What is self censorship?

Censorship generally refers to the method used by the government authorities or politicians to
directly or indirectly control the contents of the media that circulates within the society. Its
purpose is often to suppress information and ideas objectionable to the authorities in power.
Censorship may be viewed as a direct or self censorship on the certain slant of entertaining
issues.

Intellectuals give various definitions of self censorship depending on different situations.

Intrinsically speaking self-censorship is fear sensed by media practitioners themselves or
colleagues in the process and gathering news. This fear may link to press freedom or lack of
press freedom directly or indirectly and to freedom of expression. And due to the influence of
their media organizations editorial policy editors and reporters require selective reporting of
facts and stories, which is a form of self-censorship.

According to Solomon (2005) self censorship occurs when journalists are trapped between what
to broadcast or not and often ends up in favoring the authorities. Usually it is the result of fear
induced by the government authorities or politicians. Based on this argument self censorship
mainly related with political affairs. And the main bodies participated on the case are officials
and politicians.

Mwaura (1994) discusses the occurrence of self censorship as: when journalists feel obliged not
to publish information which might otherwise be deemed suitable for publication or publish
such information, because of fear of reprisals or to please certain quarters, they are engaging in
self-censorship. As a result most of the causes of self censorship are coming from the external
pressure.

According to Cronau cited in Nebyu, the process of self-censorship can develop in journalists
from an internalizing of the values of the news organization in which they work. Over time,
through training and a form of socialization, journalists develop a set of news values, an ability
to know what makes for good news and what doesn’t. That set of values is absorbed from the

1
news values of their media organization, and from other journalists they work with from the
culture of their workplace.

Journalists may censor themselves in many cases such as fear of losing one’s job or career, to
avoid stories affecting their media organization, on stories that could hurt advertisers, to avoid
defamation, invasion of privacy, national security issues, to please bosses or government
authorities and etc.

Why media self-regulation?

Independence of media self regulatory bodies is vital condition for promotion and protection of
the right to freedom of expression. In order to ensure free flow of information and ideas, media
regulatory bodies need sufficient protection against governmental interference, particularly of
a political or economic nature. And the members of a regulatory body should be open and
transparent, involve the participation of major stalk holders of the media industry and
independent of any side. Here we are going to see the need of self regulation.

Miklòs Haraszti (2008) lines the difference between self censorship from self regulation and
defines self regulation as about establishing minimum principles on ethics, accuracy, personal
rights and so on, while fully preserving editorial freedom on what to report and what opinions
to express. Self-regulation helps the media respond to legitimate complaints, and correct
mistakes in a trial-and-error way.

Self-regulation is a pledge by quality-conscious media professionals to maintain a dialogue with

the public. A complaint mechanism is set up to deal with justified concerns in a rational and
autonomous way. In the media, obviously only those outlets whose journalists, editors and
owners seek to produce a responsible press would engage in this dialogue.

On the other side Balcytiene(2009) argues self-regulation mechanisms set up and controlled by
the media elite, serve their economic and political interests and not the public interest. As a
result, the power of the media increases to an extent where they begin to control what the
public and the government say about the media and block unfavorable voices. This process
could be called ‘reversed censorship – censorship that is not established to limit what the

2
media say, but established by the media to limit what society says. Just as the function of
censorship is to propagate the ideology and support the power of the power-holders, the
ideology of a free media has been turned into a means of increasing the power of the media.
Voices demanding accountability or criticizing the media for irresponsible performance are
suppressed or accused of attempting to restrict the freedom of speech. Different opinions are
not tolerated nor are suggestions for stricter regulation.

However the values of self regulation are shared their implication differs from one country to
another. According to Lauk (2008) in nations with developed civic and media cultures (for
example Germany, Finland, Norway and Iceland), public control and media self-regulation
mechanisms have relatively strong authority among media organizations and journalists. In
countries that still continue to struggle with unsolved political, economic and social problems,
media self-regulation is developing under specific circumstances, largely under the control of
media elites.

Entertaining the above discussions it is vital to point out the advantages of self regulation:

 By promoting standards, self-regulation helps maintain the media’s credibility with the
public. This is particularly welcome in new democracies, most of which are also new to
an independent press.
 Media self-regulation helps convince the public that the free media are not
irresponsible. At the same time, self-regulation protects the right of journalists to be
independent, and to be judged for professional mistakes not by those in power but by
their colleagues.
 When it comes to correcting factual errors or violations of personal rights by the press,
satisfaction over the judgments of self-regulatory bodies lessens pressure on the
judiciary system to sanction journalists.
 It is quite natural for media consumers to seek guarantees about the value of
journalists’ information. Codes of ethics provide guidance on editorial standards, while
complaint mechanisms offer a kind of “quality insurance”.

3
  Complaints launched with self-regulatory bodies come at no cost, unlike court
proceedings. This is a considerable advantage for the average citizen. There are benefits
for complaining politicians, such as the speedy resolution of disputes, and the
satisfaction of seeing mistakes acknowledged publicly and voluntarily by the press.
 Democracy is not only about disputes. It is also about a shared culture of disputing in a
rational and fair manner. Governments, even if freely elected, are participants in the
political contest and therefore are not best-suited to enforce rationality and fairness.
Besides, democracy is incompatible with state custody of the press. Media self-
regulation is an effort to impose democracy’s political culture, independent of political
forces. It also advances the transition from a government-owned, state-controlled press
to one owned and controlled by civil society

Based on the above advantages Miklos Haraszti (2008) putted five major reasons for the media
to develop media self-regulation as the following

1. It preserves editorial freedom;

2. It helps to minimize state interference;

3. It promotes media quality;

4. It is evidence of media accountability;

5. It helps readers access the media