Among the accusations swirling around ousted Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is one that touches on his relationship with the most important newspaper in his state, the Chicago Tribune. Blagojevich reportedly threatened to withhold state assistance from a deal involving the sale of Wrigley Field, owned by the Tribune Co., if the paper didn’t fire members of the editorial board whom he viewed as highly critical of him.
Thus Illinois joins a growing list of places across the globe where media-government relations are often ruled by money. Or, more specifically, money used as a tool to manipulate news coverage. This is a serious problem in countries where democracies are fragile and there is no culture of strong, independent news media.
Traditionally, authoritarian regimes have exercised control of media through direct censorship — forcing media outlets to submit news reports for review before publication or broadcast. Physically taking over media outlets or intimidating and arresting journalists and media owners are also familiar methods of controlling the press. But in recent years, as once authoritarian regimes have moved toward more open societies, or at least their appearance, a more insidious type of censorship has arisen. This new “soft,” or indirect, censorship takes several forms:
In many parts of Latin America and Africa, governments exert pressure by threatening to withhold government advertising from newspapers and broadcasters whose coverage they find too critical. The other side of this coin is the use of government funds to buy advertising in media outlets considered friendly. In countries where there is no strong private sector and little or no tradition of commercial advertising, government advertising contracts are essential to the survival of newspapers and broadcast stations.
In several countries of the former Soviet Union, official sources pay journalists directly to write stories favorable to leaders or their programs. This is particularly true during political campaigns. In Ukraine, the practice is called “jeansa,” after the blue jeans that Ukrainian journalists typically wear. Because there was never much commercial advertising in Ukraine before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, private businesses don’t see the need to buy an ad if they can buy a story. And many journalists, who view TV stations as businesses entitled to make money, see nothing wrong with this arrangement.
Reporters in many developing countries do not make a living wage, and media owners expect them to supplement their incomes — in effect turning journalists into waiters working for tips.
Colombian radio reporters in provincial cities pay station owners for air time and cover the expense by selling advertising to the same government officials they cover. Essentially, this means interviewing officials in the morning for a news report and contacting them in the afternoon to solicit advertising.
In countries where there is no strong commercial advertising market, “the media begins to live off official advertising,” said Catalina Botero, the Organization of American States’ special rapporteur for freedom of expression. This, she said, allows governments to exercise “decisive interference in the press.”
The Hong Kong newspaper Apple Daily lost commercial advertisers — an airline, a bank, the travel industry — because the Chinese government pressured the companies. The paper’s sin? Opposing a proposed security law — since withdrawn — that many felt could have led to suppression of freedom of expression and political liberty in Hong Kong.
Some countries have laws governing the use of official advertising, but in many cases they are ignored.
