Dr. Pradeep Mahapatra
In the mass-media sphere all creative content undergo scrutiny at several layers before publication. For example, when a reporter files a story for newspaper, it has to be cleared by one or more professional editors to be fit for printing. Policy for selection of news and opinion for individual news organisations are determined by the publisher, editor or editorial board of respective publications. Often social and political directives play a vital role in determination of editorial priorities. However, at times, in absence of external obstacles and compulsions, the journalists prefer to keep themselves off from writing news on certain developments, topics and ideas. Such personal decision is termed as ‘self-censorship’.
In a media ecosystem where technological progress brought tremendous impact in development of communication and could achieve to realise the dream of ‘global village’ concept, it is heartening to note that more and more journalists, writers, thinkers and political activists are resorting to self-censorship. Experts identify unprecedented political and social polarisation and autocratic rule as the fundamental reasons responsible for spread of self-censorship in the post-Covid19 world order.
Firstly, criticism in any manner is discouraged in the autocratic regime which directly impacts freedom of expression. Secondly, citizens practice self-censorship anticipating confrontation of possible dangers and refrain themselves from conversations on certain subjects. Thirdly, even in absence of any formal laws and regulations flow of information face hurdles. Technological progress in the media platforms alone can not enrich the cycle of effective communication. Free and qualitative journalism ensure public good.
Voluntary and intentional denial to circulate certain information are two important characteristics of self-censorship. It hurts free-flow of public communication challenging proper functioning of democracy. Circulation of information and news enables the citizens to learn about social, political and cultural developments in the neighbourhood which is essential for formulating appropriate decisions. Failure in such mechanism prompt circulation of fake news and create disturbances in democratic systems.
In case of self-censorship, a person choose not to share information or opinion on certain subjects due to various reasons. They decide not to reveal truthful information to their close relatives, friends, community members, leaders or media. They may believe that concealing it can save them from inherent danger. But in reality free flow of information, even if it is negative, can ensure rectification of problems for better functioning of society.
Freedom of expression demands utmost importance in democracy. ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ calls upon the member nations of the world body to promote freedom of expression among the people. Acquaintance with information and news enable them to understand prevailing political climate to take proper decisions and participate in democratic process. Free flow and free access to information serves as a necessary conditions for development of open-minded, well-informed, knowledgeable and critically oriented citizenship. Self-censorship is a barier for proper functioning of a democratic society as it inhibits freedom of expression and flow of information.
The definition of self-censorship suggests three prerequisites. Firstly, a person should possess new information that has not been revealed. Secondly, even in absence of any formal legal obstacles the person intentionally and voluntarily decides to withhold information. Thirdly, such behaviour goes against free flow of information. In other words, the people are deprived from accessing certain information which they could have attained in the natural process. Self-censorship is considered as a socio-psychological barrier. During Covid-19 pandemic social sanctions prevented enough information from free circulation. However, the practice of self-censorship continued in post-Covid-19 pandemic New Normal when formal impediments are absent.
In the media environment news and opinion both can confront self-censorship. News is factually based knowledge. It refers to an incident or development wich actually happened and considered verified and validated. News is based on evidence and therefore truthful. On the other hand, opinion is subjective interpretation and travels beyond data. It is somebody’s inferences, evaluations and attributions oriented opinion pieces published in media. Further it is based on information with elaboration and comment on personal understanding. General public expect the journalists to practice impartiality while reporting news and presenting opinion in the media platforms. But self-censorship can block certain aspects of the truth there-by hurting the fundamental value of journalism.
Human beings evolutionarily tend to share information and knowledge that they observe, collect or generate. Psychologists explain that “people pass on major news stories not out of an altruistic desire to inform others, but simply to relieve their own feelings.” To illustrate the point, let us consider a hypothetical case from the pre-historic times. A person becomes scared when he or she finds movement of a tiger near their habitat. Immediately the news is communicated to others in the group and the person feels relieved out of fear to some extent considering that all can combinedly confront the attack of the tiger. But if the person decides not to reveal the news to others, in one hand continue to live in fear of tiger nearby and on the other hand, on account of ignorance one of the community members may face the attack by the tiger. Thus, self-censorship results in negative outcome both at personal and community level.
Democratic values demand priority in the modern civilization. Freedom of expression is crucial for the rational participation of citizens in democratic societies. Though self-censorship is a personal choice, mass encouragement for free flow of information in the developed nations tends to motivate the creative minds to come out of concealing information. Readers, listeners and viewers initiate steps to closely connect with journalists, writers and artists through civil societies. However, communication and connection between the creative persons and their audience appears to be thin in developing nations due to absence of organised efforts which in turn promotes self-censorship. To combat self-censorship in counties like India, civil societies have a greater role to play to enrich democracy.
(English translation of the original Odia newsletter by the author circulated on April 5, 2024. https://pmjournalism.substack.com/p/ad4 It is an open-access content, free for translation and reproduction)
Dr. Pradeep Mahapatra is a retired faculty of Journalism, Berhampur University, Odisha.https://about.me/pradeepmahapatra
Reference:
Bar Tal, Danill. Self-Censorship: The Conceptual Framework. October 2017.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320714763_Self-Censorship_The_Conceptual_Framework