Reading Practice: Censorship in the Media

4 Commonly, censorship is used to impose moral values on a society. Moral censorship sees materials that are considered too obscene, vulgar or violent removed. Examples of this include restrictions on when nudity can be shown on tv for example, age ratings on movies, or the complete banning of contentious content such as homosexuality. Who determines whether something is moral is often subjective however and reflects the ideologies (or imposed ideologies) of that nation. Homosexual content is incredibly common in most western countries for example but is considered immoral in countries such as China or those with strong religious beliefs – as in the Middle East.

5 Of course, moral censorship is quite different to corporate censorship. Corporate censorship is also common and is said to occur when a powerful corporation intervenes in a media outlet to supress information which negatively impacts the image and success of that organisation. Political censorship can be motivated in a similar way, in that it can also seek to supress certain information from being exposed to the public in order to protect the image of a government or maintain favour with the public. Political censorship may also include – or overlap with – the control of information related to national security and military operations.

6 While these forms of censorship have existed in society for thousands of years, the 21st century poses new challenges and opportunities for the media. In this increasingly digital age, media is more available, accessible and user-controlled than before. While it was predicted that these developments would have made censoring the media more difficult to the point where such censorship would no longer be pursued, recent evidence suggests that this is in fact not the case at all. While true that censorship is more complex and challenging to manage, it has by no means decreased over the last twenty years.

7 A common and more traditional example of political censorship is the banning of privately-owned news outlets. By not allowing independent news, governments are able to better control the information that their public receives. This may also include the intimidation, harassment and imprisonment of journalists or members of the public who are considered to be flouting the rules – publishing content that challenges the state’s message. Of course, such publications no longer must be televised or in newspapers; rather, they can be published quickly and easily on social media platforms. What is seen in the context of the more authoritarian countries is that self-censorship is prevalent, with citizens essentially believing (however unfeasible) that a state official or computer algorithm is always monitoring their activity. This fear is reinforced by the fact that thousands of social media accounts are either temporarily or permanently deleted every week in authoritarian countries, with people being routinely arrested for spreading what is considered by the government to be misinformation.