State media are typically understood as media outlets that are owned, operated, or significantly influenced by the government.[1] They are sometimes distinguished frompublic service media, which are designed to serve the public interest, operate independently of government control, and are financed through a combination of public funding, licensing fees, and sometimes advertising. The crucial difference lies in the level of independence from government influence and the commitment to building trust and serving a broad public interest rather than the interests of a specific political party or government agenda.[1][2][3]
State media serve as tools for public diplomacy and narrative shaping. These media outlets can broadcast via television, radio, print, and increasingly on social media, to convey government viewpoints to domestic and international audiences. The approach to using state media can vary, focusing on positive narratives, adjusting narratives retroactively, or spreading misinformation through sophisticated social media campaigns.[4]
State media is also referred to media entities that are administered, funded, managed, or directly controlled by thegovernment of a country.[5] Three factors that can affect the independence of state media over time are: funding, ownership/governance, and editorial autonomy.[5] These entities can range from being completely state-controlled, where the government has full control over their funding, management, and editorial content, to being independentpublic service media, which, despite receiving government funding, operate with editorial autonomy and are governed by structures designed to protect them from direct political interference.[5]
State media is often associated with authoritarian governments that use state media to control, influence, and limit information.[6]
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[7] 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 thepropaganda model of the mass media. In more controlled regions, the state maycensor content which it deems illegal, immoral or unfavorable to the government and likewise regulate any programming related to the media; therefore, it is not independent of the governing party.[8] In this type of environment, journalists may be required to be members or affiliated with the ruling party, such as in theEastern Bloc former Socialist States theSoviet Union,China orNorth Korea.[7] Within countries that have high levels ofgovernment interference in the media, it may use the state press forpropaganda purposes:
Additionally, the state-controlled media may only report on legislation after it has already become law to stifle any debate.[9] The media legitimizes its presence by emphasizing "national unity" against domestic or foreign "aggressors".[10] In more open and competitive contexts, the state may control or fund its own outlet and is in competition with opposition-controlled and/orindependent 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.[11]
State media outlets usually enjoy increased funding and subsidies compared to private media counterparts, but this can create inefficiency in the state media.[12] However, in thePeople's Republic of China, where state control of the media is high, levels of funding have been reduced for state outlets, which have forcedChinese Communist Party media to sidestep official restrictions on content or publish "soft" editions, such as weekend editions, to generate income.[13]
State media can be classified based on their relationship to the state, including factors such as ownership, editorial independence, funding, and political alignment. This framework is commonly used by media watchdogs, and international organizations to assess press freedom, transparency, and the role of media in democratic or authoritarian regimes.[14][15][1]
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 undermineseconomic andpolitical freedoms.
Thepublic interest theory states that government ownership of media is desirable.[16] 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.[17] 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.[17] However, Pigouvian economists, who advocate regulation andnationalisation, are supportive of free and private media.[18] Public interest theory holds that when operated correctly, government ownership of media is a public good that benefits the nation in question.[19] 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.[19] 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.[20]
Many criticisms of public interest theory center on the possibility of true editorial independence from the state.[19] 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.[19]
Thepublic 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.[17] 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.[17] Moreover, this competition is part of a checks-and-balances system of ademocracy, known as theFourth Estate, along with thejudiciary,executive andlegislature.[17] States are dependent on the public for their legitimacy that allows them to operate.[21] 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.[19] 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.[22] This approach is effective at creating a free press that is capable of criticizing government institutions and investigating incidents of government corruption.[19]
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.[23] This has become a debate over the effectiveness of media organizations that are reliant on the attention of the public.[23] 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.[22] The focus on sensationalism and public attention can lead to the dissemination of misinformation to appease their consumer base.[22] In these instances, the goal of providing accurate information to the public collapses and instead becomes biased toward a dominant ideology.[22]
 | Parts of this article (those related to documentation) need to beupdated. The reason given is: it uses a very old source (Djankov, 2002). Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(November 2025) |
Both theories have implications regarding the determinants and consequences of ownership of the media.[24] The public interest theory suggests that more benign governments should have higher levels of control of the media which would in turn increasepress 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.[25]
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.[26] Countries with "weak" governments do not possess the political will to break up state media monopolies.[27] Media control is also usually consistent with state ownership in theeconomy.[28]
As of 2002, the press in most ofEurope (with the exception ofBelarus,Russia andUkraine) is mostly private and free of state control and ownership, along withNorth and South America (with the exception ofCuba andVenezuela)[29] The press "role" in the national and societal dynamics of theUnited States andAustralia has virtually always been the responsibility of the private commercial sector since these countries' earliest days.[30] Levels of state ownership are higher in someAfrican countries, theMiddle East and someAsian countries (with the exception ofJapan,India,Indonesia,Mongolia,Nepal, thePhilippines,South Korea andThailand where large areas of private press exist.) Full state monopolies exist inChina,Myanmar, andNorth Korea.[29]
Issues with state media include complications withpress freedom andjournalistic objectivity. In general, state media typically has lower levels of trust than public media.[31] According to Christopher Walker in theJournal of Democracy, "authoritarian ortotalitarian media outlets" take advantage of both domestic and foreign media due to state censorship in their native countries and the openness of democratic nations to which they broadcast. He cites China'sCCTV, Russia'sRT, and Venezuela'sTeleSUR as examples.[32]
Good: 85–100 points Satisfactory: 70–85 points | Problematic: 55–70 points Difficult: 40–55 points | Very serious: <40 points Not classified / No data |
Nations such as Denmark, Norway and Finland that have both the highest degree of freedom of press andpublic broadcasting media. Compared to most autocratic nations which attempt to limit press freedom to control the spread of information.[6] Multiple studies have found that government ownership of media organizations was associated with worse democratic outcomes.[19][31]
"Worse outcomes" are associated with higher levels of state ownership of the media, which would reject Pigouvian theory.[34] The news media are more independent and fewer journalists are arrested, detained or harassed in countries with less state control.[35] Harassment, imprisonment and higher levels ofinternet censorship occur in countries with high levels of state ownership such asSingapore,Belarus,Myanmar,Ethiopia, thePeople's Republic of China,Iran,Ba'athist Syria,Turkmenistan andUzbekistan.[35][36] Countries with a total state monopoly in the media likeNorth Korea andLaos experience a "Castro effect", where state control is powerful enough that no journalistic harassment is required in order to restrict press freedom.[35] Historically, state media also existed during theCold War in authoritarian states such as theSoviet Union,East Germany,Republic of China (Taiwan),Poland,Romania,Brazil andIndonesia.
The public interest theory claims state ownership of the press enhancescivil and political rights; whilst under the public choice theory, it curtails them by suppressing public oversight of the government and facilitatingpolitical 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 andmedia bias.[36][37] State ownership of the press can compromise election monitoring efforts and obscure the integrity of electoral processes.[38] Independent media sees higher oversight by the media of the government. For example, reporting of corruption increased inMexico,Ghana andKenya after restrictions were lifted in the 1990s, but government-controlled media defended officials.[39][40] 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.[19] Mass protests against governments considered to be authoritarian, 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][41][42][43]
It is common for countries with strict control of newspapers to have fewer firms listed per capita on their markets[44] and less developed banking systems.[45] 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.[36] 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.[23]
In countries like Hungary (as of 2024) and Poland (as of 2022), state media has suffered from low levels of trust.[31] Surveys[when?] have found that state-ownedtelevision in Russia is viewed by the Russian public as one of the country's most authoritative and trusted institutions.[46][47][needs context][disputed (for: 'Most trusted' in an authoritarian regime with fewer options and where survey respondents cannot be trusted to answer truthfully is not a useful statistic) –discuss]
Surveys have consistently identified state-run television as one of the most trusted and authoritative political institutions in the country.
.jpg)
