Conducted by Marius Dragomir of the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC) at the University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), the webinar on media capture presented a provocative examination of one of the most important problems within the journalism industry. Supported by research, Dragomir broke out the subtleties of media capture, clarified its elements, presented regional examples, and illuminated its influence on journalism and society at large. This blog considers the main ideas from the session, focusing on the important case stories, and addresses possible future directions.

So, What is Media Capture?
Media capture, as defined during the webinar, is the process where the propaganda takes over independent reporting. It is a scenario where the media fails to remain authentic and instead becomes a tool - not only for the government but also for private sectors (Mungiu-Pippidi, cited in Dragomir, 2024). Anya Schiffrin discusses that the involvement of the private sector makes it especially more dangerous than traditional government control and media capture.
Media capture is nuanced and systematic, usually concealed behind respectable-looking ownership structures and market practices, unlike censorship or clear government control. Key elements are concentration of ownership and rising government intervention in public and private media enterprises ( Dragomir, 2024).

Mechanisms of Capture
The webinar outlined four primary methods of media capture:

1. Regulatory Capture: Governments control regulatory authorities to influence media operations.
2. Control of Public Service Media: States seize editorial control over public broadcasting services.
3. State Financing as a Control Tool: Public resources are used strategically to reward favorable media outlets.
4. Ownership Takeover: Oligarchs or state-affiliated investors buy up a critical mass (60%-90%) of influential media (Dragomir, 2024).

These methods create an ecosystem where journalism becomes a tool for political and financial power rather than a vehicle for public service.

Stages of Capture
Media capture, Dragomir said, is a process rather than a one-time occurrence. Usually intensifying shortly before elections, it starts with regulatory capture and public media control, moves to the allocation of state funds towards loyal media, and ends in the formation of media oligarchies who entrench the captured system.

The Impact of Media Capture
From markets to reporters to viewers, one of the most important lessons from the webinar was how media capture generates a ripple effect across the whole media ecosystem. The market suffers first, as the slide headed "The Capture Effect" highlights. Market competitiveness gets distorted when media sources are under influence or control of political or corporate interests. Independent players are driven off the field or deterred from joining the field because of lack of justice and openness; potential investors also withdraw.

Especially more harmful is the effect on journalism itself. Media capture results in a drop in professional standards when reporters are obliged to follow agendas rather than search truth. Together with growing polarization, this de-professionalization compromises the integrity of journalism and splits the media environment. Essential for lobbying, protection of rights, and ethical government, sector representation is also weakened and leaves reporters exposed.

Finally, viewers pay the price. Particularly around elections, captured media often becomes a weapon for political propaganda. This unfairly impacts public opinion and compromises democratic processes. More individuals are turning away from news totally as faith in media erodes, which results in what academics term "news fatigue." This slide generally shows how media capture not only silences independent voices but also destroys democratic society from the bottom up.

• Market: Media capture distorts market competition and discourages new investments.
• Journalism: It leads to de-professionalization, polarization, and weakened sector representation.
• Audience: Politically manipulated news influences elections and leads to widespread distrust, news fatigue, and avoidance (Dragomir, 2024).

Regional Case Studies

Europe exhibits four different journalism models, with media capture being particularly prevalent in Eastern and Southeastern Europe:

1. Captured Model: Found in countries like Hungary, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Turkey. The state is the dominant funder, and journalism is highly instrumentalized for propaganda (Dragomir, 2024).
2. Atomized Model: Seen in parts of the Balkans and Romania. Journalism here is fragmented, private-interest driven, and operates on "journalism for sale" principles.
3. Platformized/Corporate Model: In Western Europe (France, Germany, Spain), corporate conglomerates own media, with relative independence but increased regimentation due to tech deals.
4. Public Interest Model: Nordic countries present a more balanced system where public and commercial interests coexist healthily, ensuring greater journalistic independence.

Beyond Europe
Other regions also face media capture:

• Thailand: Politician-media symbiosis blurs lines between governance and news reporting.
• Japan: A "bank-capture" model where financial institutions heavily influence media coverage.

These cases show that while media capture varies in form, its impact is universally detrimental.

Addressing the Problem.

The webinar suggested several solutions for tackling media capture and supporting independent journalism:

1. Philanthropic Funding: Donors and philanthropies can support news outlets to ensure diversity and sustainability.
2. Audience Contributions: Shifting to a model where readers pay for quality news through subscriptions or memberships.
3. Commercial Funds with Ethical Oversight: Reforming advertising practices to support independent journalism.
4. Government Reforms: Implementing strict policies against the misuse of public funds to control media.

Examples like The Guardian's 2023 revenue (GBP 233m) and the success of Mediahuis Belgium (€322m turnover) demonstrate that independent journalism can be financially viable (Dragomir, 2024).

Positive and Negative Implications for the Info-sphere
Negative:

• Widening gaps between different news ecosystems.
• Emergence of dominant propaganda narratives.
• News fatigue and avoidance by audiences.
• Tech companies putting local journalism under pressure.

Positive:

• New forms of community-led journalism.
• Financial value recognized in quality journalism.
• Strong investigative journalism networks emerging resiliently.

The webinar gave a thorough knowledge of media capture, a phenomena endangering the integrity of journalism all around. It exposed that although the issue is somewhat common, there are solutions to oppose and undo its negative consequences. Important first measures toward maintaining media's integrity are developing strong independent journalism, changing financing systems, and encouraging audience loyalty. First step toward demanding openness and responsibility in our media ecosystems is realizing the subtle mechanisms of media capture as informed citizens.

References
Dragomir, M. (2024). Media capture: where independent reporting ends and propaganda takes over. Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC), University of Santiago de Compostela (USC).
Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2006). Corruption: Diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Democracy, 17(3), 86-99.
Schiffrin, A. (2017). In the service of power: Media capture and the threat to democracy. Center for International Media Assistance.
Pickard, V. (2020). Democracy without journalism? Confronting the misinformation society. Oxford University Press.
Benson, R., & Powers, M. (201