Limits on Press Freedom and Regime Support

This 31-page paper intends to examine the power of state propaganda which silences dissent by manipulating the news. It analyses individual-level attitudes and media habits in what it describes as restrictive media environments, such as China, Viet Nam, Iraq, and Russia, and in pluralistic media environments, exemplified by Finland, the Netherlands, and Trinidad and Tobago. It compares the attitudes of consumers of radio and television to those of internet users. It is part of a compendium of workshop papers for a workshop on “The Role of the News Media in the Governance Reform Agenda" co-sponsored by the World Bank Communication for Governance and Accountability Program (CommGAP) and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Boston, United States (US).


From the Synopsis:
"This comparison reveals that, in countries having restrictive media environments, those regularly exposed to television and radio news expressed significantly greater regime support than with the general public: they had more confidence in core regime institutions, were more nationalistic and had significantly more anti-democratic values than their peers. Newspaper readers and Internet users in these societies displayed more diverse patterns. The conclusion interprets these findings, considers some potential criticisms of the survey evidence, and reflects on the broader theoretical implications for assessing media effects within different contexts."


Subsequent to reviewing research results, the document gives its analysis of them. The authors' hypothesis that "in autocracies where the state consistently restricts media freedom and controls broadcasting, regular exposure to the domestic news media would generate more positive orientations towards the regime" was confirmed, according to the document. As stated in further detail, radio and television consumers were most strongly affected by restrictive media messages because this is the sector of the mass media where the state usually exercises the greatest control over the ownership and content. The relationship between restrictive media and nationalism and government support was particularly strong in China, Colombia, Ethiopia, Mexico, Serbia, and Zambia, all societies with limited independent journalism. journalism. In contrast, no equivalent effect was found in economically poorer democracies with more pluralistic media systems, such as Ghana and India. In fact, equivalent results were not found in pluralistic media environments, "where audiences receive both multiple positive and negative messages about the regime, nor to be evident in sectors where the state exercises less direct control over the contents".

The authors raise the question of whether respondents were expressing political correctness, rather than authentic responses. While stating that this cannot be measured, they point to the differences in responses of those who use state-controlled media like radio and television and respondents who use the internet for information. The strong ties of nationalism and government support are not found consistently among internet users in the way they are among the other respondent group. In addition, as stated here, "Moreover, even if we accept the claim that in restricted media environments, respondents are masking their true evaluations of the government, this in itself is important for the social construction of reality and what is perceived as socially acceptable in these countries."


The document concludes that "The evidence presented here tends to support the proposition that state control of the broadcast media and limits on press freedom do achieve their intended effect, by strengthening regime support among the news audience in these societies....What still needs to be determined in further research is what techniques prove most important in this process, in particular whether it is the result of official propaganda disseminating positive images and messages about the leadership and authorities, or alternatively whether it is due to state censorship of independent journalism which restricts alternative viewpoints and perspectives. To do so will require closer examination of the content of the news, and what messages are most persuasive; we suspect that it is some combination of propaganda and censorship that allows autocracies to reinforce their popular support. These findings emphasize the importance of liberalizing the media in societies such as Burma, Zimbabwe and North Korea, strengthening freedom of expression, publication, and information. This not only improves human rights in these states, but also generates conditions most conducive to the transition from autocracy and the consolidation of democratic governance."