Media in the Political Maze

Lebanon is currently (2024) ranked 140 of 180 countries in Reporters without Border’s World Press Freedom Index. Political control over media ownership is a major concern, and contributes towards a much politicized and polarized media landscape, undermining impartiality and pluralism. Our findings discuss the issue of political affiliations of the media, and ask how such affiliations may translate into biased and one-sided information within the Lebanese media, but also shift their finances. It examines the general risks associated with political affiliations, analyses the operating legal framework, and illustrates the current picture in terms of the political affiliations of the media.

Is there a risk?

Media ownership has a significant bearing on media content, and thus, plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion. In the hands of politicians, the media could be used to serve their own interests through partial reporting, boosting their political mileage, and ridiculing rivals. Privately-owned media houses are no exception to this pattern, as they may be just as politically affiliated as state-run outlets, serving the vested interests of their owners and allies. 

The views of owners almost invariably dictate the editorial line of the covered media outlets when they are directly affiliated to political forces or families. There are nonetheless exceptions to this. As an example, in 2015, Salah Salam, the owner of the daily Al-Liwaa, did not receive former Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s endorsement for the presidency of the Lebanese Press Order, and led a rival list to Saad Hariri’s during the 2018 Parliamentary elections in Beirut. This has not deterred his newspaper to keep supporting the Hariri-led, anti-Syrian regime, March 14 alliance. L’Orient-Le Jour can also be considered as an exception as its pro-March 14 editorial line contrasts with the views of its main owner, former Minister Michel Eddé, who maintained a moderately open stance towards the Syrian regime.

For other media outlets, the editorial line might be affected by two elements:

• The general balance of power in the country: After 1994, when the Lebanese Forces (LF) party was banned by the pro-Syrian regime government, several pro-Syrian figures became shareholders of LBCI, the channel once established by the LF. This development provided political cover to the channel at times when political life in Lebanon was controlled by the Syrian regime’s security apparatus. More recently, when the Lebanese Forces agreed to support former Free Patriotic Movement leader General Michel Aoun in his presidential bid in 2016, MTV became one of the main supporters of the rapprochement between the two historically feuding political parties.
• The real source of funding: Lebanon has a history of political funding to media outlets. Lorenzo Trombetta, in his 2016 report on the Lebanese Media Landscape, writes: “In the 1970s, Lebanon offered a unique cultural openness and freedom of expression. Beirut was the region’s media hub and the target of important funding for its publications. Investors included Iraq’s former president Saddam Hussein, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, deposed Tunisian president Ben Ali, as well as Saudi royals. (…) Gulf countries, but also Iraq and Libya, used to finance Lebanese newsrooms to carry out and support their political battles. As a result, the injection of foreign funding was abundant and steady. Nowadays, with the global economic crisis and the new channels of the Gulf, that money has been inexorably vanishing.” According to a more recent overview by “Media Landscapes”, it is unambiguously clear that the 2019 economic crisis has had a major effect on media funding. With outlets losing their traditional sources of revenue, especially with regard to the particular hit faced by the advertising industries, managers have sought some adaptive mechanisms. These include but are not restricted to grants from external agencies and creative ways to make use of the digital realm.

In fact, funders of media outlets and nominal shareholders are not necessarily the same. If Charles Ayoub’s plea to Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad is an example, suspicions of partial or total foreign funding of other media outlets are widely echoed among pundits. But, with the absence of hard evidence, the research team would rather quote the infamous “You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.”

What are political affiliations and why is it relevant?

Political affiliations in ownership can manifest in several, more or less tight forms ranging from

• (a) direct ownership of media organizations by the state and current Members of Parliament or people holding a position within the government;
• (b) direct ownership of media organizations by former Members of Parliament, candidates for Parliament, or people formerly holding a position within the government;
• (c) direct ownership of media organizations through political parties.

The Media Ownership Monitor (MOM) team applied categories (a), (b), and (c) to the 37 outlets studied. The findings are listed under each respective media sector.

What’s the current situation?

Print – All ten covered print outlets are directly politically affiliated. Four are owned or co-owned by currently active politicians (category a), five are owned by former parliamentary candidates or political officials (b), and one is discontinued (Al-Mustaqbal).

Radio – Seven out of the nine radio stations are directly politically affiliated. Four radio stations belong to political parties (c), and four belong to the state or currently active politicians (a).

Television – All eight TV stations covered are directly politically affiliated. Seven TV stations are owned or co-owned by the state or current and former political figures, and one belongs to a political party. Future TV operates and only reruns old shows, with coverage related to former Prime Minister Saad Hariri. 

Online – Five out of eleven covered websites are politically affiliated. 

What does the law say?

Currently, there are no legal provisions preventing Members of Parliament and government ministers or their family members from holdings shares in media organizations. Owners are also not obliged to declare their political affiliations or any conflict of interests on the forms submitted to the Commercial Register. In the absence of such legislation, political ownership of the media appears to be a technically ‘legal’ pattern within Lebanon’s media landscape.