The issue of regulating internet and television content is highly significant, given the exponential growth in the use of this medium for commercial and informational purposes across the globe. When the internet was thrown open for commercial use during the mid 1990s, most of its content originated from theUnited States of America, making English the dominant language in the Internet. This phenomenon was a reflection of the fact that the content was directed at a universal audience located across geo-political borders. But, gradually, the complexion of the Internet undertook a process of change, making its content more relevant to local political and cultural conditions. This implies that the Information and Communication Technology industry is increasing its penetration and presence in theThird World. The flip side of this localization is that the Internet is no longer the vehicle of free-speech and expression that it once was. The academic community is divided in its perception of these developments. For example, while researchers like Jack Goldsmith and Timothy Wu argue in their book ‘Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World’ that this transformation of the cyberspace is for the better, while scholars like Milton Mueller disagree with this view. Both sides have strong and weak points in support of their positions. The rest of this essay will evaluate the merit of these arguments in an attempt to ascertain the level of censorship in developing nations.
The case of Chinese government’s control over Internet content in the country is a particularly blatant example of the notion that national borders have survived in the virtual world. The Information and Communication Technology, which aided the Chinese government to impose political order in the cyber world, has also facilitated political dissent. For instance, it is through the same medium of communication that exiled Tibetans have organized their protests and demonstrations against the authoritarianism of the Communist Party inChina(Frisby, 2002). In the lead up to the Olympic Games inBeijingearlier this year, the Chinese authorities had a tough time dealing with the Tibetan protesters. The power of new digital technology to facilitate legitimate political dissent is something that needs to be preserved and encouraged. Irrespective of the fact thatTibethad traditionally been a feudal society ridden with oppression and brutality, neutral political commentators across the world agree that the Tibetan fight for liberation fromChinais not unreasonable. If a small group of exiled Tibetans can make such valid political statements, the inclusion of Tibetans still residing in the plateau in this process might have led to substantial political changes. Hence, theChinaexample illustrates that total censorship of Internet is not practically feasible, making it possible for citizens to participate in democratic forums and communities in the Internet (Frisby, 2002).
The fact that issues of national sovereignty play out in the highly commercialized space of the Internet adds new complexities to censorship. In other words, while large Internet portals such as Yahoo and Google might have submitted to the impositions laid by national governments, their profits have shot up as a result of the new opportunities for advertisement it has opened up. Using the same technology that filters out unlawful content from geo-political entities, the websites can display advertisements targeted more relevant and more localized to the users. In essence, companies such as Yahoo and Google don’t care an iota about freedom of speech and democracy, as long as their revenues remain impressive. Such profiteering attitude is ethically very shallow and does not project the concept of a free Internet in good light. Governments that are intent on censorship of the Internet are faced with this dilemma, for increased censorship mitigates commercial opportunity. This conundrum is as true in the more advanced nations as it is in developing countries (Potter, 2006).
Moving on to the domain of Television, the censorship from the powers that be does not manifest in the blatant form that is seen in the Internet. In contrast, the Television content in developing nations tends to go through ideological filters that are put in place. Ideology as a sociological term has been interpreted in many different ways. But the following is an approximate definition of the term: Any system of beliefs, values and habits that are based on a particular political or religious school of thought. Media in general and Television in particular has always been used to propagate ideologies. Although the word “ideology” has come to carry negative connotations, the propagated ideas need not necessarily be detrimental to the well-being of the audience. A very good example of this positive use of ideology is the British government run propaganda machinery during the First World War. As the strength of the British army grew weak in confronting an imposing German hostility, the military administration had to resort to Conscription as a means of restoring its strength. But a glimpse at the history of media in developing countries in the backdrop of authoritarian governments and consumerist culture will show that the positive application of ideological propaganda is an exception than the rule.
Almost every known media type is susceptible to ideological and doctrinal undercurrents, whether as a result of design or accident. The Television as a medium of communication and entertainment allows sophisticated application of ideological persuasion. It has to be remembered that television is a product of the twentieth century. The centuries prior to its invention were not devoid of prevalent doctrines or their imposition on the masses, but the imposition of the desired set of beliefs and habits were achieved through brute force. These centuries saw colonialism at its peak; and where there is imperialism violence follows. Most developing countries today were once colonies of imperialist powers. Empires might have given way to independent republics in theThird Worldafter the Second World War. But post-colonial societies are still trapped in anachronistic patterns of governance, whereby the foreign European elite is replaced by local ruling class. While the players and the medium have changed, the rules of the game have remained the same. Censorship, control and ideological propaganda in the medium of Television should be seen in light of this historical background (Goldsmith & Wu, 2005).
While the general population of most developing countries seem to take a centrist stand in their political beliefs, this is not always reflected in the Television programmes being broadcast there. The most prominent case is the right wing dominance of powerful media houses in the Middle-Eastern countries such asIranandSaudi Arabia. As a result their conservative political ideology gets portrayed in the television programs they produce. Further east inIndia, government censorship is relatively mild; making the country a vibrant democracy, but its neighbourChinastill continues to hold a poor human rights record. Discussion of issues internal to the state and of a subversive nature are strictly monitored and prohibited. The situation in the South East Asian bloc is also not very promising. In most of these developing nations, the conservative owners of leading media houses want to “preach” their viewers what is good conduct and what is not. The way they do it is by “showing” in television what acceptable conduct is. While the moral merits of their beliefs are debatable, their role as the moral custodians of society is highly objectionable. The worrying aspect of this subtle coercion of values into the citizenry, which is a striking feature of television programming in developing nations, is that the viewers are not even aware of it, which makes them vulnerable to ideological indoctrination (Mueller, 2002).
Another recurrent theme of the mass media in developing counties is the editorial slant adopted by news channels. Only a few news stories get picked for publication/broadcast among numerous other pieces competing for the same space/time. The journalists in charge of deciding the news content are subject to personal biases, external coercions (both implicit and explicit) and other constraints that influence their decision making. All these factors serve as a sophisticated censoring mechanism that acts in favour of the powerful and the privileged sections of the society. For these reasons, there are only a minority of journalists who adhere to standards of objectivity and professional integrity, while the rest succumb to various pressures consciously or otherwise. Broadcast media units like the Al Jazeera are exception rather than the rule. This general decline in journalistic ethos is seen across geo-political entities and cultures, making it a cause of concern for all (Keum, et. al., 2003).
The primary roles of Journalism (be it in Internet or Television medium) is to inform and educate the general public about domestic and international political developments. Apart from this prime role, the news media is also expected to serve as a dissenting voice against excesses of power. In other words, in an ideal world the press would act as faithful servants to the general public, earnestly endeavouring to inform and educate them. But the state of media in contemporary developing societies is far from ideal, which is reflected in the news product (TV news programme or internet content) as well as the processes involved in making the product (including editorial policy, government censorship, advertiser pressure, etc). Instead of the media framework being set by democratic mechanisms from the bottom-up, we actually have a system that is directed by corporate interests that actually undermines constructive democratic mechanisms. It is no surprise then that the general public is increasingly growing sceptical of the motives that decide editorial frameworks. Hence, its content is selected and composed to represent the interests and ideologies of a small ruling elite, thereby making the large majority of its consumers helpless and powerless spectators (Craig, 1996).
As was pointed out earlier howAsiaandMiddle Eastare regions under heavy censorship, including blocking websites if not total Internet access. Such websites as those dealing with rights, freedom of expression, social networking and even popular entertainment sites like YouTube have been blocked in these oppressive regions. But, resolute and determined citizens manage to find innovative ways of democratic organization. InZimbabwe, for example, the Robert Mugabe regime has attracted severe criticism due to its high handed authoritarianism. Yet, reports indicate that mobile phones, a key product of the ICT industry, have helped people to evade other censored communication mediums. Even in such oppressive nations asSaudi Arabia, the opportunity offered by web-logging is constructively utilized for democratic discussion and for collective dissent against the Saud Royal family’s atrocities (Chang, 2003). While censorship is more prevalent in developing nations, advanced societies too have not remained free of it. A recent example isFrance, where the government had attempted to limit unfettered political discussions in internet forums, instigating protest from internet rights activists. Moreover, the dynamic nature of the ICT makes it difficult for authoritarian regimes to impose their will on its consumers. This is evident from numerous examples from the recent past. This augurs well for the citizens of the Internet, as they continue their efforts to promote democracy and human rights across the world. This is probably a reflection of the fact that the media’s role as an ideological vehicle is coming to its last days. People have more control over the content and are in a better position to demand what they want. Survey after survey had reflected the public opinion in favour of their empowerment. It seems the time for its actual manifestation has arrived at last. While this will diminish media’s role as collaborators with an ideologue, it will help democratic governance and overall public contentment (Chang, 2003).
In the future, developing countries need to adopt a universal liberal standard of communication for television and Internet, which will bring together peoples across the globe and help create awareness and understanding of other cultures and values without any censorship. Any counter measure that keeps people isolated and censored for reasons of political stability will undermine relations between nation-states and induce suspicion and tension in the already fragile world polity. After all, the drafting of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a valid proof of the fact that in essence, people across the world share the same values and aspirations. Enforcing censorship in the digital world would only discredit this principle.
References:
Jack Goldsmith & Timothy Wu, Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World., 2005
Frisby, Cynthia M. “Reaching the male consumer by way of daytime TV soap operas.” Journal of Advertising Research. 42.2 (March 2002): 56(9).
“History in the Media.(Brief Article).” History Today. 51.5 (May 2001): 10
Orwell, George, “Nineteen Eighty Four”, Published by Secker and Warburg (London), 1949, 326 pages, ISBN 978-0-141-18776-1
Potter, Robert F., Michael S. LaTour, Kathryn A,. Braun-LaTour, and Tom Reichert. “The impact of program context on motivational system activation and subsequent effects on processing a fear appeal.”, Journal of Advertising. 35.3 (Fall 2006): 67(14)
Milton Mueller, (2002), The New Cyber-Conservatism: Goldsmith/Wu and the Premature Triumphalism of the Territorial Nation-State.
Chang, H. (2003). The Effect of News Teasers in Processing TV News. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(3), 327+.
M. P., Keum, Cho, J., Boyle, H., Shevy, M. D., Mcleod, D. M., Shah, D. V., et al. (2003). Media, Terrorism, and Emotionality: Emotional Differences in Media Content and Public Reactions to the September 11th Terrorist Attacks. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(3), 309+.
Craig, D. A. (1996). Communitarian Journalism(S): Clearing Conceptual Landscapes. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 11(2), 107-118.