All around the world, governmental restrictions impede journalists from accessing the truth and conducting their work successfully. Their ability to exercise freedom of expression and their rights as journalists and citizens is considerably hampered. In conflicts and wars, the government is prone to be the central agent of media and development. Consequently, those obstacles and restrictions are usually further reinforced through various mechanisms. However, the use of censorship and propaganda in times of war is far from being something new. During World War I, all involved protagonists promulgated laws prohibiting the publication of information revealing military operations, or criticising the government and the army in the press. The reasons were multiple: hiding the reality of the fighting, demonising the enemy, forging the nation’s spirit, encouraging combatants to continue fighting, and so on⁽¹⁾.

More than 100 years later, those practices are still carried out for the same reason. Indeed, in times of conflict, a political authority appeals to censorship as a means for suppressing an impeding threat conducted against them (e.g. rebellion or revolts) by discrediting dissenting voices and political opponents. Hence, it serves first and foremost to curb the jeopardisation of the state’s order, while guaranteeing their stability in power. However, the prevention of the mediatisation of alternative visions diminishes the perspective to head toward a peaceful resolution. Furthermore, the framing of information and events plays a vital role in shaping public opinion and influencing the national agenda. Therefore, by eradicating dissident speech, the government intends to indoctrinate people by retaining them in ignorance, while favouring their ideology and politics. However, by keeping citizens in the dark, the vicious cycle of violence prevalent in conflict naturally perpetuates itself^(2).

---

Different types of censorship

1. In conflict areas, censorship and governmental restrictions can take various forms. Firstly, governmental obstacles can manifest themselves through physical and violent acts targeted towards journalists or media organisations. Unfortunately, harassment, intimidation, pressure, arbitrary arrests, or closure of working spaces are part of the everyday life of thousands of journalists around the globe. By imposing a climate of fear, those acts of violence aim to deter media outlets from reporting on sensitive issues and enlightening the population on the reality of the armed conflict⁽³⁾.

Case Study-Syria

Since the outbreak of the 2011 uprising, the regime of Bashar el Assad reinforced its control over media while systematically targeting independent journalists. Since, the beginning of the war, the “Syrian Network for Human rights” estimates approximately 700 journalists have been killed whereas 1,169 have been arrested and kidnapped.
Read more: The study on the new Syrian Press by Soazig Dollet for CFI

2. Secondly, censorship can translate itself through direct control of the information by governmental authorities for various manners.

• In a conflict setting, the leaders might hold the monopoly of the information and possess the power of shaping the conflict’s narratives. For instance, they might deliberately conceal crucial information by refusing interviews and cooperation with media organisations.
• State’s authorities can also strictly regulate the content to assure compliance with their guidelines. For instance, strict editorial policies are imposed on media organisations and restrictions are put in place on the content publicly disclosed.
• Political elites can also refuse the establishment of new private media while rejecting accreditation to journalists willing to access the conflict zones.
• Lastly, in times of conflict, the governmental organs can hold substantial control over the media. Strict regulating legislations are also applicable for online information, namely social media and blogs. In some countries, governments frequently shut down the internet, arrest bloggers, and ban social media platforms. Unfortunately, the democratisation of online platforms greatly facilitated the proliferation of disinformation discourses and propaganda discourses. The government can deliberately publish misinformation for their personal use and interests. Hence, those discourses intend to support their conflict’s strategy, military actions, and to silence oppression.

Unfortunately, it makes it more arduous for international organisations to grasp the living conditions and the population’s true needs in times of conflict⁽⁴⁾.

3. Thirdly, journalists operating in conflict areas can appeal to self-censorship in order to avoid a dispute with official authorities. Bar-Tal defined self-censorship as an “act of intentionally and voluntarily withholding information from others in the absence of formal obstacles”⁽⁵⁾. In other words, media outlets might own valuable and reliable information while intentionally deciding not to make it public to avoid potentially harmful situations for themselves and their loved ones. Generally speaking, the climate of fear prevalent in a conflict is the reason hiding behind this phenomenon. As explained above, by disguising the conflict’s reality and potentially the opponent’s views, this mechanism perpetuates the conflict and its supportive narrative. Consequently, it hampered the rise of a new perspective by society members on the conflict while indirectly obstructing political reform⁽⁶⁾.

Case study-Hong Kong

China’s new national security law in Hong Kong induced an omnipresent self-censorship climate among the press. Indeed, in order to prevent coercive pressure from China, journalists came to avoid criticisms of the authorities and the mention of pro-democracy forces within their reports.
Read more: Editing history: Hong Kong publishers self-censor under new security law

---

---