The way the media pushes for good governance results in two important and interdependent societal improvements:

1. Reduced corruption, arising in part from incentives to reduce harmful behaviour. See Public Sentinel: News Media & Governance Reform: Chapters 5 & 6 examine the role of media as a watchdog. “No doubt, press exposure of corruption has the potential to catalyze governance reforms” (p.130)
2. Improved service provision for citizens, as a result of improved government responsiveness to higher media engagement. See this evidence gathered from India showing a robust, positive correlation between community media access/coverage and government responsiveness.

However, this means that on the flip side, when independent media struggle to survive, corruption increases and service provision deteriorates. A recent study found that the closure of local newspapers in the United States is associated with higher government wages and deficits, leading to higher borrowing costs for local authorities. Moreover, the implications of a decline in local coverage increases the likelihood of corruption and community neglect (e.g. less effective schools). These findings therefore support the idea that local newspapers hold their governments accountable, keeping municipal borrowing costs low and ultimately saving local taxpayers money.

Of course, more than free and independent media is necessary to hold powerholders to account and ensure good governance – independence of the judiciary or free and fair elections, for instance – but while ‘voice needs teeth to have bite – teeth may not bite without voice’. For more on this, see Social Accountability: What Does the Evidence Really Say?

3. Platform for democratic discourse

Independent media is an essential facilitator of the democratic process and one of the guarantors of free and fair elections. It forms an integral part of the so-called ‘civic space’ within which democratic debate is possible. Furthermore, independent media can form a platform on which various alternative ideas can be developed.

Liberal democracy relies on a dispersion of power across actors and institutions, and independent media are an important part of this counterpower. In contexts where the quality of a democracy is threatened, independent media are often among the first to be targeted. But they can also play a key role in resisting this development and keeping alive the ‘democratic imagination’.

This function of independent media as a counterpower becomes especially salient in post-conflict situations. “Deference and dissent strike a delicate balance in any polity” and too much deference has been identified in situations where powerholders were able to incite and orchestrate mass violence. This radio experiment was devised to explore the counterpower the media could exert in post-genocide Rwanda. The analysis shows how independent media can promote independent thought and foster public debate, in turn discouraging ‘blind obedience’, a dangerous mindset frequently associated with acts of atrocity.

While the importance of independent media for democracy is intuitive, a 2014 study by the Institute of Social Studies also provides some empirical backing for this claim. They found a significant effect of the level of press freedom on measures of democracy in the (developing) countries included in their research.

Indeed, not only can democratic discourse be maintained on a media platform, the media itself can be seen as a democratising agent helping bring about institutional change in transitional societies. This research report by the Reuters Institute at the University of Oxford, for instance, provides a a theory of mass media during democratisation processes, based upon studies in Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Arab world.

4. Mirror of diversity in society

Media are a means by which a society learns about itself and builds a sense of community, and which shapes the understanding of values, customs and tradition. A media landscape that reflects the diversity present in society, contributes to the inclusion and equal participation of all groups of people in this process.

When the media holds others to account, journalists make choices in whose issues they investigate. If they underrepresent groups of people while doing so, they end up reinforcing the power of vested interests and exacerbating existing inequalities.

As this article found in India, improved media representation of certain communities results in improved service provision from the government to these groups. Naturally, the opposite is also true. When communities aren’t represented, the media fails to reflect the diversity of society, which establishes bias in and for represented regions or groups (often disadvantaging women, ethnic minorities or peripheral areas).

In particularly diverse places, this bias can create further societal division and fragmentation. On the topic of ‘media access bias’, an article by David Strömberg demonstrates that poor voters in developing countries are hugely affected by a lack of coverage: “Newspaper provision of news may… produce a political bias disfavoring remote and rural areas”. Nonetheless, as Strömberg’s article highlights, “radio and television may reduce this pro-urban bias” (p.187)