Comparison of Media Regulation in China and the United Kingdom - Essay Example

Media Industry in East Asia Name: Course: Institution: Tutor: Comparison of Media Regulation in China and the United Kingdom Introduction In many countries across the world, the media industry is generally regulated by the government. The chief reasons for the regulations are not necessarily because of market failure of the mass media industry or its revenue attributes but also because of the industry’s social responsibilities that are mandated by the government. The report that follows compares the practices of media content regulation in the United Kingdom and China. In summary, the report finds that government regulation of the media is more pronounced in China than the United Kingdom. Although China has been transformed into a free market economy over the past two decades and has opened its internal markets for economic development, the government has not released the ownership of the mass media industry partly for political purposes. The ubiquitous government regulation of media in China serves as tool for spreading government propaganda. On the other hand, absence of statutory regulatory of media content in the United Kingdom has opened loopholes for some media houses to engage in irresponsible media practices such as providing inaccurate information to the public. Media Regulation in China A natural starting point for any discussion about regulation of the mass media industry in China is the acknowledgement of the fact that the Chinese government maintains a firm control of the media industry (Young, 2011). The government’s objective in controlling the media industry is to regulate media content disseminated by all forms of media including broadcast, print and internet. According to Thierer and Brian (2008), censorship of media content has been a common practice in China for many years but became more pronounced following the deadly students riots in 1989 in Beijing. Currently, about a dozen agencies are involved in monitoring, reviewing and enforcing regulations and laws about information flow within, into and from China. Of these agencies, the most powerful regulation and monitoring body is the Central Propaganda Department (CPD). The CPD works in close collaboration with the General Administration of Press and Publication (GAPP) as well as the State Administration of Radio, Film, and Television (SARFT) to ensure that media content promotes the Communist Party’s political and economic doctrines (Southerland, 2007). This serves to enhance the legitimacy of the government, which the West describes as being totalitarian and oppressive despite significant economic progress. Censorship guidelines are often circulated on a weekly basis from the government propaganda department to news editors. In addition, the CPD gives media houses directives on restricting coverage of politically sensitive issues such as the sovereignty of Taiwan and Tibet. In fact, press freedom organizations from Western countries have described China’s state news agency, Xinhua, as a propaganda tool that only serves the interests of the Communist Party. According to Young (2011), the Chinese government employs a wide range of measures to induce journalists and media outlets to censure themselves instead of being punished. Some of the tactics used by the government to censure media contents include dismissal and demotions. More often than not, authorities also sue journalists for libel and defamation, close news outlets or impose heavy fines. In China, it is not uncommon for journalists who overstep government regulation boundaries to be imprisoned. In addition, China requires foreign correspondents to seek permission from the government before making any reporting trips within the country. Most foreign correspondents often face unwarranted harassment from state officials if they cover delicate issues. All inbound data to China from foreign internet sources are filtered through powerful computer centers stationed in Guangzhou, Shanghai or Beijing. The filtering process uses key words to alert authorities of potentially provocative contents (Bhattacharji, Zissis & Baldwin, 2011). As China strives to become a key player in the global economy, authorities in Beijing are trying harder to balance the public need for information and the state goal for controlling media content and retaining power. Although the Chinese constitutions affords its citizens the freedom of speech and press, Chinese laws as well as media regulations prohibit publications of certain contents which the state may deem as endangering the country by sharing state secrets (Young, 2011). For instance, the government in 2010 revised existing laws on guarding state secrets. The new amendments extended requirements for telecommunications operators and internet service companies to cooperate with the government in investigating leaks about state secrets. This amendment was largely seen as an attempt to coerce media owners not to divulge state secrets. A major issue of concern in this case is that state secret rules in China are loosely defined and therefore can be used to censor any information that the government feels offensive to its political or economic interests. Since 200, China’s mass media industry has been undergoing a gradual process of commercialization, which is expected to lead to more competition, diversified content and an increase in investigative reporting (Bhattacharji, Zissis & Baldwin, 2011). Currently, only state agencies can own the media in China although there is a slow creeping privatization program. For instance, the China News Network Corporation, a 24-hour news network, which was launched in 2010 is said to be partly privatized. Government report indicate that the number of publications has substantially soared up in the recent years with more than 2,000 newspapers, 8,000 magazines and about 375 TV stations in the county. However, the large plethora of media outlets has not attained the ideal level of independence to deliver plurality to the media. The myriad new media outlets still remain a socialist, populist media that is still under government control. This is true even for online publications, which if deemed potentially dangerous are blocked during periods of controversies (Scotton & Hachten, 2010). In the past few years, the central government has made some notable changes in its control of the media in an attempt to loosen its grip on some sectors of the market such as event and advertising sales. This is largely due to China’s commitment to the WTO to open up all sectors of the economy for private and foreign participation. However, there is no commitment by the government to open up media ownership. Despite this key restriction, event organizing, advertizing and media distribution can be fully owned by foreign enterprises (Bhattacharji, Zissis & Baldwin, 2011). Despite the systematic control of media practices by the government, news editors and journalists find various ways to get past the censors. It has been noted that the primary space for freedom of speech in China is the blogosphere, where journalists use political satire and humor to criticize the government or make insinuations about certain sensitive issues. Bloggers also spell characters phonetically to circumvent government censorship tools. This way, Chinese journalists have been able to publicize some of the most controversial and critical issues despite the government’s regulations. Media Regulation in the United Kingdom and Comparison with China Regulation of media content and practices in the United Kingdom presents a totally different scenario from that in China. In the United Kingdom, regulation of media content revolves basically around codes of practice, which have been drawn by various bodies. Most of these bodies are entirely independent and their efforts to define regulations for media content are reached at after extensive public consultation (Evan, 2009). In some cases, the media regulation rules have been developed by bodies that have statutory powers over the media, while other are responsible bodies, which have been create by the journalists or media companies. In addition to the regulatory rules established by media companies, media content in the United Kingdom is subject to various specific content rules. All broadcast media are also subject to the laws of general applications such as those relating to obscenity, hate speech and defamation (Gant, 2007). Throughout the United Kingdom, the print media is entirely self-regulating and operates free of statutory rules. This is in contrast with China where the government maintains a firm control of all media outlets (Yang, 2009). The British print media as a profession has on its own initiatives established the Press Complaints Commission, which is responsible for developing codes of practice against which journalistic standards are measured. For the British broadcast media, two major broadcasting acts have been implemented to define the categories of materials which can be covered by codes of conduct. Specifically, these acts provide for the establishment of independent regulatory institutions to undertake a variety of roles including monitoring the application of acceptable codes of journalism. Unlike the print media, broadcast media in the United Kingdom is regulated by statutory laws and monitored through a process which is relatively very complex. Private radio and television channels are regulated by the Radio Authority and the Independent Television Commission, both of which were established under the Broadcasting Act of 1990. The two bodies have been mandated with broad licensing powers, which together with governing statutes require them to establish codes of practices which licensees must adhere to. They also have exclusive powers to sanction or take disciplinary actions on broadcasters who fail to observe their licensing requirements. An exception to this consideration is the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), a public service broadcaster which has instead established an internal system for addressing complaints. The most notable effort in regulating the media in the United Kingdom is the Broadcasting Act of 1990, which among other things prohibits broadcasting of contents that: i. Are offensive to decency and good taste; ii. Can potentially incite crimes or social disorder; iii. Are offensive to the public feelings; iv. News that are not accurate and impartial; v. Are religious programs that are not responsible and vi. Any illegal contents such as racially inflammatory or obscene materials. The above considerations are strictly enforced by both the ITC and the RA, which in addition to receiving complaints from the public about program contents can also take actions out of their own will. In case of breach of the above prohibitions, the two bodies can warn, advice or impose a fine on the offending broadcaster or in extreme cases revoke or suspend a broadcasting license (Starr, 2004). Unlike the case with China, all actions taken by the United Kingdom’s RA or ITC are post-broadcast. This means that neither body reviews program content before it is broadcast, although they can give guidelines and directions to program producers if requested. It is important to note that in the United Kingdom, all news broadcasters (radio and television, public and private) are subject to the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC). The BSC has powers to set standards for broadcasting practices and these include developing codes of conduct and addressing complaints from the members of the public. Although the composition of the Radio Authority and the Independent Television Commission are appointed by the government, they are in practice required to work independent of government intervention. The two regulatory bodies are funded through the licensing fees they charge broadcasters. In addition to several other responsibilities, the two bodies are supposed to ensure that licensees respect the terms of licensing. For instance, broadcasters must meet the requirements outlined in the Representation of the People Act with regard to party politics and election broadcasts (Gant, 2007). It should however be acknowledged that in implementing these codes of practice, a variety of competing interest are usually in play. These interests include the general public’s right to be told the truth, the practical realities of life in the media industry (particularly the need to disseminate timely information) and various privacy and personal interests such as the right to privacy. The need to attend to each of these competing interests means that the British media regulatory codes rely heavily on the concept of public interest and the constantly evolving notion of community standards (Evan, 2009). Although media guidelines in the United Kingdom are not laws, their proper application to a greater extent depends upon the capacity of media houses to maintain careful awareness of the prevailing public mood. This consideration makes British media regulations flexible enough to allow the media some scope to decide on the appropriateness of their contents. For this reason, the British media regulation codes are inherently vague and as a consequence, there is a great deal of scope for diverse interpretations and applications. This means that British media regulatory and standards setting bodies encounter greater loopholes when measuring the performance of media against set codes (Starr, 2004). Generally, the various codes of media conduct in the United Kingdom provide guidelines for the conducts of media professionals rather than setting prohibitions on specific type of media content. They represent an attempt by the government and regulatory bodies to give guidance to the media while recognizing the fact that it is not in the interest of the public to provide guidelines on what content should be published or not published in the media (Evan, 2009). A notable difference between media regulation in China and the United Kingdom is that regulation in China is effected as a means of promoting public acceptance of government policies and the Communist Party’s political ideologies. On the other hand, the British government exercises regulation of media content as a way of promoting responsible media practices and for ensuring that the public is not fed with inaccurate information or one that can potentially stir social unrest (Scotton & Hachten, 2010). Generally, media regulation in the United Kingdom is exercised by the government in association with media operators (both public and private) unlike China where the government censures media content. In the United Kingdom, the government has set up a regulatory framework to oversee the conduct of media outlets and to collect complaints from the public about the appropriateness of contents disseminated in various media programs. In contrast, the Chinese government has not implemented any such frameworks and instead, the government exercises direct control over all media practices. Another notable difference is that the British media can freely criticize the government about its decisions and actions and can also deliver stories about delicate and sensitive issues. On the other hand, the Chinese government does nota low the media to criticize its decision or to cover stories about sensitive issues. In view of these considerations, the United Kingdom can be said to enjoy more freedom of speech and the press than China (Southerland, 2007). Conclusion In general, the two countries, the United Kingdom and China, vary considerably in their approaches, the degree and the scope to which they regulate the practices of the media industry. In Britain, regulation of the media industry is largely centered on media ownership and less on the content. In China, any media content considered to be inappropriate by the government is regulated. Recent developments show that British law makers are poised to adopt a telecommunications regulatory framework which will harmonize media communication and practices across the country. In China, policy changes by the government, some of which have been taking place at least since 2001 will have profound effect on the Chinese society especially the media. References Bhattacharji, P., Zissis, C. & Baldwin, C 2011, Media Censorship in China. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved October 14 2012 from, from http://www.cfr.org/china/media- censorship-china/p11515. Evan, R 2009. Media Regulation in the United Kingdom. The global campaign for free expression, Retrieved October 14 2012 from http://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/publications/uk-media-regulation.pdf Gant, S 2007. We're All Journalists Now: The Transformation of the Press and Reshaping of the Law in the Internet Age, New York, Free Press. Scotton, J and Hachten, W 2010, New Media for a New China. Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell, Severin, W & Tankard, J 2001, Communication theories: Origin, methods and uses in mass communication (5th edition). New York, Longman. Southerland, D 2007, Radio Free Asia: China's Media Controls: Could Bloggers Make a Difference? Retrieved October 14 2012 from http://www.rfa.org/english/commentaries/china_southerland-04042008152923.html Starr, P 2004, The Creation of the Media: Political Origins of Modern Communications, New York, Basic Books. Thierer, A and Brian, A 2008, A Manifesto for Media Freedom, New York, Encounter Books. Yang, A 2009, Chinese Media in Change: A comparison of Chinese Media Framing of the 2003 SARS Crisis and the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake, International Communication Association, 2009 Annual Meeting, p. 1-41. Young, J 2011, China’s Media Regulations and Its Political Right to Enforce: Conflict with Foreign Correspondents, International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Research, Vol. 1, No. 3, p. 34-76. Read More