State media

[12] In this type of environment, journalists may be required to be members or affiliated with the ruling party, such as in the Eastern Bloc former Socialist States the Soviet Union, China or North Korea.

[16] 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 Chinese Communist Party media to sidestep official restrictions on content or publish "soft" editions, such as weekend editions, to generate income.

[7] 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.

[20] That would prevent private and independent media, which provide alternate voices allowing individuals to choose politicians, goods, services, etc.

Additionally, that would inhibit competition among media firms that would ensure that consumers usually acquire unbiased, accurate information.

[29] 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.

[32] As of 2002, the press in most of Europe (with the exception of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine) is mostly private and free of state control and ownership, along with North and South America (with the exception of Cuba and Venezuela)[33] The press "role" in the national and societal dynamics of the United States and Australia has virtually always been the responsibility of the private commercial sector since these countries' earliest days.

[35] Surveys find that state-owned television in Russia is viewed by the Russian public as one of the country's most authoritative and trusted institutions.

[36][37] Nations such as Denmark, Norway and Finland that have both the highest degree of freedom of press and public broadcasting media.

[39] The news media are more independent and fewer journalists are arrested, detained or harassed in countries with less state control.

[41][42] State ownership of the press can compromise election monitoring efforts and obscure the integrity of electoral processes.

For example, reporting of corruption increased in Mexico, Ghana and Kenya after restrictions were lifted in the 1990s, but government-controlled media defended officials.

[44][45] Heavily influenced state media can provide corrupt regimes with a method to combat efforts by protestors.

[7] Propaganda spread by state-media organizations can detract from accurate reporting and provide an opportunity for a regime to influence public sentiment.

[7][46][47][48] It is common for countries with strict control of newspapers to have fewer firms listed per capita on their markets[49] and less developed banking systems.

[50] 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.