21-30 of May
695 persons were questioned
by Yeldes Seitkemelev
Almaty, June 6 (Specially for the GLOBE)
In the end of May the Almaty Association of Sociologists and Politologists conducted the poll of the population in the southern capital. The respondents were asked to express their opinion regarding the shift of the capital to Astana.
The answers to the question �Do you think the shift of the capital was appropriate?� were as follows 5.2% of the polled people answered �Yes�, 71.9% �No�, and 20.9% �It�s difficult to answer�. To the question �Did your standard of life improve after the loss of the status of citizen of a capital city?� 71.9% of the polled people answered �No�, 21.6% � �It is the same�, and 4.6% � �It�s difficult to answer.� Nobody answered �Yes.�
The �loss� of the status arises the following feelings: �Vexation� � 21.6%, �Alarm� � 21.6%, �Sadness� � 13.7%, �Indifference� � 13.7%, �Facilitation� � 1.3%, and �It�s difficult to answer� � 8.5%.
Do you think, the shift of the capital may be explained by the following reasons?
(% of the polled respondents)
Total
| 1. Geographical conditions (�The capital should be in the centre of the state�) | 4.6 |
| 2. Geopolitical conditions (�The centre is to be nearer the centre of Asia�) | 2 |
| 3. Difficult ecological situation in Almaty | 7.8 |
| 4. Danger of earthquakes and mud flows in Almaty | 19.6 |
| 5. Closeness to Chinese border | 7.8 |
| 6. Growing activity of terrorist groups in the neighbouring countries (Tajikistan, etc.) | 3.9 |
| 7. An attempt to limit the increasing influence of representatives of the Older Zhuz (people from southern regions) in the governmental organisations | 8.5 |
| 8. The shift of the capital is expected to provoke the migration of the population to the northern regions and to reduce separatism in these territories(these regions are mainly inhabited by Russian speaking population) | 11.8 |
| 9. None of the above mentioned | 38.6 |
| 10. It�s difficult to answer | 11.8 |
| 11. Others | 5.9 |
This publication is a part of the big research. We suggest you the most interesting to our opinion moments. We think, it is very interesting to read about some peculiarities of freedom of the mass media in such ideal democratic countries as USA and Great Britain. The authors� opinion, that in the democratic countries the mass media are concentrated in the hands of a small group which greatly influences the society and the common person is not able to withstand and to protect his positions before these structures, seems to be noteworthy.
(Continued from ## 40(358), 41(359))
Syui Hoei-Fan
Aspirant, Faculty of International Relations, al-Farabi Kazakh State University
Restrictions of the mass media
From the point of view of the democratic principles and observation of the laws, free mass broadcasting is a usual event, and in the democratic countries it was spread for more than hundred years. The last 20 to 30 years of the 20th century were characterised by the fast scientific and technical development resulted in serious changes in the modern society. However, this event created a number of problems in the sphere of the mass information:
- The first problem is connected with a real freedom to express any opinions. The most important condition of the democratic policy is liberty of word. In the Western countries for several centuries (except war periods) liberty of word was an integral part of the policy. Observance of this principle is obvious in not only creation of structures, but in establishment of powerful organisations based on modern technique. that is why in these countries free press takes a stable place due to authority gained for this time. at the same time in the rest states though it is allowed to publish newspapers freely, it is difficult to open own TV station or radio station. That is why other countries can hardly be compared with the Western countries. For example, in USA 10 million cars are produced annually. This volume is produced by four automobile companies, and at present it is practically impossible to establish a new competitive automobile plant in America. In other words, a lot of freedom does not mean a real necessity of such a liberty.
- The second problem is that in any state a number of the largest publishing and informational departments is not big; with the help of the mass media belonging to them the latter inform the society about the latest events, which play an important role in formation of the public opinion. That is why truth of the information depends mainly on objectiveness and fullness of the information. Under the totalitarian system a state controls completely the mass media, and conceals the information about real situation when it is necessary. In the democratic countries such a situation is rare case, which may happen only when all the mass media agree not to publish any news. For example, during the World War II there was some cased when the US territory was bombed by Japan, however according to the will of the American government which was afraid of panics in the society, newspapers did not publish this information. Let�s take as an example the Watergate scandal happened in the United State of America in 1974. Some people still think, that the president Nickson�s dismissal due to the Watergate case was prepared by the press, while other people do not agree with this statement. Really in the light of accuracy of information in that case there was no falsification, and at last the society made Nickson to leave the post of the president. However, on the other hand, the same press heated the public interest to this case. And without such a great interest arisen by the mass media, there could hardly be such a strong resonance. In fact, the Watergate case happened before the election, but even after the unmasking information was published in newspapers, Richard Nickson was elected the president. Only later under the pressure of the press this case became of a character of a real scandal, resulted in known consequences. Actually, such actions of the president and functionaries is not an unusual thing, if only alike story is not an object of the journalists� interest, who are able to make it great. Let�s say, if a person is suspected in theft, but at the same time he saved a life of another person. In some newspapers he is presented as a thieve, in other � as a hero who saved life of another man. The audience has a double impression, as if the press is talking about different men.
Of course, the mass media in these countries is not a business of a single corporation, however if they join, many corporation may create a similar situation. After the Watergate case the American mass propaganda structures published a number of other information concerning corruption and other negative things, such as the case in the Washington government, problem of pollution of the environment raised in the period of the president Carter, etc. Even the scientists began to pay their attention to bribery of American functionaries from different ranks, as if the American government had just become a subject to moral degradation. Though similar cases happen always, but they were not published in the press.
Thus, people actually depend on the information given to them, as they form their opinion basing on the press. That is why the propagandistic structures are really the structures creating public opinion, not just the departments informing the population. Regarding many matters people just do not have their own opinion. Only when information along with critical comments, is published, �the public opinion� is formed.
-The third problem is that in fact it is difficult to determine a degree of influence of mass propaganda. An English scientist of policy Max Bellof said once: �Sometimes it seems to me, it will be better for everybody, if American people stop publishing of their newspapers (New York Times� and �Washington Post�) for a year or two.� Samuel Huntington considers that in the industrialised America there are three forces: the political leader, i.e. the president and his assistants, functionaries of different ranks and the mass media create a specific balance and control the entire policy, traditional political movements, managerial sphere and legislation in the state, while struggle of federative forces and states is of a secondary importance. Thus, an increasing role of the mass media means a decrease of influence of other public structures in the state.
-The forth problem is that theoretically all the tele-reports and public discussions should be objective, true and responsible, but in fact each newspaper has its own political position; each correspondent, editor or specialist dealing with a separate column has a specific point of view. For example, the newspapers �Washington Post�, �Daily News�, �Sun� sympathise with the democratic party, while the newspapers �Los-Angeles Times� Herald Tribune�, �Press News� (Cleveland), �Tribune� (Minneapolis) are the supporters of the republican party.
Actually the same situation we may watch in Great Britain: the newspapers �The Daily Telegraph�, �The Daily Express�, �The Daily Mail�, �The Daily Sketch� are conservative editions and they support the Conservative party, while �The Daily Herald� and �The Daily Mirror� are liberal newspapers. In France �L�Aurora� �Kroiks� represent the right-wing forces, �Le Figaro�, �Le Mond� have a neutral position, while �L� Humanite�, �Liberation� represent the left-wing forces. That is why nobody may state that newspapers� information indicates in general all the public opinion, as often newspapers support a specific policy or specific political point of view. For example, according to the poll conducted by �Editor and Publisher� magazine, in 1968 during the election of the American president, R. Nickson representing the Republican party was mostly approved by the society, i.e. 634 newspapers with total circulation of 34 million 600 thousand copies. At the same time the candidate of the Democratic party was approved by 146 newspapers with the total circulation of 9 million 500 thousand copies, while the candidate of the Independent party was supported by 12 newspapers with the total circulation of 150000 copies. The rest newspapers (total circulation of 5 million 200 thousand copies) were neutral. As it was found out later, a real support rendered to Nickson did not exceed greatly a number of votes given for the candidate of the Democratic party. Thus, responsibility for the press is to be responsible for the published wrong facts and opinions, however, it was difficult for the lost party to change anything.
The rich and strong American oil company �Mobile Oil Company� or the large power company �American Electric Power Company�, using their financial possibilities are able to refute publicly incorrect or negative information. However, it is more difficult for a common person or any common company. Besides, even if a refute is published in a newspaper, authority of this man or company has incurred a moral damage, as readers do not always read the columns with refute.
In 1973 some US statesmen made a lot of efforts to establish The National News Council (NNC). The objective of this organisation was support of the free press publishing objective and true information. Unfortunately, New York newspapers did not co-operate with this organisation. Till July 1975 fifty-nine biased news were considered, 5 cases were supported by the Council, including one case of a New York newspaper. However, it is difficult to determine what the role of the Council was in such type of cases.
-The fifth problem is that in a democratic country status and actions of a politician who takes decisions, are controlled by the society, and that is the main specific element of the democratic policy. In the West capitalism has developed before the 19th century, and in the beginning some big monopolies could influence the economy and policy. However, at present these corporations are politically controlled. The role of the mass propaganda and its influence on the society were mentioned before. It is interesting, that in the democratic society people who are to control the mass media, are responsible only before their own conscience, i.e. actually they are not responsible for their actions and are not pressed or controlled by the society.
Summarising the above mentioned facts, it is possible to state that in the democratic countries the mass media belong to a small group of people, who influence the society greatly, and a common man is not able to stand and to defend his positions before the structures belonging to these people. It is a serious problem of the democratic society and it requires a thorough study. The Professor of the Boston University Bernard Rubin wrote in his book �Mass information: policy and democracy�: �It is difficult for us to imagine what connection of the mass media with the American policy and managerial elite of the sate is. If we talk about the majority of the citizens, their political problems, perception of a politician� personality are equally formed basing on the image created by the editor, publisher, commentator or critic. The mass media for people are the determining factor, and if people working in the mass media do not observe the principles of professional objectiveness, the authoritarian power may damage the democratic society.�
All Over the Globe is published by IPA House.
© 1998 IPA House. All Rights Reserved.