by Tomas Jankauskas
Is there a way to maintain a democratic society while simultaneously banning information or politics that can be perceived as harmful? One example of the West having to grapple with this major question involves the war in Ukraine. Since the outbreak of war, western nations have introduced many media restrictions on Russian sources. These sources are usually classified as being peddlers of Russian propaganda and are therefore considered untrustworthy news sources that can be potentially harmful to western populations. The most prominent news channel that has been banned is Russia Today, also known as RT, having been known as strongly pro-Kremlin. RT was not the only media channel that was banned. The channel Sputnik was also banned in many western nations. While this move was seen as justified in many western countries, it still raises questions about information restriction within a democratic system.
It can be argued that due to the nature of the crisis in Ukraine, these restrictions are justified as a show of solidarity with Ukraine while keeping much of Russian media out of the public sphere.
I do not claim to have all the answers for this sensitive topic, but it must be discussed nonetheless as democratic societies often praise themselves for their freedom of information. It can be argued that due to the nature of the crisis in Ukraine, these restrictions are justified as a show of solidarity with Ukraine while keeping much of Russian media out of the public sphere. While this argument does have validity, it fails to address both the concerns of censorship within a democratic system and concerns of information used for research purposes. Academic research pertaining to hostile countries such as Russia relies heavily on public and policy discourse within the hostile country. With the banning of Russian media channels, there has also been a significant reduction of research material involving Russian public discourse about the Ukrainian crisis. This has taken a toll on the research capabilities of academics within this sphere of research and therefore will have an impact on research methodologies and conclusions due to the lack of available information. Academics are very aware that censorship has been used by many different governments, both democratic and other types of regimes, to control public narratives. However, this control can have a profound and negative effect on academic discourse. This is especially true for those academics focusing on Russia and Ukraine as well as those who focus on democratic studies. To remain in line with democratic values while maintaining a high standard level for information quality, we must first have a serious academic discussion of censorship and its role within a democratic society and academia.
Another argument for restricting Russian media is to discourage sharing both misinformation and disinformation.
Another argument for restricting Russian media is to discourage sharing both misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation is considered information that is false but not intended to be malicious. In this regard, the banning of Russian media could prevent news stories or war reporting from being misunderstood by the public. In terms of disinformation, that being information that is false with the intention of being malicious, these media bans prevent Russian media from spreading strictly false information with the intent of harming government relations with the public or influencing public narratives. However, this argument does suggest an element of government control that would otherwise not be present without the Ukrainian crisis. The concepts of misinformation and disinformation are not very well understood within society, but their effects are long-lasting and can reach many different segments of a democratic society. Whether or not governmental actions against misinformation and disinformation are preventative is yet to be seen and more research is needed to gain more insightful solutions.
There is a delicate balance between the use of restrictions and the freedom of information that must be ever present in the minds of academics and governments if we are to find a reasonable solution to this problem.
To conclude, the banning of Russian media outlets can be seen as both justified and restrictive. While the arguments for justification are compelling there is a tendency to disregard legitimate concerns of both academics and the public. In the same vein, the arguments that these bans are too restrictive do not give a reasonable solution to the issue choosing to focus on the undemocratic narratives that can be caused by such actions. There is a delicate balance between the use of restrictions and the freedom of information that must be ever present in the minds of academics and governments if we are to find a reasonable solution to this problem.
Tomas Jankauskas is a master’s student at Vilnius University with the Institute of International Relations and Political Science studying in the Eastern European and Russian Studies course. His master’s thesis focuses on the quality of democracy within Poland. Tomas’ specific area of expertise is in Polish studies with a particular interest in military science and law studies.
This blog is a part of a blog series written by the BAMSE Tartu intensive course students. The blog series analyses the impact of crises on the politics of history, challenges of democracy, biopolitics and energy security. This blog is belongs to the challenges of democracy part of the blog series. Read more about the blog series on Bamse News & Events website.