When Jurgen Habermas, a German philosopher, wrote about the public sphere, he conceived of it as a space where people can share opinions and thoughts freely in support of the democratic process. The state is, however, not part of the public sphere which has the power to keep it in control largely through the discussions that take place there. The mass media developed as a mediator of the public sphere in that it can bring in different actors from distant parts and on various topics to the public sphere to debate issues of societal import and impact such as governance and policy. Public discourse has traditionally been the purview of the fourth estate though Habermas viewed its role negatively and as a distortion of the critical debate.

Over the past decade, as social media platforms grew, the media increasingly lost its power to mediate the public sphere through loss of audiences. Money made through advertising revenue and circulation has slowly dwindled as social media platforms monetised the use of their platforms for advertising and offered advertisers better and direct access to the audience than mass media ever could. This saw a transfer of revenue from one to the other leaving the media looking for ways to get back their audiences online.   

The political economy of media organisations has also not helped.  Ownership in many media organisations allowed for ambiguous relationships with political actors or people with connections to political actors. In fact, the government or other organisations can influence editorial content just by threatening to withdraw advertisements if attacked.

The Kenya National Bureau of Statistics shows a marked decrease in the past five years in the circulation of local dailies. PriceWaterHouseCoopers (PWC) reports that internet advertising revenues in 2021 surpassed TV advertising revenues for the first time in Kenya and projects that this trend will continue well into the future with digital advertisers earning more than the mass media. By 2026, internet advertising is projected to more than triple TV advertising in the country.

The move to put up paywalls by the newspapers has also not helped garner revenue since these are easily bypassed through a myriad of tricks online. Newspapers have also cut on their coverage as readership falls. The shrinking revenues have also had an impact on product quality, newsrooms and in turn journalists. 

Past studies have shown that whenever there is an economic recession, journalists tend to be affected and many move to Public Relations positions or on to other similar fields. The world is yet to recover from the  economic downturn experienced globally in 2020 and forecasts show that emerging markets will experience slower growth in the coming year as a result of expected recessions in developed markets. 

The forecast overall is therefore overcast for media organisations and journalists and not just for the foreseeable future. The impact of the loss in revenue is already being felt as Kenyan media houses recently announced personnel changes. Rumours of layoffs in the offing are rife. 

This brings a host of questions on the impact the erosion of mass media will have on public policy discussions. The alternative is social media platforms but these too have a host of problems in addition to their advantages. 

A big problem with social media audiences as compared to mass media audiences is the fact that social media offerings are based on user interests and therefore the audience is fragmented. This results in selective exposure to public policy messaging. While one can easily access thought leaders and by following their social media accounts or join WhatsApp groups consisting of like-minded people, this does not promote plurality of thought necessary for democracy. 

While the media has been accused of misinformation and disinformation in some instances, a trained journalist is much more likely to give a balanced view of a situation than any person out there who posts inaccurate information. Disinformation campaigns are rife on social media and fact checking has also been problematic in some instances. 

Governments know the political power held by social media platforms and some order Internet shutdowns particularly during critical democratic processes like elections. This attempt to muffle the citizens’ voice and silence freedom of speech of course follows a muzzled press. 

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of all this is the complacency and disinterest of the audience in the democratic process itself. Internet access and affordability of smartphones has led audiences to amuse themselves more and more, while national and subnational decision-making that has the power to determine and affect the lives of many in negative ways is relegated to a few.

It therefore does not bode well for public policy actors who have to find alternative methods to draw in the dwindling audiences to discussions they no longer interest themselves in or which they are partisan to.

Public policy messages also tend to be complicated and have to be broken down to layman’s language which somehow its agents fail to do. Webinars, workshops and town hall meetings do not hold sway with the audience the way radio or television once did and this is a cause for serious concern. The medium may no longer be the message and the revolution will not be televised.