, if allowed at all.
These commercial patrons have no need to bully reporters or threaten to shut down their organisations to get them on their side. They captivate with smiles and money and other incentives. It’s often enough to persuade a journalist to abdicate the freedom to report the news honestly and the responsibility to uphold the public interest. Dictators use guns and repressive laws to co-opt the news media, and for doing so they draw condemnation. Big business uses gifts and promises of future fiscal rewards, yet it remains immune to any backlash.
Good journalists know how to wage battle with dictators. Difficult as the task may be, they know what they’re up against. The courting of a magnanimous corporate lackey is trickier to gauge and fend off. There are no international organisations to help journalists combat the influences of advertisers. There are no ground rules for the reporter-sponsor relationship. And the lines are forever blurred.
The NBTC has its own duty in leading the industry through the spreading ethical morass. It must always be on guard as the impacts, good and bad, of the vast new realm of digital TV become clearer. More news-media outlets than ever are seeking shares in the same, relatively unchanged funding source. Where previously four or five TV stations fought over advertising revenue, now there are dozens.
And compounding this complicated situation is the evaporation of reader subscriptions, the mainstay of print journalism. Survival increasingly becomes a matter of compromising values and catering to the needs, whims and prejudices of corporate sponsors. In these uncharted waters, with no ethical advice yet set in stone, professional pride comes down to a matter of personal conscience.