State media

The public interest theory, also referred to as the Pigouvian theory,[18] states that government ownership of media is desirable.[19] Three reasons are offered. Firstly, the dissemination of information is a public good, and to withhold it would be costly even if it is not paid for. Secondly, the cost of the provision and dissemination of information is high, but once costs are incurred, marginal costs for providing the information are low and so are subject to increasing returns.[20] Thirdly, state media ownership can be less biased, more complete and accurate if consumers are ignorant and in addition to private media that would serve the governing classes.[20] However, Pigouvian economists, who advocate regulation and nationalisation, are supportive of free and private media.[21] Public interest theory holds that when operated correctly, government ownership of media is a public good that benefits the nation in question.[5] It contradicts the belief that all state media is propaganda and argues that most states require an unbiased, easily accessible, and reliable stream of information.[5] Public interest theory suggests that the only way to maintain an independent media is to cut it off from any economic needs, therefore a state-run media organization can avoid issues associated with private media companies, namely the prioritization of the profit motive.[4] State media can be established as a mean for the state to provide a consistent news outlet while private news companies operate as well. The benefits and detriments of this approach often depend on the editorial independence of the media organization from the government.[22]

Many criticisms of public interest theory center on the possibility of true editorial independence from the state.[5] While there is little profit motive, the media organization must be funded by the government instead which can create a dependency on the government's willingness to fund an entity may often be critical of their work.[6] The reliability of a state-run media outlet is often heavily dependent on the reliability of the state to promote a free press, many state-run media outlets in western democracies are capable of providing independent journalism while others in authoritarian regimes become mouthpieces for the state to legitimize their actions.[5]

The public choice theory asserts that state-owned media would manipulate and distort information in favor of the ruling party and entrench its rule and prevent the public from making informed decisions, which undermines democratic institutions.[20] That would prevent private and independent media, which provide alternate voices allowing individuals to choose politicians, goods, services, etc. without fear from functioning. Additionally, that would inhibit competition among media firms that would ensure that consumers usually acquire unbiased, accurate information.[20] Moreover, this competition is part of a checks-and-balances system of a democracy, known as the Fourth Estate, along with the judiciary, executive and legislature.[20] States are dependent on the public for their legitimacy that allows them to operate.[23] The flow of information becomes critical to their survival, and public choice theory argues that states cannot be expected to ignore their own interests, and instead the sources of information must remain as independent from the state as possible.[5] Public choice theory argues that the only way to retain independence in a media organization is to allow the public to seek the best sources of information themselves.[24] This approach is effective at creating a free press that is capable of criticizing government institutions and investigating incidents of government corruption.[5]

Those critical of the public choice theory argue that the economic incentives involved in a public business force media organizations to stray from unbiased journalism and towards sensationalist editorials in order to capture public interest.[25] This has become a debate over the effectiveness of media organizations that are reliant on the attention of the public.[25] Sensationalism becomes the key focus and turns away from stories in the public interest in favor of stories that capture the attention of the most people.[24] The focus on sensationalism and public attention can lead to the dissemination of misinformation to appease their consumer base.[24] In these instances, the goal of providing accurate information to the public collapses and instead becomes biased toward a dominant ideology.[24]

2022 Press Freedom Index[34]

Highly Controlled   Moderately Controlled

Lightly Controlled   Relatively Free Press

Free Press   Not classified / No data

State media often reflects the values of the state it is operated by.[4] This leads to both independent, and very strictly biased media outlets depending on the regime the outlet is operating in.[4] In most western democracies Press Freedom remains an important value for the populace and the state, thus most state media organizations remain editorially independent from the government in question.[4] This includes nations such as Denmark, Norway and Finland that have both the highest degree of freedom of press and public broadcasting media. Compared to most autocratic nations which attempt to limit press freedom to control the spread of information.[6] State-run media organizations are at risk of becoming puppets for the state itself to spread disinformation and cover stories that do not favor their regime.[5]

"Worse outcomes" are associated with higher levels of state ownership of the media, which would reject Pigouvian theory.[35] The news media are more independent and fewer journalists are arrested, detained or harassed in countries with less state control.[36] Harassment, imprisonment and higher levels of internet censorship occur in countries with high levels of state ownership such as Singapore, Belarus, Myanmar, Ethiopia, the People's Republic of China, Iran, Syria, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.[36][37] Countries with a total state monopoly in the media like North Korea and Laos experience a "Castro effect", where state control is powerful enough that no journalistic harassment is required in order to restrict press freedom.[36] Historically, state media also existed during the Cold War in authoritarian states such as the Soviet Union, East Germany, Republic of China (Taiwan), Poland, Romania, Brazil and Indonesia.

The public interest theory claims state ownership of the press enhances civil and political rights; whilst under the public choice theory, it curtails them by suppressing public oversight of the government and facilitating political corruption. High to absolute government control of the media is primarily associated with lower levels of political and civil rights, higher levels of corruption, quality of regulation, security of property and media bias.[37][38] State ownership of the press can compromise election monitoring efforts and obscure the integrity of electoral processes.[39] Independent media sees higher oversight by the media of the government. For example, reporting of corruption increased in Mexico, Ghana and Kenya after restrictions were lifted in the 1990s, but government-controlled media defended officials.[40][41] Heavily influenced state media can provide corrupt regimes with a method to combat efforts by protestors.[6] Propaganda spread by state-media organizations can detract from accurate reporting and provide an opportunity for a regime to influence public sentiment.[5] Mass protests against autocratic regimes such as those in China, Russia, Egypt, and Iran are often distorted by state-run media organizations in order to defame protesters and provide a positive light on the government's actions.[6][42][43][44]

It is common for countries with strict control of newspapers to have fewer firms listed per capita on their markets[45] and less developed banking systems.[46] These findings support the public choice theory, which suggests higher levels of state ownership of the press would be detrimental to economic and financial development.[37] This is due to state media being commonly associated with autocratic regimes where economic freedom is severely restricted and there is a large amount of corruption within the economic and political system.[25]