This letter appeared in the Financial Times on 14 March 

Sir,

It is a sad day when the Financial Times changes its principled and welcome defence of press freedom in the UK to one of pragmatic compromise  (“Time for Sensible Press Compromise” 11/3/13). Your own prior editorials on this issue tell us clearly why this shift from principle to pragmatism is wrong.

Print media are not and should not be above the law. But nor should politicians make laws — or define regulators — that are specifically for the press. The principles are clear. Politicians are in a position of power while newspapers like the FT both hold politicians to account for their exercise of that power through independent, high quality journalism, and they endorse or oppose particular policies, government strategies and advise readers on who they would vote for when elections come round. For all these reasons and more, politicians have every motive to want to influence and control the press (more so than broadcasters who have to remain impartial and balanced).

Statutory underpinning of the detailed characteristics a supposedly “independent” regulator must meet breaches this clear principle of keeping the print media free from political interference. The FT has been a welcome and staunch defender of this principle first when Leveson came out, insisting on the avoidance of a “press law by the back door” (29/11/12), and secondly, when the royal charter was first mooted by David Cameron “well-meaning reform must not unwittingly open the door to state interference in the press” (12/2/13), going on to say that the royal charter would not “banish the shadow of state interference.”

The FT has now moved to the fudge that it rejected a month ago, a fudge Index on Censorship still rejects for reasons we cannot put any  better than you did then: “While some may see such a fudge as a better expedient than statutory control, this newspaper [delete newspaper, replace with Index] continues to favour credible independent regulation at arm’s length from the state.”

Kirsty Hughes

Chief Executive

Index on Censorship

London EC1

The post Financial Times betrays central principle in stance on media freedom appeared first on Index on Censorship.

To improve the culture, practice and ethics of the press, we must protect and promote the best of journalism. Alan Rusbridger makes the case for a new settlement

I have always believed that the most interesting period in the phone hacking story was the 18-month period following the Guardian ’s original revelation of the Gordon Taylor settlement — which blew apart News International’s “one rotten apple”  defence in July 2009. It was interesting precisely because almost nothing happened. All the dogs one would expect to bark in such a situation stayed silent. From the politicians, to the police, to the regulator, to the press themselves.

The Leveson Inquiry has finally given us some insight into what was happening in this period. The inquiry has had criticism — some merited, some not. But no one can doubt that Leveson has uncovered uncomfortable truths about the way a number of journalists — as well as politicians and police — have worked in the past. In what other sphere of public life do we think that transparency of this kind is an undesirable thing? I am confident that good things can flow from holding the press up to scrutiny, however difficult it may have been at times.

The press in this country has been under-regulated but over-legislated. There is a risk that by addressing only one side of this equation — by only strengthening regulation — the inquiry will undermine the strength of our press to do the work we all deem so vital. We therefore argued the inquiry should redress the balance between regulation and legislation and make recommendations that meet the twin objectives of protecting the public and protecting press freedom. It is not possible to improve the culture, practice and ethics of the press without protecting and promoting the best of journalism in the public interest.

We believe therefore in a new settlement which will address four deficiencies.

Defamation

The 2011 Global Press Freedom Rankings placed the UK in joint 26th place. Libel law has been cited by many investigative journalists as the main constraint on their work. The current defamation bill makes some improvements but says little, for example, on early dispute resolution. Libel is an essential piece of this jigsaw, especially through an alternative dispute resolution system which we hope Lord Justice Leveson will propose.

Plurality

Another measure of freedom is whether reporters are genuinely free to follow any story they wish — or to what extent proprietorial, editorial or commercial pressures circumscribe, or otherwise influence, the freedom to report on matters of genuine public interest. Without the sort of plurality that enables the Guardian to exist as well as other, much bigger and wealthier titles, it’s doubtful we would have learned about phone hacking. It is understandable that Leveson does not feel able to do a full review of plurality jurisprudence. But anything which concentrates power in the hands of fewer and fewer multi-billionaire proprietors will impoverish our society. The current plurality framework — which apparently granted no one the power to intervene over the BSkyB deal — is plainly insufficient to ensure the kind of plurality that is necessary for a healthy democracy. And this is about more than News Corporation, as anyone following developments in Australian media ownership will testify.

Public interest journalism under threat

While the digital transition brings many benefits — above all, an explosion in free expression that enriches democratic discourse — we must tackle one of its less desirable consequences: a diminution in public interest journalism. Investigative journalism — costly, unpredictable and with no direct revenues attached — is often among the first savings to be made. Other forms of reporting — foreign correspondents, court reporters, specialists — are next. So editors and reporters simply don’t have the freedom to do the reporting that society may want or need. Regulation should therefore enhance the climate for this work, not diminish it. This will include protections for public interest journalism in regulation as well as through consistent application of public interest defences in laws affecting the media.

Regulation

The press must accept that the breach of trust engendered by a series of Editors’ Code breaches and a discredited PCC needs tackling immediately and resolutely. That’s why we have argued for an ambitious system of regulation that includes the use of an alternative dispute resolution system that benefits both complainants and publishers by delivering meaningful redress for breaches of the Editors’ Code, quickly and cheaply. A measure of this strength is essential to prevent the introduction of compulsory or statutory mechanisms to deliver full participation that may undermine press freedom. But it also demonstrates that the press is determined to improve its standards and practices without recourse to judges. So let’s hope that Leveson proposes a balanced package of proposals, in effect a new settlement that both restores trust in journalism and strengthens our role in serving the public interest.

Alan Rusbridger is editor-in chief, Guardian News & Media

Exclusive extracts from our magazine:

The Lawyer | Mark Lewis | Do we need a free press?
The Blogger | Guido Fawkes | Where will this all end?
The Journalist | Trevor Kavanagh | The Leveson effect
Hacked Off | Martin Moore | The danger of power

The post The Leveson Inquiry: striking a balance to protect public interest appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post UK: Met police drop court order against the Guardian appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Pakistan: Guardian journalist beaten by men in police uniforms appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Libya: Guardian reporter released from detention appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Al Jazeera cameraman killed in Libya appeared first on Index on Censorship.

This article was originally published on Agentura.ru

On 7 February, 2011 the Guardian’s Moscow correspondent Luke Harding was expelled from Russia. According to the Guardian, the journalist flew back to Moscow from London, but was refused entry when his passport was checked on his arrival. After spending 45 minutes in an airport cell, he was sent back to the UK on the first available plane with his visa annulled. Harding was given no reason for the decision, although an airport official working for the Border Service of the FSB, told him: “For you Russia is closed.” The Guardian believes that Harding’s forced departure comes after the newspaper’s reporting of the WikiLeaks cables, where he reported on allegations that Russia under the rule of Vladimir Putin had become a “virtual mafia state”.

Harding’s expulsion is the latest example of the tactics adopted in the 2000s by the FSB in dealing with foreign journalists.

The 1990s under Yeltsin was a period of remarkable openness in Russia when journalists were free to explore areas that had long been off-limits. Under Putin, the FSB returned to KGB methods to deal with foreign journalists, using the threat of withholding visas and access to the country as leverage in an effort to influence their coverage.

In May 2002 Nikolai Volobuev, then the chief of the FSB’s counterintelligence department, said 31 foreign journalists had had their press passes revoked because they were “conducting illegal journalist activity”.  Eighteen of those were refused entry into Russia and had their visas blocked for five years. Since then this method has become common practice. According to the Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations, based in Moscow, more than 40 journalists were refused entry to Russia between 2000 and 2007.

In July 2006 Russian authorities refused an entry visa to the British journalist Thomas de Waal. The Russian Federal Migration Service explained that de Waal’s application had been denied under a 1996 security law. The explanation might be that de Waal wrote extensively on the war in Chechnya: In 1993-1997 he had worked in Russia covering the North Caucasus, and he co-authored the book Chechnya: A Small Victorious War. In 2003, he testified as an expert witness for the defense at the extradition trial in Britain of Chechen rebel leader Akhmed Zakayev.

In June 2008, British journalist Simon Pirani was refused entry to Russia, although he had a valid visa in his passport. Pirani, who writes about trade union issues, was told by Russian authorities he was deemed a security threat.

Natalia Morar, a Moldovan citizen who works for the independent Russian weekly New Times, and who had lived in Moscow for six years, was refused re-entry to Russia in December 2007 after a business trip to Israel. Morar had reported on corruption and written articles critical of high-level FSB officials.

She was forced to fly to Moldova, where she was told by Russian embassy officials that she posed a threat to Russian national security. In February 2008 she arrived at Domodedovo airport in Moscow with her Russian husband, Ilya Barabanov (who also works with New Times), whom she had married since she had last been refused entry. But she was stopped at passport control and told that her status had not changed, despite her marriage. Although she has continued to work for New Times covering corruption issues, her job has become increasingly difficult without access to Russian sources of information.

Meanwhile, the security services closed the doors of their press offices. By the mid-2000s the Federal Protection Service responded only to requests for filming or photographing inside the Kremlin. Military intelligence has no press office at all, the foreign intelligence service refuses to comment on anything that happened after 1961, and the FSB’s Center for Public Communications has tended not to answer media requests even under the threat of legal prosecution.

On April 24, 2008, then FSB director Nikolai Patrushev approved the plan to counter “the ideology of terrorism”. The plan outlined a set of guidelines for the secret services for 2008-2012. Among the measures included in the plan was a special training course, known as “Bastion”, for journalists covering terrorism. The course, established by the security services, seems to be a sort of brainwashing for journalists, aimed at limiting journalistic coverage of scenes of terrorist attacks and counterterrorism operations. Interior Ministry officials said that if a journalist had not attended the courses, he or she may be not allowed access to the area, as the number of press accreditations is limited and priority will be given to graduates of Bastion. The plan signed by Patrushev confirmed this. According to the document, the security services are required “to develop the order of accreditation of journalists who passed the courses and to establish a special diploma that would become the grounds for a journalist’s accreditation with the operations staff during the counterterrorist operation.” This requirement is at odds with the Russian media law, in which there is no mention of the course as a prerequisite for journalistic accreditation.

In 2009 the Directorate of Assistance Programmes (which includes the Centre for Public Communications) was given new powers. On 15 July Alexander Bortnikov, director of the FSB, expanded the list of FSB generals allowed to “initiate petitions to conduct counterintelligence measures that restrict the constitutional rights of citizens”. Under Bortnikov’s direction, these generals now have the authority to order wiretapping, surveillance, and the searching of premises.

The list, first established in 2007, was originally limited to heads of counterintelligence sections, the department of economic security, and the border guards, as well as FSB leadership. The order signed by Bortnikov in 2009 significantly expanded it to include the FSB Directorate for Assistance Programs. According to the law, the FSB may carry out counterintelligence measures under the following conditions: There is information regarding signs of intelligence and other activity by foreign states’ se cret services or by individuals aimed at damaging Russia’s security.

Russia’s journalists are obviously not “clients” of the list. They might divulge secrets or names of agents, but only if they are told this information by FSB officers or other officials with access to such material. But to protect well-guarded secrets, the FSB has special units, from its main Counterintelligence Service to the Military Counterintelligence unit, which typically initiate prosecutions after journalists divulge sensitive information in print.

The lawyers and FSB officers we questioned told us that the Directorate of Assistance Programs might have asked for a surveillance permit not to initiate criminal proceedings but to keep a closer eye on journalists. (Previously the chief of the directorate had to request permission from the head of the counterintelligence department to intercept journalists’ correspondence. Now the head of the FSB’s directorate in charge of dealing with journalists is able to carry out an order on his own.) Bortnikov’s order raises another question. FSB units are divided into operational and support units. The first (for instance, counterintelligence or counterterrorism) consist of operatives who recruit agents. Support units include, for example, the FSB’s capital con- struction directorate, department of medicine, human resources, and (it was long believed) its directorate in charge of dealing with journalists.

The ability to order eavesdropping is a method employed by operational units. Responding to our question as to whether the Directorate of Assistance Programmes is an operational unit, the officer on duty at the FSB Center for Public Communications replied,“It is defined by our internal regulatory documents, and nobody will [tell] you.”

See more:

• KGB methods in dealing with public opinion: the emphasis on propaganda efforts focused on cinema and TV, a competition for the best literary and artistic works about state security operatives, and the using the threat of withholding visas and access to the country as leverage in an effort to influence their coverage
• The New Nobility: The Restoration of Russia’s Security State and the Enduring Legacy of the KGB by Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan

Agentura.Ru, February 8, 2011

The post Expelling journalists: a long-established FSB policy appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Guardian journalist expelled from Russia appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Trafigura: Minton report revealed appeared first on Index on Censorship.