The role of large media corporations in modern-day politics is a touchy subject, especially with the rapid evolution of streaming services and the popularity of the 24-hour news cycle. The labeling of publications or broadcasting networks as “fake news,” increased amounts of political propaganda, and manipulation of news consumption by foreign adversaries have left most of the American population skeptical about the information they consume daily.

This skepticism is a good thing. In fact, skepticism of the government and public figures is a cornerstone of our Western concept of professional journalism. The past decade has left individuals of every political affiliation in our country asking what their most trusted news source should be. Even further, they are wondering why the quality and amount of news consumption have changed so drastically.

To graduate from Northern Michigan University, I was required to write a research paper on a chosen topic in the political science realm. Due to my interest in journalism, I decided to conduct a comparative case study on the abuse of political dissidents and the media in communist countries. After months of research, 32 pages of analysis, and six pages worth of citations, I can confidently say that I have a baseline understanding of the relationship between freedom of speech, journalistic integrity, and a government’s hold on power.

As Americans, we operate under a federal democratic republic form of government. Democratic governments are often defined by their responsiveness to constituents, particularly through the avenue of duly elected officials. For democratic governments to properly function, they need to gain and maintain the support of the people. Therefore, democratic societies are like no other in that a mutual agreement exists between government officials and the people, the two dependent on each other for success.

Opposite of democratic governments are autocracies, a form of government often run by an extremely powerful individual who may or may not have been duly elected. Autocratic regimes are not responsive to their constituents, operate without checks and balances, and do not tolerate any form of dissent. Because autocracies are typically run by an individual, their ability to stay in power rests within their capacity to manipulate and control public opinion.

Notice this key difference between democracies and autocracies. Democratic governments rely on compromise with their constituents, while autocratic governments refute, manipulate, and control the public.

What is the best way to manipulate public opinion? Political science professors David Cingranelli and David Richards point to freedom of speech, noting how it stands alone in terms of explaining government censorship levels within a country. For Cingranelli and Richards, “censorship is any form of restriction that is placed on freedom of the press, speech, or expression.”

Because autocracies rely entirely on positive public perception, they employ a variety of repressive tactics — like only permitting state-owned newspapers and imprisoning political rivals — whenever their position in power is threatened. As an example, Aleksey Navalny, Russian President Vladamir Putin’s competition in their most recent election, was imprisoned and physically abused for publicly challenging Putin’s reign.

Therefore, the root of state-led repression and journalistic freedom can be narrowed down to regime type. As political scientist Christian Davenport points out, autocratic governments rely on the belief that “governing authorities should respond with repression to behavior that threatens the political system and government personnel,” while democracies rely on mutual agreements and accountability when it comes to government processes.

What does this mean for media freedom and journalistic roles under these two regime types?

The close relationship between political institutions and the media is universal and continues to become more intertwined. However, the authenticity, and therefore value, of news media depends on whether it is independent of third-party influences. According to journalists Thomas Hanitzsch and Tim Vos, the media can only be considered “free” if journalists act “as independent, public-spirited verifier[s] of factual information.” Even further, journalists should take on “an antagonistic relationship” with the government, acting as a representative of the people.

A free and independent press is considered a cornerstone of a healthy democracy. This “watchdog” perception of journalism in democratic societies, however, is not a universal truth. While journalists in America are dedicated to verifying information, questioning government decisions, and conversing with professional sources, media in non-democratic and non-Western societies often look nothing like our free press.

In most cases, journalists in autocratic societies consider themselves “partners of the government,” joining those in power on their quest to unite people under the impression that their complicity is for the greater good of society. This role is not necessarily chosen by these “journalists,” often forced upon them through coercion or the promise of some greater end to justify their means.

Therefore, autocratic governments own and operate all prominent news outlets in their country. This allows them to manipulate the flow of information, exaggerate enemy wrongdoings, and reframe stories in their favor. Journalistic autonomy is nowhere to be found, and reporters are considered “talking heads” or government mouthpieces.

Now knowing this, let’s circle back to the current state of American media. We can conclude that present-day print and broadcast news is incredibly free in comparison to that of autocratic states. You are not forced to watch a state-owned broadcast that presents “news” that was formulated and written by government officials. This is currently happening in China, with China Central Television (CCTV) being owned and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.

Instead, as a citizen in a democracy you get to choose from an abundance of sources, both national and international, when it comes to getting information. Sure, some of these news organizations may be more left-leaning or right-leaning than others. They may not even include factual information in their “reporting.”

Countering these biased organizations, however, are several great publications that commit themselves to the journalistic code of ethics — which includes reporting the news from a non-biased perspective to ensure that our population is well-informed. It is up to you to choose wisely, and perhaps cross-check with multiple sources, to ensure you are receiving accurate information.

— — —

Andie Balenger is a native of Gladstone and is currently attending Northern Michigan University. Her column focuses on college life and runs Thursdays in the Daily Press.