Search results

Purpose – It may be time to reformulate the rejection of censorship. Freedom is not the only opposite of, strategic resource against, or antidote to, censorship. Methodology/Approach – This chapter argues against censorship with a Kantian-normative approach (the deontological position of the categorical imperative), using conceptual analysis, constructivism, and international legal scholarship, from the standpoint of a humanity-wide duty to safeguard and promote cultural diversity and biodiversity. Increasingly visible weaknesses of the argument against censorship from the utilitarian standpoint of freedom, a negative argument, can be avoided in this way. Findings – Especially the neoliberal approach to freedom has no provisions against corporate and only little against copyright censorship, which are both becoming increasingly acute. Diversity, on the other hand, both biological and cultural, is argued to be instrumentally good, and intrinsically good, but the latter only if balanced by equality of basic rights. Originality/Value – The resulting moral and legal imperatives are to support, safeguard, and promote diversity, and thus to minimize both censorship in culture and selection/elimination in nature, but only to minimize them, simply because they cannot themselves be eliminated. It is impossible to eliminate elimination. This becomes clear when one considers self- and soft censorship. At least in the wide sense, censorship is inevitable – but sustainable development is impossible without strict minimization of censorship.

Purpose – This chapter aims to show how media law strongly contributed to shape in Hungary what has been pictured as a U-turn. This illiberal trend was subsequently strengthened during the Covid-19 pandemic. Methodology/Approach – It considers that law also constitutes and not only orders political and social relationships. Law, including media law, has been in Hungary one of the main factors of change or rather of political-social construction. This chapter therefore moves from the study of positive law and analyzes Hungarian media laws within the theoretical framework of illiberal democracy, drawing from contributions to political science and socio-legal studies. Findings – This chapter demonstrated that media laws have outlined in Hungary a centralized regulatory system with broad powers, which lacks political independence, therefore encouraging self-censorship and limiting freedom of expression and pluralism. These laws contributed to shape the illiberal U-turn occurred in the country before the pandemic, but the coronavirus offered the occasion to reinforce government powers, giving the leeway to rule with no or minimum scrutiny for an indefinite period and further limiting dissent. The analysis enabled to argue that neither the media regulation established during the past decade nor the laws adopted during the Covid-19 pandemic are compatible with a modern democracy. Originality/Value – Based on existing literature, little research has been conducted on the appearance and endurance of non-democratic regimes, and supposedly even less within the context of the coronavirus pandemic which started only a few months ago, compared to the contributions available on democratization processes and democratic consolidation.

With 43.2 million coronavirus cases and 525,000 deaths in 2022, India ranked second worldwide, after the United States (84.6 million cases and 1 million deaths), according to the latest available June 2022 COVID-19 impact data.

Amid people’s growing mistrust in the government, India’s news media enhanced the nation’s distinguished designation as the world’s largest and most populous democracy. India’s news media inform, educate, empower, and entertain a surging population of 1.4 billion people, which is roughly one-sixth of the world’s people.

Drawing upon the media agendamelding theoretical framework, we conducted a case study research into interplay between two prominent democratic institutions, the media and the government, to analyze the role of the COVID-19 pandemic in redefining India’s networked society.

India’s COVID-19 pandemic aggravated internecine tensions between media and government relating to four key freedom issues: (1) world’s largest COVID-19 lockdown affecting 1.3 billion Indians from March 25, 2020 to August 2020 with extensions and five-phased re-openings, to restrict the spread of COVID-19; (2) Internet shutdowns; (3) media censorship during the 1975–1977 “Emergency”; and (4) unabated murders of journalists in India.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic caused deleterious problems debilitating the tensions between the media and the government, India’s journalists thrived by speaking truth to power. This study delineates key aspects of India’s media agendamelding that explicates how the people of India form their media agendas. India’s news audiences meld media messages from newspapers, television, and social media to form a picture of the issues, insights, and ideas that define their lives and times in the 21st century digital age.

This chapter examines the evolution of the authoritarian political tradition in Russia from its inception to the present, and its influence on the development of Russian mass media. The authoritarian tradition became most pivotal for daily life in Russia, as it ensured that the media fully ascribed to specific political agendas. The cohesion has consistently affected Russian media coverage and continues to shape it today. The authors investigate how precisely this occurs, focusing on several political events, specifically the current situation in Ukraine. Through studying certain empirical materials concerning the political evolution in Russia, the authors answer the question of whether in the future Russian media will be likely to continue serving as an instrument of political propaganda rather than as a source of non-biased information.

The MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region is in a critical moment in its information and news ecology, exhibiting signs of pretruth and posttruth syndromes. Between the “pretruth” and “posttruth” there is a gap that circumvented “truth.” The state of information in the MENA region brings back the dystopian Orwellian notion of the “Ministry of Truth.” A poetic term in anticipation of this moment of the crisis of truth. Sharing the latter with the rest of the world, the pretruth moment is engraved in the region's history of precarious political and religious authoritarian control and manipulation of information and news and low press freedom. In the region, truth is told, hidden, distorted, and manufactured by a blend of humans and bots, where both artificial intelligence and social humans are involved in this process of multipolarized disinformation operations with multifarious sponsors, actors, and beneficiaries that have distinct and often clashing agendas and interests. To understand the ecology of truth, facts, news, and information in the Middle East, studies ought to be situated within the ecosystem of information and media technologies in the globalized national and transnational societies of the region and consider both the role of the regionally oriented neoauthoritarian regimes and that of interested rising and established global powers. Central to this ecosystem is the dynamic interaction among three actors: communication technologies (the focus here is on the Internet); media, public, and activists' use of these technologies to mobilize, inform, and present alternative narratives, and to resist or confirm state narratives; and the authoritarian political regimes and their containment strategies for legacy media (particularly television) and the Internet.

The theory of the civilizing process, first introduced by sociologist Norbert Elias, refers to the process by which aggressiveness becomes “domesticated” through an individual's or community's adoption of civilized codes of conduct and patterns of social behavior. From the perspective of this theory, fundamental civil liberties and human rights, as defined in the European Convention for Human Rights, can be seen as an essential catalyst in the civilizing process. Human rights is a topic high on the agenda of many international and non-governmental organizations. Yet little is known about the way that these organizations operate in their aims to further the universalism of human rights, and in particular with regard to human rights and the media. The Council of Europe (CoE) is a major non-governmental organization involving dozens of countries from around the world, and it plays a major role in political bargaining with nations. In addition to the CoE's commitment to human rights, it devotes considerable resources to investigate and document developments in the media as well as human rights violations in its member countries, it takes measures to sanction countries that are in violation of its codes, and it sets forth a policy agenda for the future. In this chapter, the author has drawn on his experiences as a member of the parliamentary Assembly of the CoE, interviews with journalists, judges, and politicians, and the reports of the CoE, to explain the work of the CoE in the area of human rights and the media. The chapter begins by making the argument that the theory of the civilizing process elaborated by Elias, providing important insights into understanding the role of the CoE in the area of human rights and the media. In conclusion, a critical assessment of the role of international organizations and their efforts to further the development human rights particularly in the field of journalism and the media is offered.

This qualitative study examines the influence of media development in Iraqi Kurdistan after nearly a decade and a half of donor country-funded professional journalism training in a period following an oil boom and bust, influence of a transnational terror organization, and a recent vote to secede from the rest of Iraq. The study builds out a typology of economic, political, bureaucratic, legal, cultural, and societal capture, and applies it in an analysis of data from in-depth, semi-structured interviews that were conducted in the two largest cities in Iraqi Kurdistan.