Where that media is outstandingly unsupportive or critical of the government, and where the government concerned is either very controlling or very insecure about its existence. For example, China and Iran are known to be quite strict about what can and cannot be said.
Oligarchies suppress political opposition, as do dictatorships.
Lisa had to suppress her anger with her younger brother for spilling her milk because she knew he didn't do it on purpose. The class was unable to suppress their laughter as the chalk blew into the teacher's face. The government called in troops to suppress the demonstrations in the city.
This means to keep something quiet. Such as the Syrian government trying to suppress their own people with violence. The people wanting democratic change, and the government trying to keep them quiet.
Neither choice is desirable in the least. However, in the hypothetical example of media without government, there would be no way to maintain order. Armed groups would run rampant. They could run their own media, but there would be no way of knowing whether it was being accurate or even truthful. A government with no media would likely operate in total secret and act in repressive ways. However unpleasant that situation might be, at least there would be some level of order. Word-of-mouth communication would still be possible, although unreliable. Although the choice seems to be 'between the devil and the deep blue sea,' the chaos of no government and no accurate and reliable information would seem to be 'the lesser of two evils.'
In my opinion that would be the media; in particular, the broadcast media. Those that believe that the government or the people in government are the answer must take into consideration that so much of the media is delivering opinion rather than news. We don't get to hear what government officials are actually doing only what a particular media person or media group wants us to think they are doing. That power trumps the power of the government.
The government cannot fully suppress anything except for violence,or rather have no right to fully suppress anything except for uncalled for violence. The only "tactics" government agencies use to suppress anything is to simply not tell anyone about it,They may apply clearance levels to it so that only few know about it but once a story etc. is out there is nothing the government can do to stop it spreading.
happywhat is an antonym for suppress tell me now!!!!!!!!!!!
Salts can be used to anybody but Ariel got on water but only fungi based Media such as potato dextrose agar PDA, some antibiotics are effective and can be used to suppress the growth of bacteria E.g penicillin, Ampicillin, streptomycin, Amoxicillin & rifampicin.
There is always a certain degree of discretionary agreement between the government and the media but no, essentially, the Australian government does not control the media. The media is essentially free to express as much cynicism and suspicion of the government's actions and motives as they wish.
Did the national government have the right to suppress insurrection.
If the government says something contradictory to that said in the media, the media can claim it as a coverup while the government can only say the media is misleading the people. However, the media usually tells people what they want to hear and thus people are more likely to agree with them against the government.
A six-letter word for suppress would be stifle.As in "Tim had to stifle his cries".