Friday, October 1, 2010

Silencing Dissent: Part II

This is an addendum to the article that I posted earlier today. I found an excellent article, Silencing Dissent: The impact of restrictive media environments on regime support, by Pippa Norris (Harvard University) and Ronald Inglehart (University of Michigan) on the effects of state control of the media.

Their findings show that state control of the media has its intended effect:

The results of evidence presented here therefore supports the proposition that state control of the broadcasting airwaves and limits on press freedom do achieve their intended effect, by strengthening regime support among the news audience in these societies. Contrary to conventional notions of ‘limited media effects’, derived from the classic Hovland experiments and the long tradition established by Lazarsfeld (Katz and Lazarsfeld 1955), state control of the airwaves matters.

Natan Sharansky: "Free societies are societies in which the right of dissent is protected," says Mr. Sharansky, a former Soviet refusenik and prisoner, Israeli politician, human rights activist and author."
Courtesy: Kika Sso, 2007. 
Such findings partly explain why repressive regimes find the proposition of controlling the media an attractive one. This, of course, is bad for liberal democracy and the values of freedom of  the press, and freedom of expression.

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments ought to reflect the post in question. All comments are moderated; and inappropriate comments, including those that attack persons, those that use profanity and those that are hateful, will not be tolerated. So, keep it on target, clean and thoughtful. This is not a forum for personal vendettas or to create a toxic environment. The chief idea is to engage, to discuss and to critique issues. Doing so within acceptable norms will make the process more rewarding and healthy for everyone. Accordingly, anonymous comments will not be posted.