The Effects of Regulatory Systems in Turkey and the United States of America - Essay Example

The Flow of Power – Individual Reflection Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Lecturer Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx August 19th, 2012. Introduction Undoubtedly, the mass media can play a major role in helping the citizens of any country in the world to keep a keen eye on the actions and policies of the incumbent government of the respective country (Freedom House 2007, pp.300). Amongst other things, these efforts by the mass media can ultimately lead to a responsible and relatively corruption free government which is accountable to its citizens. For the information gathered by the media to be effective and valuable, it needs to elicit a fitting and shared response. For the media houses to achieve this, it has to have real information which they are willing and able to print or broadcast (Lunt & Livingstone 2011, pp.15). However, this is more likely to happen in a country where democratic institutions are upheld rather than in autocratic settings. I chose to compare and contrast the flow of power in Turkey and the United States of America since the two countries are in different continents and their media laws are fundamentally different. In this essay, I will give a background on the flow of power and then discuss the comparison and effects of the regulatory systems in both countries. Background It is widely acknowledged that there is a strong correlation between media penetration and measures of media freedom. In this context, the flow of power refers to the dynamic relationship between the media and the government/politicians (Errington & Miragliotta 2011, pp.136). By breaking down the phrase ‘flow of power’, the word ‘power’ refers to the ability that an individual or an institution [in this case the Media] has to influence manage and manipulate knowledge and information (McQuail 2010, pp.279). On the other hand, the word ‘flow’ refers to the nature of the relationship between various conventional institutions in the society [in this case, the relationship between the government and media]. Therefore, the flow of power generally accounts for the dynamic cycle of power between highly elite institutions namely the media, politics and society (Street 2011, pp.284). According to Lunt & Livingstone (2011, pp.15), regulation and controls have the potential to influence the relationship between politics and the mass media. The issue of media regulation has always remained to be contentious one because it assumes government intervention and this constricts the freedom of expression as well as the right to communication (Lunt & Livingstone 2011, pp.23). External factors such as globalization and technological advancements, coupled with organizational changes such as privatization, commercialization, industry consolidation, as well as re-regulation [the relaxation of strict rules for broadcasting and telecommunications and the introduction of ‘light touch’ regulatory frameworks] have an impact that shapes media policymaking and regulation (Feintuck & Varney 2006, pp.65). According to Feintuck & Varney (2006, pp.12), over regulation of the media can cause ‘bad blood’ between politicians in government and the media. For example, in local and state politicians in Armenia followed President Nestor Kirchner’s directive in 2006 of showing zero tolerance towards press criticism (Freedom House 2007, pp.300). The tactics that the Armenian government employed against media houses which criticized the government included “control of government advertising and access to information; termination of programs on private and state-owned broadcasters; and use of authoritarian press laws, threats, and physical assault to intimidate journalists” (Freedom House 2007, pp.300). Another example was in Afghanistan in 2005 when journalists working for media houses faced an increase in attacks and legal harassment (Freedom House 2007, pp.307). The mass media in Azerbaijan is also not free and defamation lawsuits are the main method that the Azerbaijan government uses to intimidate government critics as well as the media (Freedom House 2007, pp.321). Comparing/contrasting regulatory systems in Turkey and the United States According to EnjoyTurkey.com (2010), the mass media in Turkey is not immune from stringent government regulation. This is evidenced by the fact that the Turkish media was ranked position 148 out of 169 countries in the 2011/2012 annual world press freedom index which was released by ‘Reporters without borders’ (Reporters without Borders, 2012). On the contrary, the American media is relatively free since the United States ranked position 47 in the same rankings (Reporters without Borders, 2012). In Turkey, the media is regulated by both local and international legislations (Turkey.setimes.com, 2011). The main laws that have been enacted for the purpose of regulating the Turkish broadcast media [TV and Radio] are Law number 3984 of 1994 and Law number 6112 of 2011 (Jamiel 2008, pp.252). Article 8 of Law number 3984 establishes the Supreme Council of Radio and Television, RTUK, whose main aim is to plan national and regional broadcasting frequencies in addition to ensuring that media outlets follow the “laid down procedures” (Enjoyturkey.com, 2010). This council has the power to revoke the licenses of the media houses that do not follow these procedures (Chadbourne.com, 2011). In addition, there are satellite regulations, cable regulations, content regulation, frequency regulation and CCTV regulation (Jamiel 2008, pp.256). The Turkish broadcast media is also subject to the Administrative and Financial Conditions Regulation which stipulates the necessities required for owning and running media houses. In Turkey, the internet and the print media are also heavily regulated by the government and this has led to the shutdown of many websites, newspapers as well as magazines (Turkey.setimes.com, 2011). The Turkish government has also put in place infrastructure to filter to filter all internet content and the Turkish Telecommunication and Transmission Authority has the power to ultimately close down websites without looking for court approval (Chadbourne.com, 2011). On the contrary, the print media and internet media are vastly unregulated in the US (Feintuck & Varney 2006, pp.112). This is widely evidenced by the fact that newspapers and magazines in the US can print anything on condition that they do not insult anyone (Lunt & Livingstone 2011, pp.18). When it comes to broadcast media, the Federal Communications Commission [the equivalent of the RTUK in Turkey] issues broadcasting licenses and frequencies in addition regulates the airwaves (Lunt & Livingstone 2011, pp.18). However, unlike its Turkish counterpart, the FCC rarely closes down media houses (Feintuck & Varney 2006, pp.113). Effects of the above regulations The relationship between the Turkish media and politics has for a long time been and continues to be a problematic one as a result of above mentioned regulations. Media regulation in Turkey continues to be ubiquitous; particularly on sensitive issues touching on the armed forces, political Islam, and the Kurds (Jamiel 2008, pp.253). By and large, all printed and broadcast matters which are considered to be damaging to State security, upsetting to peace, opposing to governmental opinion on secularism, or criticizing those in power have the likelihood of being regulated (Jamiel 2008, pp.255). In addition to this, the offending journalist and press/ broadcast organization receiving sanctions; which, according to human rights organizations reports, have included arrest, criminal prosecution, imprisonment, and even attacks by the police (Chadbourne, 2011). The stringent regulations on the Turkish media have led to a decline in quality of the news and information dispatched by the media outlets (Turkey.setimes.com, 2011). According to Kemal (2012), many journalists are forced to be ‘voice’ of the military, the government as well as the media owners by being compelled to write or tell stories that are not necessarily true. The reporters oblige out of the fear that they may face serious repercussions including losing their jobs (Kemal, 2012). This in turn affects the flow of information to and from the ordinary citizens of Turkey. In addition to this, the strict regulations have led to general outcry amongst the media fraternity in the country. It is a well known fact that some of Turkey’s well known media personalities and presenters have lost their jobs for trying to discuss issues that the government deems ‘sensitive’; matters that the government would prefer to keep ‘under the carpet (Turkey.setimes.com, 2011). Journalists in Turkey continue to face jail terms and for allegedly crossing the boundary on issues that the government considers sensitive. In fact, in 2012, the Turkish Journalists Union alleged that there are over 95 reporters who have been imprisoned in the country as a result of similar moves (Turkey.setimes.com, 2011). This number of imprisoned journalists in Turkey is said to be higher than countries traditionally considered as strict regulators of the mass media, in this case, Russia and China (Turkey.setimes.com, 2011). Undoubtedly, these massive regulations that have been placed on the Turkish media have deprived the Turkish Journalist Union of the many benefits that such a powerful and significant institution can provide (Turkey.setimes.com, 2011). As a result, the media houses in Turkey have become exceptionally susceptible and open to exploration by the armed forces of Turkey as well as the elected government officials and not forgetting the media owners who use their position to obtain government contracts (Kemal, 2012). This is absolutely the inverse of what happens in the United States. According to Feintuck & Varney (2006, pp.13), the print media is highly protected from any kind of government interference or intimidation, courtesy of the effective adherence to the First Amendment of the United States constitution. Although the broadcast media in the US is under some regulated by the FCC, this has not been done to the extent that the respective media houses are left susceptible to abuse by the military leaders and politicians, unlike Turkey (Feintuck & Varney 2006, pp.117). Conclusion It is important for the media to be regulated by the government, just like all other industries are. However, extreme media regulation is not good since the main aim of the media is to play the watch dog role and such measures hinder the media from delivering information effectively to the citizens (Lunt & Livingstone 2011, pp.19). The Turkish media is under a higher degree of regulation unlike the American media. The print media and internet media are highly regulated in Turkey, with the Turkish government setting up infrastructure to filter all internet content (Turkey.setimes.com, 2011). Unlike Turkey, print media and internet media go highly unregulated (Lunt & Livingstone 2011, pp.21). Even though mass media is regulated in both countries, the RTUK has the power to close sites without seeking court approval while the FCC does not have the authority to do so (McQuail 2010, pp.295). It has also been established above that the media industry in Turkey has not been protected from government interference, unlike in the USA. References Enjoyturkey.com, 2010, Media in Turkey, Viewed 17 August 2012, from http://www.enjoyturkey.com/info/culture/Media.htm Chadbourne.com, 2011, Turkey Overhauls Media Regulation, Viewed 17th August 2012, from http://www.chadbourne.com/files/Publication/f7967d58-3521-41da-a47d-02e34dac6446/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/d74f2cf7-78b5-4e99-9e70-05b015243b13/Turkish_MediaLaw_ca%28yuksel%29 Jamiel, M 2008, The state of media in Turkey, Economic Review Journal, vol. 34, no.20, pp. 252-258. Turkey.setimes.com, 2011, Turks protest new media regulations, internet censorship viewed 18th August 2012, from: http://turkey.setimes.com/en_GB/articles/ses/articles/features/departments/national/2011/11/18/feature-01 Errington, W. & Miragliotta, N., 2011, Media & Politics: An Introduction, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, Melbourne pp.135-153. McQuail, D., 2010, McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory, 6th edition, Sage, London pp.276-304. Street, J 2011, Mass Media, Politics and Democracy, Palgrave Macmillan, UK Lunt, P & Livingstone, S, 2011, Media Regulation: Governance and the Interests of Citizens and Consumers. Sage Publications Ltd, UK Feintuck, M. & Varney, M., 2006, Media Regulation, Public Interest and the Law. Edinburgh University Press Freedom House, 2007, Freedom of the Press 2007: A Global Survey of Media Independence. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Reporters without Borders, 2012, Press Freedom Index 2011-2012. Viewed 17 August 2012, from http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html Kemal, L, 2012, State of Turkish media is hopeless. Viewed 18th August 2012 from, http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-280577-state-of-turkish-media-is-hopeless.html Understanding Media and Culture in Turkey Read More