In democratic countries, freedom of the press is legally established, but this does not mean that restrictions cannot take place behind the scenes. Sometimes restrictions on press freedom happen in such a devious way that you and I don’t even notice. Do you actually know who controls most of the media? And would you dare to write a daring book about Islam in this century? Take a look behind the scenes…
Conflict of interest
Research (the Nieuwe Reporter) shows that journalists are not always independent in collecting, shaping and passing on information, are sometimes consciously or unconsciously seduced by commercial parties and also occasionally deliberately omit information for commercial reasons. In all these cases the reader remained unaware of the conflict of interest. And if the independence of the press is compromised, so too will press freedom.
A series of interviews with editors-in-chief show that in many cases the public function of journalism no longer guides the choices that are made. The wishes of advertisers are being met to a greater extent, both in the existing sections and in the development of new initiatives, the importance of reader surveys has increased in most publications and in product innovation, the focus is mainly on initiatives that match the wishes and needs of (potential) target groups. Although the editors are still formally independent and most editors-in-chief also guard against conflicts of interest, at the same time the boundaries have shifted and become less clear due to more market-oriented thinking. The question is what effect, in particular, target group thinking – including by offering more consumer journalism or closer collaboration with commercial parties to strengthen their own position – will have on the quality and reliability of the Dutch media.
The power of the owners
In 1997, the publisher HarperCollins commissioned Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong, to write his biography. At the same time, Rupert Murdoch, then owner of HarperCollins, was trying to buy into the Chinese market. When he realized that Patten’s book would probably be critical of the Chinese, Murdoch pointed out the negative aspects of a publication to the English publisher of HarperCollins. The contract was terminated.
Over the years, newspaper owners have exerted enormous influence. These owners determine the political stance, the position that their newspaper will take. In their choice of what may and may not be printed, they have control over the flow of information to their readers. In 1947, the U.S. Commission on Freedom of the Press reported that freedom of expression was not at risk from the government, but from the people who had control over access to the media. At the beginning of the last century, most newspapers were family businesses. Now they are part of national or multinational media giants. So there is enormous influence in the hands of a few people. In Germany the Springer group had a major influence on the press. In some areas in Germany it controlled sixty percent of the distribution. On Sundays it had a complete monopoly. It was the owner of both Die Welt and the largest sensational newspaper Bilt-Zeitung. In the US, fewer than twenty companies controlled most of the country’s mass media. Five media groups controlled the world media.
In the US, the press has generally tried to appear impartial, as newspaper owners feared losing readers by adhering to one political leaning. However, many European newspapers have made no attempt to hide their political leanings. In Britain, Conservative headquarters provided almost half the money to buy the Observer. Lord Rothermere used the fourteen newspapers he owned, including the Daily Mail, as a mouthpiece for his support of European fascism. After World War II, Germany was divided into zones, each governed by different Allied countries. The differences between American and British journalists came to light. In the British zone, permission to publish newspapers was given to groups supporting one of the new official political parties. In the American zone, every newspaper had to have an editorial board in which all parties were represented, including sometimes communists.
Most popular English newspapers, such as the Daily Express and the Daily Mail, have traditionally supported the Conservative Party. A few newspapers, such as the Daily Mirror , supported the Labor Party. The Sun supported the Labor Party until it was bought by Rupert Murdoch in the early 1970s. From then on, the Sun became a right-wing newspaper, emphatically supporting the Conservatives. After a flurry of articles against the Labor Party, the Sun took credit for the Conservative Party’s victory in 1992: IT WAS THE SUN THAT WON. However, when Tony Blair became Labor Party leader in 1994, he decided he needed the support of the Sun to oust the Conservatives from their position of power. He managed to get Rupert Murdoch to join the Labor Party and won the 1997 national elections.
Selection
To a certain extent, journalists have control over what does and does not appear in the newspaper. Journalists choose which articles to include by selecting what is news and what is not. In the first part of the twentieth century, the miserable living and working conditions of the poor were often described in American newspapers. But with increasing competition for readers in North American cities, there was a rush for hot news. Sensational stories and fierce campaigns replaced more general matters. A good example of this is the Kansas City Star, where the editor managed to increase circulation by publishing public officials’ misconduct.
The question remains whether this arms race for popular reporting benefits the quality and objectivity of the press . How many important matters have to be censored for the sake of royal intrigue? The reporting on Ethiopian famine in the 1980s provides the answer. The media, and perhaps also the population, was bored with the hunger and problems in African countries. Famine was a persistent phenomenon and was no longer considered news or noteworthy. In 1984, the ABC TV News correspondent was told that millions of lives were threatened by drought and famine in Africa. At ABC headquarters they decided not to broadcast the news as it was too expensive. Michael Buerk of the BCC then went to Ethiopia and captured the naked truth of children dying of hunger on film. People all over the world saw the report and responded. Bob Geldof, for example, organized a series of Live Aids concerts to raise money. The response to the news saved approximately seven million lives, but millions of people had died before the television cameras arrived.
Self-censorship
Press services that omit the most gruesome images from the film material received, a search engine that does not pass on certain pages, a comedian who does not dare to perform certain jokes. Self-censorship is a special version of censorship. It means that media or individuals impose restrictions on themselves, for example to spare the feelings of their listeners, or to avoid difficulties with the government or society. On the one hand, self-censorship is a healthy phenomenon: one should not want to say everything, but on the other hand it can mean that intolerance is rampant within society and that groups or individuals no longer dare to share their opinions and beliefs. No article of law for freedom of the press or freedom of expression can then guarantee freedom. Knowing that fear is not a good counselor, I discuss self-censorship as a result of fear.
After the murder of Pim Fortuyn in 2002, threats have become increasingly public. For example, it became known that former politicians Ad Melkert and Paul Rosenmöller received a bullet letter, as did football coach Frank Rijkaard and parliamentary reporter Ferry Mingelen. Yet it seems as if the fear of threats only really struck after the murder of Theo van Gogh. For a number of people it has even been a reason to withdraw from the public debate altogether. Columnist Paul Cliteur was the first, but he was soon followed by others, such as the writer Hasna El Maroudi. She stopped her column in the NRC after she was threatened because of a piece about the feud between Berbers and Arabs in Morocco. For others, threats are a reason to self-censor and avoid certain sensitive topics.
Cabaratier and columnist Youp van t Hek has said that he has been regularly using the knife of self-censorship for some time now. And director Albert ter Heerdt of the successful film comedy Shouf Shouf Habibi! is temporarily refraining from a sequel to the film, because he has been advised against it by Islamic circles. Politicians also admit that certain topics are avoided after threats. According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch press also suffers from self-censorship. Problems are being pushed aside because society is tired of discussing Islam. We would rather not see the danger in all its nakedness. Not every day. Not every week. We prefer to put it into perspective and prefer to put it into perspective. We will then talk about fundamentalism of other religions, about other countries, about other dangers. Perhaps the biggest, most recent example of self-censorship in the Netherlands was the film Submission, which is no longer shown anywhere. The film was the direct reason for the murder of Theo van Gogh. The producer, Gijs van de Westelaken, was afraid that there would be more victims if the film were to be shown.