Fair question, but see all of history before the printing press.
Can autocracy exist without a media apparatus?
Submitted 14 hours ago by Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world to [deleted]
Comments
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 7 hours ago
slazer2au@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Yes, as they existed before the newspaper was invented. But their power increases as the speed of communication also increases.
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Does town crier and carrier pigeon not count as media? What about that guy complaining on clay tablet?
ICastFist@programming.dev 9 hours ago
Media (medium, or the means through which communication happens) here matters less than reach. Both the carrier pigeon and clay tablet are the same: direct letters to someone else, direct communication. As media, a town crier is no different than town gossip or radio, it’s sound: someone speaks, others listen.
Also keep in mind that the majority of the population, even nobles, were illiterate for most of history
slazer2au@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Carrier pigeon, not likely.
Town crier, maybe but I am still swinging towards no.
FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 13 hours ago
I don’t think there is any example of an autocracy in the last 125 years where the media completely resisted the establishment of the regime. The reasons there can be twofold. Media needs to make money. Not aligning your business with the strongman (or woman) spells out economic decline so blind eyes are turned until blind eyes prevail. The other reason is that most autocratic regimes don’t come fully formed on the day of the coup etc. There is a period of incremental changes that can silence critics or get them to censor themselves while gaining support with the less critical part of the media (and alternatively jailing people who say something bad). Like the frog in the pot the media is stuck in the hot water. Or it jumps out into a show trial or other instrument of repression.
I would say in the days before newspapers, a power base had to be established to take over from a royal. Those were the people with power, the aristocracy. You didn’t need all of them but a substantial portion. It’s only since we’ve pulled the silver spoons out of dukes and barons, the power base has shifted to include people who didn’t just inherit a title and most of the shire. That, I would say naturally, includes selfmade industrialists as well as selfmade media moguls. They have become a necessity today when it was much less important before (or much easier to control the narrative with fewer resources). Additionally, as any revolutionary will tell you these days, you have to of course capture the broadcasters with military might if you can. But even that will seem quaint soon when all you’ll need is an online media presence that you can control 100%. Trump shows us that way.
Tl;DR? It used to be possible. But we are in a transition period from a time when having the media on your side was a necessity to where you can easily create your own media to drown out the establishment voices and that might do the trick.
zxqwas@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
There was a few millennia where kings, chieftans, emperors and the likes were more common than not before we had media. So I’d argue it’s easier to be autocrat without media.