Stripped Silent: The Suppression of Media

by redlily

For much of the modern world and since the dawn of printing, radio, and television, media has been a pillar and permanent institution in most, if not, all societies. Fast forward to the 21st century, a game-changing form of media has brought new meaning to communication and has forever changed the way we connect. Social media has become the poster child of today’s information and digital age. Gone are the days when only one group or a select few had access to information and held the privilege of dispensing knowledge, opinion, and news.     

 

Just like economics and government, media is an important pillar of society. All play different key roles and each has its function. Mainstream media would today seem like a strong and indestructible institution of modern civilization. Like a part that makes up a whole, media co-exists with other parts of society such as religion and politics. Disagreements and tensions are natural and are needed to constantly improve and develop. But where do we draw the line between healthy conflict and blatant attack and abuse on the other? What happens when political systems clash with mass media? What happens when a sitting president or unpopular prime minister is constantly criticized by the press? What happens when state leaders and journalists have polarizing opinions? 

 

Journalists are often regarded for their obligation to the truth. And although some may argue biases are unavoidable, nevertheless it is required of journalists and media practitioners to be as objective as can be. Their work is essential to uncover and report the truth so people can make informed decisions on their own. Speaking the truth, especially if it affects other people and larger communities, demands an open and free space to succeed.     

If we subscribe to democracy and the protection of human rights, stifling mainstream media is harmful to a country and its democratic processes. This paper will explore past and present governments and their tumultuous relationship with the press, historical suppression of free speech, and political attacks on the media. 

 

Media Meets Politics

To grasp a deeper understanding of the issue of state subjugation and suppression of media, we must explore how actual countries in the past and today have related to the press. Interestingly, different types of government utilize the media in various ways- to advance political interests (e.g. electoral advertisements), promote legislation, and to educate the public. For countries that have been under authoritarian regimes, the most extreme and devious is monopolizing media and silencing the press.

 

As history has taught us, this was masterfully implemented by the German Nazi party during World War II. Media played an important role in the rise to power of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Once their political party became the dominant organization in all of Germany, Joseph Goebbels, the party’s mouthpiece and head propagandist seized control of all forms of communication in the country including newspapers, books, magazines, radio, television, rallies, and even art and film. All news and public information came from only one source- the propaganda machine of Joseph Goebbels. Opinions that were deemed threatening to Nazi ideology or the Third Reich were either censored or eradicated. With those opposing views out of the way, the concept of reeducation was introduced. Thousands of books were burned and replaced with revisionist material that promoted total obedience to the Fuhrer and his Nazi party, preaching blind loyalty and anti-Semitism.

 

Across the world, media manipulation and persecution pose a real challenge that is not only limited to Europe and is not confined to just one period in history. Even in a democratic setting, the danger of unchecked government control and abuse is still a reality we contend with. 

 

During the martial law years from 1972 to 1986 when the Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, consolidated more power for himself, he saw to it that any form of expression that went against his rule was dealt with employing fear, intimidation and even violence. Marcos made it his mission to silence opposition by shutting down newspapers and television stations, jailing reporters and threatening media practitioners who had dissenting opinions. 

 

Luis V. Teodoro, former dean and journalism professor of the University of the Philippines, shares his first-hand account of those years: 

 

“When Ferdinand Marcos placed the entire country under martial law on September 21, 1972, among the immediate targets of the military for arrest were journalists and other media practitioners who shared one characteristic; all had been critical of the Marcos government. With the arrests, all media organizations were also shut down.” This was just one of the horrors during Ferdinand Marcos’ grip on the country. After the Filipino people ousted the dictator in the 1986 People Power Revolution, Filipinos reclaimed democracy but Philippine media has not found themselves out of the woods yet.

 

Fast forward to today, the country faces a familiar threat. Since the current president assumed power when he was elected in 2016, Rodrigo Duterte has successfully dealt with some of his significant critics. Maria Ressa, a multi-awarded journalist and open critic of the president was charged and convicted of libel. Media giant ABS-CBN, the country’s top network and bastion of news and popular media, was recently denied a franchise renewal to operate on the air. Congress voted to junk their request for a 25-year operating franchise. President Duterte has publicly aired his grievances and dislike of the media conglomerate.

 

According to a report published by the International Federation of Journalists, the Philippines ranks among the worst countries for journalists due to the constant threat of impunity, censorship and a government perceived to be tolerant or even indifferent to the plight of journalists. Under the current Duterte administration, the president has made known his contempt for several media firms and practitioners. He openly calls out those who are vocal and speak out against his administration.

 

Journalists are not simply those who give us the evening news and report current events. They hold significant power with their unique position in information dissemination. As Luis Teodoro aptly explains, “Media practice, after all, involves the exercise of power: the power to arm other men and women with information on matters that bear on their lives, enabling them to form opinions about them and to take action in the furtherance of those views. Journalists, because they deal in information, can help populations make sense of what is happening, and no matter how indirectly, can be instrumental in mass decision-making. Journalists are potential lead actors in the democratization process, social change, and even revolutions. While it is not journalists who usually overthrow governments, they can arm the consciousness of those who do — the citizens who, having understood their society’s as well as their state from various sources of information including, and, in many cases today, primarily the mass media, storm prisons, and palaces.” 

 

“The arrest of journalists still occurs with alarming frequency today, though, so far, only in other countries. In those countries’ journalists have been so targeted for such “reasons” as insulting heads of state, an offense we call libel in the Philippines, as well as other even more basic reasons most people would have no problem second-guessing.”

The intimidation and even brazen killing of journalists have always been a thorn in the country’s history. Even today, scores of broadcasters, writers, and activists continue to be slowly added to the list of people who use their voice to call out injustice and ultimately pay for it with their lives.

 

Another country notorious for its treatment of journalists is Turkey. Critics of Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan claimed that his crackdown of media is part of his bid to consolidate his hold on power. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, the country is the biggest jailer of journalists in the world. Freedom of expression is constantly under fire. Members of the press and academe who voice out their unfavorable opinion of the government are harassed and threatened. The failed coup in 2016 led to the shutdown of at least 180 media outlets when a state of emergency was declared in the country. According to Amnesty International, “The severity of the Turkish government’s repression of the media is such that it has been described by some as the ‘death of journalism’.” (“Turkey: Journalism Is Not a Crime.”)

 

In extreme situations, where it becomes unsafe for a journalist to practice his/her occupation in a country. They are often given no choice but to leave their home countries because speaking out could mean a matter of life and death. For seasoned journalist and columnist Ece Temelkuran, it came to a point where it was no longer safe for her to practice her occupation in her homeland.  

 

If that was not enough, a new wave of recent attacks on press freedom is plaguing the country. Reporter Dorian Jones in her October 2019 article writes “According to media watchdogs, as much as 90% of mainstream media is pro-government-owned, while state regulations impose strict controls on reporting. With the government's tightening grip on the mainstream media, the number of TV and radio internet news sources grew exponentially. Many well-known traditional journalists, who had been fired for critical reporting, now work on the internet.”

 

Traditional media such as the printed press has undeniably had its share of oppression in Turkey. Recent attempts at government regulation of the internet are perceived as another blatant attack on freedom of expression. “Turkish authorities have blocked over 245,000 websites, according to the Istanbul Freedom of Expression association, making Turkey one of the world's most restrictive countries for the internet. Twitter and YouTube have been temporarily blocked, while Wikipedia has been banned since 2017”, Jones explains.  

 

Another tool for silencing government opposition is censorship. In communist countries, media is heavily regulated by the state. Blocking access to certain websites, preventing publication of certain columnists or agencies, and blocking airtime of certain networks are all examples of censorship. It is selectively feeding the public with filtered news and ideas, usually pro-government in nature.     

 

In the western world, US President Donald Trump and his relationship to the press is also a constant subject of debate. He has earned the ire of many Americans because of his pattern of turning a blind eye and even outright dismissal of scientific evidence and facts. Instead of working with media to make the truth available to the American people, the US president’s recent behavior is one of hostility towards anything that attacks or criticizes his administration. Especially in light of the country’s national response to the global pandemic, it seems inconvenient questions from the press only irritate him and he allows his emotion to cloud his judgment.

 

Media as Democratic Space

Media plays such an important role in all our lives. It helps shapes our ideas, perspective, attitudes, and beliefs. Especially today where social media has given individuals a unique platform. Sharing information and expressing oneself is no longer limited to big media corporations and professional journalists. Anyone can have a voice now and is entitled to their opinion. I imagine attempts to try to silence online expression will end up futile or at least have a lot of resistance, especially in the free world. 

 

Social media has empowered us and yet conflict and disagreement cannot be avoided online. Taking the good along with the bad is a necessary trade-off in a democracy. Social media is, after all, another democratic space, an avenue where people can voice out freely. It is important to note that with our ‘online voice’, comes a responsibility that all of us who engage in must adhere to. Free speech helps foster critical thinking in citizens and allow them to make educated and informed decisions. Democracy requires citizens who can think for themselves, think critically, and contribute to the national narrative. 

 

If we value our freedom at all, then it is only right that a free press and media body be allowed to flourish, independent from any form of political power tripping and agenda. Different views are needed to optimize critical thinking and analytic discussions. If only one point of view is adopted and accepted, then we would have to fail to use our human faculties. There is a real danger in being closed-minded and refusing to listen to any other view apart from one’s own. We run the risk of becoming callous in our thinking that it hinders our individual growth and progress.

 

The powerplay of politics and media is often a turbulent one. When media is highly politicized, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain autonomy. When media only serves a patron or favors a certain individual or group, it begs the question: How reliable and credible are our sources of information? A free-thinking and independent media body is needed, absent of any external influence or coercion. Furthermore, it is not merely the media’s job but our duty as children of democracy to be vigilant and wary. When we witness human rights being trampled on, we must speak out against these injustices otherwise the oppressor will believe it is justified because no one is resisting him. 

 

When government leaders have the power to silence dissent and effectively demoralize its critics by employing fear and intimidation, then the very foundation of democracy is threatened. It sends a message to ordinary citizens that if you disagree with the government or whoever sits in power, then you are an enemy. 

 

Silencing the press and blocking dissenting opinions will contribute to the breakdown of society. If history has not taught us enough, oppressive treatment and preventing honest and free speech is detrimental to society. If a country considers itself a democracy, then open dialogue should be a top priority. If people are not allowed to think for themselves, they become more prone to manipulation and abuse by those in power. More often than not, media suppression is one of the main tools used in authoritarian regimes. And in the free world, totalitarianism is a clear threat to democracy. Press freedom must be protected because the media serves as an institution that keeps people, especially leaders, in check and helps hold people in the position of power and influence accountable. 

 

Removing critical voices and stifling contradictory views welcomes and perpetuates the abuse of power. Persons in positions of power, wealth, and influence will be left with no one to check their behavior and call out wrongdoing. If we were sheep, then there would be no need to spend time on this argument. But we are not. Human beings have minds and wills that need to be utilized. Blind loyalty and obedience set us up for manipulation and exploitation.  

What happens when we blindly accept everything that is fed to us? What happens when we tolerate abuse of authority? When we submit ourselves to authority without thought and question? When we fail to speak out against social injustices? 

 

If you subscribe to the beliefs of life, liberty, and democracy then freedom of expression makes up an essential part of that. Silencing dissent not only strips us of our freedoms but threatens the very foundation of human rights. A society that seeks to thrive and progress should be open to opposing views, respect all voices, and strive to protect the rights given to every citizen of the state. 

 

Failure to exercise our rights and condoning oppressive treatment of the media effectively diminishes our ability to think for ourselves and further perpetuates a cycle of abuse and excessive control. I cannot stress enough how important maintaining a free press is critical to our world today. 

 

When press freedom is under attack, truth is under attack. Journalists and those who work in media are tasked with protecting the truth. Since social media has made quasi-journalists of us too, the responsibility of guarding the truth also falls on us. We cannot allow dissenting views to be suppressed. We need to respect different views other than our own. This does not necessarily mean we have to agree with the person but always trusting in the notion that each person is entitled to his or her own opinion. 

 

Protecting the right to free speech is protecting the freedoms that our democracy grants. Any attempt to silence the critical voices is a red flag that citizens must remain vigilant of. A democratic government needs a free and independent press to help balance the scales of power. Media, in many ways, is a service too. Public office is usually associated with politics but mainstream media can also be considered public service. As a vital source of information, many people rely on the media not only for their news and entertainment but more importantly to communicate and connect with others and the world around them. Take that away and what are the people left with?

redlily2020