Government Control of Media in Different Countries

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Direct and Indirect Government Control
Control over Media in Different Countries
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Media help us keep updated on the latest news at the local, federal, and international levels. Through television, radio, newspapers, the internet, and other sources of information we get acquainted with what is going on in the world. However, it is frequently a case that the data we receive undergoes alterations on the way to the public. At a bigger or smaller extent, every country’s government has regulations concerning what part of news should be passed to the audience. According to Gehlblach and Sonin (2014), the scope of media independence is contingent on two major factors: the government’s organizing character and the range of the advertising market. In countries with minor social mobilization, media bias is smaller.

Direct and Indirect Government Control

Governments can manage media content in two ways: explicitly and implicitly. Direct control is performed when the government openly designates an editorial policy (Gehlblach & Sonin, 2014). In this case, the media report the data designated by the government. Citizens receive only such limited data, and, as a result, they own only that information which the government decides to be given to them. Under these circumstances, the spread of messages depends only on people’s willingness to watch the news. Thus, the government considers citizens’ viewership as a means of advertising revenue (Gehlblach & Sonin, 2014).

Indirect control enables the administration to manage the news implicitly. Even if a news outlet belongs to a private company, the government can impact its choice of news content by convincing the company to include biased content (Gehlblach & Sonin, 2014). For instance, advantages like subsidized newsprint, financial support for journalists, or tax benefits may be offered to the media outlet owners in exchange for supportive coverage (Gehlblach & Sonin, 2014). In such a case, the government indirectly impacts media and information which gets to the audience.

Control over Media in Different Countries

Depending on the country’s external affairs and internal policies, every government has a different approach to the management of the information broadcast for citizens. The more authoritative a country’s regime is, the more censorship is applied to the information passed to the citizens. The further overview suggests an insight into the governmental actions regarding media control in five different countries.

The USA

Hamilton and Kosar (2015) argue that information presented to the US citizens is not void of alterations made by the government and the country is becoming “less democratic” (Hamilton & Kosar, 2015). Although the government’s mission is to deliver straightforward and transparent messages to the people, it frequently disregards this requirement by using its power to change the citizens’ opinions and convince them to accept some policies in spite of their disadvantages. As Hamilton and Kosar note, citizens have a right to be aware of the government’s plans and policies. Via media, citizens should be informed about the most beneficial security and insurance options and the country’s international affairs. However, the US regulations concerning the media disable people from receiving unbiased pieces of news (Hamilton & Kosar, 2015). The government frequently uses its power to cross “the blurry line between informing the public and propagandizing” (Hamilton & Kosar, 2015). Such a situation becomes possible because there is no method to control government information. The internet aggravated the extent of the problem because it allowed people to discuss their opinions freely (Hamilton & Kosar, 2015). Government’s regulations against federal websites make people feel less trust in the news and policies.

Canada

Canada belongs to the countries whose democracy seems unquestionable. However, as it appears, it is so only for the outsiders. Renzetti (2013) remarks that censorship is rather strict in Canada, forbidding the government scientists from letting the citizens know about the true state of things. In her emphatic article, Renzetti (2013) says that the government scientists have got “duct tape over their mouths” – that is, they are not allowed to tell journalists all the truth without altering the facts. According to the report by UVic researchers, scientists have two options for dealing with the data. They should either keep silence altogether or tell only the filtrated information approved by the government. Freedom of speech is especially restricted when journalists are trying to investigate the issue of environmental change (Renzetti, 2013). Such behavior of the government results in preventing the media from getting relevant information from the scientists. As a result, citizens are deprived of an opportunity to participate in the discussion of major events happening in the country.

Russia

While the Canadian government’s censorship may come as a surprise, such countries as Russia and China have always been considered to be under strict media control. Gordts (2015) notes that Russia is about to lose the scarce remnants of its free media. As an example, Gordts provides a situation when Russia supported a bombing campaign in Syria. The way in which the news was presented in media, Gordts (2015) remarks, was nothing else than the propaganda of the country’s actions. The author calls such actions one of the numerous examples of how the country’s government uses the media “to sell domestic and international political decisions to the public” (Gordts, 2015). Such conduct of Russian authorities is not new. Since the beginning of the conflict in Crimea in 2014, the government has been trying to persuade citizens in the righteousness of its actions (Gordts, 2015). The experts remark that the country’s media presents all news issues from the president, Vladimir Putin (Gordts, 2015). Therefore, government control over media in Russia is extremely strict, which allows the citizens little scope of receiving objective information about the world and national affairs.

China

China is another country known for its control over information. The Chinese government’s policies against those who attempt to undermine its authority are rather strict if not to say cruel (Xu & Albert, 2017). China’s conflict with Google is one of the many examples of trying to suppress freedom of speech. Other examples include rigid media censorship, shading websites and publications, and imprisoning nonconformist activists and journalists (Xu & Albert, 2017). According to the experts, the regime is undergoing a test in the conditions of increasing demand for the internet. While the Chinese constitution guarantees people freedom of speech, the government’s media regulations enable the authorities to forbid some news items by asserting that they threaten the state or reveal its secrets (Xu & Albert, 2017). The definition of these “secrets” is so ambiguous that the government is empowered to forbid the publication of any information which it finds harmful for its reputation (Xu & Albert, 2017). Because of strict censorship regulations, China was ranked 176 out of 180 countries in the index of press freedom (Xu & Albert, 2017).

Nigeria

In Nigeria, the majority of media companies are owned by different levels of government officials and business owners. These representatives of the “ruling elite” are the major “newsmakers” in the country (Okwuchukwu, 2014, p. 36). Most of the news issues presented to the public via media are based on the opinions of the government. Thus, people are not able to obtain independent and unbiased information about current events (Okwuchukwu, 2014). The problem of media control in Nigeria is connected with the ruling elite’s personal interests. Moreover, the issue is complicated due to the country’s government being divided into military, colonial, and civilian into different periods (Okwuchukwu, 2014). Each of these three types of authority made its impact on media censorship. Journalists who tried to present the news in the true light were punished by imprisonment or murder (Okwuchukwu, 2014). Such strategies of the government make citizens feel afraid to express their opinions for fear of being penalized. People admit that there is a risk to lose a job if one expresses dissatisfaction with the government’s actions (Okwuchukwu, 2014). Also, Nigerians say that rather than presenting the news, government media’s purpose is to protect the political and economic interests of business owners.

Conclusion

While we are living in the time of free access to information, the news issues presented to us frequently are moderated and do not reflect the real state of things. Governments use their power to manipulate people through the media and punish those who disobey their policies. While some citizens are convinced by governmental actions, many people do not trust the media messages which are filtered by the authorities. To enhance the citizens’ support and commitment, governments should reconsider their position about media censorship.

References

Gehlbach, S., & Sonin, K. (2014). Government control of the media. Journal of Public Economics, 118, 163-171.

Gordts, E. (2015). Putin’s press: How Russia’s president controls the news. The Huffington Post. Web.

Hamilton, J. M., & Kosar, K. (2015). How the American government is trying to control what you think. The Washington Post. Web.

Okwuchukwu, O. G. (2014). The influence of media ownership and control on media agenda setting in Nigeria. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education, 1(7), 36-45.

Renzetti, E. (2013). Censorship is alive and well in Canada – Just ask government scientists. The Globe and Mail. Web.

Xu, B., & Albert, E. (2017). Media censorship in China. Council on Foreign Regulations. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!