Comparing the State Intervention of the Media System between China and India - Report Example

Comparing the Intervention of the Media System between China and India Comparing the Intervention of the Media System between China and India Introduction The media plays a major role in the society today. It is tasked with other tasks apart from dissemination of information to the large society. This will entail checking government systems, to ensure that it reports corruption activities. To ensure the government is accountable for its citizens by evaluating whether the government has achieved its promises. The media is also an important tool for advocating for the rights of oppressed and marginalized individuals in the society. It gives such a people a probable platform to air their views and grievances. Hence, considering these important roles the media have towards the society, it is significant that there is freedom of the media. Governments’ control over the media threatens this freedom of the media in conducting its activities. However, sometimes it is justifiable for the government to have control of the media. Despite the fact that the media is like a ‘watchdog’ for the society on government activities it may also negatively be used to propagate violence. Selfish individuals may use the media to spread false propaganda against others and the government. It may threaten the peace of the nation. However, these restrictions can “go overboard” in that the government can manipulate the system to propagate a dictatorial rule and intimidate its opponents. For this paper, analysis on the media will be compared between the following two countries, China and India using Hallin and Mancinis comparison of media system in the State intervention. Hallin and Mancinis model of state intervention emphasize on the power of the political system in defining the way activities of the media should be conducted. However, different countries have different mechanisms and degree of control over the media (Hallin & Mancini, 2004). Media Control in China The media fraternity in China has undergone an unprecedented transformation since the end of the last century. The Party state is continuing to exert tight control over the media by incorporating new control mechanisms in line with the technological advancements. The market forces are also creating a strong influence on the activities of the media. The merging together of state and market power has led to the development of a media which serves the welfare of the wealthy and political elite class. It simultaneously marginalizes the voiceless and marginalized individuals (Zhao, 2012). New media control mechanisms in China Despite the current realization of social and economic liberalization, and the diminishing centralized control by capital power, the Party state still has a huge stake in the running of the Chinese media. Its control agenda has shifted from a utopian approach of promoting its citizens knowledge to a pragmatic approach of advocating for its legitimacy. The Party’s state traditional control mechanisms that involved retroactive and proactive methods still exist. The control mechanisms used by the regime include (Zhao, 2004): (1) journalists being imprisoned. (2) Closing and forcing the restructuring of activities of the media houses. (3) The imposition of an official line or dictating the news to be reported. (4) Editorial censorship. (5) Using a specified group of Party elders to monitor the media constantly. (6) The Party taking the mandate of appointing key leaders of the media houses across the country. (7) The transfer of ad hoc rules that regulate the operations of the media or “propaganda disciplines” (xuanchuan jilu) from generation to generation. An example is the 1953 rule that outlaw any criticisms to Party committees from party organs affiliated to the committees. This rule still applies which ensures that the media is subject to the Party committees. On the other hand, the modernization of control mechanisms of the media by the Chinese state involves subjecting the media to a process of formalization, secularization and regularization. These processes entail the creating of regulatory regimes, new institutions and setting up modern media management practices. These practices include: (1) The creation of public management and state media organizations. Their role entails overall planning, licensing, and maintenance of discipline, and regulation of the media. (2) Promulgating rules and regulations of governing the media as a means of regulating and institutionalizing media control. In abstract, the constitution of China grants all of its citizens the freedom of speech. Conversely, Party and state agencies disseminate, circular with laws, rules and regulations that impinge on this right to speech. (3) Use of the passive censorship whereby the state limits the ideas that it deems inappropriately from reaching the populace. Traditionally the Party used to criticize these deviant ideas publicly but they ended up achieving the opposite. The authorities now stop the spread of the deviant messages quietly with arousing public knowledge. It is obvious in the course of asserting control over something, there is always the tendency of revolting against such control. During the 1980s, the unruly media fraternity at that time encompassing of liberal minded journalists were significant in the rise of the 1989 student movement. As the Party experienced internal wrangles over power, its control over the media toppled down. The media utilized this opportunity to cover the demonstrations and advocating for the student movement. The proliferation of commercial printing facilities and development of new technologies that could ensure cheap production and distribution of audio and visual messages was also a blow to the Party’s control over the media. Media Control in India The citizens of India have a vast choice of media facilities (70,000 plus newspapers and 500 plus satellite channels in different languages). India is considered to the largest newspaper seller in the world averagely selling more than 100 million copies per day. The revenues from advertisements have soared. In the last two decades there was only one channel (the Doordashan) but now this number has risen up to 500 channels, and 80 of them are news channels. However, many critics believe that this massive growth of the media industry is at the cost of probity, accuracy and journalistic ethics. Some critics have accused the media of becoming shallow, erroneous and damagingly obtrusive (Biswas, 2012). The media in India may be arguably significant in shaping the democracy of the country. However, India government has developed restrictions throughout history that serve to prevent the freedom of the media. These restrictions are especially evident during the emergency period. Before the emergence of satellite television, the Indian government maintained a monopoly and centralized control over the media. Doordarshan was the only television that reached majority of the population and it was used to propagate the agenda of the state (Asthana, 2013). The Indian government regulates the media through various policies such as the requirements of media companies to acquire licenses for operation. It also plays the role of appointing top leaders of media companies to ensure that it influences the activities of the media. It pays and offers incentives to media houses to spread positive messages about the State. It ensures that its citizens do not get the negative information regarding government activities. During the Emergency era, the State used censorship mechanisms that harassed the journalists and their families. The press was muzzled down with some media houses being shut down. Political opponents during the emergency were imprisoned, all media personalities forced to conform to the censorship policies. All the news and media messages were supposed to be submitted to censorship for scrutiny before being allowed to reach the public. The government has threatened to impose total censorship on use of the online chatting sites such as Facebook and Twitter. It is devising mechanisms that could block content from these social sites and various blogs in specific states, in the country. These measures are set up to avoid the unfavorable coverage by the media. The growing television industry in India promises a wide dissemination of information. However, the state of India still has developed mechanisms to ensure its control over the media through issuing of licenses and regulatory methods that infringe upon the freedom of the press (Thomas, 2004). One example is the policy developed by the Ministry of information and Broadcasting for down-linking and up-linking television channels in India that include provisions for content control. Hence, these provisions mean that messages broadcasted are the only state friendly. It somehow infringes on the constitutional right of freedom of speech. Another general state control over the media is commercialization of broadcasting through the existing State monopoly measures. The revenues accrued from the broadcasting activities are phenomenal. Conclusion The State control over the media in China and India from the above discussion seems to be related. Both the States have ensured they have substantial control over the media despite the revolution taking place in the media as a result of development in new technologies. Censorship strategies seem to be a similar tactic the States use to assert their control over the media. Instances of intimidation and imprisonment of journalists and other vocalists against the state is both common in China and India. Commercialization of the media system is also utilized by both States. Both use regulatory policies to control the media such as licensing and appointment of top leaders of the media houses. However, there are some typical differences between the control mechanisms used by India and China. In China, the Party state is the main controller of media messages and has almost all control of the media at different levels. Also, in China the Party state has mostly collaborated with the market forces to ensure its control of the media. On the other hand, India it is the state that regulates the media. India has developed more stringent internet censorship policies than China. In India, there is much use of nepotism and corruption to influence the media activities. In conclusion, the media freedom is a catalyst to the development of a democratic society. Different countries have dissimilar ways of controlling the media. Most countries justify their control over the media as an act of providing security and relative peace for its citizens. However, these restrictions need not be only protecting the interests of the rich and political elite in the society but also consider the poor and marginalized people. References Asthana, S. (2013). Broadcasting, space and sovereignty in India. Media, Culture & Society, 35 (4), 516-534. Biswas, S. (2012, January 12). Why are Indias media under fire? Retrieved April 2014, from BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16524711 Hallin, D. & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. New York.: Cambridge University Press. Thomas, N.P. (2004). Media Ownership and Communication Rights in India. In Z. Nain & N.P. Thomas (Eds.), Who Owns the media? Global trends and local resistances. (pp. 213-226). Southbound in association with WACC and Zed Press. Zhao, Y. (2004). The State, the market and Media Control in China. In Z. Nain. & N.P. Thomas (Eds.), Who owns the media?: Global trends and local resistances. (pp. 179-212). Southbound in association with WACC and Zed Press. Zhao, Y. (2012). Understanding Chinas media system in a world historical context. In P. Mancini & D. Hallin (Eds.), Comparing Media Systems beyond the Western World. (pp. 143-173). New York: Cambridge University Press. Read More