A blog for POLS 209, Dictatorships and Revolutions, at Victoria University of Wellington. A place for students to talk and think about political pathologies all over the world. This is our other blog - see also here
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Continued decline in freedom of the press?
Freedom House had a press release on the continued decline in global press with three countries slipping from being "free" to "partly free" as a result. Read the article here: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=70&release=811
With Silvio Berlusconi's monopolisation (he holds major shares in nearly half the Italian media market) of national media it is hard to ignore the recent decline in the freedom of Italian press.
I think I remember someone from the defense team in the Chavez trial early in the term criticizing Freedom House's ratings because they classified Italy as "free" - I suppose not anymore...
its scary to think that one third of the countries considered and labelled as 'not free'. But if its all they have ever known,will individuals of that society think is it really that bad?
I've often wondered the same thing- if for generations a country has managed, in some cases thrived, under an autocratic or "partly free" (etc) regime, are the people really concerned about seeking further freedoms? Or do people revolt because a new, "not free" regime is not serving them as well as a prior democratic regime? How did the idea of democracy spread so easily and quickly through the West? So many questions!
The comparison of Italy to Venezuela during the Chavez trial is the reason this press release really caught my eye. I think its a good thing that Freedom House is willing to downgrade such a traditionally European (and therefore Western)country to the status of "partly free" when it is warranted.
In an introductory note to its 2009 Press Freedom survey, Freedom House makes an interesting comment. After seven consecutive years of decline in ‘global media freedom’ Freedom House refers in passing to the future of free media in ‘an economic climate that is certain to further restrain media sustainability and diversity.’ This raises an interesting point, albeit unintentionally.
The recession is taking its toll on the media. As companies adjust to plummeting profit margins by slashing advertising budgets, this has the logical flow-on effect of losses in advertising revenue for the private media. This is the restraint to media sustainability Freedom House refers to. The statement raises another, more interesting point. If the ‘global free media’ is entirely dependent on private enterprise for survival, and their interests are mutual as a result, how can we expect them to have any measure of freedom? Sure CNN can freely criticize the actions of its government, making it ‘free’ by Freedom House standards, but can it freely criticize the actions of Shell Oil if it depends on Shell for advertising revenue? Can corporate newsmedia offer its consumers fair and balanced reporting on the global economic crisis, when corporate newsmedia wholly depends on the economic system that produced the crisis for survival?
Global corporate media freedom is a myth created by elite interests to limit discourse and control opinion. Freedom House receives the majority of its funding from the United States government and the remainder from far-right think-tanks like the Bradley Foundation. To believe that it is a fair and objective authority on free speech and democracy is utterly irrational.
Sam O, there's a difference between being dependent on private enterprise in general, and depending on one or two private companies in particular. CNN can criticize Shell Oil easily because it does not depend on Shell Oil for all its revenue, it depends on lots of different companies; and even if it did other media companies would not (Shell Oil does not have that large an advertising budget relative t the advertising budget of all companies!). To be sure, that still raises some issues - there is still some dependence on private enterprise - but it is not apparent that it could be otherwise; the media either depends on its readers (in which case it is beholden to their prejudices), or it depends on private enterprise, or it depends on governments, or on a mixture of these. There is no special "myth" here; simply a structural dependence of some parts of the media on other parts of society, and it need not limit public opinion much by itself. (There is a big difference between People's Daily and the media offerings in New Zealand)
Moreover, press freedom also includes the possibility of cooperative and other outlets (like blogs) that are sharply restricted in many countries. This does not mean the system is perfect or anything, but it may be too quick to denounce "the corporate media" as creating a myth since the corporate media is only one part of a free media ecosystem.
As for freedom house, it is not clear that receiving money from the US inevitably taints their ratings; their scores correlate well (though not perfectly) with the efforts of independent scholars in various universities (e.g., the Polity project, Alvarez, Cheibub, Przeworski and Limongi, and other people). Freedom House's scores are popular in part because they are quickly updated and easily accessible. If there still is a problem it is with concepts of democracy, not so much with individual ratings - which is perfectly possible, by the way.
Interesting that Italy has been placed in the "partly free" category...
ReplyDeleteWith Silvio Berlusconi's monopolisation (he holds major shares in nearly half the Italian media market) of national media it is hard to ignore the recent decline in the freedom of Italian press.
ReplyDeleteI think I remember someone from the defense team in the Chavez trial early in the term criticizing Freedom House's ratings because they classified Italy as "free" - I suppose not anymore...
ReplyDeleteits scary to think that one third of the countries considered and labelled as 'not free'.
ReplyDeleteBut if its all they have ever known,will individuals of that society think is it really that bad?
I've often wondered the same thing- if for generations a country has managed, in some cases thrived, under an autocratic or "partly free" (etc) regime, are the people really concerned about seeking further freedoms? Or do people revolt because a new, "not free" regime is not serving them as well as a prior democratic regime? How did the idea of democracy spread so easily and quickly through the West? So many questions!
ReplyDeleteThe comparison of Italy to Venezuela during the Chavez trial is the reason this press release really caught my eye. I think its a good thing that Freedom House is willing to downgrade such a traditionally European (and therefore Western)country to the status of "partly free" when it is warranted.
ReplyDeleteIn an introductory note to its 2009 Press Freedom survey, Freedom House makes an interesting comment. After seven consecutive years of decline in ‘global media freedom’ Freedom House refers in passing to the future of free media in ‘an economic climate that is certain to further restrain media sustainability and diversity.’ This raises an interesting point, albeit unintentionally.
ReplyDeleteThe recession is taking its toll on the media. As companies adjust to plummeting profit margins by slashing advertising budgets, this has the logical flow-on effect of losses in advertising revenue for the private media. This is the restraint to media sustainability Freedom House refers to. The statement raises another, more interesting point. If the ‘global free media’ is entirely dependent on private enterprise for survival, and their interests are mutual as a result, how can we expect them to have any measure of freedom? Sure CNN can freely criticize the actions of its government, making it ‘free’ by Freedom House standards, but can it freely criticize the actions of Shell Oil if it depends on Shell for advertising revenue? Can corporate newsmedia offer its consumers fair and balanced reporting on the global economic crisis, when corporate newsmedia wholly depends on the economic system that produced the crisis for survival?
Global corporate media freedom is a myth created by elite interests to limit discourse and control opinion. Freedom House receives the majority of its funding from the United States government and the remainder from far-right think-tanks like the Bradley Foundation. To believe that it is a fair and objective authority on free speech and democracy is utterly irrational.
Sam O, there's a difference between being dependent on private enterprise in general, and depending on one or two private companies in particular. CNN can criticize Shell Oil easily because it does not depend on Shell Oil for all its revenue, it depends on lots of different companies; and even if it did other media companies would not (Shell Oil does not have that large an advertising budget relative t the advertising budget of all companies!). To be sure, that still raises some issues - there is still some dependence on private enterprise - but it is not apparent that it could be otherwise; the media either depends on its readers (in which case it is beholden to their prejudices), or it depends on private enterprise, or it depends on governments, or on a mixture of these. There is no special "myth" here; simply a structural dependence of some parts of the media on other parts of society, and it need not limit public opinion much by itself. (There is a big difference between People's Daily and the media offerings in New Zealand)
ReplyDeleteMoreover, press freedom also includes the possibility of cooperative and other outlets (like blogs) that are sharply restricted in many countries. This does not mean the system is perfect or anything, but it may be too quick to denounce "the corporate media" as creating a myth since the corporate media is only one part of a free media ecosystem.
As for freedom house, it is not clear that receiving money from the US inevitably taints their ratings; their scores correlate well (though not perfectly) with the efforts of independent scholars in various universities (e.g., the Polity project, Alvarez, Cheibub, Przeworski and Limongi, and other people). Freedom House's scores are popular in part because they are quickly updated and easily accessible. If there still is a problem it is with concepts of democracy, not so much with individual ratings - which is perfectly possible, by the way.