The media’s reporting is usually kept under keen scrutiny by the government in case of a sensitive matter that is of significant concern to the government. This is so, regardless of the government’s stand about the matters that relate with the society. During the Second World War, the British newspapers were changed by the war in terms of many aspects of their operations (Curran et al. 2009). Even a liberal government which believes in the rights for the access to information by the citizens may find it rescinding into actions that aim at controlling or gagging the media. This is in a bid to filter what the citizens consume as information from the media. The intensity of the efforts to gag the media becomes even more manifested especially during wars and strife, which puts the government in an uncomfortable situation trying to explain the rationale behind the action or the inaction regarding a particular issue (Conboy 2004 1). Where the ineptitude or the insensitivity of the government is threatened to be exposed, the media often falls victim of the government’s drastic steps to curtail the information delivery to the citizens. The British media is not an exemption when it comes to government’s intrusion and violation of the media’s freedom, especially during the Second World War, as the paper will discuss.
The United Kingdom (UK) is revered for its liberal stand, and as a result of this, it is regarded as one of the epitomes of the media freedom. This makes it a country that is one of the least expected to violate media freedom through gagging and other forms of intrusion. The propaganda that is usually spewed out by other less liberalised countries to the media would be a drift from the common trends if they were witnessed in the UK (Curran et al. 2009). This was so, during the Second World War where the UK government rescinded into more pronounced intrusions into the media freedom and thus spelled doom for the long held status of a liberalised society. The need to keep the Defence sector out of the limelight was deemed to be the key reason behind the government’s control over the contents that the media would report to the citizens (Mukerjee 2011). Matters such as the military spending, the sort and numbers of arms that the military were served with, the next place on which to launch an offensive, and many others, were regarded to be the government’s key rationale behind gagging the media.
As the government was controlling the media market in those days, the advertisement sector was also hard-hit by the actions. The commercial enterprises that were reliant on the media had to rethink their advertisement strategies due to the limited coverage that the media proved to have (Williams 2010). The effects also affected the media due to the loss of revenue that was generated from the commercial enterprises. And due to the limited platforms upon which the companies would reach out to the masses at that time, the performance of the advertising sector was affected by the outcomes of the war. Controlling the money that the media received from the advertising sector was another powerful form of control that the government indirectly embarked on.
The control of the media lessened the citizen’s attention on the local media, which was gagged and other closed down, and this meant further starving of the media off the public attention that yielded benefits in terms of proceeds from the advertisements. The independence of the media was non-existent in the government’s efforts to conceal the events of the wartime. It meant that as a result of the loss of the advertisement proceeds, the media was stripped off its financial independence and hence fell right into the government’s firm grip and control (Williams 2010). The economy, from whose taxes were crucial in funding the war, was affected in general due to the poor performance of many industries and sectors in the UK. It was a period of commercial and financial breakdown, a situation that was worsened by the tension regarding the propaganda that the Nazi media at that period continued to spew out. The interests of the defence sector were seen to be served by the control whereas those of other sectors such as the media and advertising sectors were suffering from the financial and freedom constraints. This meant that the government had the power now to determine the contents that came forth from the media. It now had an enormous power to fund the activities that suited its course while trampling on the other courses that tried to display its (government) weaknesses. And due to the French and US leanings on the side of the British in the war, the foreign press personnel were denied the ease of access to the accreditation in these countries too leaving them with an option for Berlin due to the Nazis’ less stringent measures over their media. The Nazi propaganda was spewed even in English and this would reach the attention of the UK citizens who had no reliable media outlet to rely on after the suppression of their own (Conboy 2004 24). This continued to shift the balances in the media sector due to the war. The propaganda adopted by the German media was reciprocated by the British media where they continued to paint bad pictures of the leaders of the opposing warring party in the war. There were prints that made circulation in the British spheres of influence that were determined to spew propaganda and other acts of disrespect to the leader of the Nazi Germany. The Daily Mirror
posted pictorials of Hitler as a wanted gangster after whose arrest and conviction the society would know peace. This was in a bid to win the mass approval of the war, the one that was to be pivotal in winning the war against the Germans. The media did not hesitate to plunge itself in the war, even though its war was characterised by the use of words to win support and denounce the actions of the Nazi Germany (Smith et al. 1975). The balances of power continued to shift to new fronts that were characterised by the power of the pen and never by the power of weapons.
Newspapers and other types of media started to be extra cautious regarding the contents they were presenting to the public in ways of reporting. Other issues of less concern to the public started to gather much prominence in the media in terms of their coverage (Curran et al. 2009). Fashion, sports, entertainments and others that would be considered of less societal concern stated to find their way to the front pages of the major newspapers and other print media. There was a need for showing the government that it had the total and undisputed cooperation from the media, a condition that was aggravated by the fear for a confrontation with the government and consequently a complete close down. There was no media entrepreneur who would have the guts to display an open resistance and disregard for the directions spelled by the government without the readiness to put his/her enterprise in jeopardy. The government being, in real or perceived sense, a representative of the society, it commands an influence that is virtually impossible to be matched by another institution in a society. Such was the case regarding the British government and the media. The media started to have their content trimmed by the fact that the government stalked every resource printed by the contemporary media.
Even with the cautious trending of the grounds during the time of war, the Daily Mirror
together other contemporary media continued to shape the public’s opinion regarding the progress of the war. Information about casualties continued to be fed to the public albeit with the governmental filters intact to make sure that nothing unpalatable reached the public. Total public support for the war was crucial in the establishment of a united front against the belligerent Nazi Germany and its supporters. The media’s role in informing the public regarding the progress of the war was of great concern for its cardinal responsibility of shaping the public’s opinion and the consequent supports for the war (Curran et al. 2009). The sad news about the progress of the war continued to reach the public quarters with a few gasps of the reports that shifted the focus to the more human proceedings of the society. This was necessary so as to suppress the public’s wariness about the proceedings of casualty levels and more fatal onslaughts by the two warring parties. The ruling class had the media advance its goals and desires to the public. The media was converted into an imperative link between the political elites and the masses, especially the commoners. It was a conduit through which the information from the military ranks and the government passed onwards to the public.
Conclusion
The role that the media plays in any society needs not be emphasized because of its ability to manifest itself. It is a link between the ruling elites and the common citizens in terms of information sharing. Its two way aspect of information delivery gives it the influence that it commands regarding the shaping of the views of the commoners. Its negativity regarding a particular aspect that characterise the society would be deeply embedded into the mind of the commoners and its positivity would produce the results accordingly. This offers and understanding on why it holds much respect and command in a society. The respect and upholding of the media’s freedom is synonymous with a mature democracy, the one whose major champions are the liberal societies such as the United Kingdom.
ReferencesTop of FormTop of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Conboy, M. (2004). Journalism: a critical history. London, Sage Publications. http://www.123library.org/book_details/?id=141.
Curran, J. " Seaton, J. (2009). Power without Responsibility. Routledge. London.Bottom of Form
Engel, M. (1997). Tickle the public: One hundred years of the popular press. London, Indigo.
Mukerjee, M. (2011). Churchill's secret war: the British Empire and the ravaging of India during World War II. [Sydney], Read How You Want.
Smith, A. C. H., Immirzi, E., Blackwell, T., " Hall, S. (1975). Paper voices: the popular press and social change 1935-1965. Totova, NJ, Rowman and Littlefield.
Williams, K. (2010). Get me a murder a day!: a history of media and communication in Britain. London, Bloomsbury Academic.
