Global Journalist

Media Freedom Fading Away?

By John Merrill Posted Thu, Dec 13 2007

Home / Recent Stories / Media Freedom Fading Away?

Any serious discussion of global media ultimately revolves around “responsibility” and “freedom.” Various societies, mainly those stemming from the 18th century European Enlightenment, believed that a free and independent press was important and essential to proper journalism. Developed western countries of Europe and North America have tried to spread this libertarian gospel of press freedom with missionary zeal to the rest of the world. Not buying this gospel are many countries in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America, where tribalism and paternalism is deeply rooted and individualism is inchoate.

Each issue of Global Journalist records the problems faced by journalists within authoritarian systems. Other western monitors of press freedom include Freedom House of New York City, the World Press Freedom Committee, Inter American Press Association, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Society of Professional Journalists and the American Society of Newspaper Editors. They all present grim pictures of governments that continue to threaten, punish and even kill those journalists considered harmful to society.

Subtle Freedom Loss

Beyond blatant cases of government authoritarianism, there are subtle signs of freedom loss. A 1963 political-press theory reflecting “progressive” thinking in the Western world was the popular “four theories” concept by Fredrick S. Siebert, Theodore Peterson and Wilbur Schramm, and they added a “social responsibility” theory to the authoritarian, Marxist and libertarian concepts. Although this model has been criticized widely for western bias, it is still around and has been very influential.

“Social responsibility” added fuel to the growing criticism of Enlightenment liberalism, and it questioned the social value of freedom. The emphasis transitioned from the press' freedom to the press' responsibility. This was a theoretical door-opener for the anti-Enlightenment thinkers to peddle their freedom-limiting ideas. Vague to be sure, but this new social responsibility theory would help the media reach a higher moral plane, make them more democratic, and provide more equitable news coverage.

This responsibility theory quite likely had its genesis with the 1947 report of the Commission on Freedom of the Press, chaired by Robert Hutchins. Although the report drew much post-World War II media criticism for its implicit danger to a free press, it soon became the mantra of American press critics who saw irresponsibility everywhere in journalism. The Hutchins Commission went a long way in equating freedom with lack of responsibility. A popular saying became that freedom is simply untrustworthy to bring about responsible journalism. So, for the Hutchins Commission, social responsibility became the key concern. The 1963 “Four Theories” book legitimized and threw this new emphasis on social responsibility into the academic world. Spin-off theories have been suggested, and many of the newer models -like communitarianism and public journalism – have further emphasized audience participation and democratization in the media. All can be seen as attempts to move away from libertarianism.

The American View of Free Press

American journalists accept press freedom as something guaranteed with the First Amendment. So the meaning is clear? Not quite. A quick look at the First Amendment reveals that Congress will make no laws to abridge freedom of the press. Not a clue as to what “freedom” is. Not a clue as to what limits there might be for freedom. And not a clue as to what the “press” is.

The basic definition is usually this: press freedom is freedom from governmental legal interference. Note that Americans seldom talk about interference by corporate powers, advertisers, civil pressure groups, publishers, editors, etc. The concern is with government and with the press being autonomous-at least independent of government. So when there is global talk of press freedom in the “American-sense,” it seems to be about freedom from government, but really it is about freedom from press laws.

No laws and the press is free? Not by a long shot. As we look at the press globally, we see very quickly that there are many ways to throttle a press system other than legally. Every military regime knows that. Every theocratic regime knows that. Every dictatorial ruler or king knows that.

Authority, Security and Order

Authoritarianism as a media philosophy will not disappear. The natural tendency for global press systems, as is true with governments, is toward authority and order. This, of course, always and everywhere restricts liberties of all kinds.

In the 1960s, the U.S. and some other countries were beginning to stress codes of press ethics, ombudspersons and media criticism. A journalistic “conscience” seemed to be developing-at least in speeches, classrooms and journalism literature. But wait! Authoritarianism was still alive and well. Through the final decades of the 20th century and into the 21st, censorship, press harassment, press laws and the whole gamut of controlling mechanisms have been firmly entrenched in journalism in many countries.

Rationale for Control

New dictatorships existing in Africa, the Middle East and Communist (and left-leaning socialist) regimes continue to direct their press systems. In scattered parts of Asia (e.g. Indonesia and Cambodia), the mass media are mired in deep authoritarianism, and journalists still live dangerous lives.

Countries with little or no press self-determinism have plenty of “justifications” for controlling the media. Here are a few of these as summarized by Dana [BL1]Bullen: The press needs to be responsible; privacy needs to be protected; the press needs to be licensed; national security needs protecting.

We can see that Enlightenment-style rationalism and freedom does not really have a place in authority-based philosophy. Enlightenment libertarian thinkers of the 18th and 19th centuries saw freedom as the capacity to expand individual objectives with little or no restriction or guidance.

Contrary voices were speaking out, however. For the authoritarian, freedom is incompatible with a group, tribe, community or state, and it deserves corrective discipline or coercion. The German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel called for “a higher freedom” that occurs when the person dedicates and sublimates self to the absolute state as an organic part. Plato, of course, was the grandfather of such an idea, and it has been advocated by a series of eminent thinkers like Karl Marx, Henri de Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Johann Gottlieb Fichte. Although these men differed in their attachment to social order, discipline and authority, they are all examples of the anti-Enlightenment thought.

Enlightened Cooperation

In Asia, the family and other “communities” of cooperation are very important, and respect for an authoritative leader is ingrained in their cultures. An example is Singapore, where in the early 1990s, the former prime minister, Lee Kwan Yew, in explaining Singapore's brand of paternalistic authoritarianism, argued that Asian culture stressed “obedience to authority, hard work, family, savings, and education, was critical to the rapid and unprecedented postwar economic growth in Asia.” He stressed that these values justified the absence of western-type democracy in such places as Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia. But, he added, they also have led to “lower rates of crime, drug use, poverty and family breakdown.”

On one hand, individuals don't seem to be able to live peaceably and justly with one another. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be an elite group of Plato's “philosopher kings” or Claude-Adrien Helvetius' “scientific kings” to lead modern societies. Misused freedom therefore clashes with poor authoritative leadership. This situation is seen in the global press as well as in national states. This clash of liberty with social control is an age-old paradox stressed by the French philosopher Rousseau.

Most forms of authoritarianism (in spite of meritocrats like Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew) have authorities that are morally unfit to control. Good people, yes, are often part of the ruling oligarchies of both state and press, but power does seem to corrupt. And as Niccolo Machiavelli reminds us, individual or private ethics are generally replaced by the “public” ethics of expediency. So, what we had in the last century were dominant “social engineering” ideologies of Fascism, Communism, Stalinism, and various brands of socialism, positivism, welfarism and militant theocracy – all insistent on bringing about some kind of Utopia.

Functional Parochialism

Bureaucratic authorities go beyond government and civil servants. A vast authoritarian network spreads through any state and is composed of many groups with various functional goals and their own parochial interests. Increasingly, it seems that these groups have a basic unity of ideology or a common underlying interest.

As these elite groups form power bases and influence the governments, a retreat from individualism to groupism takes place. Francis Fukuyama states that to a large degree, this belief in communities and commonalities in global ethical systems is derived from religion. Fukuyama wrote that it is “religion alone that first suggested that the final community within which its moral rules should apply – the ultimate radius of trust – should be mankind itself.” But unfortunately, Fukuyama suggests that at least in the West, moral authority has been taken away from religion and given to the state with its elaborate bureaucracy, formal law, elections and the like.

Kings (Saudi Arabia), theocrats (Iran), military dictators (Cambodia, Iran and Libya), marauding gangster-tribesmen (Philippines), and ideological Communists (Vietnam, China, North Korea and Cuba) are inflicting their versions of authoritarianism on the press systems of their nations. And in 2007 in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is threatening individualism in Latin America by stepping into the ideological shoes of Cuba's Fidel Castro.

Authority-l is not Authority-2

Authoritarianism as a philosophy probably dates back to Plato, the first great champion of “law and order” and advocate of submission to an oligarchy of “the best.” Plato, much like Hegel centuries later, recognized one standard: the interest of the State. Plato believed that everything that threatens the State is bad, and everything that does not further the interest of the State is wicked and unjust.

State authority, business authority, military authority, community authority, religious authority – these and many others impose their will on the mass media. Today's main press controllers, mainly elitists using state interests as a justification, find the Platonic idea appealing. In spite of Western European ethnocentrism that enthrones freedom, many “press controllers” feel justified. In certain societies, with traditions of tribalism and respect for authority, the press cannot be left to itself; it needs to be contributing to the national objectives. The press needs to be a stabilizing, not a discordant, factor.

Could it be that press freedom is good for some countries and bad for others? Reading contemporary writers-such as Norman Mailer, Gore Vidal, Howard Ziff, Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman and Robert McChesney-reveals oppositions to the traditional American concept of press freedom. We do know that in every country the press system is potent. The press is either potent as a spokesman for the ruling elite or, as in some western countries, it is an important instrument for a certain ideology, pressure group, economic class, race, religion, or some form of “political correctness” that invades the society at the time.

Everywhere around the world, some individuals or groups with special powers and influence use the media for their own purposes. If the owners and directors in the press system are determining the purposes of the media, then the system is said to be “free.” If, on the other hand, the government or some theocratic entity is using the press for its own ends, then the system is said to be “unfree” or controlled This, admittedly, is a western perspective. We can probably all agree that all media systems are authoritarian to some degree, but it is the degree that counts. The Western press, and especially the American press, is empirically the bastion of autonomy and pluralism in spite of limiting factors to its freedom. But it does reflect its society, and societies change politically and socially.

As societies get more fearful and uncertain of their viability, so will their press systems. Individualism will tend to disappear and conformist mass-action will ensue. Free press champions today must be on guard and continue their quest for autonomy. It won't be easy as social stability, and security everywhere is increasingly threatened. But the Brave New World will not come as long as Enlightenment-style libertarianism is not taken for granted, and it remains a potent concept worth fighting for.