Labelling state-affiliated media entities

We believe that trust forms the foundation of our community, and we strive to keep TikTok a safe and authentic space where genuine interactions and content can thrive. We do this by countering misinformation and disinformation, and tackling deceptive behavior that may cause harm to our community or society at large.

State-affiliated media are media organizations whose editorial output or decision-making process is subject to control or influence by a government. For governments, politicians, and other centers of power, it may be legitimate to use means of mass communication to reach out to and inform citizens. However, when governments blur the dimensions of state communication with independent journalism, individuals can lose important context about the source of the information they receive. For this reason, we label the accounts and videos of media entities that we know to be subject to editorial control or influence by state institutions.

We also recognize that this issue varies in the diverse countries we operate – and that people may have different expectations of the relationship between governments and media based on the legal, political, and cultural history of a nation. There is no one-sized-fits-all approach to state-affiliated media, and the nature of the topic will continue to evolve. This is why we consulted and researched widely to develop our approach to state-affiliated media, and will continue to do so.

Our work, conducted in close collaboration with global media researchers, led to the development of our state-controlled media label. We define state-controlled media as an entity where there is evidence of clear editorial control and decision-making by members of the state.

We determine whether an organization is subjected to editorial control or influence by a government based on evidence collected by independent external experts. This includes information on the media organization’s sources of funding, corporate structures, objectives, and mission statement, as well as ownership, editorial guidelines, editorial staff and leadership, and governance.

In making our determination, we primarily focus on evidence of state control or influence over the editorial content or decision-making of a media entity. We evaluate whether the entity has sufficient safeguards to ensure editorial independence and consider different types of government influence ranging from control or influence over content production or distribution, to legally determined editorial control by government. We also consider evidence of resistance by the entity to state influence.

While government funding or ownership is not determinative of state control or influence, we do apply additional scrutiny to organizations that are significantly financed or managed by state actors. For example, public service broadcasters with robust and transparent protections separating editorial decision-making from state funding are not subject to labelling as state-affiliated media. In evaluating state ownership and funding, we consider government funding including loans, subsidies, and economic dependence on advertising.

We also recognize that cultural, legal, and political contexts play an important role in determining whether an entity is state-affiliated. In environments where legal and political pressure on independent media is high, we may lean toward not labeling outlets that have shown resistance to promoting government messages. We also review the environment in which media organizations operate and consider, among other things, global freedom indices by reputable organizations, national laws ensuring freedom of expression, and media regulation.

Questions we ask ourselves when evaluating media entities:

• Is editorial independence part of the organization’s mission statement?
• Are there mechanisms in place that sufficiently isolate government funding from editorial decision-making?
• Is the organization sufficiently transparent about any direct or indirect government funding?
• Does the organization have a set of guidelines related to standards of journalistic conduct?
• Are there any state affiliations within editorial leadership positions?
• Has the organization transparently disclosed any state affiliations?
• Is there evidence of the media outlet not upholding its editorial mission statement?
• How has the entity handled issues of significant public interest regarding the government?
• Is there evidence of government attacks on the organization, its editorial leadership or reportorial staff?
• Is there evidence of the organization contesting decisions of the state in the courts?

If a media entity believes it has been incorrectly labelled, it can appeal by providing evidence of editorial protections from state interference and evidence that these are in force. We will evaluate the evidence provided by the media entity, invite input from our experts, and make a determination as to whether to remove or retain the label.

State-controlled media labels are currently available for state-affiliated media in: Afghanistan, Angola, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Croatia, Cote d’Ivoire, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Cyprus, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.