Media Ownership and Its Influence on Journalism practice
17 July 2025
The advent of Ghana’s Fourth Republic in 1992 brought with it a significant transformation in 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. The chapter explicitly guarantees the freedom and independence of the media, outlawing censorship and promoting a pluralistic media environment. As a result, Ghana’s media space witnessed an unprecedented expansion characterized by liberalization, diversity, and plurality.
Today, Ghana boasts of over 480 registered radio stations, more than 148 television stations (both analog and digital), an estimated 5000 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 Communication Authority(NCA)
This unprecedented astronomical growth has earned Ghana a reputation as one of the most vibrant media-rich countries in West Africa.
However, alongside this flourishing media environment is a growing concern about the structure and nature of media ownership and its impact on journalism practice as well as editorial independence.
Media ownership or media conglomerate in Ghana has increasingly shifted from public institutions to private individuals and corporate entities—many of whom have direct or indirect political affiliations or business interests associated with it.
In recent years, several media conglomerates have emerged, with owners controlling chains of media outlets across various platforms—television, radio, newspapers, and online media - apart from their private businesses.
While media consolidation can enhance operational efficiency and cross-platform content dissemination, 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 over editorial policies and newsroom operations.
Critics have pointed out that some owners, driven by political or economic interests, have been known to interfere in content creation and production, often pushing their own ideological, economical, or partisan agendas.
The practice, they claim, not only undermines the independence of journalists but also compromises the ethical standards of journalism profession practice.
In an interaction, a colleague who works with prominent media conglomerates in Ghana expressed frustrations about being routinely pressured to slant stories to reflect the political and economic biases of the media owner.
Electing to remain anonymous, he said, “There are times I’m given directives to write an editorial or news story in a manner that contradicts my personal principles and journalistic ethics. We are constantly walking a tightrope between telling fact-based stories and pleasing the interest of owner.” This might be political or business interest.
Such revelations are not isolated incidents.
Across many newsrooms, journalists face subtle and overt forms of editorial interference.
This dynamic has the potential to erode public trust in the media, particularly when news content appears biased, incomplete, or agenda-driven.
Another story recounted how a journalist was compelled to drop a story simply because it portrayed a particular political party in a negative light.
The journalist further revealed that, on one occasion, the entire news lineup had to be restructured at the last minute to avoid airing content that could be perceived as unfavorable to that business interest.
Bringing her perspective to bear, a colleague journalist from the Czech Republic, Denisa, lamented the growing influence of media ownership on journalism practice across the world.
According to her, the influence is both undeniable and far-reaching. She described how media has become a powerful instrument—not only for informing the public, but also for shaping public opinion, influencing societal values, and even playing a role in determining electoral outcomes.
Denisa noted that this power is largely understood and strategically used by media business owners, political elites, transnational corporations, and financial institutions, while the general public often remains unaware of its impact.
"Unknowingly, many people consume mainstream media content without applying critical thinking or independently verifying information," she said
Additionally, she says that it leads to widespread acceptance of dominant narratives—narratives that may reflect the interests of media owners rather than the public good.
She cited the ongoing war in Ukraine as a typical example that is dominated by a recurring media message in Europe that has been supporting Ukraine —even at the cost of lower living standards for citizens.
This narrative, she said, is rarely debated in mainstream spaces and lacks clear justification, particularly around the framing of Russia as an enemy without sufficient public explanation or open dialogue.
She expressed concern that those who question this stance 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 a dominant narrative—even when it goes against their personal views or national interests. Such an environment, she argued, limits honest discourse and polarizes society.
Denisa also raised concerns about how China is portrayed in Western media. Claims of cyberattacks, surveillance, and intellectual property theft are often made, but according to her, these claims are seldom accompanied by concrete evidence. She pointed out that such threats are typically framed in vague terms, yet are widely accepted as fact due to constant repetition in media. In contrast, she mentioned that evidence of cyber activity from other global powers receives far less coverage, despite its significance.
In the Czech Republic, Denisa observed that much of the mainstream media is owned by a handful of wealthy businesspeople with strong connections to Western institutions. As a result, media coverage often reflects pro-Western foreign policy positions, including strong support for Ukraine and skepticism toward China. Alternative viewpoints are rarely given space, and when they are, they are typically outnumbered.
Kirtan Bhana, a journalist from South Africa, shared his perspective on the issue, noting that a good starting point is to recognize how technological advancements 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 been leveled—individuals can now access vast amounts of information and also disseminate their own content through broadcasting, podcasting, texting, and even self-funded print publications.
While factual news is more accessible than ever, many people remain trapped under the influence of a corporatocracy that controls not just media and public perception, but also collects vast data on individuals. Figures like Julian Assange, for instance, have been imprisoned for possessing information deemed incriminating.
Bhana further argued that mainstream media owners often fund particular narratives, support favored politicians, or sponsor research that distorts public understanding—leading to skewed or naive interpretation of events. Yet, the digital realm has carved out a powerful space where individuals can reclaim agency and contribute meaningfully to the flow of information.
Journalists working with media conglomerates often face the risk of losing their jobs if they choose to uphold professional and ethical standards rather than align with the ideological agenda of the outlet. A colleague shared with me that he was compelled to resign because he could no longer tolerate the unprofessional practices within his organization. On several occasions, he investigated cases of corruption involving powerful institutions and organizations, only to be instructed to drop the stories because of the owners' interests. He was also told those institutions or organizations will withdraw their adverts from the station. Faced with repeated censorship and pressure, he chose to walk away rather than compromise his integrity and tarnish his hard earned reputation.
During a discussion with some journalists, they voiced serious concern about the increasing influence of private media owners on journalism practice. They shared troubling experiences where they were instructed to drop exclusive investigative stories—often exposing corruption in the public interest—because the findings clashed with the interests of the media owners. This, they said, has become a disturbing trend. In some cases, after going through the painstaking process of gathering evidence and building a strong case, they were abruptly told to halt the investigation and not publish or broadcast the story.
This situation brings to mind Antonio Gramsci’s theory of "Hegemony," particularly the "third face of power," which draws from Marxist thought. It highlights how dominant ideologies, values, and beliefs are used to maintain class structures and mask societal 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.
Furthermore, this environment can stifle critical and investigative journalism—an essential pillar of democratic accountability. When media practitioners feel constrained or fear reprisal for exposing truths that may be politically inconvenient, the watchdog role of the press is fundamentally weakened.
As journalists, our ultimate mandate is to serve the public interest and play watchdog roles over governments. We must safeguard their interests at all costs or risk losing their trust—something that would seriously undermine our profession and its credibility.
Media regulatory agencies must be adequately resourced and empowered to operate independently. This will enable them to effectively monitor media conglomerates and ensure they uphold the principles of fair and responsible news coverage. It is essential that journalists are not silenced or restricted, so they can carry out their critical role as watchdogs—safeguarding the public interest and protecting the right to unbiased and unrestricted access to information.
FIIFI NETTEY
MEDIA CONSULTANT, ACCRA, GHANA