亞太地區
寮國
-
2026 年的指數
154/ 180
分數 : 32.54
政治指標
143
28.24
經濟指標
151
31.15
法律指標
161
27.83
社會文化指標
156
33.70
安全指標
142
41.75
2025 年的指數
150/ 180
分數 : 33.22
政治指標
152
25.33
經濟指標
133
33.98
法律指標
164
25.05
社會文化指標
140
42.47
安全指標
145
39.28

As a result of the state’s near-total control over the media, Laos is a “black hole” for information, where little reliable information escapes. 

Media landscape

The government has almost total control over the Lao-language press. Laos’ 24 newspapers, 32 television networks and 44 radio stations are required to follow the party line dictated by the Propaganda and Training Board of the Lao People's Revolutionary Party (LPRP), which is disseminated by the three dailies published by the ruling party: Pathet Lao, Vientiane Mai and Paxaxon. English-language media have a little more room for manoeuvre: while the daily newspaper Vientiane Times was also placed under the authority of The Propaganda and Training Board in 2025, the news website Laotian Times maintains a more independent editorial line. Aware of the restrictions imposed on official media, a growing number of Laotians are turning away from the propaganda of state outlets and getting their news from YouTube, Facebook and other social media platforms — now major sources of information — as well as from Thai television channels.

Political context

The Lao People’s Revolutionary Party (LPRP) keeps the press under close surveillance and makes the creation of independent media impossible in the country’s national language. Laos’ ruling elite — who are often descendants of the old aristocracy — keep information under lock and key. This political environment encourages self-censorship and explains why journalists limit themselves to recycling dispatches from Kaosan Pathet Lao (KPL), the official news agency. Foreign media have been tolerated since 2016 on the condition that their content is pre-approved by the LPRP. As a result, only Xinhua, the Chinese press agency, and its Vietnamese counterpart, VNA, have opened bureaus in Vientiane. The regime considers topics such as natural disasters and major investment projects with countries like Thailand, Vietnam, and China to be taboo.

Legal framework

The Constitution guarantees “freedom of expression,” but prohibits the media from harming “national interests” and “traditional culture”. A vaguely-worded provision of the penal code authorises the imprisonment of journalists who criticise the government, a provision extended in 2014 to internet users. In response to the growing use of social media, the authorities have expanded their control over information by requiring news pages on Facebook and other platforms to register with the authorities or face penalties. What’s more, internet service providers are ordered to report web users’ names, professions and data search histories to the authorities.

Economic context

The government directly owns the bulk of media outlets. The gradual, but restrained, development of online media outlets has been made possible by technological progress – the improvement of telecommunications infrastructure and internet access, and an increase in the number of mobile phone users. The authorities are cooperating with neighbouring China, which wields significant influence in the country, to expand internet surveillance and control over the news, particularly through intelligence-sharing agreements and equipment supplied by Chinese tech companies.

Sociocultural context

The ruling party suppresses all forms of free collective expression. Thanks to the linguistic similarities between the Lao and Thai languages, younger Laotians follow what is happening on Thai social networks and even launched, in 2020, a rare online protest movement, #IfLaoPoliticsWasGood (#ຖ້າການເມືອງລາວດີ), which denounced, among other things, the absence of freedom of expression in the country. The regime responded by setting up a task force charged with “monitoring” the use of social media and imprisoning anyone who criticises the government.

Safety

Information is so tightly controlled that journalists have very little room to manoeuvre. In 2018, many local and foreign reporters were prohibited from covering the collapse of a dam on the Mekong River. Independent online media are also harshly repressed: the blogger Muay Littlepig was sentenced to five years in prison in 2019 for having told fellow citizens about the government’s poor response to the Mekong flooding. Sharing information on social media about corruption involving the authorities, or any other sensitive topic, can lead to detention, violence and even murder.