Freedom of the Press – Is the journalist threatened by the government controlling media?

As part of my Journalism Cultures essay I will explore the situation of government controlled media and how this is affecting journalism practices today.

This topic is worth researching because it is current and has an impact on journalism today. I will discuss the idea that journalism is threatened by excessive censorship and politically controlled bans on reporting current affairs and government policies.

My argument is that if the government controls the media, journalists are not giving people a correct picture of what is going on with regards to policies and current affairs. This creates mistrust towards the media and the government alike. Monopoly over the media also threatens the role of the journalist from that of a watchdog of the government to just another puppet playing a role.

Robinson (2006) states that journalists – reporters in particular – must be objective and free from ties in order to perform their ‘watch-dog’ function (Kovach and Rosensteil, 2001).

Every form of media, from newspapers to radio has risen from a need to know more. Journalism has been known as a watchdog of the government. It is the duty of the media to correctly inform people about situations that they would otherwise have no knowledge of. In the 21st century this need is only increasing. With the development of different forms of media, it is becoming increasingly important to use these channels to reach people of all demographics.

Journalists share a sense of ‘doing it for the public’, of working as some kind of representative watchdog of the status quo in the name of people, who ‘vote with their wallets’ for their services (by buying a newspaper, watching or listening to a newscast, visiting and returning to a news site) (Deuze, 2005).

For a journalist to give an objective account of what is going on behind the scenes he/she needs to know that the correct unbiased version of the story will go to print and will make it to the reader/listener it was intended for.

According to the Habermasian model of communication journalists and media practitioners should preserve their independence from social and political pressure, take up these issues impartially and confront the political process with articulate demands for legitimisation. This will ensure the neutralisation of media power while still blocking the conversion of administrative or social power into political influence (Salter, 2005).

In most instances the media and the government work hand in hand. Without an objective work ethic it would be very hard for a journalist to clearly state the facts of a situation. In order to do this the journalist relies on government representatives for statements and interviews. The story that is eventually printed should state these facts as clearly as possible.

Merrill, Bryan and Alisky (1970) remind us that each nation’s press system and philosophy are usually very closely in step with that nation’s basic political and social system and ideology. Thus, they conclude, each country’s press system is usually truly a branch of the government, or at least a cooperating part of the total national establishment (Krukeberg and Tsetsura, 2004).

When the conventional forms of media do not give the people a clear idea of what is going on. They have no choice but to look for this information elsewhere. This may be in the form of journalism blogs, independent news channels or other alternative media.

Krukeberg and Tsetsura (2004) say that global technology will allow those who see themselves as part of the new world information order to have ample opportunities to attempt to compete head to head with First World news media.
In their interaction with political figures and policy makers, journalists and media organisations might come under a lot of pressure to alter a story to suit its source. Most of the time news today focuses more on scandals with regards to government officials instead of discussing the laws they are passing and how they may or may not be serving the people they represent.

Shah (2008) says that alliances between the international ‘media moguls’ such as Rupert Murdoch and forces of political conservatism has led to increasingly “soft” media content.

What consumers of mainstream mass media often are left with is generic news content that emphasizes titillation, sensational events, and politically “safe topics”. Contextualizes and critical discussions of social and economic trends, deep analysis of the human condition, and material that provides genuinely useful information for mass media consumers is often consigned to the back burner.

As long as serious journalism is deemed unprofitable, it will take a back seat to the sensational, superficial, and “soft” news stories of the day. (Shah, 2008)
While the main aim of journalism has been to inform the public, in practice the symbiotic relationship between the state and big media corporations undermines public interest regulation to the point of corruption. Politicians want favourable publicity, media companies want regulatory and legislative favours, and neither side wants media attention to the resulting policy outcomes (Hackett and Carroll, 2006).

In addition to this conflict between media houses and governments is the issue of censorship especially in countries like China, Malaysia and Iran where there is constant surveillance about what information the public is allowed to receive. The government has extended its scrutiny to the online forum.

Ó Siochrú (2005) notes that the ‘growing surveillance, censorship, and direct repression pursued by governments and corporate sector’ since 9/11, as ‘troubling legal frameworks originating in the US’ are replicated elsewhere, enabling governments and their secretive agencies to monitor a full range of communication instruments.

Critics fear that new purposes and implementation measures are extending such laws beyond even their original draconian intent, and that the 9/11 attacks provided a pretext for US and European government to take control of electronic space (Ó Siochrú and Girard, 2003).

The main reason why the government is not a reliable arbiter of what the media ought to be doing is because reporting on the governments and their activities is a legitimate and important part of news and media’s role. Since their own activities form a major component of the news, governments have an obvious and vested interest in how they are reported (Robie, 2005).

There have been many instances where the people themselves have tried to take matters into their own hands and overcome the hurdles of censorship.

This can be seen in the instance of Iran following the 2009 presidential elections when images of protests against election fraud were captured on mobile phone cameras and sent via the internet by ordinary citizens to the outside world (Calingaert, 2010)

While reporters from major international media were forced to leave the country or
were holed up in their hotel rooms, short messages sent by Twitter and videos posted on YouTube filled the gap in information. Thus, at a time when the Iranian government was trying to hide the protests from television and newspaper reporters, the internet provided a window for audiences outside the country to see what was going on inside and gave Iranians a way to tell the world at large what was happening to them (Calingaert, 2010).

In order to curtail the movements of independent organisations and people online governments are blocking social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. They are enforcing restrictions on bandwidth making it difficult to connect to some sites and to upload photos and videos. Governments also conduct surveillance on internet communication.

Other countries, such as China, Iran, and Tunisia, actively promote internet use as a way to stimulate innovation and economic growth, but they place wide-ranging controls over digital media to prevent them from being used for political opposition. They maintain extensive, multilayered systems of censorship and surveillance to stifle online dissent. Surveillance of internet and mobile phone communications is pervasive, and citizens who criticize the government online are subject to harassment, imprisonment, and torture. (Calingaert, 2010).

The same conditions can also be seen in a developing country like India where numerous religions are practiced and while there is a democracy in place, dissent about a certain political party could result in riots. The nation of 1.2 billion is the world's largest democracy and in principle affords free speech to its citizens. The government has the authority to curtail speech rights in certain cases. India's Constitution encapsulates that grey zone: Free speech is subject to "reasonable restrictions" for such purposes as maintaining "public order, decency or morality" (Sharma and Vascellaro, 2010).

Internet companies in India, including Yahoo Inc., Facebook Inc. and Twitter, are expected to help the government enforce those standards online by removing objectionable material and, occasionally, helping to track down users. The situation is such that corporate officials from any Web site that fails to comply with requests to take down material or block sites can face a fine and a jail sentence of up to seven years (Sharma and Vascellaro, 2010).

Everyone is looking for loopholes to send and receive information. Despite government censorship and surveillance, citizens in internet-restricted countries are finding innovative ways to spread information. A new phenomenon is intentionally misspelling keywords that trigger filters or even by posting words as an image file (Calingaert, 2010).

United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has called for a resistance to internet censorship by authoritarian governments and privacy for online political speech. She argued that terrorists, copyright violators, and child pornographers should be restrained from using the Internet and its anonymity to carry out their activities. Clinton took a stand "for a single Internet where all of humanity has equal access to information and ideas," but she warned that technology advancements are "not an unmitigated blessing" and that modern information technology "can be hijacked by government to crush dissent and deny human rights" (“Net Freedom With Certain 'Exceptions”, 2010).

Building on the Four Freedoms cited by President Franklin Roosevelt, Secretary Clinton said that Internet users should be guaranteed "certain basic freedoms": freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom of want (she emphasized the role of the Internet, mobile phones, and other technologies in economic development), freedom from fear (she emphasized the need for confidence in communications networks as a factor in national and economic security), and - in addition to those enumerated by President Roosevelt - freedom to connect ("like the freedom of assembly, only in cyberspace") (“Net Freedom With Certain 'Exceptions”, 2010).

Growing bans on news and sociopolitical content are making it harder for journalists to do their jobs. While it has become harder, people are taking it into their own hands to find ways to circumvent these restrictions. This however also indicates that the job of the journalist is under threat because while the journalist has to fulfill the obligations of its media house an ordinary citizen does not.

Seeing individuals as powerless in the face of choice, or as empty vessels too easily overwhelmed by nefarious content, is a key component of paternalism. This view denies citizens their basic agency and autonomy, reinforcing the long-discredited but still popular notion that mass behavior is dictated from the top down (Welch, 2010).