Sometimes censorship works on its own: in Western media sources you actually
have to search with care for any coverage on Central Asian countries, making it
one of the least represented regions of the world in international mainstream
media sources. These are young societies in a troublesome transition –
censorship being one of the main issues. This blog serves to help gain insight
in Central Asian societies, by looking at the phenomenon of censorship.
Firstly, Reporters Without Borders’ Freedom Index suggests that press freedom generally is rated badly: out of 179 countries, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan as of 2014 occupy the 178th, 166th and 161st position, respectively. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan show better progress, with 115th and 97th position each. The classical scapegoat in these countries is to blame: plenty of journalists have told researchers that government officials use coercion as to prevent negative media coverage on politics and politicians (Kenny and Gross 521).
Yet censorship itself is not just a one-way process of restriction; rather it is part of creating communication, too. In a way, it is a mutual process between censor and society – in the case of Central Asia, it is everyday economics and culture that plays a role too, and censorships reflects this. Firstly, there are few sponsors of mass media, and as a result journalists have too much financial insecurity to risk getting a fine – making it easy for politically powerful agents to ensure a lack of challenge from journalists. But more importantly is the cultural process of transition apparent in the former Central Asian SSRs. Soviet media was always regarded as unworthy of trust, and repression continues the tradition. People disregard media in everyday, as it publishes mostly about non-political topics and promotes business (Kenny and Gross 517). Save for Kyrgyzstan, self-censorship is the most important agent in Central Asia’s problematic transition towards democracy, because of the before mentioned reasons.
Taking a look at censorship in a somewhat more obscure region is a good way to gain insights about the respective societies. The Soviet transition left a painful legacy for journalism, whilst authoritarian regimes see little incentive in encouraging independent journalism. The harder part of the story however, is to trace and understand specific cultural factors sustaining repressive censorship; as such this requires more research.
Müller, Beate. „Censorship and Cultural Regulation: Mapping the Territory.“ Critical Studies. Censorship and Cultural Regulation in the Modern Age. Ed. By Beate Müller. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi, 2004, 1-31.
Kenny, Timothy, and Peter Gross. "Journalism in Central Asia: A victim of politics, economics, and widespread self-censorship." The International Journal of Press/Politics 13.4 (2008): 515-525.
Rsf.org, (2015). Reporters Without Borders. [online] Available at: http://rsf.org/index2014/en-eastern-europe.php [Accessed 22 Feb. 2015].
Firstly, Reporters Without Borders’ Freedom Index suggests that press freedom generally is rated badly: out of 179 countries, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan as of 2014 occupy the 178th, 166th and 161st position, respectively. Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan show better progress, with 115th and 97th position each. The classical scapegoat in these countries is to blame: plenty of journalists have told researchers that government officials use coercion as to prevent negative media coverage on politics and politicians (Kenny and Gross 521).
Yet censorship itself is not just a one-way process of restriction; rather it is part of creating communication, too. In a way, it is a mutual process between censor and society – in the case of Central Asia, it is everyday economics and culture that plays a role too, and censorships reflects this. Firstly, there are few sponsors of mass media, and as a result journalists have too much financial insecurity to risk getting a fine – making it easy for politically powerful agents to ensure a lack of challenge from journalists. But more importantly is the cultural process of transition apparent in the former Central Asian SSRs. Soviet media was always regarded as unworthy of trust, and repression continues the tradition. People disregard media in everyday, as it publishes mostly about non-political topics and promotes business (Kenny and Gross 517). Save for Kyrgyzstan, self-censorship is the most important agent in Central Asia’s problematic transition towards democracy, because of the before mentioned reasons.
Taking a look at censorship in a somewhat more obscure region is a good way to gain insights about the respective societies. The Soviet transition left a painful legacy for journalism, whilst authoritarian regimes see little incentive in encouraging independent journalism. The harder part of the story however, is to trace and understand specific cultural factors sustaining repressive censorship; as such this requires more research.
Müller, Beate. „Censorship and Cultural Regulation: Mapping the Territory.“ Critical Studies. Censorship and Cultural Regulation in the Modern Age. Ed. By Beate Müller. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi, 2004, 1-31.
Kenny, Timothy, and Peter Gross. "Journalism in Central Asia: A victim of politics, economics, and widespread self-censorship." The International Journal of Press/Politics 13.4 (2008): 515-525.
Rsf.org, (2015). Reporters Without Borders. [online] Available at: http://rsf.org/index2014/en-eastern-europe.php [Accessed 22 Feb. 2015].
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePointing to the impact of the historical background of censorship to explain current socio-political situation is a very interesting perspective. Also, giving a brief insight into the region of Central Asia is a very refreshing case study, as you argue, It is an area in Western Europe we barely hear about.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in the main part of the blog, I would have liked to read a further develop of this idea, as you point to in your conclusion, It is a very complex topic that would require further research. The blog seems to seek to cover two topics;
on the one hand, the fact that censorship creates a communication between the censor and the society. On the other hand, the idea that self-censorship in Central Asia jeopardies transition to democracy. Had the blog focused on just one of them, the main argument would have been easier to spot.