‘That’s What They Have in Dictatorships’: Priebus Ripped for Wanting a ‘State-Run Media’

The Resistance Reports

March 9, 2017

A combative Chris Wallace called out Trump Chief of Staff Reince Priebus Sunday morning over his attempts to dismiss reports of Russian involvement in the president’s campaign as “fake news.”

‘That’s what they have in dictatorships’: Chris Wallace rips Priebus for wanting a ‘state-run media, over Trump”s statement that the media is fake media, not certain stories, and that the fake media are an enemy to the country. “We don’t have a state-run media in this country, that’s what they have in dictatorship,” said Wallace.

State media or state-owned media is media for mass communication which is “controlled financially and editorially by the state.”[1] These news outlets may be the sole media outlet or may exist in competition with corporate and non-corporate media. State media is not to be confused with public-sector media, which is “funded directly or indirectly by the state, but over which the state does not have tight editorial control.”[1]

Issues with state media include complications with press freedom and journalistic objectivity. According to Christopher Walker in the Journal of Democracy, “authoritarian or totalitarian media outlets” such as China’s CCTV, Russia’s RT and Venezuela’s TeleSUR take advantage of both domestic and foreign media due to the censorship under regimes in their native countries and the openness of democratic nations to which they broadcast.[22]

‘That’s what they have in dictatorships’:

Chris Wallace rips Priebus for wanting a ‘state-run media’ (source)

A combative Chris Wallace called out Trump Chief of Staff Reince Priebus Sunday morning over his attempts to dismiss reports of Russian involvement in the president’s campaign as “fake news.”

The Fox News Sunday host, who earlier attacked Trump over referring to the media as “the enemy of the people,” went after Priebus early, at one time lecturing him, “You don’t get to tell us what to do any more than Barack Obama did. Barack Obama whined about Fox News all the time, but I gotta say, he never said we were an enemy of the people.”

Addressing a New York Times report that claimed that top Trump operatives were in contact with the Russians prior to the election, Priebus complained about the media using “anonymous sources,” before calling it “fake news.”

“I can assure you, and I’ve been to say this, that the top levels of the intelligence community have assured me that that that story is not only inaccurate, but it’s grossly overstated and it’s wrong and there’s nothing to it,” Priebus asserted. “If I can say that to the American people, then what does it say about the story?”

“I get the fact that you don’t like some stories,” Wallace replied. “You say, because you weren’t part of the campaign before so that you can’t speak to that, you say that the intelligence community says that there were no contacts between anyone in the Trump campaign, no associates of Mr. Trump and anybody involved as a Russian agent, as to the campaign and collusion in the campaign.”

“They made it very clear that that story in the New York Times is complete garbage,” Priebus replied. “Quite frankly they used different words than that, okay?”

“Who was it that said that, ” Wallace shot back.

“I’m not going to tell you,” Priebus parried.

“Wait a minute, Reince,” a frustrated Wallace exclaimed. “You just complained about unnamed sources. You’re using an unnamed source.”

“Well, I didn’t ask for approval to use their name,” Priebus said after a long pause. “But when I say top level people, I mean top level people.”

“Reince, here is the problem, I don’t have a problem with you complaining about an individual story,” Wallace replied. “We sometimes get it wrong, you guys sometimes get it wrong. I don’t have any problem with you complaining about bias. But you went a lot further than that, or the president went a lot further. He said that the fake media, not certain stories, that the fake media are an enemy to the country. We don’t have a state-run media in this country, that’s what they have in dictatorships.”

Priebus is loyal to the GOP:

A January 17, 2017 New York Times article on Priebus described him as “a political survivor from Kenosha, Wisconsin who has never held a major government post before. He has instead accrued his power by courting wealthy donors on behalf of Republican candidates, tending to the gripes of the RNC’s 168 committee members, closely monitoring his own Wikipedia page and mostly staying on the good side of the capricious Mr. Trump, his ambivalent patron.”[33]

CNN reported on February 7, 2017 that Trump is upset with Priebus for recommending Sean Spicer as White House press secretary, whom Trump purportedly believes is performing poorly in the job.[73][74]

On February 12, 2017, Christopher Ruddy, CEO of Newsmax Media and a longtime Trump friend, told The Washington Post that Priebus “is the problem. I think on paper Reince looked good as the chief of staff — and Donald trusted him — but it’s pretty clear the guy is in way over his head. He’s not knowledgeable of how federal agencies work, how the communications operations work. He botched this whole immigration rollout. This should’ve been a win for Donald, not two or three weeks of negative publicity.”[75]

Also on February 12, 2017, Politico reported that “Several Trump campaign aides have begun to draft lists of possible Priebus replacements, with senior White House aides Kellyanne Conway and Rick Dearborn and lobbyist David Urban among those mentioned. Gary Cohn, a Trump economic adviser who is close with senior adviser Jared Kushner, has also been the subject of chatter.”[76]

On February 14, 2017, Trump’s longest-standing political advisor Roger Stone told The Wall Street Journal that “Trump loyalists are fed up with Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer whose loyalties are to the Republican National Committee, and not to the president.”[77]

State media

State media or state-owned media is media for mass communication which is “controlled financially and editorially by the state.”[1] These news outlets may be the sole media outlet or may exist in competition with corporate and non-corporate media.

State media is not to be confused with public-sector media, which is “funded directly or indirectly by the state, but over which the state does not have tight editorial control.”[1]

Overview

The term state media is primarily understood in contrast to corporate media, and occasionally non-corporate independent news, which has no direct control from any political party.[2][3] Its content, according to some sources, is usually more prescriptive, telling the audience what to think, particularly as it is under no pressure to attract high ratings or generate advertising revenue[4] and therefore may cater to the forces in control of the state as opposed to the forces in control of the corporation, as described in the propaganda model of the mass media. In more controlled regions, the state may censor content which it deems illegal, immoral or unfavourable to the government and likewise regulate any programming related to the media; therefore, it is not independent of the governing party.[5] In this type of environment, journalists may be required to be members or affiliated with the ruling party, such as in the former Soviet Union or North Korea.[4] Within countries that have high levels of government interference in the media, it may use the state press for propaganda purposes:

  • to promote the regime in a favourable light,
  • vilify opposition to the government by launching smear campaigns
  • giving skewed coverage to opposition views, or
  • act as a mouthpiece to advocate a regime’s ideology.

Additionally, the state-controlled media may only report on legislation after it has already become law to stifle any debate.[6] The media legimitises its presence by emphasising “national unity” against domestic or foreign “aggressors”.[7] In more open and competitive contexts, the state may control or fund its own outlet and is in competition with opposition-controlled and/or independent media. The state media usually have less government control in more open societies and can provide more balanced coverage than media outside of state control.[8]

State media outlets usually enjoy increased funding and subsides compared to private media counterparts, but this can create inefficiency in the state media.[9] However, in the People’s Republic of China, where state control of the media is high, levels of funding have been reduced for state outlets, which have forced the Party media to sidestep official restrictions on content or publish “soft” editions, such as weekend editions, to generate income.[10]

Theories of state ownership

Two contrasting theories of state control of the media exist; the public interest or Pigouvian theory states that government ownership is beneficial, whereas the public choice theory suggests that state control undermines economic and political freedoms.

Public interest theory

The public interest theory, also referred to as the Pigouvian theory[11] states that government ownership of media is desirable.[12] Three reasons are offered as to why. The first reason is that 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, however once costs are incurred, marginal costs for providing the information are low and are therefore subject to increasing returns.[13] Finally, state media ownership can be less biased, more complete and accurate if consumers are ignorant and in addition to private media which would serve the governing classes.[13] However, Pigouvian economists, who advocate regulation and nationalisation, are supportive of free and private media.[14]

Public choice theory

The public choice theory asserts that state-owned media would manipulate and distort information in favour of the ruling party and entrench its rule while preventing the public from making informed decisions, therefore undermining democratic institutions.[13] This would prevent private and independent media, which provide alternate voices allowing individuals to choose politicians, goods, services etc. without fear from functioning. Additionally, this would inhibit competition amongst media firms which ensures consumers usually acquire unbiased, accurate information.[13] 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.[13]

Determinants of state control

Both theories have implications regarding the determinants and consequences of ownership of the media.[15] The public interest theory suggests that more benign governments should have higher levels of control of the media which would in turn increase press freedom as well as economic and political freedoms. Conversely, the public choice theory affirms that the opposite is true – “public spirited”, benevolent governments should have less control which would increase these freedoms.[16]

Generally, state ownership of the media is found in poor, autocratic non-democratic countries with highly interventionist governments that have some interest in controlling the flow of information.[17] Countries with “weak” governments do not possess the political will to break up state media monopolies.[18] Media control is also usually consistent with state ownership in the economy.[19]

As of 2002, the press in most of Europe (with the exception of Belarus) is mostly private and free of state control and ownership, along with North and South America.[20] The press “role” in the national and societal dynamics of the United States, Canada and Australia has virtually always been the responsibility of the private commercial sector since these countries’ earliest days.[21] Levels of state ownership are higher in some African countries, the Middle East and some Asian countries (with the exception of Japan, India, Indonesia, Mongolia, Nepal, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand where large areas of private press exist.) Full state monopolies exist in Burma (under the military rule) and North Korea.[20]

Consequences of state ownership

Issues with state media include complications with press freedom and journalistic objectivity. According to Christopher Walker in the Journal of Democracy, “authoritarian or totalitarian media outlets” such as China’s CCTV, Russia’s RT and Venezuela’s TeleSUR take advantage of both domestic and foreign media due to the censorship under regimes in their native countries and the openness of democratic nations to which they broadcast.[22]

Press freedom

2014 Press Freedom Index[23]

  Very serious situationDifficult situation

Noticeable problems

  Satisfactory situationGood situation

Not classified / No data

“Worse outcomes” are associated with higher levels of state ownership of the media, which would reject Pigouvian theory.[24] The news media are more independent and fewer journalists are arrested, detained or harassed in countries with less state control.[25] Harassment, imprisonment and higher levels of internet censorship occur in countries with high levels of state ownership such as Belarus, Burma, Ethiopia, China, Iran, Syria, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.[25][26] In a similar vein, the public broadcaster in the United Kingdom, the BBC, although funded by the public licence fee and government, holds that it is independent from state control.[27] 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.[25]

Civil and political rights

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.[26][28] Independent media sees higher oversight by the media of the government (for example, increased reporting of corruption in Mexico, Ghana and Kenya after restrictions were lifted in the 1990s, whilst government-controlled media defended officials.)[29][30]

Economic freedom

It is common for countries with strict control of newspapers to have fewer firms listed per capita on their markets[31] and less developed banking systems.[32] 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.[26]

See also

The following are some link to news:

Russia Labels NATO Moves in Eastern Europe a Threat: State Media …

Ahead of inauguration, China warns state media: Be nice to Donald …

Report: Russia tells state media to cut back on positive Trump …

Chinese State Media Denounce Rex Tillerson’s Call to Block Island …

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s