The most widely held definition of the term was published byAlina Mungiu-Pippidi in 2008: "either directly by governments or by vested interests networked with politics".[3]
According toJoseph Stiglitz: "Preventing capture, and ensuring that the media can perform their societal function, requires an understanding of the myriad and sometimes subtle ways the media can be compromised by the very actors they are supposed to monitor."[4]
Media capture occurs when media outlets fail to achieve autonomy from external power, operating instead as instruments of state or private agendas.[5] It is distinguished fromcensorship by its indirect mechanisms—such as ownership concentration, clientelism, and state advertising—used to manipulate editorial independence.[6] The phenomenon undermines the media’s role as a watchdog, reducing its capacity to hold power to account.[7]
According to Marius Dragomir, writing forUNESCO, media capture involves the takeover of four key levers of influence: media regulation, state-owned outlets, government financing, and private ownership.[8] Governments can exert control through partisan appointments to regulatory bodies and manipulation of licensing or funding systems.[9] In parallel, wealthy elites and corporations may use ownership or advertising leverage to align editorial policy with their political or economic interests.[10]
Media capture reducesgovernment accountability by limiting public access to independent information.[11] Captured outlets tend to serve the interests of those in power, enablingcorruption and rent extraction.[12] It can also exacerbateincome inequality by allowing elites to shape narratives that justify policies benefiting them.[13]
The idea of media capture builds on theories of elite influence and thepropaganda model proposed byEdward S. Herman andNoam Chomsky.[14] Historically, captured media systems have appeared in both authoritarian and democratic contexts, includingRussia,Hungary,Turkey, andMexico.[15] In these cases, political–business alliances have consolidated control over major news outlets, marginalizing critical journalism.[16]
In recent years, scholars have written that media capture has taken place in theUnited States.[17]
Scholars and NGOs propose transparency in ownership, independent regulation, and new models for public-interest journalism as remedies.[18] Organizations such asReporters Without Borders,Freedom House,Article 19, and theCenter for International Media Assistance campaign to expose and counteract media capture through advocacy and monitoring initiatives.[19] These efforts emphasize that media capture, like regulatory capture, represents a systemic threat todemocracy.[20]
^Martina Vojtěchovská, The gradual takeover of the Czech media system, in Schiffrin, A. (ed.) (2017).In the Service of Power: Media Capture and the Threat to Democracy. Center for International Media Assistance, p. 101-107
^ Mungiu-Pippidi, Alina. 2008. “How Media and Politics Shape Each Other in the New Europe.” In: Karol Jakubowicz and Miklós Sükösd, eds. Finding the Right Place on the Map: Central and Eastern European Media Change in a Global Perspective, Chicago: Intellect, pp. 87–100)
^Stiglitz, J. E. (2017).Toward a taxonomy of media capture. In A. Schiffrin (Ed.), In the service of power: Media capture and the threat to democracy (pp. 9–18). Center for International Media Assistance, National Endowment for Democracy, page 9.
^Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2012).Freedom without Impartiality: The Vicious Circle of Media Capture. Lexington Books, pp. 35–36.
^Schiffrin, A. (ed.) (2021).Media Capture: How Money, Digital Platforms, and Governments Control the News. Columbia University Press, p. xiii.
^Besley, T., & Prat, A. (2006). "Handcuffs for the Grabbing Hand? Media Capture and Government Accountability."American Economic Review, p. 720.
