INTRODUCTION
The media reports and comments on public policy and on their perceptions of where public policy is failing. Governments use the media to convey their policies to the public; opposition politicians use the media to identify areas where they can needle the government. There are questions, however, of whether the media is an independent actor, whether and if so how the media chooses issues on which to report, whether the issues attract the attention of policymakers and whether media stories influence policy.
Many observers, for example Kiage (Reference Kiage and Njogu2015) and Russell et al. (Reference Russell, Dwidar and Jones2016), believe that the media – which we define as mass one-way communication such as the press, TV, radio and social media – influences policymakers. Influence may arise from simple news reporting, perhaps communicating societal (and narrower, interest group) views on important topics, or from the media being an actor and campaigning in its own right. This is especially important in sub-Saharan Africa, where it is often perceived that the media is an arm of the state (Ogola Reference Ogola2011). Some observers see the media to be treading a fine line: Hadland, for example, sees the state and the media in emerging democracies involved in a ‘dance of symbiosis, of contest and of power … a dance of democracy' (Hadland Reference Hadland2015: 15). Others, whilst not necessarily commenting on the extent of press freedom, argue the importance of a free press: Njogu (Reference Njogu2013) stresses the need for the media to provide space so that divergent views can be heard and further emphasises the importance of promoting dialogue between public and private sectors. Thus, he argues for an independent and plural media free from political interests. The UK Government's Department for International Development takes a positive view and sees the media as key in promoting good governance and the rule of law, combating corruption and promoting public sector transparency (Cárdenas et al. Reference Cárdenas, Declerq, Shi Lai and Rasquinet2017). Some observers do see a relatively free press: Musau (Reference Musau2016), for example, asserts that the media in Africa informs society, moderates debates, provokes conversations and deepens democracy. She further argues that this is important if African countries are to deliver the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). The Association for Free Research and International Cooperation, AFRIC (2019), claims that states change policies to address issues publicised in the media.
The topic of media influence has been well researched in developed countries. Most studies find that media coverage secures at least some attention of political actors (Walgrave & van Aelst Reference Walgrave and Van Aelst2016). However, Wolfe et al. (Reference Wolfe, Jones and Baumgartner2013) assert that we know little about how the media affects policy and even less about the linkages between the public, the media and policymakers. Furthermore, the extent of the influence of the media in developing countries is under-researched. This paper aims to address these research gaps by exploring the extent to which the media influences policy and policymakers in Kenya, regarded as having a moderately free press, with a focus on issues related to the business-enabling environment (that is, the environment in which the private sector operates).
This research focuses primarily on the question of whether the media influences policy, through interviews with policymakers in Kenya, and concludes that the media in Kenya exerts a modest influence, mainly in relation to placing (or re-placing) issues on the public policy agenda. The findings should be generalisable to other policy domains in Kenya as well as to other developing countries that also have a moderately free press.
This paper is structured as follows. The next section briefly describes Kenya's policy process, the perceived role of the media in the policy process and whether the media is already believed to influence public policy. The following sections describe the approach to the research and the findings. The final section pulls the threads together in a conclusion.
BACKGROUND
The policy process in Kenya
Assessing whether the media can influence policymaking requires an understanding of the policymaking process. At its simplest, public policy embraces government decisions and actions intended to deal with matters of public concern (Cochran & Malone Reference Cochran and Malone2005). Policy sets out the principle(s) that provide a framework within which government plans and acts to deliver a specific purpose. In consolidating democracies, policy may go rather further than the ‘average person in the street' would expect. Indeed, Goodin et al. (Reference Goodin, Rein, Moran, Moran, Rein and Goodin2008) define public policies as the instruments of those who govern and who articulate their intentions in relation to legislation and regulation. Friend et al. (Reference Friend, Power and Yewlett1974) note that policy then contributes to the context in which further policy decisions are made. This implies a degree of circularity with context contributing to policy formulation and current policy defining context. At some point, however, policymakers need to persuade the public of the appropriateness of their policies, since otherwise they will lack legitimacy (Goodin et al. Reference Goodin, Rein, Moran, Moran, Rein and Goodin2008). This requires public debate and the expectation that some parts of society will want to influence the outcome. Influence implies that one party can persuade (through use of evidence, reason and narrative rather than coercion) others to act in a particular way, and thus, in the case of policy, to adopt a particular stance.
Hence the policy process – the means by which policy is formulated and agreed – is a process that includes politicians, civil servants, interest groups and others (Hill Reference Hill2009) all seeking to influence, in some way, the final policy. However, having a say, offering both evidence and countervailing arguments, and engaging in debate is all good for democracy. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to expect both the public and the media to want to be amongst the groups that seek to contribute. Coronel (Reference Coronel2003) similarly asserts that democracy requires active citizen participation and argues that, as a consequence, the media should play an important role in informing, educating and advising citizens and in giving them a voice so that they can engage more effectively in governance issues.
Jordan and Maloney go further and argue that “opening up of decision-making processes to a wider, diverse and larger number of groups is seen as contributing to democratic representativeness” (Jordan & Maloney Reference Jordan and Maloney2007: 8). However, democracy requires a public that is both attentive and informed (Soroka & Wlezian Reference Soroka and Wlezien2019), which is especially important in Africa at the time of writing, since it appears that democracy is retreating and autocracy is growing (Cheeseman & Smith Reference Cheeseman and Smith2019). This poses further questions about the role of the media as an institutional actor and about how the media decides which issues are important enough to cover (Russell et al. Reference Russell, Dwidar and Jones2016). These would make good topics for further research.
Helpfully, the Kenya Law Reform Commission has prepared a detailed guide to the policy process in Kenya (KLRC 2015). It notes that proposals for policy may originate from the Executive, from political parties, from a wide range of interest groups including business associations and from individual citizens. Interestingly, it does not include Parliament in this list, though MPs or senators could well initiate a policy discussion. It seems that, in most cases, policy initiation comes from within the executive – and so effectively from civil servants – with the preparation of a brief, followed by some research to improve understanding of a perceived problem and the possible policy responses. The term ‘policymaker’ thus covers a range of people who may at some point provide input into the formulation of policy, either directly or indirectly. If the proposal is adopted, a period of debate and public consultation ensues, followed by the articulation of a firm proposal, cabinet approval, parliamentary approval and assent. This process will result in the publication of a white paper that sets out the policy. Depending on the issue, there may then be a requirement for legislation so a bill will be drafted and the discussion will move to Parliament. Whilst Parliamentarians are clearly important, civil servants appear to be at least as important and often perhaps more important in seeding ideas that lead to policy change.
The media and Kenya's policy process
Members of the public, though, do not generally learn about public policy from reading legislation or Hansard (the official record of parliamentary proceedings in Kenya, named after the British publication) but rather from the media, their friends and the people whom they meet at work or socially (Rose Reference Rose1989). People may well form their own views but they still seek facts from the media. Moreover, the media can be a useful route both for policymakers to inform the public about policy (and debates and options whilst it is still being considered) and also to inform policymakers about public opinion: the media is, therefore, a tool for information exchange. However, the media needs to attract readers, listeners and viewers so as to effectively prioritise issues by emphasising some and downplaying others (Tresch et al. Reference Tresch, Sciarini and Varone2012). The issues most likely to be emphasised by the media are those that are most sensational (characterised by low complexity and the possibility of dramatic events) (Soroka Reference Soroka2002) at the expense of those issues that might be regarded as governmental. In other words, the media effectively then sets the agenda, even if they are reporting on issues regarded as important by the policymakers, focusing attention on a small number of key issues (Russell et al. Reference Russell, Dwidar and Jones2016).
However, one cannot explore media influence in Kenya without considering, at least briefly, the political context. Ogola suggests that, post-independence, the media was seen as a partner of the state in nation-building and indeed at one point became ‘an informal publicity arm of the state' (Ogola Reference Ogola2011: 82). Wanyande (Reference Wanyande1995) observes, however, that the state fears the media, partly because of its large audience, but also because the audience tends to comprise the better educated members of society. Moreover, there is a tendency of developing country governments to interpret any criticism as a challenge to its authority and legitimacy (Wanyande Reference Wanyande1995) and thus they are less tolerant of media freedom.
Kenya went through a period of being a one-party state. When it returned to pluralism in 1992, the media became ‘more adversarial in their relationship with the state' (Ogola Reference Ogola2011: 84), not least because they hoped to see the creation of a more business-friendly environment.
Despite Kenya now being a multi-party democracy and holding regular elections, parties tend to be vehicles for aspiring Presidential candidates (Booth et al. Reference Booth, Cooksey, Golooba-Mutebi and Kanyinga2014: 26) rather than having a life of their own. Moreover, Kenya has a lack of checks and balances. In 2010, the World Bank described Kenya as ‘politically risky, marked by corruption, policy uncertainty and the importance of patronage and political connections in the business arena' (Pepper Reference Pepper2010: x).
The media gained a degree of freedom and became more willing to criticise government, however, especially in relation to corruption, during the years of the Kibaki Presidency from 2002 to 2013. It was further liberated by the 2010 constitution, which includes wide protection for the media, although this protection was subsequently constrained by the passing of the Kenya Information and Communications Amendment Act, 2013.
Freedom House (2017) has claimed that it is not easy to be a journalist in Kenya. Article 19, a charity that works for a world in which all people can freely express themselves, asserts that media freedom has been in decline in Kenya since 2017 (Article 19 2018). However, by 2019 Freedom House (2019), whilst observing that Kenyan democracy, political rights and civil liberties are undermined by corruption and brutality by the armed forces, nevertheless concluded that the media was vibrant. It did, however, suggest that journalists are vulnerable to restrictive laws and intimidation leading to a degree of self-censorship. Nyamnjoh (Reference Nyamnjoh, Njogu and Middleton2009, Reference Nyamnjoh, Bunce, Franks and Paterson2017) notes the importance of community over the individual and thus wonders if journalists, to some extent, pull their punches. However, he concludes that journalists ‘are more comfortable claiming to voice the voiceless and empower the powerless' (Nyamnjoh Reference Nyamnjoh, Bunce, Franks and Paterson2017: 33). Freedom House (2017) ranked freedom of the press in Kenya at 122 out of 199 countries surveyed. Reporters without Borders (2019) ranked it slightly better at 100/180, though it does consider the level of freedom accorded to journalists to be problematic, which puts it exactly on the middle of its five-point scale.
Madar (Reference Madar2017) provides evidence that social media is beginning to have a considerable impact and, short of controlling or banning the platforms, is impossible for government to control. It is as yet not clear what difference this makes to the content of the mainstream media.
Ogola also sees the media as vibrant, though not entirely independent. However, he believes that it has played a critical role in influencing the democratic process (Ogola Reference Ogola2011: 91). Kiage (Reference Kiage and Njogu2015) asserts that the press is a source of information for voters and, further, that newspapers are more effective at this than TV or radio. The problems of violence and intimidation experienced by the media do not seem to extend to the reporting of business or enabling environment issues, perhaps because they are not seen as contentious or salient. Moreover, they are covered in some depth with one newspaper, the Business Daily, specifically focused on business issues. The evidence appears, therefore, to support the belief of Russell et al. (Reference Russell, Dwidar and Jones2016) that the media can have an impact on the awareness of policymakers in relation to issues that affect the private sector, even in Kenya. But that still leaves unanswered the question of the extent of that influence.
Public policy and media influence
Jones and Wolfe differentiate between the possibility that the media tells the policymakers what to think about (the agenda setting, or attention seeking, mode), that the media tells the policymakers what to think (the influence mode) and that policymakers tell the media what to write about (the indexing mode) (Jones & Wolfe Reference Jones, Wolfe, Koch-Baumgarten and Voltmer2010: 17). They note, however, that even in agenda setting mode, the media may be an amplifying factor rather than a causal factor. Baumgartner & Jones (Reference Baumgartner and Jones1993: 125) also wonder about the direction of the causality, explaining that ‘media attention sometimes precedes and sometimes follows changes in attention by government agencies'. Kingdon (Reference Kingdon1995) claimed that there was limited evidence that the media influences policy. Even if that was once true, and Kingdon is criticised for focusing primarily on elite interviews with policymakers (Wolfe et al. Reference Wolfe, Jones and Baumgartner2013), it seems that it is no longer true. Walgrave & van Aelst (Reference Walgrave and Van Aelst2016) reviewed 21 studies and concluded that media power is modest but that it does shape the agenda. Soroka et al. (Reference Soroka, Lawlor, Farnsworth, Young, Araral, Fritzen, Howlett, Ramesh and Xun2012) claim that the media can change societal conversation through the way in which it frames the issue, which then impacts on how the readers, listeners or viewers see the issue. Russell et al. (Reference Russell, Dwidar and Jones2016) go further, claiming that media coverage influences policy as well.
Overall, it seems that the weight of evidence supports the belief that the media can, and does, influence the way that policymakers think about public policy – in setting the agenda, in sharing information and opinion, and in shaping policy too (Soroka et al. 2012) – though the extent of its influence is less clear. Indeed, Soroka et al. apparently believe that the media exerts a ‘potentially powerful impact' (2012: 204), which is not, however, necessarily beneficial. Soroka et al. recognise the ability of the media to inform the general public but raise concerns about the potential for bias and the use of ‘active conflict frames' (2012: 207) which may lead to readers taking a view based on a partial understanding of the issue. Interestingly, however, one of their criticisms is that journalists over-rely on official sources, perhaps suggesting that the index mode is the dominant mode.
There is limited research exploring possible media influence in Kenya, though a study by Mwangi (Reference Mwangi2018) suggests that – under certain circumstances – the media can, indeed, influence policymakers. This article is intended, therefore, to address specific questions about media influence in Kenya. Does the media raise issues which policymakers have not previously considered and thus have a role in setting the agenda? Does the media change the priority of issues on the agenda? Does the media change the views and subsequent actions of policymakers and thus have a role in influencing policy?
THE APPROACH TO THE RESEARCH
Much research about the media and policymakers starts by selecting stories that have appeared in the media and then asking policymakers about whether they saw them. The potential danger of starting with salient stories from the media, especially in a country such as Kenya where participants want to be positive and helpful, is that respondents will be more likely than not to say that they saw the report and acted as a result. So our starting point was the policymakers, so that we could assess whether they take notice of the media at all.
Surveys of public officials require permission for each respondent from their Principal Secretary so a mass survey is impractical. Moreover, we wanted to be able to probe more deeply than would have been possible with a written survey. Focus groups encourage consensus but, especially in countries where social norms or culture encourage conformity, tend to suppress individual perspectives (Davis et al. Reference Davis, Javernick-Will and Cook2018: 1452). Semi-structured interviews, whilst more time consuming for the investigator, allow for greater probing of answers and increased understanding of individual thoughts (Adams Reference Adams, Newcomer, Hatry and Wholey2015). Thus, our chosen method was semi-structured interviews, with questions covering, inter alia, whether and if so how policymakers use the media as a way of keeping up to date and whether issues reported in the media have any impact on their decisions or actions.
To limit the breadth of the research and on the basis that one newspaper reports exclusively on business issues, we focused on policymakers who were more likely to be interested in business issues. This had the added advantage that such issues are less likely to be highly contested and thus the media is likely to draw them to the attention of policymakers (because the issues would be less likely to be under discussion in government) and, perhaps, to provoke action.
A first cohort of 10 policymakers were interviewed in July–August 2018 and a second cohort of 26, including three from the first cohort, were interviewed in July–October 2019. This gave a total of 33, of whom 23 were civil service policymakers, six were researchers and three were Ministry communications officers. All worked for a Ministry, or government agency, or government research institute. Only five participants (15%) were female which almost reflects the proportion of women (24%) in the senior civil service (PSC 2018). The researchers have a brief to draw issues to the attention of policymakers, though based on their own research rather than because they had read about an issue in the press; the communications officers have a brief to monitor the media, but they comprised less than 10% of the sample population.
There is no doubt that policymakers are more likely to utilise the media than the general public though, as will be seen later, many had a healthy scepticism of what they read or heard. Some 78% of our sample of policymakers (and 81% of participants) read the newspapers. This compares with just 10% of Kenyans in general (Kenya Audience Research Foundation (KARF) 2015). Some 57% of policymakers watch the television news, only marginally ahead of the 51% of Kenyans in general who watch TV (KARF 2015). Some 66% of Kenyans in general listen to the radio (KARF 2015), though not necessarily to the news, yet just 13% of policymaker participants listened to the radio news. Some 31% of Kenyans access the internet (KARF 2015). Some 42% of participants utilised international services, mostly accessed through the internet. Some 27% of participants said that they also picked up news items from Twitter. There is no reason to believe, however, that the sample population is unrepresentative of the general population of civil service policymakers.
THE FINDINGS
The participants were asked about their sources of news. If necessary, they were prompted, with sources including the press, television, radio, international sources and online social media (mainly Twitter). Most participants used multiple sources – varying from one to 10 – and they all used some news source, though in one case it was one source only occasionally. A summary of the results is shown in Figure 1.
Participants’ use of media.
News sources
As well as asking participants about their news sources, they were asked if they used a resource regularly and whether they relied on a particular source. The results were then scored as 1 if they read the newspaper occasionally, 2 if they read it regularly (meaning most days in a week) and 3 if they said that it was their favourite source or that it was the one on which they relied the most. Thus, if every participant relied mainly on a specific source, it would receive an overall score of 3. Everyone using a source but not relying on it solely would achieve an overall score of 2.
The participants were asked which newspapers they read. Most participants (81%) read a daily newspaper, though not every day. Most popular is the Nation followed by the Business Daily and the Standard. The average score is almost 2, implying that on average everyone reads a newspaper most days of the week (Table I).
Newspaper readership.
The participants were asked which television channels they watched and, in particular, which they watched for news coverage. The majority of participants (61%) watch news on television, though this is rather less than news from newspapers. Citizen TV is the most popular. The score is 1.5, implying that on average people watch more than occasionally but not regularly (Table II).
TV viewing.
Some 95% of Kenyans listen to the radio (Ngugi & Kinyua Reference Ngugi and Kinyua2014) and community radio in particular is seen as providing ‘marginalised communities with access to a voice' (Ngugi & Kinyua Reference Ngugi and Kinyua2014: 2). Yet, radio turned out to be the medium least used to keep abreast of the news, with very few participants listening and a very low score (Table III), and with community (vernacular) radio per se not even featuring amongst the radio stations to which policymakers say they listened (though there might have been a different result if we had been interviewing local policymakers).
Radio listening.
International sources, on the other hand, were used rather more often (Table IV). International press sources (read either physically or online) included the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and the Economist. International television stations mentioned included Al Jazeera, CNN, Sky and the BBC. International news websites mentioned included Reuters, Bloomberg and Brookings (though the last is more of a think tank). Almost half of participants used an international source, though this split with 30% of policymakers but 83% of researchers using international sources. On average these sources were only used occasionally – sometimes to check up on a story that had been reported locally, sometimes as a way of seeking news on something that was important to the participant at the time. It seems therefore that researchers are keen either to draw on sources that they deem to be more reliable or to triangulate locally reported stories.
International sources.
Twitter was used by eight participants, though no one used it as their main news source. One participant noted that ‘policy is affected by public opinion' and observed that Twitter is often used to reach policymakers. Another participant observed that media stories often begin online, on blogs or Twitter, and are then picked up by the mainstream media. No other social medium was mentioned by name.
Media influence
After asking participants about their use of different media sources, they were asked to report a particular news story related to the business-enabling environment that been especially memorable. These were scored 1 for any relevant story, 2 for a story from the previous two weeks and 3 for a story from the previous two days. Some 91% of participants were able to recall a story and explain why it was important to them, though only one recalled a current story and a further one a recent story. In many cases, the news item was genuinely news and, in some 27% of reported stories, it led to an issue being placed on the public policy agenda. Confirming the assertion of Kiage (Reference Kiage and Njogu2015), in all cases the issue raised came from a press story. We set out below a sample of the reported stories.
Several participants mentioned an investigative piece on the use of a meat preservative in supermarkets. The story claimed that supermarkets were using excessive amounts of a chemical preservative to extend the shelf life of meat. According to the story, excess amounts of the chemical are harmful to consumers’ health. As a result, the Ministry of Agriculture investigated the matter and discovered the use of the chemical effectively opened a loophole for supermarkets to continue to sell meat that has passed its sell-by-date. Consequently, the Ministry decided to instruct the Director of Veterinary Services and the Veterinary Board to encourage the county officers to enforce the regulations on meat preservation. This story was essentially one of checking whether government policy was being effectively implemented – it was not – and offering suggestions for improvement. Specifically, the stories highlighted the need for a system of monitoring and a national food agency. Indeed, a proposal to create a Kenya Foods and Drugs Authority (KFDA) is currently being progressed as a private member's bill. This specific initiative did not come about because of the media, but the media raised its profile and accelerated the discussions.
In another instance, the press highlighted an issue in the retail sector in late 2016. In this case, the press reported, rather than originated, the story – but almost certainly helped in putting the issue on the public policy agenda. Specifically, there were large numbers of complaints in the press from suppliers about not being paid by the major retail outlets. As a result, a working group of the Association of Kenya Suppliers, Kenya Association of Manufacturers (KAM) and Retail Trade Association of Kenya (RETRAK), together with the Ministry, commissioned a study on prompt payment in the retail sector, which has now led, with further lobbying by RETRAK and KAM, to the development of regulations currently awaiting legislation to put them into effect.
Often stories were about policies not being implemented or being poorly implemented or were regarded as interesting but not necessarily accurate. In 58% of cases, the media story provoked further action. This action may have been limited to further research to verify the story or may have prompted the participant to send a memo to their manager or cabinet secretary to draw it to their attention.
One participant mentioned a story on the draft National Automotive Policy 2019. The policy proposed a restriction on the importation of vehicles more than five years old. The media suggested that the policy was formulated with disregard for consumers and the story gained traction. As a result, the Cabinet Secretary in the Ministry of Industrialisation, Trade and Cooperatives was summoned by Parliament and implementation was suspended pending further discussions with the car traders. The participant took further action to investigate the matter and called for wider public participation to seek clarity on the issues raised. At the time of writing, they are close to concluding the review, after which they shall present their findings to the Cabinet Secretary for further action.
The press reported on Kenya's national debt, claiming that the current level of borrowing cannot be sustained. The participant, from the Office of Economic Affairs and Commercial Diplomacy, secured an appointment with the National Treasury to discuss the issue. Even though the participant brought the story to the attention of the Treasury, and thus acted on the press story, he was unaware of any subsequent action taking place.
Another story concerned the lengthy delays in removing imported goods from the port. This is an issue that seems to be permanently on the agenda – but the press was able to highlight a specific problem and push it up the agenda. The processing and inspection of imports was taking an unnecessarily long time due to official concern over the level of counterfeit goods being imported. Small traders, however, suffer particularly acutely because long delays mean they need greater levels of working capital and also incur unfair demurrage. The traders complained that the Kenya Ports Authority, Kenya Revenue Authority and Kenya Bureau of Standards needed to ease the process. As a result, there was a ministerial response: a memo was circulated in liaison with the Office of the President, calling all parties to the table to discuss the issue. The (then) Cabinet Secretary at the Ministry of Industrialisation, Trade and Co-operatives, Peter Munya, then issued a press statement on the position of government and held a forum for the traders and stakeholders to air their views. The President went to inspect the containers himself and gave a directive that they should be released as quickly as possible.
In a small number of cases, about 15% of those reported by respondents, it seems that the media story may have led to a change in policy, though these were not always major policy changes. For example, a participant from the Women's Enterprise Fund, a semi-autonomous agency in the Ministry of Public Service, Youth & Gender Affairs, recalled a story regarding a bill to protect third party loan guarantors from losing their property. In his view, the story meant that the WEF would have to reconsider its policies on credit. In the past, they would have accepted cars from third parties as collateral. However, with the new bill, a third-party guarantor would not be liable in the event of default by the principal borrower. They are currently involved in engaging their clients in an exercise to better understand their credit needs as they review their policy. He noted another story about the CBK partnering with five banks to offer traders cheap loans. It resulted in the WEF reconsidering its loan application processes, simplifying these through more effective use of technology. It is likely that this would have happened regardless, but the media story accelerated the reform.
Most participants had a view on the quality of the reporting – and indeed most described it as ‘sensationalist’, confirming Soroka's belief that the media emphasise the more sensational issues. Several felt that stories were inaccurate –some participants said that they had contacted newspapers to correct inaccuracies but that they never saw revisions or retractions. One criticised the lack of research by journalists, even from easily accessible sources such as the Kenya Bureau of Statistics or the Central Bank. Indeed, it was this apparent high level of inaccuracy, and thus low trust, that led so many participants to rely on international sources, with one participant stating that ‘international newspapers report news better'. The participants also felt that in some cases, journalists showed a lack of understanding of the topic on which they were writing.
CONCLUSION
There is a high level of media use by policymakers, much higher than amongst the general population, though none rely on a single source. The majority of participants claim to rely on print as their main source of news, followed by television and international news sources. Amongst the policymakers, there seems to be a high level of awareness about business-enabling environment coverage in the media. Whilst there is a government news agency, we did not discern any evidence that the reported stories had been seeded by the government and thus conclude that the media was genuinely attempting to publicise specific issues of concern.
Regarding the quality and framing of stories, there was a healthy scepticism amongst the policymakers regarding the factual accuracy of many of the stories and thus a high level of cross-checking when it seemed that a story raised an issue that was important to the policymaker reading it. In many instances, the respondents felt stories were sensationalist, although they acknowledged the influence of the media which had on occasion alerted them to issues of which they were unaware.
It appears from the results, therefore, that the media is good at provoking action on issues, even when they are already on the public policy agenda and even when the story was not wholly accurate. There may be an element here of the media only influencing the ‘elite’ but since, in this instance, they are also the policymakers, that is not a problem. It does, however, appear that policymakers were changing behaviour and taking action as a result of seeing a story in the media. The government is committed to doing more to improve the enabling environment – and that may make the policymakers more disposed to make a difference – which not only allows the media to put issues on the agenda but also probably encourages them to do so.
Whilst we found limited evidence that the media influences the content of policy, the results do offer evidence that the media has an impact by raising policymakers’ awareness of issues, which leads in many cases to issues being placed on a public policy agenda and in some cases to policy reforms. Sometimes this was direct, through being picked up by a policymaker; sometimes it was indirect, for example, being picked up by a researcher who might follow up on the issue and then raise it with policymakers. We recognise that the stories recalled by participants may have been memorable because they led to action but, nevertheless, even when the issue was already on the agenda, the media reporting led in the majority of instances to action being taken by the participant. Thus, we conclude that the media does secure the attention of policymakers and does, to some extent, influence them as well.
