I have to admit that I am a compulsive reader. Each morning I try to consume articles from several newspapers on a variety of topics. I vary my sources both nationally and internationally. So I was surprised again and again, over the last seven or eight years, when many of my friends developed very strong opinions about things that seemed improbable, irrelevant, or contrary to our present circumstances. What had I missed? I confess, I don’t watch much televised news and I don’t have a tik tok account. I don’t listen to talk radio or podcasts on a regular basis. I like to read and compare cold, hard data. So when people I love began to make some dubious claims that could not verify or corroborate, I became concerned.

As a social scientist, I was trained to listen to narrative accounts and corroborate evidence. I cross check sources and employ a variety of methods to identify potential bias and propaganda. Historians and political scientists know that all sources are biased and that critical examination of information is always required.

As a concerned citizen, I wondered what has changed? The answer to this question is of course multi-variant. However, I began to notice that the individuals most noticeably impacted all used a single news source or clusters of sources connected to a single party. I couldn’t bring myself to live in the social media space as my source of “news”, but I found myself subscribing to certain feeds just to get a feel for the landscape. What I found was disturbing….. but let’s reset.

According to the World Press Freedom Index, the U.S. ranking for media freedom is currently “problematic“. There are four rankings a)excellent/good. B) fair c) problematic. D) serious/critical. I wasn’t shocked to see virtually all of Europe, Canada, Australia and South Africa in the satisfactory categories. I wasn’t shocked to see China, Russia, India, and most of the Middle East in the very serious categories. But how did the USA (home of the free) end up below The Ivory Coast, Chile, Romania, Tonga, Armenia, Moldova, and Taiwan…just to name a few in a category labeled problematic?

Intrigued, I realize the list is based on rankings of laws and practices that make it difficult for media (of all forms) to carry out independent reporting. I also realized I had taken and taught classes about media restrictions occurring in two of the lowest ranked countries: Russia and China. Perhaps there are some lessons to be learned from countries in the bottom rankings?

What does infringement on a free press look like? At its core, restrictions on freedom of the press comes in many forms such as hindering access to sources of information (exclusion and suppression), control of information (exclusivity and distribution), creating information chaos (disinformation and misinformation) and encouragement of self-censorship (violence or averse consequences for those who speak out).

In Russia, the government owns most sources of information and cultivates relationships with friendly business magnates. Low levels of literacy in the country after World War II allowed the government to use schools a tool of “re-education”. Print media was effectively used as propaganda and censorship. Pravda (truth) was a daily newspaper distributed as the voice of the party. Izvestia (news) was a daily distributed as the voice of the government. Two sources, yet one voice to emphasize political mindset.

Early on, the emphasis was a nationalist appeal. Patriots of Russia must fall in line with the party and root out the elites of the old regime. The next wave of unifying propaganda was antisemitic and anti immigrant. Then, there were claims of uncovering errors of a clumsy bureaucracy and stories of devious outsiders and spies. But the insiders and faithful would rise above if they stayed informed and diligent.

Radio waves were used for party leaders to read speeches and statements without commentary. With the advent of television and a few private newspapers, Russian began to have dissenting voices which lead to a period of greater freedom in the 1990’s. Since 2000, however, Putin has severely punished journalists who challenge the official point of view by arbitrarily using laws that were created against “extremism”.

Selectively using the justice department, Russia has chosen not to pursue criminal investigations of journalists murdered while covering stories. It is estimated that over 200 journalists have been killed in the last 30 years. Deaths have occurred while covering articles about Chechnya, organized crime, state officials, bribery, business deals, and political oligarchs.

While the Russian Constitution officially proclaims freedom of the press, journalists are often charged with crimes and taken to court. Individuals seeking information are blocked. Television stations airing something outside the official point of view are sued. You are free to praise and agree. If you dissent, you may be humiliated, assaulted, criminally prosecuted, sued, illegally layed off, or detained indefinitely. Laws for combating terrorism or combating religious hatred are used selectively to target and punish writers who point out discrimination or inequities.

These politically motivated acts make self-censure a reality. People in the know are reluctant to talk. People who find out are reluctant to share. A shadow is cast and the free flow of information dies. The foreign press is denied entry or deported if coverage is less than favorable.

On the flip side, directors of media are invited to the Kremlin every Thursday for a briefing. The Kremlin claims great transparency and access as they tell the media what should be reported. Media directors are paid enormous salaries to ensure they get it right.

In 2019, Russia introduced the fake news law which criminalizes the publication of unreliable information as well as opinions that show disrespect for the government. Of course, only the government can determine what is unreliable or disrespectful. The fake news law and the extremism laws have been used to prosecute journalists for criticizing overspending, pointing out embezzlement, covering protests, and even for printing a poem written in support of Ukraine.

Russia is very clever in naming laws that limit speech. In 2014, they passed the law against the rehabilitation of Nazism. This made spreading false information a crime. They said they would prevent the rewriting of history by prosecuting anyone who wrote views that did not align with the official narratives. By aligning an action with something people feel they are against, the Russian government exerted tighter controls.

In addition to traditional media, Russia has enacted laws that require telecommunications companies to retain recordings, texts, and internet histories for three years. This surveillance helps monitor citizen journalists as the records are available upon request of officials without a court order.

Russia also does not recognize legal rights to information. The Kremlin views information as a privilege and has separated media into three groups. “Our guys” get exclusive interviews and offices in government buildings (often with direct phone lines to officials) with the expectation of services in return. “In betweens” get limited access upon approval and occasionally can have a story. “Outsiders” are usually foreign media and have to rely on outside sources and observation. In 2015, some outsider groups were silenced with arrests and deportations due to reporting about corrupt politicians and the oligarchy. The state control of media is alive and well in Russia.

Meanwhile in China, media is controlled solely by the government (the CCP). There are limited emerging private media sources, but even they are tightly controlled. News from any foreign media must be authorized or censored before release. Foreign cable news is only available in high end hotels, homes of foreigners working in China, or high level government officials.

News executives are appointed by the government with high compensation for services rendered. And news reports are created in a variety of levels with only the highest levels of government receiving unrestricted news access. Journalists not observing the strict categories of transparency are harassed, expelled, or jailed. At least 20 journalists since 2020 have had credentials removed.

China is also one of the world’s leading users of the internet. This has lead to tight restrictions on access. When citizen journalism took hold as a way to get around government media control, the government began planting fake users (trolls) to pose as citizen journalists to discredit their messages. Automated programs (bots), flood the social media platforms making it difficult to gauge authenticity and levels of engagement and thought.

Perhaps of most concern is the Chinese practice of thought reform. This is a large scale ideological purge. It can include ritual humiliation in which people with dissenting ideas are forced to apologize or recant while experiencing averse circumstances. High profile individuals of competing thought are targeted as evil or incompetent. There has been a heavy emphasis on schooling to ensure “the right thoughts are taught”. Usually these are framed as a fight against indoctrination. Educational institutions are surveilled and sanctioned. Funds are given and withheld based on compliance with the correct thoughts.

There are daily meetings held to criticize those outside the “right thoughts” and sometimes to self criticize if a leader has strayed from the “right thoughts”. Military leaders are removed and punished to ensure that the only connections are based on party loyalty. Government civil servants are watched and monitored to increase personal pressure and anxiety that leads to conformity. No one is willing to speak outside the “right thoughts”.

Older Chinese citizens refer to the “freedom of silence”. Have no opinion. Keep your head down. Don’t make waves. Do not attract attentions.

Thought reform requires the use of propaganda techniques, misinformation and disinformation. A constant barrage of official messaging that builds consensus around what is truth. This “spiritual control” legitimizes the actions of the party. It cultivates a pro-government mindset that the actions are the will of the people. For this facade to work, it is necessary to distance the party from what is going wrong. This is done by blaming actions on a corrupt government official or an incompetent career bureaucrat. Sometimes it is necessary to simply assert that the policy never existed or to officially construct and alternate reality in which the party was right all along. In situations where the contrast is too stark or too recent a small amount of negative coverage is allowed to reduce social tension. Media managers are formally trained as “spin doctors” in the Office of Foreign Propaganda.

China also employs other strategies for ideological domination. A famous Russian propagandist said “man is easily addicted to strong emotions.” Providing the strongest emotional value to the audience is part of China and Russia’s planned media business model. This is most often accomplished by hero and villain narratives. The hero’s are party members that good citizens want to emulate. The villains are everyone else / non members to be despised. The positive traits of “us” and our “right thoughts” are grossly exaggerated while also grossly exaggerating the attributes and “wrong thoughts” of everyone else. In this same way, official media makes sure to point out that the enemies only succeed through deception, cheating, tricks, and unfair practice. The party, however, succeeds because of merit, inherent goodness, and the “right thoughts”. Acts of our opponents are portrayed as corruption and opportunism. While acts of the party become patriotism and public service. This dichotomy grows as it psychologically imprints the populace.

Since 2008, studies have been conducted to better understand the influences and aspects of such practices seeking to control or limit the press. Scholars have identified three main areas to watch:

A) psychological: the use of media for propaganda, disinformation and misinformation for purposes of deception and coercion

B) media warfare: the use of media to intentionally manipulate public opinion

C) Legal: the use of the legal system to handicap opponents in fields favorable to them by suing for claims of false coverage, unfair advantage, defamation etc.

To circle back, Why has the USA continued to fall in World Press Freedom Index? As an act of citizenship, ask your self what media outlets you use. Do you have enough variety? Do you cross check sources? Do you understand common techniques governments and political parties in more repressive regimes use to control access to information? Can you recognize infringements that have or may occur on the free flow of information in the USA? Are you willing to speak out or correct infringements when they occur? Are you willing to cross check the information that I have provided? It is only a democracy if we can keep it.

*sources include Reporters without borders, Oxford Press, Cambridge Press, the Economist, Columbia University Press, Cornell University Press and a number of historical papers authored by independent historians.