Here are the readings for January 29th:
1) The Rise of Soft Censorship:https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9tKhDO0adInYnlNUGxmS2JwYWM/edit
2) Chavez Silencing Media 2009:https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9tKhDO0adInRHpNT3BYeV9icUk/edit
3) Squelching Social Media is Dangerous:https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9tKhDO0adInd1VIRnlFRENLU2M/edit
Callahan--Please read the above articles and respond. What types of control are being used? Are they successful. Would these tactics be successful in other places?
I look forward to reading your responses.
Advertising and social media today raise new questions about how to enforce the government to support and stop regulating free speech. Citizens in undeveloped nations are oppressed often today.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the governments in both the US and internationally would be highly criticized for illegally stopping the publication of negative press, citizens are unaware when governments withdraw support from media corporations. Many media corporations rely on support from the government to make profits, especially in undeveloped nations. The governor of Illinois used soft censorship by not supporting the sale of the Wrigley Field, owned by Tribune Co. if the paper didn't fire editorial board members who were highly critical of him. Political candidates in Ukraine pay for journalists to write positive articles about them. However, journalists in these countries do not view this as negative or unethical. In China, the government pressured companies to withdraw advertising from a newspaper because they opposed a proposed security law. The Argentinian Supreme Court ruled in favor of a newspaper when the government pulled advertising because of negative coverage. The President of Venezuela is Hugo Chavez tried to write a bill against "media crimes," which would close 32 radio stations and 2 tv broadcasters. Chavez plan is to control the flow of information, stop critical reports, and disseminate pro-government propaganda. One solution is a nonprofit model for media, such as the NPR.
One interesting type of free speech oppression is the regulation of the Internet. China monitors the Internet closely, especially social media sites, such as Facebook. Chinese government officials dispute that the regulation is for the common good and meets the standards of other nations. Britain, Egypt, Germany, Finland, and Estonia have all attempted to regulate free speech over the Internet, such as tracking and accessing citizen’s private digital communications.
There are many different approaches to controlling the media. The most common form of control in the United States is from corporate sponsors and executives within the organization. The drive to gain wealth and retain sponsors puts the creators of content in a very difficult situation. The threat of losing funding motivates the organizations to cater more towards their sponsors than to their duty to give us unbiased content.
ReplyDeleteOther countries experience more direct forms of control. With Chavez shutting down news outlets that criticize him and China "protecting" the people, the people in those countries have a harder time to find content that is unbiased. The ability for the news producers to be watchdogs is removed and the people are left in the dark.
I believe that while these tactics can be harmful for the people, they are effective. In fact, our media is probably more controlled than we even know. Whether or not these tactics would be successful in other places depends entirely on the structure of the countries government and media system. If the government owns the media outlets, for example, they have much more ability to control the media. This reminds us how important our constitution is. Without it, we would be subject to governmental control that is experienced in places like China and Venezuela.
It is interesting that we see a shift from direct/forceful censorship to this "soft" censorship. Clearly, money controls the media. No messages are not going to be broadcasted if the channel is not support somehow. In many countries, the government is using their power/money to support channels that distribute favorable content, rather than shutting down the ones that do not. I think no matter what the laws may be, media will always follow advertising money. That being said, these tactics are very successful even though they are not moral. The more democratic the nation, the harder it will be for the tactics to succeed. In Venezuela we see more violent and obvious attempts at control. While these methods may be successful In Venezuela, they would not be in countries with a democracy. I think most of the control that goes on in democratic countries like the U.S. slide under the radar and we as citizens are pretty clueless as to what is actually going on. I think it is also important to note the dangers of censorship when it comes to activism. Censorship is only going to grow like a snowball if people aren't aware of what is going on.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting how the different types of control were being used. It ranged anywhere from threats, to public safety, to people losing their jobs completely. I think that for the most part, the control they are using is effective. The most effective type of control in the articles was President Hugo Chavez. When you shut down that many stations and you have enough people behind you, people are going to get the message. There is a clear difference between threats and force.
ReplyDeleteAnother part of Chavez that makes him dangerous is that other leaders will follow what he is doing. This is going to limit the freedom of many different countries that need to have freedom to express themselves.
This tactic would not work somewhere like America.
The three articles talked about two kind of main types of control; censorship, and then soft censorship. The soft including things such as withholding government advertising as well as the opposite of buying out stations. There are also different types of government access to personal communication via the internet. The article even mentioned that sometimes its easier for government officials to access personal communication via the web than it is for them to get search warrants, for your house and other physical belongings.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure where these tactics would work. I would assume it would have to be a place that has fairly loose government structure. Or where people fear the government more than like here in America. Specifically places that don't have structured commercial advertising in place.
(shout out to commercial advertising)
Basically the summary I got from all these articles was that its critical to have freedom and independence in news coverage, as well as the internet in general. Well if you want to have a democracy. Which Chavez, clearly doesn't really want. As he wants to control all forms of communication, and flow of information.
It surprised me how much control is going on in the world's media. I really did not know what was happening before I read these articles. It is crazy to me that journalists are being paid off, the Internet is being shut down, and broadcast stations are being threatened and forced into talking about and showing what the government wants. It was interesting to read about the US, and the recent policies implemented in order to monitor what is happening on the Internet and our physical communication. I am not sure of a nation where these things can be pulled off without a fight. Yes to some extent these things are happening, but there are riots and retaliations by the citizens of these nations. Including our own! No one wants to be monitored, and at the same time we want to hear the truth about what is going on in our nation and world, not what our leaders want us to hear. Censorship is frustrating because when it happens, we don't know what has been censored and what hasn't, but what we do know is its not the entire story. The violent attempts to control media may work in other countries, but they would not work in the US.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of media control, these articles focussed a lot on "soft" or indirect censorship. I thought it was extremely interesting how the media outlets in the first article talked about the government threatening to withhold advertising from newspapers and broadcasters, whose coverage they felt was too critical of them. This article also discussed how these governments would go as far as to use their funds to buy advertising in those media outlets they felt were friendly and viewed their government positively. The text said that this "then allows governments to exercise decisive interference in the press." And as we discussed in our previous lectures, there are many countries that lack a strong sense of democracy. And with these developing countries, they have "no tradition of independent news media." Without this, it is hard for them, maybe even impossible, to have and uphold open political discussions. This article stressed the importance of strengthening these independent news media outlets in these developing countries in order to help shape their efforts at a democracy. I thought the next article was even crazier when it discussed Chavez's decision to shut down 32 radio stations and two television broadcasters because he felt they were radical in terms of their freedom of expression. This harsh and strict regulation also led other leaders to follow him and his plan of censorship. Sure these tactics might be successful in the more underdeveloped countries, yet they would never fly in the U.S. or any other global power country.
ReplyDeleteThese articles focused on direct and indirect censorship and how each is used. The actions of Chavez in shutting down 32 privately owned radio stations and proposing a law to punish media crimes is an example of how direct censorship is used by enacting complete control. Indirect or soft censorship is on the rise as described by the case of Illinois Governor using his influence to out members on an editorial board who he thought were critical of him. The business aspect of the media can cause a lot of potential issues. The media is moved by money and will be very cautious in running stories that threaten their advertisers, as we discussed in class about the story of Monsanto. I feel that more can be done to help protect the value of news and avoid the influence that private companies enact in influencing what is printed.
ReplyDeleteDepending on where one chooses to side defines if these courses of action are successful or not. As a supporter of Chavez shutting down private stations who threaten his platforms and criticize him is a success. Those who stand in opposition to his power would think otherwise. These tactics and the extent to how far the censorship reaches depends on the government structure and norms that have been established. For example arguments have been made of stronger regulation of the internet in preventing crime and other possible catastrophes. There are valid points on both sides but simply because freedom of the internet is something we have always experienced it would be extremely difficult to implement restrictions.
It was astounding to read and compare all three of these articles about different forms of censorship in the media around the world. Personally, I'm having a hard time deciphering the difference between "soft" and "hard" censorship. I know media censorship is still a prevalent problem in some areas of the world, but reading the article about the Chicago Tribune was appalling. If the governor was threatening to take away funding from the newspaper, in my mind, that is "hard" censorship. He is retaliating to critical remarks from the media and that is unacceptable with the government system we have set up in the United States.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you are asking if these controls are successful. What is the definition of "successful"? Successful in that they are limiting the negative media? In Chavez's case, I would say he was being successful--he had 32 radio stations shut down. If successful means people agreeing with the censorship, than I think the answer is no. Although the intentions of the Prime Minister in Britain are good, the people will most likely not agree with government control of the Internet because of the long term ramifications and effects it would cause. This is a very important topic to discuss so that the most human rights, as well as security rights can be preserved in the long run.
From these three articles we see many different approaches to controlling the media. There are controls such as, forcing media outlets to submit reports and stories for review before they are published, there is the "softer" side of censorship, which includes witholding advertising to media outlets, there is the use of violence in venezuela from Chavez to control the flow of information, stop critical reports, and disseminate pro-government propaganda. And finally there is also limiting and monitoring conversations via social media. Some of these controls are successful and keep the media in-line. However, there is no way the type of control limited on free speech in most of these places would be successful in the United States. As it says in the third article, there are systems in place for the government to gain easy access to information and personal information but this is far from constructed riots in Venezuela to keep the media quiet.
ReplyDeleteThe three articles that I read were all very interesting in their examination of censorship. I think that the case of the Illinois Governor is unique within the United States, and that generally the media report what they want to report. This obviously isn’t always the case outside of this country as was evidenced by the Chavez article.
ReplyDeleteI think that censorship most often occurs when powerful people in business or politics pressure the media to portray them in a certain light. This can sometimes be accomplished through bribery or deceit, which results in bias or misinformation. There are extreme cases in the world and throughout time where governments lie to or withhold information from there people to stay in positions of influence. The biggest example I can think of is Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.
In the US, I think that controls do exist, but people generally are informed. I do think that a lot of dishonesty and bias exists in the media, on both sides of the aisle politically as well as other areas. Outside of the US, I think that it’s obvious that these tactics are in existence and are proving to be successful in certain circumstances. In the case of the British Social Media article, I feel that government intervention to prevent violence is sometimes necessary. I do admit though that finding that line where it’s appropriate is nearly impossible.
In the first article the promise, or ban, of advertising dollars proves to be a powerful tool for governments to control the media. As noted in the article without the strong and independent news entities the issues of corruption and bought favoritism abound in an otherwise free democracy.
ReplyDeleteThe second article describes an even more drastic example in Venezuela where Chavez passed legislation to punish people who he felt broadcasted views contrary to him as “media crimes”. Although this represents a scary realization of power over the press what frightens me even more is the idea of control not in the sense of power but that of security and protection. The final articles hits closer to him as it explains the potential pitfalls and temptation for abuse of power all in the name of the greater good of the public. The other reminds us that it is the same tactic used by communist countries and it is a slippery slope to exploitation.
I feel all of these tactics are equally dangerous and they represent how the freedom of press can be in jeopardy in developing democracies and established ones as well. We must be vigilant of the risks and ensure that people always have the right to the freedom of expression.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Lord Acton, a British historian once said this. In order to counteract this statement in government, The United States has the freedom of the press where journalists can report independently from the government without facing consequences. Unfortunately, even The United States has incidences of corruption like the governor of Illinois. He, like many other countries, attempted to influence a local newspaper by withholding funds. This has become what is known as the soft censorship. The government isn't taking away free speech in these incidences but it is promising to withhold funds when they know the papers desperately need them. It''s manipulative. As it mentions in the article, Hugo Chavez's goal is "to control the flow of information, stop critical reports and disseminate pro-government propaganda." He has deliberately made laws that shut down news outlets who opposed him. He is trying to control the media message through force. Although he personally did not authorize it, many of his followers have attacked media centers that disagree with the president. Chavez hopes to control what is sent out by destroying the opposition through litigation. The media stations were taken off area because of supposed violations to media laws. It is successful to a certain point because, although he is sick, Hugo Chavez is still in power. However, I believe in due time the free press will prevail and win in the end. In the last article, British Prime Minster considered censoring social media because of recent violence tied to it. The Chinese were quick to put in their two cents and comment on the situation. They believe censoring works and sees what Britain is trying to do as hypocrisy. I believe they have a point and it is foolish to think Britain wants to censor social media to a certain extent and that they thinks it is possible. There is no way they will be able to accomplish such a difficult task. After social media played such a pivotal role in the arab spring, the last we want to do is censor it.
ReplyDeleteThe three articles all talk about some form of Censorship. The first article spoke of "soft" censorship, which is indirect. It isn't telling the paper what to write, but in the case of the Illinois Governor, if the paper wrote what he didn't want, he might not help them out when they needed it. The other articles spoke more of direct censorship, especially in the case of Hugo Chavez. As the article states, he was "forcefully silencing critics," that spoke out against him. I think from the government standpoint, yes they are successful, but I don't think they are right, especially in the case of the Illinois Governor. In other countries that do not have the same freedoms that are here in America, I feel like it is to be expected from time to time that the government will censor what they do not want others to hear or know. But in America, where freedom is so highly spoken of and promoted by our government leaders, to try and censor the media, even indirectly, is completely wrong. The same tactics might work well in other places, because of the lack of freedom and fear of the government, but they should not work here.
ReplyDeleteControl is obviously different in different places. I think the idea of controlling the media is a bad one, but I don't think it is a bad idea to monitor them. China obviously has strict rules on social media, Chavez puts his thumb on the media and the Illinois Governor is throwing his weight around. I don't like these practices. I say you let the media go and do their thing. If they are promoting dangerous things or actions, such as riots or violence, you can stop them. If they are just expressing an opposing opinion, you just let them go.
ReplyDeleteIt's a great idea to monitor what's going on though. You need to know what to expect from the people. I think this is the best way to go.
Freedom of speech and expression through the press are seen as necessities and rights to those who do not hold power. When government leaders (in the reading the examples of Indiana Governor Blagojevich and Venezuelan President Chavez are given) fear the power of media they feel the need to control it, and if that is not the option, to stop it. The power of news corporations has been seen in the last hundred years as a system of defense for the people, one that would inform them of the ill doings of those in power. As advertising revenues become a worry, it seems that this is becoming less true and in turn, the news is not trusted or viewed as highly as in the past. Even in countries that view freedom of social media and other online sights as important, the fear of public safety becomes a way that they justify monitoring more closely the actions of their citizens. While some do not consider this an abuse of power, it is one step closer to a regime where the people's voices are stifled.
ReplyDeleteJennifer Riggs
The different types of control described in each of the articles varied from "soft" censorship to more authoritarian censorship. "Soft" censorship includes tactics that are more passive and do not exert direct punishment. Places where more authoritarian censorship is used, such as the government under Hugo Chavez, "control the flow of information, stop critical reports and disseminate pro-government propaganda." These are very different forms of censorship and both forms are successful in the respective countries that they are used. However, authoritarian censorship would likely not be successful in Westernized countries where such tactics are not socially acceptable and would not be followed by the population. While some of the soft censorship tactics may not work in lesser developed countries because the people are used to being directly controlled by the government.
ReplyDeleteI think soft censorship is somewhat needed to protect the people. However,hard censorship like Presidents Chavez closing 32 private radio stations. He is creating a monopoly where the citizens would only hear in the radio what he wants. Consequently, citizens would lack of the necessary knowledge, and would have lost some freedom of speech or most of it. This tactic would not work in the United States because this country laws were created to protect the people from the government. In countries like Venezuela is easier for the government to have control because it is not as organized or most citizens are powerless to object. In china, the government controls what it citizens see in the internet. They have a different Google where the government evaluates any information before its seen by the people. I do not agree with hard censorship because it takes away from the people the right of speech, and freedom.
ReplyDeleteEric Vincent
ReplyDeleteAs we have mentioned before in class, the media doesn’t tell us what to think, they tell us what to think about. There is incredible power in the hands of the media, as the perceptions they create can force their tailored reality upon their viewers. In journalism classes that I have taken, there has been a real emphasis on journalists need to report both sides of the story and keep their own biases out of their work. In theory this method works great, but it is just too difficult and usually impossible to do. In some way or another media is being controlled by somebody. As shown in the different articles, there are big players-whether it be companies, politicians, or wealthy leaders- who have such great control on how media and information gets out to the populous. As shown in the articles, countries where rights of expression and speech are not as clearly protected have an easier time controlling and censoring media, but in countries where these are allowed, there are still ways that censorship and tailoring of media is controlled by major players.
I have only seen part of this movie once so I don’t know the story extremely well, but the movie The Insider starring Russell Crowe and Al Pacino gives a great example of how in places like America censorship or control of media takes place. In this movie the producers of the show 60 Minutes are able to get a great interview with a Russell Crowe’s character about the damaging effects in that come from smoking. Because of a confidentiality agreement, Big Tobacco could sue CBS if they run the interview and a story that could create great damages to Big Tobacco. The producers, journalists, and presidents of CBS battle between each other to decide if the story should be run (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peiMq3_Xv0Q), edited, or just cut completely (I apologize for the language in the video). There is also disagreement if they should report the news or stay out of trouble and not get sued. I could be wrong but I think that this is where censorship happens in the United States. It isn’t as blatant as seen by politicians in countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, but it is more behind the scenes where politicians, broadcasting companies, and corporations get stories tailored a certain way.
I found myself very intrigued by the article about the rise of soft censorship. I am from the Midwest and I remember hearing a lot of coverage on Governor Blagojevich, but I guess I never realized that what he was doing with his money could be considered censorship. The idea of indirectly moderating (using monetary bribes) what goes on in the media seems incredibly corrupt to me, but definitely not as extreme Hugo Chavez, who is encouraging his government to "move forcefully" to silence opposition. Compared to Chavez, the former governor was only mildly trying to manipulate the messages people around him received. Under Chavez, freedom of speech is not available, and therefore the knowledge and understanding of the people of Venezuela are purposefully limited. This monopoly is definitely not successful, or helping the citizens progress as a nation.
ReplyDeleteThese articles mainly refer to the rise in soft censorship, which is an indirect way to squash media outlets by witholding government funds or withdrawing much-needed advertising. The poster child for this crime (yes, I see it as a crime) is Hugo Chavez. In a country with an unstable economy, he knows that pulling funding and advertising from the media will crush them and that's exactly what he wants. I've always heard that you can gauge the level of freedom in a country by the freedom of its press, and that's why I don't believe that this type of ploy would work in a wealthier country with a more stable economy. Yes, criminals like Chavez can be successful in bringing down their opposition in the media because their citizens cannot afford to rebuild what they tear down. I believe that a well-developed country with a common desire for freedom will not play these games though because the repercussions could be much worse politically (and socially... no facebook?) for leaders.
ReplyDeleteI can see the pressure political leaders may feel in countries whose people rise up against them by means of social media. I do not believe that stifling freedom online is going to stop these riots and protests. To me it does not matter what medium a group may use, there will always be protest and revolution.
ReplyDeleteI am concerned on the other hand of the very real problem many if not all countries have with soft censorship. It is only fair that when an article is run in a newspaper, whose advertisements frequent the same pages, that in time the advertisers will either pull their publicity or not have the funds all together to remain loyal to the newspaper. Thus, the editors strive to stay in business by lightening the load of any bad publicity against those who keep them in business. I really see no way of completely eliminating this problem. If the government funds media too much, then their control becomes subject to future soft censorship. If on the other hand, we leave it to newspapers and their advertisers to work this out, feelings and companies will undoubtedly be hurt or subject to quick turnover because of the inevitable bad publicity.
I've never understood how people elected or chosen to lead, or better said serve the people of the country start to feel like they need to control the people of the country they're suppose to serve? It's like they are children who can't handle being criticize for poor decisions and instead of correcting themselves they rather stop people from criticizing them.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to support governments that don't want to listen to what the people have to say. They rather enforce laws on how to advertise, what to advertise, and what messages should be known to the public.
I was never aware of how governments withdraw support from media corporations. From the reading it seems to happen more in underdeveloped nations that don't have a private sector that can fund them. Soft censorship is like a political hissyfit. Also having a system that purchases well written articles about candidates and passes them off as news is another form of control, even if it is not seen as an unethical practice, because hey, it pays the bills. Leaders in some countries like the Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela attempt to pass bills dealing with what he deems as "media crimes," and on top of that closes 32 radio stations and 2 tv broadcasters that oppose him and support the opposition. Thus, controlling the flow of information, stopping critical reports, and disseminating pro-government propaganda.
Do these systems of control work? Yes, most of the time they do, but are detrimental to the progress of the nations who's governments try to oppose free speech. But people can fight back using the Internet or do something like NPR or the BBC, or even take the government to court. But from the looks of it the government is now passing laws and trying to restrict Internet access to continue their control over free speech.
It is amazing to see the various ways of controlling media. I am almost disturbed by the way Chavez government is dealing with media. In countries like Venezuela, where the government is overlooking every detail of everyone's life, it is hard to have access to media from the opposition. This situation is specially sad, not only in the national concept, but in the international concept as well. People around the world might not be able to see the real picture of Venezuela, they are given the information that the government wants to give them, which might not be accurate. It is an abuse to the right of expression of the Venezuelan people to be shut down whenever they want to express their discontent.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I do believe that some soft censorship is needed in some cases, or even if it is not. If a government is trying to control media, soft censorship is the way to go. You can control advertising, and things like that without really affecting the information given to the public.
These articles are speak of different forms of media control. The first one was very interesting about soft censorship. It is crazy that the people with the most money can essentially control what goes on. The journalists in Russia are said to be working for tips. Part of that is fault of the companies, but also the people bribe them to write favorable stories. This is not direct censorship by the government, but rather, as the article states, "soft" censorship, where money and advertising control the media.
ReplyDeleteThe second article was a much more extreme form of media control. Chavez actually closed down radio stations and TV stations. I think that this is too extreme and I could never live anywhere where that kind of thing happened. I don't think this type of control would work anywhere. It definitely works for dictators, but not for their people.
I do think that some type of control needs to be in place, but definitely not the government. It needs to be the free market. This creates competitiveness and prosperity for everyone.
The third article is really the big issue we are having now. I thought it was very interesting that the article said that if Britain gave up some of their rights for more security, it will not only effect them, but effect beyond Britain's borders. This is the problem with controlling the internet. It connects throughout the entire globe an therefore will effect more people than just in the country.
In Venezuela, Chavez is closing down 32 radio stations to prevent negative reports about him and the government. He is also trying to pass a law to prevent media crimes which seems to have a correlation with opposition to his government. I think in less developed countries these types of actions are not as big of a deal as it would be the Untied States. That being said even in the United States threats of withholding funding is being put in place if media outlets do not comply with some government officials. The form of censorship that is being put in place is soft censorship. Soft censorship is withholding funding or advertisements, as well as paying for advertisements that are considered more favorably. This censorship is being applied to many parts of the world. It is more likely to succeed in other countries besides the U.S because we have laws to prevent this from happening. However as I said before it still happens in the U.S, I just think it is more successful in other countries. We can see in the past that it could be successful for those enforcing the laws or rules, but I think eventually, if they haven’t already, they will receive backlash from the media, as well as the public. I don’t think monitoring social media would be smart, because many people use this to voice their opinions and I think major uproar would happen if they start this.
ReplyDeleteThere are several different types of media control in these articles including direct censorship by closing down mediums, "soft censorship," and a sort of roundabout censorship that comes from people knowing they are being watched. Direct censorship comes when laws make it possible for the government to directly shut down communication. This was shown in both the Cuban and British examples. Soft censorship comes when power, in the form of money or connections or other things, is used to persuade people communicate certain things. This type of control is harder to see sometimes because it is difficult to see who is pulling all the strings or if the people in the media really are just saying what they want to without being censored. The third type of censorship brought up by the articles but not really focused on comes when people's communications are being watched. It's a type of control and although it wasn't directly talked about in the British article it was hinted at.
ReplyDeleteAll of these tactics have been effective in the past. Thus we get all of the examples of them work. This doesn't mean that they continue to be successful or will be successful in every circumstance. I believe control through simply monitoring people's communication is not enough to censor things. People today are used to their public lives being on display and willingly put themselves out there. This type of control would only work to prevent some sort of a crime which I'm guessing is already not going to be published on a social network. Direct control can only be effective in places that people are already used to laws limiting their freedom and rights. In a place such as the United States, where freedom of speech is built in to our laws and our mindset, this type of control would not be effective. There would be major push back against something like this. I think is a place like the US the most effective form of control is "soft control." There are legal protections against this but essentially the person holding the purse strings is controlling the media. The mediums are left with a decision to be censored, fight back risking everything, or be shut down. It's not good but it is effective.
It seems to me there are varying levels of control being used in these three examples, ranging from the subtle to the outright dictatorial. However the common theme among all of these channels is ‘government interference’. Whether it is in England’s hypothetical social media restriction or in Chaves’ blatant shutting down of opposition-friendly media outlets, it is really only varying degrees of the same idea.
ReplyDeleteI like what the last article implied about the dangers of squashing social media. It’s true that while media suppression/control might seem to be the best option in the short term, one must think about the implications such an action would have on the future. After all, if media suppression became the answer to solving legitimate terrorist actions, “terrorist actions” could easily become an excuse to suppress media whenever the government wanted to suppress it. Whether the threats are legitimate or not, we can’t afford to allow media suppression to become the norm in any country.
It was interesting to read about the news industry in other countries. To me, as an American, such systems seem to be filled with conflicts of interest and corruption. I can see, however, how government-sponsored advertisement might be the only way for news outlets to survive at all in such small economies. However, I think that such an arrangement would never function in America. The instant we sense that someone might be acting in their own self-interest, we revolt. :)
What types of control are being used? Are they successful. Would these tactics be successful in other places?
ReplyDeleteThe biggest and most influential control is obviously money. The mighty dollar has huge influence, especially in less fortunate countries. Governments have strong influences that they can throw around as well. One example is Hugo Chavez using his presidential powers to just outright shut down news media that was against him. Some governments use more discreet ways like pressuring companies to pull advertising from critical media sources.
It seems to be a very effective way for government to control media in non-democracy countries. It is very easy for tyrannical leaders to flex their muscles so to speak and use their influence. But in democratic countries like the U.S and Britain, it is much more tricky. Because citizens are so used to freedom it is very difficult for governments to change the rules. It takes violence for them to be able to do it. They must have a very good reason to be able to implement these kinds of changes.
I don't think normal tactics that tyrannical leaders use would work in democratic countries. The people would not stand for it and would revolt. I know for myself I would not accept those kinds of rules placed on the media in America. I find media a very necessary check on government and it should not be controlled.
Being raised in Colombia, this is something I constantly saw with the media there (as mentioned in the article), that the rich and in power controlled it and that all news had to go through them (in one way or another) before it could be printed. As is mentioned in the articles, there are multiple ways to controlling the media, shutting down media outlets, fear of losing advertisers or government funding, etc. and to many of these news agencies they are very effective. Who wants to lose their source of income?
ReplyDeleteI especially found amusing the article on Chavez shutting down the radio stations. Amusing because, though they were shut down "legally", it was the very government that had denied renewing their contracts which lead them to being run illegally. Also, as the article mentions, there is a great fear of being a journalist which can stymie even more the growth of free speech. Simply put, speech isn't as protected as it seems.
However, as is seen in the article about censorship in Britain, it seems that we sometimes want to infringe on that free speech right but for the greater good. But once we do that the question that we must ask ourselves is, where do we draw the line? or is there even a line to be drawn?
These types of censorships are unethical in my mind, although other countries and their leaders may not think this way. The actions that Chavez is taking to hush the media that he doesn't like is inconceivable to me. I don't understand how a country would let a bigot like him stay in office without being shot or forced to go into hiding. It goes to show the lack of leaders in this world, and the abundant followers. His closing of media sources may work for a little while, but other countries (like the U.S.) aren't going to stop showing him for who he really is, a dictator who's bringing a downfall in his country.
ReplyDeleteThe social media article was interesting. I love how the British Prime Minister thinks that the source of his country's problems stem from social media. Get a grip, dude. The problem isn't social media. That's like saying that paper is harming society because people can write hate-notes on it. The problem isn't the social media; it's the people themselves and the problems that they're voicing, which aren't being heard by the government. I don't think shutting down social media in any country would really work. People will still organize what they want to organize, albeit email or phone calls. You can't stop violence by stopping social media.
What types of control are being used? Are they successful. Would these tactics be successful in other places?
ReplyDeleteChavez explains that the overall purpose for this stricter media control is to manage the flow of information, stop critical reports and disseminate pro-government propaganda. The government supports this regulation because it gives them more control to flood media with positive government propaganda. In China, the government legally manages the internet so that they can manage international practices. There is much to be criticized concerning government and media practices across the globe, however, the overall suppression of social media and hindering the public's ability to express their opinion, is an immediate violation of our freedom of speech. The Chinese tactics could never see success in America because the government does not have enough control over the people. American's believe that we are entitled to certain unalienable rights that cannot be impinged upon. I like the closing statement made by MacKinnon, We must all rise to the challenge to demonstrate that security and prosperity in the Internet age are not only compatible with liberty, they ultimately depend on it. While i do not agree with all of her opinions, I do believe that the internet is becoming more rampant and increasingly more powerful.While I do agree that the government should monitor and follow along with social media, I do not think it is their duty to control it. We should be able to discuss opinions openly.
Chandler Anderson
Preston Wittwer
ReplyDeleteThe main type of control being used is either direct or indirect Authoritarian control, which is defined as "money used as a tool to manipulate news." This manipulation appears in the form of controlling the flow of news, silencing critical reports and as channel to disseminate propaganda. The reason this works is because of a lack of media pluralism, both in the lack of options in advertisers and media outlets. With that, there have been proposed solutions and workarounds that could help combat this problem. Relying on litigation (where courts aren't easily controlled by the government) or using the BBC/NPR business model can help create more legitimacy to the news organizations. As to whether or not these tactics would be successful in other places relies entirely on the presence of media pluralism in those other places. There are unique problems with unique solutions and there is no cure-all for Authoritarian control. What is needed above all else, is the trust and support of the people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn these three articles, the levels of control are quite different. Some of this control is things I expect to occur in media while other information I read left me rather scared for the future of the world as it relates to media consumption. The first article discussed soft censorship and also more intense forms of censorship. An example of soft censorship it gave was government withholding their advertising dollars from newspapers whose content they find too critical. This article mentioned this practice as it related to several different countries, so clearly these tactics are being implemented successfully. A more intense form on censorship would be the government directly controlling the content of the news stories by forcing newspapers to submit them directly for review before publication. I usually expect sketchy dealings like this in less developed countries, but the article gave the example from Illinois of how money has influence media-government relations.
ReplyDeleteThe article about Hugo Chavez gave an example of a very direct type of control, with immediate impact of freedom of expression. He closed 32 radio stations, 2 TV broadcasters, and desired prison sentences for people who commit "media crimes." This form of control is incredibly corrupt and is not a tactic I would imagine could be successful in a country like America. This article also mentioned a government attack on a TV station that gives voice to the opposition. This is part of Chavez's 3-part plan to control the flow of information stop critical reports, and disseminate pro-government propaganda. As the article states, no freedom of expression, or even democracy, can exist in the absence of media pluralism. Tactics like this cannot be successful if any concern is being had for the good of the people.
The final article left me feeling really freaked out about activity on the Internet and how much can be monitored and controlled! There will still be violence, disorder, and criminality without social media.
Censorship can be a scary thing. Obvious the articles talk about "soft" and other are more direct, telling them specifically what they can or cannot report on or say. But here's the thing, sometimes censorship can be good. Just because someone blew their head off and a station has footage of it doesn't mean we should show it. But no matter where you are, there is censorship, a lot of it in the broadcast world is placed by the producers. If a station doesn't make money, it will go under. Every station has their specific audience. Either an age group, male or females, a specific party... they need to report and give stories that that group will tune in for.
ReplyDeleteBut there are good forms of censorship like not giving away army plans and things like that. Yes, it would be a GREAT story and amazing if your newscast broke it, but you have to think about the aftermath.
Our media here in the US is too regulated and too lawsuit happy to get away with bribing journalist to write stories solely to generate business if it's not interesting story. Yes, it happens sometimes, but by no means do these features stories replace ads. Ads are still a major revenue for newspapers and really what's keeping them in business. This type of activity would only reduce the current view of the absurd bias in the media. So even if it did happen, people would become more and more skeptical of gatekeepers and eventually wouldn't trust their stories anyways.
ReplyDeleteFor me, censorship is a delicate subject. There is no way it should be completely stopped. There is a great need for soft censorship. Yet, when we see the case of Chavez, i feel it is too extreme. The readings clearly outlined the troubles we face and the problems that can arise if we take advantage of it. I don't feel that if it was a bad thing, it would be used so widely and so successfully in so many places.
ReplyDeleteThe control of media is different depending on where you are. There is just a very fine line between controlling what is being aired on TV, and monitoring it. The fact that Chavez had the control to cancel media outlets it too much. Also, the fact that money has become a way to manipulate was is being called news is ridiculous. I think here in America the media is too regulated, the “news” is just a world of business and the reporters are just glorified celebs chasing an audience. I do believe we need soft censorship is necessary but the direct type of control that is becoming more and more common has got to have some type of limit.
ReplyDelete