Discusses the history and development of democracy and freedom in China from Mao Zedong to Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics. During Mao's regime the Chinese people lacked every freedom from travel to the freedom of speech in their own homes, and as late as 1989 the Tiananmen Square protests were brutally ended by the regime. Since then China has freed its economy and by the early 21st century Chinese people enjoy the right to select their local leaders, to live in any community they like, and to communicate freely with each other. However the highest party officials are still above criticism and the media is censored. L. Pitkaniemi
The relationship between the military and the media has always been characterized by conflict and interdependency. However, during the past decade the interaction between these two institutions has changed markedly as a result of new types of media and a growing military engagement in irregular conflicts. Building on existing research, this article traces how these changes in the media-military relationship's primary contexts have affected the degree of interdependency and conflict between, on the one hand, soldiers and military organizations and, on the other, war correspondents and editors. It is among the article's main arguments that the introduction of new types of media has generally worked to weaken the interdependency between the media and the military. Concurrently, the developments of the past decade have raised new research questions -- that is what the last section of the article is about. Adapted from the source document.
Etter at Tyrkia i 1999 fikk status som sokerland til EU og forhandlinger om medlemskap startet i 2005, har tyrkerne lovet a imotekomme EU-krav om demokratisering av landet og en losning av det 'kurdiske problemei'. En demokratiseringsprosess forutsetter imidlertid kritiske og frie medier. Men bade Tyrkias vestlige allierte og folk flest i landet er bekymret for dagens situasjon, der journalister, forfattere og folkevalgte politikere fengsles for sine ytringer som av myndighetene er oppfattet som formidling av propaganda som kommer den kurdiske frigjoringsbevegelse (PKK) til gode. Basert pa intervjuer med personer med ekspertkunnskap fra Tyrkia og et utvalg av avisartikler og kommentarer fra tyrkiske papiraviser, utforskes det hvordan tyrkiske medier styres i forhold til det kurdiske opproret i Tyrkia, samt hvorvidt det regierende Rettferdighets-og utviklingsparti (AKP) kan bidra til a demokratisere landet. Analysen viser at under Erdogan og hans AKP har medienes handlingsrom med hensyn til kurderkonflikten, og for orvrig ogsa generelt, ikke blitt saerlig bedre enn under hans forgjengere When Turkey was granted candidate status to EU membership in 1999 and negotiations started in 2005, hopes were high that the country would meet EU requirements for democratization and that a solution would be found to the so-called 'Kurdish problem'. However, a democratization process implies a critical and free media. Turkey's citizens and Western allies are now following recent developments with concern. Journalists, writers and elected politicians have been imprisoned for their work, some held on terror-related charges or propaganda and others for allegedly participating in antigovernment plots. With this as a backdrop, to what extent is Erdogan and his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) democratizing the country? My aim in this article is to answer the question and explore the extent to which media censorship and control is occurring, in particular regarding Kurdish insurgency in Turkey. I make use of primary and secondary data, including interviews with media experts in Turkey and a selection of newspaper articles from six Turkish newspapers. The Turkish government already exercises a tight hand over Turkey's traditional media, yet, as the analysis reveals, under Erdogan the government controls of freedom of expression and press (in particular concerning the Kurdish conflict) are tightening further. Adapted from the source document.
The role of think tanks in American politics has been increasingly subjected to systematic analysis over the last 10-15 years. In this article I review some of this literature, focusing mainly on the questions of what think tanks are, why this phenomenon is so strongly associated with the US, & what influence think tanks have on US policy-making. Think tanks comprise a wide range of organizations, from pure research institutions to the ideologically-based "advocacy think tanks" characterized by their combination of a strong political agenda & aggressive marketing techniques. The American political system has several features that allow think tanks access to the decision-making process, such as a fragmented structure with a weak party system, a central role for the mass media, & an issue-dominated political agenda. There is no good measure of the general influence of think tanks in US politics, but case studies indicate that the central role of the ideologically-based advocacy think tanks may serve to undermine the role of experts in American politics in the long term. References. Adapted from the source document.