< Back to Signals

Censorship strategies exacerbate political polarization

Digital politics has been instrumental in opening political debate to new groups and creating space for more diverse views and perspectives; however, it’s also helping polarize political discourse, especially when heavy censorship strategies prevent meaningful political debate. For example, in Thailand, Shinawatra’s strategy of media control and intimidation helped fracture media messaging into ‘pro-Thaksin’ and ‘anti-Thaksin’ camps, which led to a kind of media-messaging land-grab in subsequent political activity.

Prof Ubonrat Siriyuvasak writes,

3
Average: 3 (1 vote)
 

Sources:

Noviscape, Sept 2010, page 7, 8: http://newsletters.clearsignals.org/Noviscape_Sept2010#=page7

Asia Media Report: A Crisis Within. Bangkok: Inter-Press Service
Asia-Pacific.

Campaign for Popular Media Reform (2010) Seminar on “Banning
community radio under the Emergency Decree”, 14 July 2010.

Kularb, P. (2007) “Communicating to the mass on cyberspace:
Freedom of expression and content regulation on the Internet”
in Chavarong Limpattamapanee and Srnaud Leveau (eds)
State and Media in Thailand During Political Transition, Bangkok:
IRASEC.

McCargo, D. (2009) “Thai politics as reality TV”, Journal of
Asian Studies. 68:1, February 2009, pp. 7–19.

Mukdawijitra, Y. (2010) Seminar on “Change in rural areas,
change in political constituents”, Journalist Association of
Thailand, 18 July 2010.

Syndicate content