Human Rights Facts (21): Free Press
I discussed the freedom of the press before on this blog. There’s a post on the importance of the press for a democracy, there’s one on the importance for the struggle against poverty, and finally one on the importance for a well-functioning economy.
Definition of press freedom
The post you’re reading now contains some factual information on press freedom in the world. First, though, a word on the definition of freedom of the press. This freedom is a subset of the more general freedom of expression. Freedom of the press doesn’t only include the freedom of journalists (and, increasingly, bloggers) to publish information without fear of repercussions. It also includes the freedom to gather the information, as well as the freedom of the public to have access to the published information. This is explicit in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
(Article 19 of the Universal Declaration entails a similar message). The freedom of the press is closely linked to the freedom of movement. Without free movement, information gathering and investigative journalism is very difficult. Freedom of movement also includes free access for foreign media. Foreign media are often necessary for global exposure of a problem because the local media may be under the sway of the government.
Country ranking
Here’s the Reporters Without Borders 2007 Press Freedom Ranking:
And this is the ranking of Freedom House (green = free, yellow = partly free and blue = not free):
Freedom House estimates that 1 billion of the worlds population of 6 billion lives in a country with a free press, and another 2.5 billion have a partly free press.
Means of limiting press freedom
Governments use an increasingly large array of weapons to limit the freedom of the press and to apply some sort of overt or covert CENSORSHIP:
1. Intimidation of journalists
Journalists are often intimidated by way of death threats, kidnapping, torture etc. This is a graph shows the jailing of critical journalists:
(source)
Sometimes this isn’t enough, as is shown by the number of outright murders of journalists:
(source)
The killing of Anna Politkovskaia in 2006 in retaliation for her writing on Chechnya, or the killing of Hrant Dink because of his writing on the Armenian genocide, are perhaps the best known examples.
2. Banning of foreign media
Currently, and for some time to come, the most grotesque examples are Burma and North-Korea.
3. Legislation limiting free speech
While I admit that freedom of expression is not absolute and can come into conflict with other human rights (for example the right to privacy) – in which case it can be necessary to put legal limits on the freedom of expression – it still is an extremely important important value and instrument and deserves better protection. Some examples of the way in which legislation is misused to limit the freedom of the press:
- Laws that make hate speech or “glorification” or “apology” of terrorism a crime. Incitement to commit a crime is normally, and justifiably, regarded as a crime in itself. But prosecutors have to show that a speaker intended to directly encourage someone to commit a crime, and that there is either a causal relation between the incitement and the crime itself, or the likelihood that incitement will cause an imminent crime. In reality, both the laws and the prosecution of “crimes” are intentionally vague, most likely because the state wants to use these laws, not for security, but to silence opponents.
- Laws which make insults, defamation or libel a crime. Such laws do not simply criminalize speech that may cause imminent violence, discrimination etc. but rather speech that merely insults. Freedom of expression exists to protect offensive speech. Inoffensive speech really doesn’t need protection. The archetypal example is the case of the Danish Muhammad cartoons leading to calls for the reinstatment or “activation” of blasphemy laws which, in the West, were either repealed or dormant. It is difficult to see how insults or offensive speech, even when done in bad taste, can harm the rights of anyone. Such laws would spell the end of freedom and would catapult us back from the age of rights to the age of honor.
- Something similar can be said of the crime of genocide denial, although in this case one can make the point that this kind of denial is part of the construction of a radical ideology which, when it is allowed to flourish and perhaps take over power, would surely try to reproduce the genocides it denies.
4. Legislation limiting access to government information
Although many governments are subject to so-called “sunshine laws” or freedom of information laws, the same governments often enact “official secrecy acts” preventing journalist from accessing certain government documents. Governments often point to the need for secrecy regarding anti-terrorism or “homeland security” programs. Journalists publishing information on such topics are told that they endanger national security. This can be justified (one shouldn’t allow an “embedded” journalist for example to publish information on troop movements in a time of war; that would be aiding the enemy), but in many cases governments misuse these laws to cover up inconvenient facts. Moreover, the fear of being labeled “unpatriotic” can lead to self-censorship on the part of journalists.
5. State control of mass media and television chains
Russia is a prime example of a state where the government has gradually taken over the different media and squeezed out the rest. The media only propagate the government’s point of view. Policy debate or investigative journalism all but disappears. A telling example of state control is the limits some governments impose on internet access for publishers and readers. In China, some 50.000 internet police are constructing the so-called Great Firewall of China, shutting down sites or blocking access to foreign sites, closing down internet-cafés on dubious grounds such as pornography etc. But China isn’t the only country engaging in this kind of censorship. Here’s a map of the internet usage around the world:
This is an indicator of the freedom of the press in the sense of the freedom of the public to access the press. Two caveats, however. This map should of course be correlated with the map of the population concentration. The fact that few people in Siberia have internet access is not necessarily a violation of the right to freedom of information or an indicator of censorship. It’s just an indicator of the fact that there are few people in Siberia.
Secondly, this map may just point out that the infrastructure necessary for internet access is not available everywhere. So it’s not always an indicator of active censorhip of the internet but rather an indicator of government inability to provide access. This inability, however, even if it doesn’t amount to censorship, does limit the freedom of the press.
Blocking access to satellite television is a similar kind of censorship.
6. Inadequate protection of sources
This is especially important for investigative journalism, a kind of journalism necessary for good governance (it uncovers corruption or other illegal activity by government officials or other individuals).
Besides these active government policies, there are of course other elements limiting the freedom of the press. Many journalists are under economic pressure. They find it hard to “bite the hand that feeds them”. Running investigative stories on companies that sponsor them with advertising is difficult. Armed conflict, poverty etc. also hamper the press.
