Private vs. State-controlled Media

Media organisations fall into one of three categories: private media, state- controlled media and public media.

State-controlled media organisations are a part of the state. These newspaper offices, television channels and radio stations are all funded, managed and staffed by the state. Public media are also (at least partially) funded by the state, but often have more freedom over content than state controlled media. In authoritarian states, these are often the only media organisations. In some states, they exist in competition with private media.

Private media organisations are businesses that are owned by citizens. They are accountable in the same way that all other businesses are (they need to pay taxes, obey the law etc.). In a free media, they are free from government control or influence.

State-controlled and Public Media

Advantages

Supporters of state-controlled media say that if the state cannot regulate the media, then false or biased information will be more common.

They argue that making the media accountable to the government can prevent dangerous or misleading information from spreading. This makes sure that news that is likely to cause violent conflict can be limited.

Another argument for state-controlled and/or public media is that it can deal with important social issues or important public debates. The state can use the media to increase awareness so citizens can make more informed decisions.

Disadvantages

The main disadvantages of a state-controlled media are that it often leads to censorship and reduces transparency.

In state-controlled media systems, journalists and editors work for the government. This gives the government much more control over what citizens see, hear or think. This makes it easier for the government to censor the news or produce propaganda.

While an independent (public) media can provide more transparency in politics, a state-controlled media might not be able to. It is much more difficult for journalists to expose government waste, corruption or incompetence if the media is controlled by the government.

Private Media

Advantages

One of the most important arguments for a private media is that it protects freedom of expression, transparency and accountability. A strong and independent press is an important feature of a healthy democracy because it limits corruption and inefficiency in government.

Supporters of private media also argue that in a free media market, the media reflects the views of the public, not of the government. This is because the newspapers that sell the most copies will reflect the opinion of the largest section of society. This means that the people set the agenda for the news rather than the government.

Disadvantages

Privatisation of the media often leads to a situation where the popularity of a story is considered more valuable than its social importance. Critics argue that private media focuses on profitable news (sports, celebrity gossip, etc.), and not on important social or political issues. They say that the media is only concerned with entertaining people, not informing them.

In many countries, the majority of private media organisations are owned by only a few corporations. For example, in the United States, 50 corporations owned a majority of the news media in 1983. By 2003, the majority of news media was owned by only six corporations. Corporations that control so many news sources are very powerful and influential (McLaughlin 2013: 116-126)