The Paradox of Protection: How ‘National Interest’ and ‘Media Ethics’ Became Tools to Suppress Independent Journalism

February 27, 2026 – When governments move to shut down independent media outlets, the justifications often sound reasonable, even noble. “National security,” we are told, requires certain information to remain undisclosed. “Social harmony” demands that divisive voices be quieted. “Media ethics” must be enforced against those who would spread misinformation. “National interest” trumps individual rights.

These phrases roll easily off official tongues. They appear in legislation, in court rulings, in press statements announcing closures or arrests. They are designed to reassure: this is not about silencing dissent; this is about protecting something greater.

But across the globe, from Ethiopia to Egypt, from Hungary to the Philippines, these same phrases have been deployed in ways that systematically undermine the very institutions democracy requires. What emerges is a paradox: the language of protection becomes the instrument of suppression, and the promised safeguards for society become mechanisms for entrenching power.

The Language of Legitimacy

The terms “national interest” and “media ethics” carry genuine weight. Nations do have legitimate security concerns that may require some information to be protected. Journalists do have ethical obligations to verify information, correct errors, and avoid causing harm.

But these concepts are also inherently flexible—and that flexibility makes them dangerous tools in the hands of those who would control information.

“National interest” has no fixed definition. It can mean protecting troops in wartime. It can also mean hiding corruption, embarrassing diplomatic cables, or evidence that development funds have been stolen. The same phrase covers both legitimate secrecy and illegitimate cover-up.

“Media ethics” similarly spans a vast territory. It can mean refusing to publish unverified allegations. It can also mean refusing to publish anything critical of those in power. When the government becomes the arbiter of journalistic ethics, ethics quickly become whatever the government wants them to be.

“The problem is not the concepts themselves,” explains media law scholar Dr. Tsegaye Berhanu. “The problem is who gets to define them. When the state is both the subject of journalistic scrutiny and the judge of whether that scrutiny is ‘ethical,’ you have created a system where accountability becomes impossible.”

The Ethiopian Context: A Case Study in Linguistic Capture

Ethiopia’s recent history illustrates how the language of protection can be repurposed for suppression. Since the onset of conflict in various regions, authorities have increasingly invoked national security concerns to justify restrictions on reporting.

In Oromia, where conflict between government forces and the Oromo Liberation Army continues, independent access is severely limited. Journalists attempting to report on human rights abuses or humanitarian conditions face accusations of undermining national unity or supporting terrorist groups.

The 2020 state of emergency legislation granted broad powers to restrict “any information that could disturb the public peace” or “incite violence.” While these goals are legitimate, the definitions are expansive enough to encompass almost any critical reporting.

“The government has effectively made itself the sole judge of what constitutes responsible journalism,” says a veteran Ethiopian journalist who requested anonymity. “If you report government abuses, you’re ‘inciting violence.’ If you report opposition abuses, you’re ‘supporting terrorists.’ There is no space left for simply reporting facts.”

The result, human rights organizations warn, is that Ethiopia’s media space has contracted dramatically. Outlets have been shuttered. Journalists have fled into exile or ceased reporting on sensitive topics. The information vacuum is filled by rumor and diaspora-based outlets operating beyond any regulatory framework.

The Slippery Slope: From Regulation to Suppression

The journey from legitimate media regulation to systematic suppression rarely happens overnight. It follows a predictable pattern:

Step One: Establish the Framework – A government passes laws allowing action against media that threatens national security or violates ethical standards. These laws often appear reasonable and may even be drafted with input from media professionals.

Step Two: Expand the Definitions – Gradually, the interpretation of key terms expands. “National security” comes to include economic reports that might deter investment. “Incitement” comes to include criticism of government policy. “Ethical violations” come to include failure to present the government’s perspective.

Step Three: Selectively Enforce – The laws are applied primarily to opposition or critical media, while government-friendly outlets enjoy immunity. This creates the appearance of even-handed regulation while effectively silencing dissent.

Step Four: Create Self-Censorship – Journalists, observing what happens to colleagues who cross invisible lines, begin censoring themselves. The government need not close every outlet; it need only demonstrate that crossing certain boundaries carries consequences.

“Self-censorship is the most efficient form of suppression,” notes media ethics researcher Hanna Mekonnen. “It requires no ongoing enforcement, no public relations pushback. Journalists simply internalize the boundaries and police themselves. The government gets exactly what it wants—a compliant press—without having to do anything.”

The Ethics Paradox: Who Guards the Guardians?

Perhaps the most insidious aspect of using “media ethics” as a suppression tool is that it reverses the proper relationship between press and power.

In democratic theory, the press serves as a watchdog on power—the “fourth estate” that holds government accountable. Media ethics are professional standards that journalists voluntarily adopt to ensure they perform this function responsibly. Ethics are supposed to guide journalists in serving the public interest, not to serve as a leash held by those in power.

When government becomes the enforcer of media ethics, this relationship is inverted. The watchdog is muzzled in the name of responsible behavior. Those who should be scrutinized become the scrutineers.

“Imagine if corporations were allowed to define what constitutes fair business reporting,” says Tadesse Desta, a media lawyer. “Or if politicians could decide what counts as unbiased political coverage. That’s exactly what happens when government enforces ‘media ethics’—the subjects of journalism become the judges of journalism.”

The National Interest Fallacy: Short-Term Silence, Long-Term Danger

The invocation of “national interest” to justify media suppression rests on a fundamental fallacy: that hiding problems makes them go away.

In reality, suppressing information about national challenges does not protect national interest—it undermines it. A nation that does not know about corruption cannot address it. A government that does not hear about policy failures cannot correct them. A society that cannot discuss its divisions cannot heal them.

“When you silence reporting on ethnic tensions, you don’t eliminate those tensions,” says conflict resolution specialist Worku Aberra. “You just ensure that no one sees them building until they explode. The ‘national interest’ argument gets it exactly backwards: transparency is in the national interest. Secrecy serves only those who benefit from the status quo.”

This dynamic plays out repeatedly in conflict settings. In Ethiopia’s Oromia region, restricted reporting means that early warning signs of violence go undetected. Humanitarian needs remain invisible. Opportunities for intervention are missed. The “national interest” justification for media restrictions becomes self-defeating as conflict deepens and spreads.

The International Dimension: Learning from Others

Ethiopia is far from alone in facing these dynamics. Across Africa and beyond, governments have refined the art of using protective language to justify suppressive action.

In Tanzania, the 2016 Media Services Act expanded government power to sanction journalists for “undermining public confidence” in state institutions—a phrase capacious enough to cover almost any criticism. In Uganda, repeated internet shutdowns during elections are justified as necessary for national security, though critics note they primarily serve to block opposition organizing.

In Hungary, media legislation framed as promoting “professional standards” has resulted in a media landscape heavily tilted toward government-friendly outlets. In the Philippines, the closure of ABS-CBN, the nation’s largest media network, was justified on technical licensing grounds but widely seen as retaliation for critical coverage.

Each case has unique features, but the pattern is consistent: language that sounds protective is deployed to achieve suppressive ends.

The Way Forward: Reclaiming the Concepts

If the language of “national interest” and “media ethics” has been captured by those who would suppress independent journalism, what is to be done? The answer is not to abandon these concepts—they remain important—but to reclaim them.

For national interest: The concept must be narrowly defined and subject to independent oversight. Secrecy should be the exception, not the rule, and decisions about what constitutes a genuine national security threat should not rest exclusively with those who might benefit from concealment.

For media ethics: Professional standards should be developed and enforced by journalists themselves, through independent press councils and voluntary associations. When governments involve themselves in ethical enforcement, the conflict of interest is simply too great.

For the public: Media literacy and support for independent journalism are essential. A public that understands the value of a free press is less likely to accept its suppression in the name of security or ethics.

Conclusion: The Light That Protects

There is a reason authoritarian regimes always move against independent media first. There is a reason democratic transitions always prioritize press freedom. Journalism is not merely one institution among many—it is the institution that makes all others accountable.

When independent media is suppressed in the name of national interest, the nation’s interests are not protected. They are betrayed. When independent media is suppressed in the name of media ethics, ethics are not served. They are subverted.

The only genuine protection for national interest and media ethics is a free press that can speak truth to power, expose wrongdoing, and facilitate the public debate on which democracy depends. Any framework that suppresses independent journalism in the name of protecting these values has misunderstood them entirely—or never intended to protect them at all.

As the Ethiopian journalist who fled into exile observed: “They tell you they are closing the newspapers to protect the country. But a country that cannot hear itself think is a country that cannot save itself. The silence they create is not peace. It is just the quiet before the next storm.”