Independent Media Hard To Defend, State Capture Hard To Resist

Michael Hedges October 27, 2021 Follow on Twitter

State media is tough to describe. In the totality of the media sphere it can seem rather decrepit, a throwback to different times, worn down by the digital age. But state media endures in several variations, in various stages of health. As such, it has become multipurpose in an age of information anxiety.

Found in nearly every country, state media - ostensibly media owned and operated by national governments - satisfies a range of purposes. A recently published paper - The State of State Media - describes the difficulties balancing the needs of governments. The paper was principally written by Marius Dragomir, director of the Center for Media, Data and Society at Central European University’s Democracy Institute and Astrid Söderström. Mr. Dragomir is a respected well-known media researcher and has written extensively about state media capture, where media exists to advance the interests of the state and related special interests. The new paper examines most of the world and is detailed and blunt.

The paper describes different outcomes from a common starting point. Broadcasting is widely considered the principal output of state media. But many governments, starting with kingdoms of yore, have used the printing press. Multimedia output is now common. “In recent years, the debate about the role of state media has see new tensions as many government of revved up spending in the media and the overall media environment has fundamentally changed, with new, more powerful and versatile forms of communication being created and proliferated at a rapid pace.”

State media models mostly align an axis from absolute state control to independent public interest. There are a few tangents, often just outliers, within this State Media Matrix. At one end, appearing widely around the world, is the “absolute form of state control where media outlets are entirely dependent on state funding, are managed by government-appointed bodies or directed by state authorities, and follow an editorial line imposed or authorized by state authorities. To the surprise of nobody this is the Chinese model, essentially replicated in Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa as well as a notable few in central and eastern Europe and Latin America.

On the other end, “the independent public media model is the ideal form of media created with the mission to serve the public interest.” Mechanisms are in place to “insulate” from all the torrid pressures. Editorial independents is roundly guaranteed. “This model is rare, on the brink of extinction in many parts of the world.” Recognized by all media watchers, this media model is found in key countries of Western Europe and occasionally Asia.

Between this two points of reference are several variants, some rather benign, others not at all. Independence being a theme throughout the paper, it distinguishes from “captured” media. Also a Western European model, the “independent state-managed media” have a degree of financial and editorial independence while remaining state owned. Typical are public broadcasters in France, Denmark, Norway, Slovenia (though under threat) as well as New Zealand and Costa Rica.

With a bit more state influence is the “independent state-funded media model,” also rare, with funding mostly from the state, little state influence in decision making and reasonably complete editorial independence. The authors identified this model in several public broadcasters from Estonia and the Netherlands to Australia, Canada and Jamaica. University broadcasters in Central America have adopted this model.

Strong rules guaranteeing editorial independence allows another form: the “independent state-funded and state managed model.” Sometimes they exist because “authorities take a more progressive approach to media and understand the benefits of editorial independence.” Included here are “most regional broadcasters in Spain, public broadcasters in Belgium, Latvia, Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel and Moldova.

Where editorial and operation independence disappears is the “captured public/state-managed media model.” It is one small step away from total state control. Among statutory public broadcasters with this working model are those in Italy, Greece, Serbia, Croatia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Japan. State publishers in Africa and the Middle East are included.

Close to this model, favored by authoritarian rulers, is the “captured private media.” This allows a degree of rhetorical distance from purely state-controlled by vesting “ownership” in surrogates while entitling all editorial and operational control to politically engaged individuals. It is commonly referred to as the Hungarian Model, also seen in Poland and Turkey. It is the “most difficult to document as editorial control is achieved over lengthy periods of systematic pressures and via numerous intermediaries.” They almost always benefit from state advertising expenditures. This model is also seen in Egypt and “countries with a tradition of state interventionism in the media.”

The paper concludes with a call to “renew efforts aimed at rebuilding public service media into resilient organizations able to protect themselves from government pressures.” And there is also a warning: “the imbalance between a small group of developed countries whose audiences have access to a rich, fact-based news and information diet and high-quality content, and a vast array of nations whose people are fed with propagandistic information is going to irremediably amplify.”

See also...

• Hot Topics - Public Broadcasting