I smell a government rat in my news
The media landscape is evolving. Nothing new here. The web and the recession brought traditional media to their knees, in a dramatic change of the economic environment.
People are usually quick to point out that old-fashioned curmudgeons will go bankrupt or that ordinary people are now able to produce their own news.
Cheaper newsgathering combined to depressed advertisers means that news is moving out of traditional market economics (Wikipedia is the most successful news website, in case you did’t know).
However, it also means that players with deep pockets, who usually stayed outside the realm of the market, have less trouble getting to the playing field now than ever before.
In other words, government- or industry-sponsored news outlets will have a much easier time pushing their stories forward now that foreign bureaus are closing down the world over.
To quantify the process, I built a nice app based on the Google News API to find out the share of articles that were paid by a government or another.
Embed code:
It’s here for you to play around. Post any interesting finding in the comments!
Here are the government-sponsored outlets that I listed. Don’t hesitate to suggest another one.
| Outlet | Share of government funding | Country |
| AFP | 50% | France |
| Aljazeera.net | 100% | Qatar |
| CCTV | 100% | China |
| Deutsche Welle | 100% | Germany |
| France24 | 100% | France |
| ITAR-TASS | 100% | Russia |
| Kazinform | 100% | Kazakhstan |
| Kenya Broadcasting Corporation | 100% | Kenya |
| People’s Daily Online | 100% | China |
| PRESS TV | 100% | Iran |
| RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty | 100% | USA |
| RIA Novosti | 100% | Russia |
| Thanh Nien Daily | 100% | VietNam |
| Voice of America | 100% | USA |
| Xinhua | 100% | China |
[...] Full post at this link… [...]
Message pour débuggage :
“Warning: Division by zero in /homez.31/windowon/www/ismellarat/ismellarat.php5 on line 68″
obtenu pour des essais sur les URL :
- http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2009/06/11/menaces-et-rumeurs-autour-du-club-med_1205375_3234.html
- http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2009/06/11/01011-20090611FILWWW00371-italie-un-attentat-contre-le-g8-dejoue.php
Bonne chance !
Cordialement,
Merci, c’est corrigé!
En revanche, l’app se charge uniquement de comptabiliser les articles issus d’agences gouvernementales.
Il serait intéressant de construire une app qui compare les articles des médias indépendants (ie Le Monde ou Le Figaro) avec les dépêches des agences listées ici, pour dire XX% de l’article est basé sur du matériel d’agences.
[...] Full post at this link… [...]
[...] help you measure the amount of government-funded journalism, I built this little app, I smell a government rat in my news. Just type in any query and you’ll see the share of articles produced with state [...]
How about the BBC?
Ian,
The BBC is funded directly through the licence. The Foreign Office does give money to the World Service, but do they publish in English too?
That said, the BBC is certainly not free from political interference, as the government still sets the price of the licence. But that’s another story.
This post correctly highlights the risks of government interference with the media. However the premise that government funding always equates to government interference is false. As you point out, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty are funded by the US government; however, by law they are obligated to present balanced news and information.
The independence of VOA, RFE/RL and the other 3 broadcasters under the umbrella of the Broadcasting Board of Governors is protected by this bipartisan board, which acts as a firewall to preserve their editorial independence from government policy makers.
In countries where news coverage is controlled or restricted by the government such as Iran, China and Cuba, our broadcasters serve as critical sources of accurate, objective news. In dangerous places where threats, harassment and arrests are common, our journalists risk their lives to bring the truth to audiences about events in their own countries. To tarnish their integrity is unworthy of someone who cares about the role of a free press.
Letitia King
Director, Office of Public Affairs
Broadcasting Board of Governors
Letitia,
I never said that funding equated interference. People reading this post might have misunderstood my point, but I was only illustrating a structural economic trend that will progressively give more room to government-sponsored bodies.
You’re right that RFE/RL’s coverage is probably more balanced than many in the region (I know, I’ve worked there, have friends who work there and use it all the time). In the meantime, self-supporting operations like News Corp. are not immune from political interferences. It’s a totally different problem.
Ok, so you’re not counting the BBC as a state-sponsored organ because it’s paid though a tax (a licence fee)? But you are counting AFP, which essentially gets a state subsidy through beefed-up fees paid by the French government for the services it buys? And you’re not counting NBC, which is owned by General Electric, a major defence group that gets billions from the government? I can see the attempt you’re making, but think you’re not applying the same standards to all the media. For me, BBC has to be up there with AFP, DPA, NPR, and I’d argue for NBC as well. The inference is that there is interference with journalism in these groups. I’d argue corporate interference (see News Corp. properties) is stronger and less able to be countered by public exposure. That said, I’d lean towards news from state-sponsored sources in the West, where democratic rules can be brought to bear, than from autocratic countries where a small elite dictate policy.
Marc,
Thanks for your comment and I’d say I mostly agree with what you’re saying. My guess is that a journalist from NPR feels much more free than its counterpart at the Times of London, for instance. Measuring non-editorial interference in journalistic processes is tough and proofs are usually hard to find, since it’s mostly self-censorship we’re talking about.
Now, my argument in this article was purely from an economic point-of-view. All I’m saying is that the news ecosystem is getting further and further away from market economics. This, in turn, gives much more room to non-market actors, such as corporations, governments etc (A. Lebedev’s acquisition of the Evening Standard is a great example). I see this as an inexorable process. Now, whether or not this will translate in less qualitative, more biased news is a different issue.
[...] Ewan: Filter Government sponsored [...]
hope your not one of these all gov media bad all private media bad types
private media monopoly is just as bad
Steve,
Again, this isn’t about morality, values or ethics. This is about economics and it says the share of governement-funded news is going to increase.
Is it good or bad? That’s yours to decide.
Golly no!
Now the government will be able to plant ludicrous stories in newspapers like Saddam Hussein worked with Al Qaeda, even though everybody knows that Hussein killed any religious leaders he thought might have political clout knowing full well what happened in Iran in 1979 after the Iranian revolution deposed the United States puppet government that was installed with Operation Ajax which overthrew the small democracy there.
Gee, just imagine if our government was able to use our media to lie about stuff like that and completely get away with it?
Quick! We must do everything we can to save the media lest it become a simple and obvious propaganda machine. Heck, our government could use our media to distort economic trends, which could lead to stuff like dot.com bubbles and housing market bubbles!!
We must all act before it’s too late.
You’re 20 years too late and if you don’t believe me, read some Pravda from the 1980s. The United States hasn’t had a functioning media in decades.
[...] is worrisome, since, as the traditional advertising market further deteriorates, journalists will come to live off institutional actors, be they NGOs such as Internews or [...]