The Balance of Controls and Freedoms in Media

There are many strategies that regimes implement to oppress media freedoms, including threats of violence and imprisonment, state media ownership, bribery, censors, and vague laws interpreted on a case-by-case basis. Since the Arab Spring, many states in the Middle East and North Africa have seen improved freedoms for the media. Before the wave of uprisings, states such as Tunisia and Egypt both had strict laws and practices keeping media under the states’ control.

Tunisian media until 2003 was virtually entirely state-owned; licenses for television and radio stations were cautiously issued to people close to the regime who could be trusted to manage the content of their stations appropriately. In addition to the predominantly state-owned media, no foreign media were allowed into the country, with the exception of one French outlet. The media was tailored to show only positive views of the country and of its leader, essentially making them propaganda factories. Uprisings and other negative events in the country were largely ignored by the media. Social and labor unrest began to be prevalent in the country, at which point Ben Ali began to relax regulations and allow journalists and netizens more freedom. This move was seen as a sign of weakness and Ben Ali was eventually forced to flee the country in early 2011. The new constitution of Tunisia is actually quite progressive by international standards and most media is privatized, diverse and very lightly regulated.

In Mubarak’s Egypt, media freedom was very limited. There was a censor located at each individual media outlet, and owning one’s own newspaper was very difficult. Only people who were relatively close to the regime who could be trusted to manage content were given licenses to own newspapers or broadcast stations. State owned media and media closely controlled by the government covered only stories that would reflect positively on the regime, or at least not negatively. These regulations and censors were generally not very effective in Egypt, however, because the public had good access to international media. Most of the regime’s efforts to control the media fell flat because people were able to access international media as well as utilize social media for organizational purposes. Mubarak, like Ben Ali, was ousted after months of social unrest and demonstrations.

In contrast to these two states whose leaders have been ousted from power after years of oppression and non-existent media freedom, Lebanon is an example of a good balance of control and freedom. There has not been a major uprising in Lebanon in recent years, and the state was largely unaffected by the Arab Spring. Most media in Lebanon is privately owned, and is quite diverse. Media ownership is primarily reserved for powerful businessmen and other elites, but is not controlled for content by the government. There is enough media freedom in Lebanon that journalists and citizens have not been motivated to stage an uprising, yet the government still exercises a certain amount of control over the media. The 1994 Media Law places strict taxes and fees on media outlets, and there is a state agency that censors all incoming foreign media for religious and other controversial content. It is also illegal to slander religion or the president, however most other topics are fairly open. Lebanon has exercised an ample amount of control over its media such that it will be successful in maintaining the status quo, and the president will survive and remain in power.