Media Censorship

Media Censorship

Democratic countries take pride in upholding the principle of freedom of speech. People are free to say and write

whatever they wish...with some exceptions

What do we mean by 'media censorship'?

In some parts of the world, the government controls the media. This means that no one can broadcast or publish anything considered immoral or harmful, or that threatens

the country’s 'stability'

Other forms of censorship

Even when freedom of speech exists, media is also constrained by those that provide the money that enable programmes and publications to exist.

A news organisation's content reflects the ethos and ideology of its owners.

Other forms of censorship

Although those responsible for editorial would argue otherwise, advertisers do influence content.

Advertisers will cancel their accounts if they consider the content to undermine or challenge their messages about the products they sell. Therefore, there is a relationship between advertisers and content.

Readers, viewers and listeners (media consumers) must find content relevant, interesting, tasteful, and entertaining, or they will cease their consumption.

Censorship in the UK

While press and broadcasting here are considered to be 'free' there are external constraints on the media in the UK.

Broadcast media are subject to extensive statutory regulations set out in the Communications Act 2003 and enforced by OFCOM. The BBC is regulated by its Royal Charter obligations.


Broadcasting laws allow the Home Secretary complete control over all broadcasting content and the Home Office can ban content without referring to Parliament (as seen in the banning of direct reporting of Irish activists, including members of legal political parties such as Sinn Fein).


Other legislative constraints include the Official Secrets Act, Prevention of Terrorism Act, Police and Criminal Evidence Act, Contempt of Court Act, and laws relating to obscenity, libel, race relations, sedition, incitement to disaffection and treason.

Direct Government censorship still occurs — for example during the Falklands and Gulf conflicts.

Self Regulation

Self Regulation

Print media in the UK are not subject to any specific statutory controls on their content and activities, other than the general criminal and civil law.

The UK press regulates itself through the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) - an independent, non-statutory body that is responsible for maintaining an Editorial Code of Practice and investigating complaints into alleged breaches of the Code.

Self Regulation

The Code consists of 16 clauses, on accuracy, the opportunity for reply, respect for privacy, harassment, intrusion into shock or grief, the interests of children, the protection of children in sex cases, entry into hospitals, the reporting of crime, the use of clandestine devices and subterfuge, the protection of victims of sexual assault, discrimination, financial journalism, the protection of confidential sources, payment for information relating to criminal trials and payments to criminals.

Self Regulation

This means that the press itself is responsible for any attempt to check its own behaviour, intrusions into privacy, misstatements of fact or unwillingness to present diverse views and to foster democratic debate.

By virtue of its status, the PCC has no powers to impose penalties on those it finds guilty of breaches (all it can do is demand that an offending publication print an apology and details of the adjudication).

Self Regulation

Most of the restrictions outlined in the Code are subject to a 'public interest' test.

The press is constantly under the threat of further regulation. However, statutory controls on press freedom are widely regarded as an unreasonable restriction on freedom of speech, and as such of democratic rights.

Self Regulation

"We maintain a watching brief on this issue and are generally satisfied that the Press Complaints Commission's Code of Practice is both adequate and appropriate for its purpose."

Culture Minister Margaret Hodge - November 2007

Many editors are now having compliance with the Code written into their contracts.

DA-Notice System

DA-Notices

The D Notice (Defence Notices) system is an “arrangement of voluntary suppression of certain categories of information on the advice - not orders - of the Government”. (source: The D Notice, Moyra Grant)

The system was established in 1912, when the Admiralty and the War Office concluded that they needed some means of preventing the press from publishing information which might be of value to a future enemy.

DA-Notices

Official guidelines say that “the D Notice system is entirely voluntary and has no legal authority; the final responsibility for the decision whether or not to publish lies solely with the editor or publisher concerned”.

D-Notices “give recipients sufficient guidance on subjects in which considerations of national security could be involved, to enable an editor to decide whether to publish, spike or seek advice from the Secretary”.

DA-Notices

DA-Notices are now issued by the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee (DPBAC), an advisory body composed of senior civil servants and editors from national and regional newspapers, periodicals, news agencies, television and radio.

It operates on the “shared belief that there is a continuing need for a system of guidance and advice such as the DA-Notice System, and that a voluntary, advisory basis is best for such a system.”

DA-Notices

There are currently five DA-Notices, standing since 1993 and revised in 2000:

DA-Notice 01: Military Operations, Plans & CapabilitiesDA-Notice 02: Nuclear & Non-Nuclear Weapons & EquipmentDA-Notice 03: Ciphers & Secure CommunicationsDA-Notice 04: Sensitive Installations & Home AddressesDA-Notice 05: United Kingdom Security & Intelligence Services & Special Services

DA-Notices

At present there are sixteen members of DPBAC nominated by the media; three by the Newspaper Publishers Association, two by the Newspaper Society, two by the Periodical Publishers Association and one each by the Scottish Daily Newspaper Society, the Press Association, the BBC, ITN, ITV, and Sky TV, the Society of Editors, Google, and the (Book) Publishers Association.

Compliance with the DA-Notice system does not relieve an editor of responsibilities under the Official Secrets Act.

Media on trial

The Oz Trials

Oz was first published as a satirical humour magazine between 1963-67 in Sydney, Australia and, in its second and better known incarnation, became a 'psychedelic' magazine from 1967-73, published in London.

The Oz Trials

Oz gave pioneering coverage to contentious issues such as censorship, homosexuality, police brutality and also satirised public figures. Its founders – students Richard Neville, Richard Walsh and Martin Sharp - declared it a “magazine of dissent”.

The Australian Oz was charged with and convicted of obscenity on two occasions and Neville, Walsh and Sharp handed prison sentences, although the convictions were eventually overturned.

The Oz Trials

London Oz was founded in 1967 by Neville, Sharp and Jim Anderson. Early contributors included Germaine Greer. The magazine, as well as being ground-breaking in terms of its psychedelic design, took on the British establishment.

In 1970, the editors invited school children to edit anissue and 20 youngsters - mainly from public schools – got involved.

The Oz Trials

One piece of content was an obscene version of Rupert the Bear, with the bear's head pasted on to an 'obscene' cartoon comic strip drawn by American artist Robert Crumb.

Following this, and an assumption the the School Kids Oz was actually intended for a young audience, Oz was targeted by the Obscene Publications Squad and put on trial. Neville, Felix Dennis and Anderson were charged with obscenity and the archaic "conspiracy to corrupt public morals"—which, in theory, carried a virtually unlimited penalty.

The Oz Trials

The trial was, at the time, the longest obscenity trial in British legal history and regarded as politically charged and motivated. The trial was marked by the bias shown against the defendants by the judge Justice Argyle.

The Oz Trials

“… all of these issues of Oz should not be seen in isolation from other magazines and newspapers published in this country such as International Times, Friends, Ink, Mole Express, Styng, Press Ups and dozens of others, known generally, if misleadingly, as the underground press—papers which offer a platform to the socially impotent, and which mirror the changing way of life in our community. And because this ‘underground’ or ‘alternative’ press is a worldwide phenomenon and because it represents a voice of progress and change in our society, then it is not really only us who are on trial today... but all of you... and the right of all of you to freely discuss the issues which concern you...”

Oz founder Richard Neville, defending himself

The Oz Trials

Neville, Dennis and Anderson were handed prison sentences that would eventually be overturned on appeal due to Argyle's bias.

Dennis later founded the successful Dennis Publishing company (Maxim, The Week, Monkey, Web User, Auto Express).

Censorship Elsewhere

Media Censorship in China

Reporters Without Borders defend journalists imprisoned or persecuted for doing their job and expose the mistreatment and torture of them in at least 140 countries all over the world.


China, RWB say, “is the world’s biggest prison for journalists, bloggers and cyber-dissidents. Most of the around one hundred prisoners have been sentenced to long jail sentences for “subversion” or “divulging state secrets” and are held in harsh conditions, with journalists often being put to forced labour. The local authorities, fearful of bad publicity from reports on corruption and nepotism, continue to arrest journalists.”


The communist party has marshalled massive financial and human resources to keep control over news.

Most international radio news programmes in Chinese, Tibetan and Uyghur are scrambled via hundreds of aerials positioned throughout the country.

Thousands of websites are blocked and tens of thousands of cyber-police and cyber-censors constantly monitor the web to purge it of “immoral and subversive” content.


At the same time, the Chinese government bolsters its propaganda output by throwing money at a multiplicity of official media, particularly the Xinhua news agency and the broadcast group CCTV. All media have to obtain a licence from a state body.


The entire Chinese media was forced to ignore dissident voices, on the eve of the 20th anniversary of the June 1989 pro-democracy movement and the 60th anniversary in October of the founding of the People’s Republic. Several foreign correspondents were arrested or harassed.


The foreign press is supposed to enjoy freedom of movement and interview rights – one of the very few achievements of the Olympic period – but as soon as foreign correspondents begin to take an interest in delicate matters like Tibet, dissidents or the Aids epidemic, they find themselves obstructed and even the target of violence.


The Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China (FCCC) recorded 178 cases of interference with foreign media during 2008, 63 of which were during the holding of the Olympics.


In October 2010, RWB reported that, in the three weeks since the Nobel committee announced that is awarding this year’s peace prize to jailed Chinese intellectual Liu Xiaobo ( 刘哓波 ), around 100 people (Liu supporters, students, lawyers, journalists and bloggers) have been placed under house arrest or subjected to increased police surveillance, or have disappeared.

Further reading

Reporters Without Bordershttp://en.rsf.org/

The Media Self Regulation Guidebookhttp://www.osce.org/publications/rfm/2008/04/30697_1117_en.pdf

The Oz Magazine Trialhttp://counterculture.wikia.com/wiki/Oz_Magazine_Trial

DA-Notice Systemhttp://www.dnotice.org.uk

Documents

Media Censorship