The rise of the Fourth Republic in Ghana in 1992 brought with it a significant transformation of the country's media landscape. In fact, the promulgation of the 1992 Constitution, particularly Chapter 12, marked a pivotal moment in the history of press freedom in Ghana. This chapter explicitly guarantees the freedom and independence of the media, prohibits censorship and promotes a pluralistic media environment. As a result, there has been an unprecedented expansion in the Ghanaian media space characterised by liberalisation, diversity and plurality.

Today, Ghana boasts over 480 registered radio stations, over 148 television stations (analogue and digital), an estimated 5,000 newspapers and magazines and over 50,000 online platforms, blogs and news portals, according to data from the National Media Commission (NMC) and the National Communications Authority (NCA). This unprecedented astronomical growth has earned Ghana a reputation as one of the most media-rich countries in West Africa.

Alongside this thriving media environment, however, there are growing concerns about the structure and nature of media ownership and its impact on journalistic practice as well as editorial independence. Media ownership or media conglomerate in Ghana is increasingly shifting from public institutions to private individuals and corporations - many of which have direct or indirect political affiliations or business interests attached to them. In recent years, several media conglomerates have emerged whose owners control chains of media companies across various platforms - television, radio, newspapers and online media - in addition to their private businesses.

While media consolidation can increase operational efficiency and the dissemination of content across platforms, it also raises critical questions about editorial independence, professionalism, ethical values and the integrity of journalism in the country. A worrying trend is the growing influence of media owners on editorial policies and operations. Critics point out that some owners, driven by political or economic interests, have been known to interfere in the creation and production of content, often pushing their own ideological, economic or partisan agendas. The practices they claim not only undermine the independence of journalists, but also threaten the ethical standards of the journalism profession.

In an interview, a colleague who works with major media conglomerates in Ghana expressed frustration at being regularly pressured to distort stories to reflect the political and economic biases of the media owner. He chose to remain unanimous and said: "Sometimes I am instructed to write an editorial or report in a way that goes against my personal principles and journalistic ethics. We are constantly balancing between telling stories based on facts and satisfying the interests of the owner." This may be a political or business interest.

Such revelations are not an isolated case

In many newsrooms, journalists face subtle and overt forms of editorial interference. These dynamics have the potential to erode public trust in the media, especially when news content appears biased, incomplete or agenda-driven. Another story told of how a journalist was forced to retract an article simply because it negatively portrayed a particular political party. The journalist further revealed that on one occasion an entire news line-up had to be restructured at the last minute to avoid broadcasting content that could be perceived as unfavourable to a particular business interest.

A fellow journalist from the Czech Republic, Denisa, referring to her perspective, lamented the growing influence of media ownership on journalistic practice around the world. In her view, this influence is undeniable and far-reaching. She described how the media has become a powerful tool - not only for informing the public, but also for shaping public opinion, influencing social values and even playing a role in determining the outcome of elections. Denise noted that this power is largely understood and strategically used by media business owners, political elites, multinational corporations and financial institutions, while the general public is often unaware of its impact.

"Many people unknowingly consume mainstream media content without exercising critical thinking or independently verifying information," she said. She goes on to say that this leads to widespread acceptance of dominant narratives - narratives that may reflect the interests of media owners rather than the public good.

As a typical example, she cited the ongoing war in Ukraine, which is dominated by a recurring media message in Europe that supports Ukraine - even at the cost of a lower standard of living for its citizens. This narrative, she said, is rarely discussed in the mainstream media and lacks a clear rationale, especially when it comes to presenting Russia as an enemy without sufficient public explanation or open dialogue.

She expressed concern that those who question this position are often labeled as pro-Russian or accused of spreading propaganda. This creates a climate where dissent is discouraged and individuals may feel pressured to publicly support the dominant narrative - even if it conflicts with their personal views or national interests. Such an environment, she argued, limits honest debate and polarizes society.

Denise also expressed concern about how China is portrayed in the Western media. Claims of cyber attacks, surveillance and intellectual property theft are often made, but she said these claims are rarely accompanied by concrete evidence. She pointed out that such threats are usually formulated in vague terms, yet are widely accepted as fact due to their constant repetition in the media. In contrast, she mentioned that evidence of cyber activity by other global powers receives much less attention despite its importance.

In the Czech Republic, Denisa noted that much of the mainstream media is owned by a handful of wealthy businessmen with strong ties to Western institutions. As a result, media coverage often reflects pro-Western foreign policy positions, including strong support for Ukraine and skepticism about China. Alternative views rarely get space, and when they do, they are usually in the minority.

Kirtan Bhana, a journalist from South Africa, shared his perspective on the issue, noting that a good starting point is to acknowledge how technological advances and the rise of the digital space have transformed the media landscape. Today, anyone with a mobile phone can be considered a media owner. The playing field has leveled out - individuals can now access vast amounts of information as well as disseminate their own content through broadcasting, podcasting, text messaging and even self-funded print publications.

Although factual news is more accessible than ever, many people remain trapped under the influence of a corporatocracy that not only controls the media and public perception, but also collects vast amounts of data on individuals. Individuals such as Julian Assange, for example, have been imprisoned for possessing information deemed incriminating. Bhana further argued that mainstream media owners often fund certain narratives, support favoured politicians or sponsor research that distorts public understanding - leading to distorted or naive interpretations of events. However, the digital world has carved out a powerful space where individuals can regain control and contribute meaningfully to the flow of information.

Journalists working for media conglomerates often face the risk of losing their jobs if they choose to adhere to professional and ethical standards instead of conforming to the ideological agenda of the media outlet. One colleague shared with me that he was forced to resign because he could no longer tolerate unprofessional practices in his organization. On several occasions, he had investigated corruption cases involving powerful institutions and organizations, only to be instructed to retract the stories for the sake of the owners' interests. He was also told that these institutions or organizations would withdraw their advertisements from the editorial office. Faced with repeated censorship and pressure, he decided to leave rather than compromise his integrity and tarnish his hard-earned reputation.

During discussions with some journalists, they expressed serious concern about the growing influence of private media owners on journalistic practice. They shared disturbing experiences of being ordered to withdraw exclusive investigative stories - often exposing corruption in the public interest - because the findings clashed with the interests of media owners. This, they said, has become a worrying trend. In some cases, after a careful process of gathering evidence and building a strong case, they were abruptly told to stop investigating and not publish or broadcast the story.

This situation is reminiscent of Antonio Gramsci's theory of "hegemony", in particular the "third face of power", which is based on Marxist thought. It highlights how dominant ideologies, values and beliefs are used to maintain class structures and mask social contradictions. In this context, media conglomerates - controlled by powerful elites - manipulate news coverage to serve their own interests. They suppress stories that challenge their position or threaten their profits, treating news not as a public good but as a commodity whose primary purpose is to generate revenue.

Moreover, this environment can stifle critical and investigative journalism - a fundamental pillar of democratic accountability. When media workers feel constrained or fear retaliation for exposing truths that may be politically disadvantageous, the watchdog role of the press is fundamentally weakened. Our ultimate task as journalists is to serve the public interest and play a watchdog role over governments. We must protect their interests at all costs or risk losing their trust - which would seriously undermine our profession and its credibility.

Media regulators must have sufficient resources and powers to operate independently. This will enable them to effectively monitor media conglomerates and ensure that they adhere to the principles of fair and responsible reporting. It is essential that journalists are not silenced or restricted so that they can fulfil their key role as watchdogs - to protect the public interest and the right to impartial and unrestricted access to information.

FIIFI NETTEY
Mediální poradce