Authoritarian regimes or governments have always been considered by western scholars or politicians as standing on the opposite aspect of democracy. In those expresses within which media are controlled, the flexibility of speech, human protection under the law and democracy stay big concerns of these democrats. Asia, the greatest continent in the world, boasts its varied politic forms, be it democratic regimes, like Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korean and quasi-democratic ones like Thailand, as well as authoritarian ones like Mainland China, North Korean and Burma. The role of multimedia in Asia varies with the political style, from free to control. This article, then, mainly targets exploring the key reason why authoritarian regime desires to take control of media from the politics, cultural, scientific and financial perspectives.
Authoritarian government refers to the federal government that concentrates vitality in the hands of your leader or a little group of elites unelected by individuals; and is against individualism and democracy. Although authoritarian governments always declare that their lifestyle is 'to protect the united states and to provide self-control and order to its way of life' and that 'the traditional culture should be aggressively maintained against encroaching exterior or modern culture' (Robert McKenzie, 2006 73-74), the reality is in the opposite part that those basic components of a civil modern culture like human protection under the law, free information, free speech, cultural justice, etc. are almost taken out or constrained in the so called order and traditional culture.
As what Myung-Jin Park, James Curran(1999) point out, authoritarian regimes can be split into three major varieties: single-party plan, military program and religious plan. In Asia, countries can be entitled as authoritarian are Brunei (the exec authority is with the unelected sultan), China (state under communist one party guideline), Laos (a communist sole party state), Burma (military services rule), North Korea (one-party guideline), Oman (ruled by the hereditary sultan, no political gatherings are legal no opposition movement), Qatar (ruled by hereditary emirates), Saudi Arabia Syria United Arab Emirates (ruled by hereditary emirates), Vietnam (communist single-party point out).
Media in these authoritarian regimes can be either privately or publicly possessed but must holiday resort to the control of their state. Such control means that the media are never permitted to expose the information that opposes the will of ruling course or interest groupings strictly related to the federal government. Media can criticize the government, but not the supreme level which requires the your hands on the highest power. They have got certain amount of freedom, but it is only limited to the reports and programs unrelated to politics areas, such as entertainment, activities, travel, etc.
In authoritarian guideline, Robert McKenzie (2006) points out two steps that are generally implemented: censorship and consequence. In terms of the censorship of the press content, it consists of two steps: express censorship and self-censorship. Express censorship is applied when speech and communication are unlike state objectives, then your content is banned for dissemination. Self-censorship is the function of intently censoring one's own publications, blogs, films, reports scripts, Television programs or other method of expression without immediate pressure from the specialist, in order never to disseminate this content against the federal government goals. So after finishing one's work, she or he may remove incorrect material for concern with sanction by the government. With the above two sorts of censorship, press only speak the speech of the federal government or ruling class instead of individuals.
With the regard to the consequence, the consequence is actually conditioned by the seriousness of the 'illegitimate' content. Inside the authoritarian guideline, "the state has the right to penalize individuals and press organizations for seditious libel" (Robert McKenzie, 2006). Because the authoritarian societies are under the rule of men instead of law, the punishment can be various types in line with the market leaders' will, such as confiscating private facilities, incarceration of marketing specialists, expiration, long-term prison, or even death.
The content of marketing in several countries can vary greatly, but one common feature of the authoritarian states in Asia is the fact that media are manipulated or owned or operated by the state. Therefore, the info the audience received in the media reflect not the interest of individuals but the ruling course, no matter how ready or how hard-working the market leaders are, since it is the system of circumstances that decides the role of the press.
According to Denis Mcquail(2005), there are four types of control over media: control of content for political reasons; control of content for cultural and/or moral reasons; control of infrastructures for specialized reasons; and control infrastructures for economical reasons. These reasons can serve as a guideline for the author to explore further.
The effect of marketing in political societies is enormous and really should never be underestimated. As what Katrin Voltmer and Gary Rawnsley (2010)explain, the function of media in democratic world is to (a) provide a forum where all voices can be listened to and take part in a dialogue with one another, and (b) to act as a watchdog of the federal government. However, the effect of the above two functions are the particular authoritarian ruling elites want to decrease, because they're not only the functions, but natural nature of mass media, if without control, the innate make will bring the mass media to the people's part. Then the pluralistic viewpoints and voices will appear that are unlikely all to comply with the politics will proposed by the ruling elites.
But if we stand at the point of the authoritarian government, the control appears to be necessary, because the multimedia have 'too much potential power that could be used to unseat the state or destabilize the country' (Robert McKenzie, 2006 73-74). The actual authoritarian governments most badly need is balance, for in chaos the energy of people will release and it is uneasy to be studied control again. Take China for example. The government makes every effort to forbid the expressions related to Tiananmen event in 1989, for fear of arousing another influx of opponents that might shake the foundation of the superstructure. Although the information is obstructed in mainland China, related videos, books, magazines and studies from in another country still stay hard evidence, which may be a great risk against the authority of communist get together. Only when those media become inaccessible to people can the central federal avoid dropping support from the public. Therefore, the authoritarian media may also be a watchdog, but to watch people rather than the government.
Beside, considering that the president or premier or the elite ruling group gets the high morality, responsibility, wisdom and really concern the individuals, it is unlikely for them to be sure that every standard they appoint or appointed by their appointers apart from through the election from folks obey the rules of the constitution. Holding great ability and backed by the superior, bureaucractism, red-tapism and problem will generate, which means that only by controlling the mass media can they cover their bad deeds, without knowing from the above and the general public. But if even the supreme rulers or elites group have ulterior or scandal of their own, degree of control will be much stricter and the free of media is far from possible.
In addition, because the media participate in the government, they could be used as a robust firm to propagate, strengthen and sublimate the value and merits of the ruling notion, thus earn more trust and understanding over disagreement. The news from the state-owned press is definitely the sensible decisions and favorable policies which give the people wish and better future, but seldom will there be any words that immediately criticizes the state market leaders or central authorities.
Almost all authoritarian countries in Asia have their particular as well as dominating traditional or political culture. These civilizations not only determine the habits of considered folks, but provide a well built harbor for the top notch ruling groups to prevent their regime from the impact of the exterior world. Advertising, therefore, can provide as a good tool to further fortify the preexisted culture on the main one hand, and broadcast and spread the home culture to the entire world on the other. In such a sense, to regulate the marketing is to some extent to control the mind of the mass people. The next analysis will focus on the research from several powerful ethnicities.
The most distinguished culture in Asia may be Islamism, a opinion that Islam is a politics ideology, and a faith. Because of this culture, to regulate the multimedia is to keep the purity of the people's thought and improve the commitment to the god.
"It is a modernist declare that political sovereignty belongs to God, that the Sharia should be used as state rules, that Muslims form a political rather than religious bloc surrounding the world and that it's a religious responsibility for many Muslims to create a political entity that is governed as a result. "(http://www. quilliamfoundation. org/faqs. html)
Based on the above mentioned definition, religious notion becomes authentic tool and people's behaviors are judged by the Qur'an. They believe in one God and avoid other religions. Then your Islamic content is dominating in media. The western thought, belief, worth as well as culture are greatly censored and are believed turmoil to Islam. For the coffee lover, the religion and politic are tied extremely near to each other. So if the religion or culture is influenced by outside or different impact, the politics rule will also be impaired.
Another powerful culture is communist culture. In this culture, to control the multimedia is to avoid the assault and social impact from the outside world. In present China, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, the culture is formed by communist get together rather than Confucianism, even while some parts of the manners and thoughts still follow the ideas proposed by Confucius. Communist culture is relatively young but very important. At the beginning of the communist get together, those vanguards performed create educational and honorable instances that motivate the fellow country women and men to fight outdoors invasion. They did earn people's trust that the communist party will bring them independence, democracy and equality. But communism is dependant on the philosophy proposed by Karl Marx that it's possible to produce an egalitarian or classless contemporary society by means of working as a collective whole. Besides, there's a huge difference of the definition of democracy. While girl respect democracy as characterized by free speech, two or multiparty and mass election, the communism believe the democracy is to liberate people and let people become the sovereign master. Since the Marxism was applied by the producing countries, the capitalism is becoming their foe. The traditional western thought and value as well as means of running economy are considered as resistant to the communist notion. Therefore, everything from the lady is restricted or thought as bad. In extreme circumstance like North Korea, the image of the get together is usually the representative of justice, while those european capitalist societies are shown as the shortage enlightenment of communist thought. With this environment, people are deprived of the theory to fight against free speech, liberty and democracy, because as what media show, there are in this process.
With the introduction of high technology, especially the booming of the internet, the battle between mass media control and anti-control has been typically upgraded. "Modern marketing communications technologies imply that authoritarian governments find it a lot more difficult to hermetically seal their borders and prevent their folks from receiving often uncomfortable reports, information and opinion from overseas sources" (Katrin Voltmer and Gary Rawnsley, 2010). Alternatively, the ruling elites obviously know that to regulate the main technology is to carry the initiative gain, therefore the high technology is not only broadly applied by people, but also by the federal government as a reasonably useful tool to exercise censorship, underground investigation as well as supervisory.
In other phrase, the authoritarian authorities plays the role of defense, while the dissidents and civil right fighters act as the role of offense, and the others becomes the audience, looking on the development of the game. This means that even though people can create some software to access the blocked information, authorities then can renew the fire-wall and all types of software to stop the delicate expressions, discover the opinion initiators, or even control them. In the end, the power of individuals is relatively small. They do not have enough economic income to keep them fighting with each other longer. They may be intelligent and are able to find the flaw of the censorship system, but seldom will there be anyone daring to mix the bottom type of the ruling category. However, the government has sufficient financial support. It could build well-equipped companies and retain the services of several highly professional hackers or internet veterans to help the information control and monitoring. New technology or the new press does provide the individuals with a system to speech out their thoughts and unfair experience with the federal government and the shown officials will do meet their deserved effect. Nevertheless, no administration desires its system to be corrupted and then lose its efficiency. In this particular sense, new technology also helps the federal government to find a new method to govern the products and officers.
When learning the media issues, economic esteem should be considered, for media is not only a social establishment, but also a business. With the regard for this essay, the reason why of press control from the monetary perspective are mainly focused on the issue of possession.
Altschull(1984) in his 'second laws of journalism' says: 'the details of marketing always reflect the interests of those who finance them. ' In other words, the economic framework of the state decides the framework of the media industry, thus determines the role of marketing. Specifically, in authoritarian program, the state possesses the press, and the primary resources of income are advertising, consumer revenue as well as the state of hawaii financial support. What should be found would be that the most powerful enterprises in authoritarian says are generally the state-owned or royal relates-owned establishments, which add a lion talk about of the advertising investment funds. Those state-owned companies not just have consistently financial support from the central government, but also take control of the choices of the consumers, in other word, the marketplace. The susceptible private advertising companies, though exist, can seldom hold the opportunities to set foot in the most influential market like broadcasting industry and are confronted with severe competition from various aspects. Then the domination of powerful state-owned companies in communication market sectors remains as an impassable barrier for private areas. Consequently, because the government controls the marketplace, that press are controlled becomes a nature process.
The research of the partnership between government and the advertising requires a various selection of research and research. The present essay at first introduces the situation of press in authoritarian regimes in Asia. When media are unable to perform as an agent of democratic change and loan consolidation, they end up being the important method of enforcing the authoritarian or totalitarian rule. Portion as the lapdog and gatekeeper of the federal government and combined with the relevant laws and policy, the position of marketing is set and can rarely be changed. Subsequently, the people have to be cautious with the serious censorship and take the chance to be punished if they seek to rebel the federal government will.
The goal for government to regulate the advertising can be examined in four aspects. The first one is the politics aspect that government takes the mass media as a good tool to keep up the balance of ideology, strengthen the governance and also to hide truth and dirt and grime deeds of the rulers themselves. In terms of the cultural reasons, the writer attempts to find result from studying to distinctive conditions of Islam culture and communist culture. A feature of the both civilizations is that the government seeks to manipulate mass media through keeping the purity of the culture, thus erecting a shield to resist the western democratic thought and culture. With all the regard to the technological sphere, the government does realize the actual menace from the booming internet communication, so they intently become a powerful defender to guard the harm from the domestic and in another country on the one hands, and makes most use of the high technology to bolster itself on the other. The past reason is from the economic sphere that since the authoritarian government has the huge impact on the market, it affects the mass media industry as well. Owned or operated and financed by state-run corporations, the mass media industry is unchallengeablely controlled by the federal government.
All in every, the media independence is a long process, and the independence of mass media and information comes after the politics reform, cultural transformation and globalization, technical advancement as well as financial development. Although press are managed, they remain able to play a significant role in driving forward the communal progress of the authoritarian countries in Asia,