The Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) released a study in January 2009, entitled Soft Censorship: How Governments Around the Globe Use Money to Manipulate the Media. The study shows how young democratic governments link financial power and influence to the degree of freedom of expression granted in a country.

In many countries with a democratic façade, money has become the most popular weapon for government manipulation of the media. Across the world, from Latin America, Asia to Africa, young democracies are employing a new subtle, or soft form, of censorship as a way to exert control over the media.

First, soft censorship is defined as government-applied financial pressure on media companies that are seen to be critical of its policies, and rewards to those who are in accord with their agenda. This can take the form of government advertising that can be withdrawn from a publication, pressure by the government on commercial enterprises to advertise in certain media and not others, and direct payments to journalists in exchange for writing articles that augment or convey government positions.

In countries moving toward healthy democracy, the government’s role in how much ad revenue can be generated by media houses is especially precarious - it can mean life or death for a newspaper or broadcaster.

In Africa, advertising manipulation and editorial bribes are rife. Several newspapers in South Africa have faced government-advertising boycotts to punish contentious coverage and influence future direction of content.

In one example, in 2007, the Grocott’s Mail, in Grahamstown, lost municipal government ads and officials stopped talking to the paper’s journalists. Concurrently, ads were being funneled into a less credible free-distribution paper. The editorial board of Grocott’s Mail filed a legal case against the boycott and they used their high circulation rates to stress that taxpayer’s money should be used to support it rather than blatant government persuasions. The municipality retreated but no litigation was created to prevent such a case from recurring.

In Botswana, the report found that again freedom of expression often comes with a price tag. The report focused on the case between the parastatal Botswana Telecommunications Corporation and the Tswana Times. The paper lost the corporation’s ads after publishing a report that the corporation had tried to dissuade them from pursuing.

In an interview with the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)-Botswana, the corporation said, “There are several newspapers that we have not yet placed advertisements on for the simple reason that we have not found them suitable for particular campaigns.”

Similar tactics surfaced Kenya in April 2007 when the public services ministry sent an e-mail to several agencies instructing them to cancel advertising with the Standard Group media company. In Rwanda and Namibia, similar stories of government destruction of the media confirmed this growing trend.

All of these tactics reduce the quality of media and drain resources, but for small media houses and underpaid journalists in young democratic and transitional countries it is often hard for them to address soft censorship and remain financially viable. The report found that, “journalists in some countries have vehemently objected to any remedy for soft censorship that will rob them of revenue.”

The report laid out a number of recommendations including: “Greater transparency in awarding advertising contract to independent newspapers and broadcasters, implementing regulations to the end the practice of withholding advertising, using litigation to fight discrimination in placing advertising and withdrawing advertising, making the government responsible for measuring audiences and increasing the compensation of journalists...”

To download a free copy of the report please visit: http://cima.ned.org/640/soft_censor...