State media

Last updated

State media, state-controlled media or state-owned media is media for mass communication [1] that is under financial and editorial control of a country's government, directly or indirectly. These news outlets may be the sole media outlet or may exist in competition with corporate and non-corporate media.


State media is not to be confused with public-sector media (state-funded), which is "funded directly or indirectly by the state or government[,] but over which the state does not have tight[ weasel words ] editorial control". [1]


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 [2] 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 unfavourable to the government and likewise regulate any programming related to the media; therefore, it is not independent of the governing party. [3] In this type of environment, journalists may be required to be members or affiliated with the ruling party, such as in the former communist countries, the Soviet Union or North Korea. [2] 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. [4] The media legitimises its presence by emphasising "national unity" against domestic or foreign "aggressors". [5] In more open and competitive contexts, the state may control or fund its own outlet and is in competition with opposition-controlled and/or independent media. The state media usually have less government control in more open societies and can provide more balanced coverage than media outside of state control. [6]

State media outlets usually enjoy increased funding and subsidies compared to private media counterparts, but this can create inefficiency in the state media. [7] However, in the People's Republic of China, where state control of the media is high, levels of funding have been reduced for state outlets, which have forced the Party media to sidestep official restrictions on content or publish "soft" editions, such as weekend editions, to generate income. [8]

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, also referred to as the Pigouvian theory, [9] states that government ownership of media is desirable. [10] 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. [11] 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. [11] However, Pigouvian economists, who advocate regulation and nationalisation, are supportive of free and private media. [12]

Public choice theory

The public choice theory asserts that state-owned media would manipulate and distort information in favour of the ruling party and entrench its rule and prevent the public from making informed decisions, which undermines democratic institutions. [11] 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. [11] 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. [11]

Determinants of state control

Both theories have implications regarding the determinants and consequences of ownership of the media. [13] 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. [14]

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. [15] Countries with "weak" governments do not possess the political will to break up state media monopolies. [16] Media control is also usually consistent with state ownership in the economy. [17]

As of 2002, the press in most of Europe (with the exception of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine) is mostly private and free of state control and ownership, along with North and South America (with the exception of Cuba.) [18] The press "role" in the national and societal dynamics of the United States and Australia has virtually always been the responsibility of the private commercial sector since these countries' earliest days. [19] Levels of state ownership are higher in some African countries, the Middle East and some Asian countries (with the exception of Japan, India, Indonesia, Mongolia, Nepal, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand where large areas of private press exist.) Full state monopolies exist in Burma (under the military rule) and North Korea. [18]

Consequences of state ownership

Issues with state media include complications with press freedom and journalistic objectivity. According to Christopher Walker in the Journal of Democracy , "authoritarian or totalitarian media outlets" such as China's CCTV, Russia's RT and Venezuela's TeleSUR take advantage of both domestic and foreign media due to the censorship under regimes in their native countries and the openness of democratic nations to which they broadcast. [20]

Press freedom

2021 Press Freedom Index
.mw-parser-output .legend{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .legend-color{display:inline-block;min-width:1.25em;height:1.25em;line-height:1.25;margin:1px 0;text-align:center;border:1px solid black;background-color:transparent;color:black}.mw-parser-output .legend-text{}
Very serious situation
Difficult situation
Noticeable problems
Satisfactory situation
Good situation
Not classified / No data Press freedom 2021.svg
2021 Press Freedom Index

"Worse outcomes" are associated with higher levels of state ownership of the media, which would reject Pigouvian theory. [22] The news media are more independent and fewer journalists are arrested, detained or harassed in countries with less state control. [23] Harassment, imprisonment and higher levels of internet censorship occur in countries with high levels of state ownership such as Singapore, Belarus, Burma, Ethiopia, China, Iran, Syria, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. [23] [24] Countries with a total state monopoly in the media like North Korea and Laos experience a "Castro effect", where state control is powerful enough that no journalistic harassment is required in order to restrict press freedom. [23]

Civil and political rights

The public interest theory claims state ownership of the press enhances civil and political rights; whilst under the public choice theory, it curtails them by suppressing public oversight of the government and facilitating political corruption. High to absolute government control of the media is primarily associated with lower levels of political and civil rights, higher levels of corruption, quality of regulation, security of property and media bias. [24] [25] State ownership of the press can compromise election monitoring efforts and obscure the integrity of electoral processes. [26] Independent media sees higher oversight by the media of the government. For example, reporting of corruption increased in Mexico, Ghana and Kenya after restrictions were lifted in the 1990s, but government-controlled media defended officials. [27] [28]

Economic freedom

It is common for countries with strict control of newspapers to have fewer firms listed per capita on their markets [29] and less developed banking systems. [30] These findings support the public choice theory, which suggests higher levels of state ownership of the press would be detrimental to economic and financial development. [24]

See also


  1. 1 2 Webster, David. Building Free and Independent Media (August 1992).
  2. 1 2 Silverblatt & Zlobin, 2004, p. 22
  3. Price, Rozumilowicz & Verhulst, 2002, p. 6
  4. Karatnycky, Motyl & Schnetzer, 2001, p. 105, 106, 228, 384
  5. Hoffmann, p. 48
  6. Karatnycky, Motyl & Schnetzer, 2001, p. 149
  7. Stability Pact Anti-Corruption Initiative, 2002, p. 78
  8. Sen & Lee, 2008, p. 14
  9. Coase, R. H. British Broadcasting, 1950. The following argument was formulated by the BBC in support of maintaining publicly subsidised radio and television in the United Kingdom
  10. Djankov, McLeish, Nenova & Shleifer, 2003, p. 341
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 Djankov, McLeish, Nenova & Shleifer, 2003, p. 342
  12. Lewis, 1955; Myrdal, 1953
  13. Djankov, La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes & Sheleifer, 2002, 28-29
  14. Djankov, McLeish, Nenova & Shleifer, 2003, p. 343
  15. Djankov, 2002, p. 21
  16. Price, 2004, p. 195
  17. Djankov, 2002, p. 20
  18. 1 2 Djankov, 2002, p. 19
  19. Hoffmann-Riem, 1996, p. 3
  20. Walker, Christopher (2016). "The Authoritarian Threat: The Hijacking of "Soft Power"". Journal of Democracy. 27 (1): 49–63. doi:10.1353/jod.2016.0007. ISSN   1086-3214.
  21. "2021 World Press Freedom Index". Reporters Without Borders. 2021.
  22. Djankov, McLeish, Nenova & Shleifer, 2003, p. 344
  23. 1 2 3 Djankov, 2002, p. 23
  24. 1 2 3 Djankov, McLeish, Nenova & Shleifer, 2003, p. 367
  25. Djankov, 2002, p. 24
  26. Merloe, Patrick (2015). "Election Monitoring Vs. Disinformation". Journal of Democracy. 26 (3): 79–93. doi:10.1353/jod.2015.0053. ISSN   1086-3214.
  27. Simon, 1998
  28. Djankov, 2002, p. 25
  29. La Porta et al, 1997
  30. Beck, Demirguc-Kunt & Levine, 1999

Related Research Articles

Privatization Transferring something from the public sphere to the private

Privatization can mean different things including moving something from the public sector into the private sector. It is also sometimes used as a synonym for deregulation when a heavily regulated private company or industry becomes less regulated. Government functions and services may also be privatised ; in this case, private entities are tasked with the implementation of government programs or performance of government services that had previously been the purview of state-run agencies. Some examples include revenue collection, law enforcement, water supply, and prison management.

A state-owned enterprise (SOE) or government-owned enterprise (GOE) is a business enterprise where the government or state has significant control through full, majority, or significant minority ownership. Defining characteristics of SOEs are their distinct legal form and operation in commercial affairs and activities. While they may also have public policy objectives, SOEs should be differentiated from government agencies or state entities established to pursue purely nonfinancial objectives.

Concentration of media ownership is a process whereby progressively fewer individuals or organizations control increasing shares of the mass media. Contemporary research demonstrates increasing levels of consolidation, with many media industries already highly concentrated and dominated by a very small number of firms.

State ownership

State ownership, also called government ownership and public ownership, is the ownership of an industry, asset, or enterprise by the state or a public body representing a community as opposed to an individual or private party. Public ownership specifically refers to industries selling goods and services to consumers and differs from public goods and government services financed out of a government's general budget. Public ownership can take place at the national, regional, local, or municipal levels of government; or can refer to non-governmental public ownership vested in autonomous public enterprises. Public ownership is one of the three major forms of property ownership, differentiated from private, collective/cooperative, and common ownership.

The legal origins theory claims that the two main legal traditions or origins, civil law and common law, crucially shape lawmaking and dispute adjudication and have not been reformed after the initial exogenous transplantation by Europeans. Therefore, they affect economic outcomes to date. According to the evidence reported by the initial proponents of such a theory, countries that received civil law would display today less secure investor rights, stricter regulation, and more inefficient governments and courts than those that inherited common law. These differences would reflect both a stronger historical emphasis of common law on private ordering and the higher adaptability of judge-made law.

Andrei Shleifer American economist

Andrei Shleifer is a Russian-American economist and Professor of Economics at Harvard University, where he has taught since 1991. Shleifer was awarded the biennial John Bates Clark Medal in 1999 for his seminal works in three fields: corporate finance, the economics of financial markets, and the economics of transition.

Independent media refers to any media, such as television, newspapers or Internet-based publications, that is free of influence by government or corporate interests. The term has varied applications. Within the United States and other developed countries, it is often used synonymously with alternative media to refer to media that specifically distinguish themselves in relation to the mainstream media. In international development, the term independent media is used in relation to the development of new media outlets, particularly in areas where there is little to no existing media presence.

The mass media in North Korea is amongst the most strictly controlled in the world. The constitution nominally provides for freedom of speech and the press. However, the government prohibits the exercise of these rights in coming in and out of the country but seeks to mold information at its source. A typical example of this was the death of Kim Jong-il, news of which was not divulged until two days after it occurred. Kim Jong-un, who replaced his father as the leader, has given every indication he will largely follow in his father's footsteps. However, new technologies are being made more freely available in the country. State-run media outlets are setting up websites, while mobile phone ownership in the country has escalated rapidly. “There is no country which monopolizes and controls successfully the internet and information as North Korea does,” said Kang Shin-sam, an expert on North Korean technology and co-head of the International Solidarity for Freedom of Information in North Korea, a nonprofit based in South Korea. North Korea now has about four million mobile-phone subscribers—roughly one-sixth of the population and four times the number in 2012, according to an estimate by Kim Yon-ho, a senior researcher at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.

The mass media in Georgia refers to mass media outlets based in the Republic of Georgia. Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. The Constitution of Georgia guarantees freedom of speech. Georgia is the only country in its immediate neighborhood where the press is not deemed unfree. As a country in transition, the Georgian media system is under transformation.

Simeon Dyankov

Simeon Dyankov is a Bulgarian economist and Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. From 2009 to 2013, he was the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of Bulgaria in the government of Boyko Borisov. Prior to his cabinet appointment, Simeon Dyankov was a Chief economist of the finance and private sector vice-presidency of the World Bank. He was an associate editor of the Journal of Comparative Economics from 2004 to 2009. Dyankov was a chairman of the board of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. In 2013, he was appointed rector of the New Economic School in Moscow, a title he held until July 2015. Since November 2015, Dyankov was research fellow of the Financial Markets Group at the London School of Economics.

Mass media in Pakistan provides information on television, radio, cinema, newspapers, and magazines in Pakistan. Pakistan has a vibrant media landscape; among the most dynamic in South Asia and world. Majority of media in Pakistan is privately owned. Pakistan has around 300 privately owned daily newspapers. According to the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, they had a combined daily sale of 6.1 million copies in 2009. Television is the main source of news and information for people in Pakistan's towns, cities and large areas of the countryside. Marketing research company Gallup Pakistan, estimated there were 86 million TV viewers in Pakistan in 2009.

The mass media in Albania refers to mass media outlets based in Albania. Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. The Constitution of Albania guarantees freedom of speech. Albanian media are quite diverse, although politicised, and often influenced by business and political interests.

The mass media in Montenegro refers to mass media outlets based in Montenegro. Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. The Constitution of Montenegro guarantees freedom of speech. As a country in transition, Montenegro's media system is under transformation.

Mass media in Russia Overview of mass media in Russia

The mass media in Russia refers to mass media outlets based in the Russian Federation. The media of Russia is diverse, with a wide range of broadcast and print outlets available to the consumers. Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. Even though the Constitution of Russia guarantees freedom of speech the country is plagued by both government and self-censorship. As a country in transition, Russia's media system is under transformation.

The mass media in Ukraine refers to mass media outlets based in Ukraine. Television, magazines, and newspapers are all operated by both state-owned and for-profit corporations which depend on advertising, subscription, and other sales-related revenues. The Constitution of Ukraine guarantees freedom of speech. As a country in transition, Ukraine's media system is under transformation.

Mass media in Ghana Ghanaian mass media

The mass media in Ghana, includes television, radio, internet publishing and newspapers.

Freedom of the press in Ukraine Overview of the freedom of the press in Ukraine

Ukraine was in 96th place out of 180 countries listed in the 2020 World Press Freedom Index. It returned to top 100 of this list for the first time since 2009.


Al-Seyassah is a Kuwaiti daily newspaper published by Dar Al-Seyassah Press Publishing Printing and Distribution Co. The editor-in-chief of the newspaper is Ahmed Al-Jarallah.

Media regulations are rules enforced by the jurisdiction of law. Guidelines for media use differ across the world. This regulation, via law, rules or procedures, can have various goals, for example intervention to protect a stated "public interest", or encouraging competition and an effective media market, or establishing common technical standards.

Media freedom in Serbia

Censorship in Serbia is prohibited by the Constitution. Freedom of expression and of information are protected by international and national law, even if the guarantees enshrined in the laws are not coherently implemented. Instances of censorship and self-censorship are still reported in the country.