State media

State media are typically understood as media outlets that are owned, operated, or significantly influenced by the government. They are sometimes distinguished from public service media, which are designed to serve the public interest, operate independently of government control, and are financed through a combination of public funding, licensing fees, and sometimes advertising. The crucial difference lies in the level of independence from government influence and the commitment to building trust and serving a broad public interest rather than the interests of a specific political party or government agenda.[1][2][3]

State media serve as tools for public diplomacy and narrative shaping. These media outlets can broadcast via television, radio, print, and increasingly on social media, to convey government viewpoints to domestic and international audiences. The approach to using state media can vary, focusing on positive narratives, adjusting narratives retroactively, or spreading misinformation through sophisticated social media campaigns.[4]

Public or state media may be financed through different sources, such as direct government funding, a licence fee paid by television viewers, donations, and commercial advertising.

Other definitions

State media is also referred to media entities that are administered, funded, managed, or directly controlled by the government of a country.[5] Three factors that can affect the independence of state media over time are: funding, ownership/governance, and editorial autonomy.[5] These entities can range from being completely state-controlled, where the government has full control over their funding, management, and editorial content, to being independent public service media, which, despite receiving government funding, operate with editorial autonomy and are governed by structures designed to protect them from direct political interference.[5]

State media is often associated with authoritarian governments that use state media to control, influence, and limit information.[6]

Overview

Its content, according to some sources, is usually more prescriptive, telling the audience what to think, particularly as it is under no pressure to attract high ratings or generate advertising revenue[7] and therefore may cater to the forces in control of the state as opposed to the forces in control of the corporation, as described in the propaganda model of the mass media. In more controlled regions, the state may censor content which it deems illegal, immoral or unfavorable to the government and likewise regulate any programming related to the media; therefore, it is not independent of the governing party.[8] In this type of environment, journalists may be required to be members or affiliated with the ruling party, such as in the Eastern Bloc former Socialist States the Soviet Union, China or North Korea.[7] Within countries that have high levels of government interference in the media, it may use the state press for propaganda purposes: Additionally, the state-controlled media may only report on legislation after it has already become law to stifle any debate.[9]

Theories of state ownership

Two contrasting theories of state control of the media exist; the public interest or Pigouvian theory states that government ownership is beneficial, whereas the public choice theory suggests that state control undermines economic and political freedoms.

Public interest theory

The public interest theory states that government ownership of media is desirable.[16] Three reasons are offered. Firstly, the dissemination of information is a public good, and to withhold it would be costly even if it is not paid for. Secondly, the cost of the provision and dissemination of information is high, but once costs are incurred, marginal costs for providing the information are low and so are subject to increasing returns.[17] Thirdly, state media ownership can be less biased, more complete and accurate if consumers are ignorant and in addition to private media that would serve the governing classes.[17] However, Pigouvian economists, who advocate regulation and nationalisation, are supportive of free and private media.

Determinants of state control

Both theories have implications regarding the determinants and consequences of ownership of the media.[24] The public interest theory suggests that more benign governments should have higher levels of control of the media which would in turn increase press freedom as well as economic and political freedoms. Conversely, the public choice theory affirms that the opposite is true - "public spirited", benevolent governments should have less control which would increase these freedoms.[25]

Generally, state ownership of the media is found in poor, autocratic non-democratic countries with highly interventionist governments that have some interest in controlling the flow of information.[26] Countries with "weak" governments do not possess the political will to break up state media monopolies.[27] Media control is also usually consistent with state ownership in the economy.[28]

Consequences of state ownership

Issues with state media include complications with press freedom and journalistic objectivity. In general, state media typically has lower levels of trust than public media.[31] According to Christopher Walker in the Journal of Democracy, "authoritarian or totalitarian media outlets" take advantage of both domestic and foreign media due to state censorship in their native countries and the openness of democratic nations to which they broadcast. He cites China's CCTV, Russia's RT, and Venezuela's TeleSUR as examples.[32]

Press freedom

[[File:Press freedom 2025.svg|upright=2.25|thumb|right| 2025 Press Freedom Index[33]

External links

List of media organizations by the Media & Journalism Research Center that evaluates their editorial independence from governments

References

Unesco Freedom of Expression and Media Development unesdoc.unesco.org, retrieved 2024-04-07^
Public Media: State, Government and Public Service Broadcasting — ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, 2012, retrieved 2022-02-05^
Public Service Broadcasting 2017-01-27, retrieved 2024-04-08

Public choice theory

The public choice theory asserts that state-owned media would manipulate and distort information in favor of the ruling party and entrench its rule and prevent the public from making informed decisions, which undermines democratic institutions.[17] That would prevent private and independent media, which provide alternate voices allowing individuals to choose politicians, goods, services, etc. without fear from functioning. Additionally, that would inhibit competition among media firms that would ensure that consumers usually acquire unbiased, accurate information.[17] Moreover, this competition is part of a checks-and-balances system of a democracy, known as the Fourth Estate, along with the judiciary, executive and legislature.[17] States are dependent on the public for their legitimacy that allows them to operate.[21] The flow of information becomes critical to their survival, and public choice theory argues that states cannot be expected to ignore their own interests, and instead the sources of information must remain as independent from the state as possible.[19] Public choice theory argues that the only way to retain independence in a media organization is to allow the public to seek the best sources of information themselves.[22] This approach is effective at creating a free press that is capable of criticizing government institutions and investigating incidents of government corruption.[19]

Those critical of the public choice theory argue that the economic incentives involved in a public business force media organizations to stray from unbiased journalism and towards sensationalist editorials in order to capture public interest.[23] This has become a debate over the effectiveness of media organizations that are reliant on the attention of the public.[23] Sensationalism becomes the key focus and turns away from stories in the public interest in favor of stories that capture the attention of the most people.[22] The focus on sensationalism and public attention can lead to the dissemination of misinformation to appease their consumer base.[22] In these instances, the goal of providing accurate information to the public collapses and instead becomes biased toward a dominant ideology.[22]