Intervention of State in Press

Because of the high costs of production and distribution, the governments of many countries with economies based on private enterprise make available to the press both direct and indirect subsidies. In the United States and most other countries newspapers and periodicals enjoy lower postal rates.

In Italy and several other countries of Europe, journalists are granted reduced railway fares and publications occasionally receive subsidies and reductions in taxes. Grants are also made to news agencies. In other countries publica­tions often receive preferred exchange treatment, government subsi­dized newsprint imports, advertising subsidies, etc.

Obviously all these measures of economic assistance can be used as instruments to exert pressure on the press. The exercise of such pressures is common in many parts of the world and is especially prominent in Southeast Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.

“There are some less obvious restrictions on the freedom of in­formation” declared the Indian delegate to the second session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. “The shortage of news­print, for example, constitutes a grave menace to the freedom of the press”.

While it is true that paper is the material most essential to printing, it has been only during periods of extreme economic disrup­tion (war and early post-war periods) that shortages of newsprint have posed serious problems for the newspaper industry.

But there are countries with authoritarian regimes (e. g. Spain, Cuba and Indonesia) or with authoritarian tendencies that use such economic intervention as an instrument of control. In Spain the government used its powers of price regulation and allocation of newsprint in controlling the press. It also regulated the circula­tion of papers and their number of pages. It used these methods in favouring the Falangist press, which enjoyed fiscal and postal privileges until recently.

Latin America :

Authoritarian regimes in Latin America also have found economic regulations useful in controlling the press. In Argentina the Peron regime used a wide range of such powers, and in Colombia the dictator, Rojas Pinilla, chose quieter and more subtle methods of muzzling the press, notably through the control of news­print. By decree of 23 August, 1955, all orders for the importation of newsprint had to have the approval of the Empresa Nacional de Publications which issued licences. If these were granted, the orders could be made at the official exchange rate of 2.50 pesos per dollar with a stamp tax of 3%. Without a licence the tax automatically rose to 30% and the rate of exchange to 4 pesos to the dollar. It must be stressed that this peculiarly capricious system, like the arbitrary distribution of newsprint was consciously designed not only to control opinion, but to constantly prejudice the circulation of independent newspapers in favour of the Diario Official. It was, however later abolished under the liberal regime of Lieras Camargo.

Bolivia :

In Bolivia, government’s actual control of newspapers was chiefly exercised through its control of newsprint which was used as a sword of Damocles over the heads of editors who might be tempted to criticise the government or its officials. The government office for the control of the news was copied from the similar institution created by Peron.

Formosa :

While the control of the press exercised by the Nationalist regime is not so systematic or severe as that installed by the Communist governments, the control methods have included economic pressure on independent publications.

The ultimate manifestation of such economic control measures used by authoritarian regimes include confiscation, as occurred at Cuba on February 23, 1960, nationalisation, as decreed on May 24, 1960, in Egypt (UAR) and suppression followed by “supervision” as decreed in Indonesia on October 5, 1960.

Communist Countries:

In almost identical words, the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and other Communist People’s Republics of the Far East and Eastern Europe, guarantee the “freedom of the press”. But in most cases the constitutional guarantee or its economic adjunct limits the guarantee and the means of production (plant, equipment, paper and other materials) to the “working people”.

These provisions represent the legal implementation of the principles laid down by Lenin when he wrote : “True freedom (of the press) will be found only in that future system….in which any worker (or group of workers) will be able to possess and exercise the right, enjoyed equally by all, of using the public printing works and the public paper…” But in a pamphlet on the press published in 1921, the father of the Bolshevik Revolution wrote, “Freedom of the press is freedom for the political organisation of the bourgeoisie and their agents-the Social Democrats and the Social Revolutionaries.

To give people such a weapon as freedom of the press would mean facilitating the task of the adversary, helping the enemy. We do not wish to find ourselves committing suicide and for this reason we shall not introduce freedom of the press.” Since the Communist Party identifies itself with the working people, the result has been to limit the economic means of publishing to the government or to the Party or to its auxiliaries.

Soviet Union :

A Soviet law of 1932 that interprets and imple­ments the economic corollary of the constitutional guarantee states that printing offices of any kind, including those using duplicating machines, as well as those dealing in printing equipment, may be maintained only by government agencies, cooperatives and public organisations. Moreover, even government agencies must obtain special permits to acquire printing equipment or to use printing offices and are held strictly accountable for supplies of paper, inks, type metal, etc.

The distribution of newspapers to the appropriate sections of society is also closely regulated. Only 10% of a newspaper’s edition is sold in the street. The rest is distributed according to a detailed plan. Each republic and region of the country receives a fixed quota of papers appearing in Moscow. Local distribution is arranged so that Party and Komsomol officials are first to receive newspapers and administrative and economic units are next. It is almost impossible for a private person to subscribe to one of the chief papers. A Soviet citizen cannot simply buy or subscribe to the paper of his choice; he receives the paper that is specified for him according to the plan.

China :

The Chinese Communists’ policy towards privately owned newspapers has not been so straightforward or simple. In this field, it has been far more subtle and complex, a consequence of the Chinese version of Communist Theory of the State in the transi­tional period of “people’s dictatorship”, according to which all elements of society with few exceptions are entitled to enjoy all poli­tical rights, including that of having their own newspapers. Consequently, it was not considered advisable or expedient to ban outright all privately owned newspapers during the first phase of the revolution.

This does not mean that the privately owned newspapers were to remain uncontrolled. Privately owned newspapers with “reactionary” tendencies were outlawed at once, and in 1951, the regime began reducing the number of privately owned newspapers and changing the nature of those that remained.

Since 1953, there have been only five important privately owned newspapers left in the country. None retains its former character or independent status, and, for all practi­cal purposes, they are an integral part of the official press apparatus and are completely dependent upon the regime for the material requirements for publication.

Rumania :

In Rumania, economic harassment of the press, begun by the Soviet Armistice Commission, was continued by the communist Rumanian authorities so that within two years (1947) freedom of the press had ceased. Today, there are no privately owned or independent newspapers. Similarly, in Bulgaria an Albania there are no independent newspapers, and all the economic requirements for the publication of news, in terms of both produc­tion and distribution, are firmly in the hands of the State.

In the other Communist states of Eastern Europe the govern­ments have taken firm control of the press, and a major part of this control is exercised by economic means. In each country the regime or the Party has taken ownership of the principal and best printing plants. And even in those other nominally independent printing plants all the materials needed for printing-paper, inks, metals, etc.-are owned by the State and may be obtained only by allocation, much in the Soviet pattern.

In Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, the control of newspapers is neither as unimaginative nor as rigid as in the USSR. But, while there are semblances of freedom, particularly during periods of “thaw”, no real deviationism (criticism of the State, the Party or their objectives) is tolerated.

Hungary :

Moreover, even during periods of relatively less control newspapers are by no means free of economic pressures. For example, during the Hungarian revolt, in which newspapers played a significant role, only one newspaper took a rightist position. It did not manage to publish more than one issue; on the following day the typographers refused to print it.

Yugoslavia :

Certain principles that have characterised the economic revolution peculiar to Yugoslavia since 1948 also apply to the Press. Each newspaper is operated by its employees, but it is owned by what Yugoslavia call “society”. They hold that “owner­ship by society” is not the same as ownership by the State.

The system of self-administration applied to the press by the laws of June 26, 1956 has had the effect of freeing the Yugoslav press from the financial control of the State which originally, as in every Communist society, provided the necessary funds and equipment for the press enterprises. The result has been a greater degree of independence with considerably broader possibilities of expression than in other Communist countries.