The Commercialisation of Propaganda and the Independence of the Fourth Estate – a Contribution to the Discussion on Contemporary Threats to Media Freedom

Abstract

The article presents the phenomenon of the so-called privatisation of censorship and the commercialisation of propaganda and their impact on the independence of the fourth authority. The author intends to confirm or question the hypothesis according to which, in the 21st century, the new phenomenon of the so-called privatisation of censorship and the commercialisation of propaganda. To this end, he intends to use a descriptive method, situational analysis, and comparative analysis elements. The concept of the so-called “privatisation of censorship” was first described by J. Kurzlantick and P. Link based on observing components of the media policy of the People’s Republic of China towards Taiwan in the 21st century. According to these authors, a very worrying phenomenon can be seen in outsourcing content control to private sector representatives. This means that censorship is delegated to private media companies. This action is supposed to consist of exercising actual control over the circulation of content and messages, not by state bodies but by media owners or advertisers who exert direct or indirect pressure, usually economic, on journalists intending to publish critical texts. The concept of privatisation of censorship should be broadened to the idea of the so-called commercialisation of propaganda. This type of strategy seems to be observed in Hungary and Poland in recent years, the most apparent evidence of which is the remedial action taken recently by the European Union, particularly the European Media Freedom Act proposal. Based on the analysis of the described examples seen in Taiwan, Hungary and Poland, it has been demonstrated that the measures referred to as the privatisation of censorship and the commercialisation of propaganda can prove very effective and thus dangerous for the independence of the fourth estate. The current legal regulations guaranteeing freedom of speech and the media, although explicitly prohibiting, among other things, preventive censorship, turn out to be insufficient in ensuring the independence of the fourth authority in the case of actions termed “privatisation of censorship” and “commercialisation of propaganda”.