Index on Censorship spoke to journalists and proprietors in Burma during a recent mission to the country in March. The return of independent daily newspapers has not been without incident. The government refused to grant licenses for daily publication to a number of publications including the Eleven Media Group, apparently because their application lacked an official revenue stamp valued at 100 kyats ($0.12). This decision was overturned in March and the group will launch its daily newspaper “The Daily Eleven” symbolically on World Press Freedom Day on May 3 according to AP.

Previously news was published in weekly journals that reviewed news and politics and had to submit all their proofs to the Press Scrutiny and Registration Division (PSRD) prior to publication (hence weekly publication). According to state journal the New Light of Myanmar, the termination of the PSRD was signed off at the cabinet meeting of 24 January 2013. Though ominously, the report claimed a new “Copyrights and Registration Division” would be formed under the Information and Public Relations Department.

Index on Censorship views the licensing of newspapers as an unwarranted restriction on freedom of the media. The registration process for daily newspapers in Burma has been particularly restrictive with the application requiring a code of practice, a code of ethics and a code of conduct for the publication — even though the Press Council is working on a series of ethical codes for journalists as part of its on-going negotiations to draft a more proportionate press law.

One editor told Index he had applied for a press license on 21 February and had not yet heard of the result by 13 March. The application was over 80 pages in total and the local authorities stated the application needed to be in both Burmese and English. Journalists told Index several questions on the application for a daily newspaper license concerned the previous political activities of the applicant, which raised concerns that political considerations will be taken into account when awarding the limited number of licenses proposed.

Further advances in media freedom are expected in the coming months, with foreign journalists to be given working visas from mid-April (rather than taking the risk of a tourist visa as is the norm now) and the BBC hoping to broadcast its global news channel in Burma later this year. Reporters Without Borders has moved Burma’s ranking in its Press Freedom Index up 18 places to 151 out of 179 countries.

Yet, old habits die hard. On the first day of new daily newspapers, the government kept the independent media at arm’s length from an official state visit by the President of Singapore Tony Tan Keng Yam with only the official state media allowed into the press conference surrounding the trip. A forthcoming Index report into the state of freedom of expression in Burma will examine these trends in further detail.

The post Private daily newspapers return to Burma appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Index urges that there is a serious, considered debate about Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations. The free speech organisation opposes the statutory underpinning of press regulation proposed by Lord Justice Leveson.

Kirsty Hughes, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship said:

 We consider that the statutory-voluntary approach to independent press regulation would undermine press freedom in the UK. However, we support the proposal for cheap, effective arbitration, which would help victims get swift redress to their complaints.

Index welcomed the response of the Prime Minister to the Inquiry’s findings. In a statement to parliament, David Cameron said that he had “serious concerns” about passing legislation in relation to the press, which he rightly said would be an “enormous” step.

Kirsty Hughes said: “We share David Cameron’s concerns that statutory underpinning would undermine free speech, and could be the start of a slippery slope of government interference in the media.”

Index’s response to Lord Justice Leveson’s main recommendations are:

Statutory underpinning of an ‘independent’ regulatory body: Statutory underpinning of an ‘independent’ and ‘voluntary’ regulator is a contradiction in terms. Any law which sets out the criteria that the press must meet, by definition introduces some government or political control of the media. Politicians of all hues have an interest in getting the most positive media coverage they can. Keeping print media independent of government so journalists can report on political debate and decision-making, robustly and without fear, is fundamental. Even “light” statutory regulation could easily be revisited, toughened and potentially abused once the principle of no government control of the press is breached.

Arbitration service:  Index welcomes Lord Justice Leveson’s proposal for cheap, effective arbitration.

The press and the police: Index is concerned that proposals to restrict contact between senior police officers and the press could deter legitimate journalism and whistleblowing.

Voluntary membership of regulator: Index suggests that the statutory-voluntary approach proposed by Lord Leveson contains a catch-22 and is set up to fail. While the paragraphs describing the regulator say membership is voluntary, paragraph 23 of the executive summary states that the ‘recognition body’ (suggested to be Ofcom) should only recognise and certify the regulator as ‘sufficiently effective’ if it covers ‘all signifcant news publishers’. This means the proposed system can only work – and be recognised in the way the statute would demand – if no-one exercises their right not to join. If they do exercise this right, then the regulator will fail to meet the required standards.

For further comment on Leveson’s proposals, please contact Pam Cowburn on 07749785932 or pam@indexoncensorship.org

Background

Index’s chief executive on why Leveson goes too far

&

Index Policy Note: Freedom of the Press, Governance and Press Standards: Key Challenges for the Leveson Inquiry

The post Index on Censorship’s response to the Leveson report appeared first on Index on Censorship.

2012 has been a very challenging year for press freedom in Taiwan. The challenge comes not from a repressive government — Taiwan is a young democracy in contrast with its mainland brother China on the other side of the Taiwan Strait — but from business tycoons who aim to control the media market.

On 27 November, Hong Kong entrepreneur Jimmy Lai, the owner of Next Media, Taiwan’s most popular and independent media group, announced that he would sell his print and television operation to a consortium for 600 million US dollars.

The buyers include William Wang, the chairman of Formosa Plastic Group, a notorious target for Taiwan’s environmental activists, and Jeffrey Koo Junior, sentenced to nine years in jail by Taipei District Court for a financial scam in 2010. But the most controversial buyer in this pending deal is Tsai Eng-meng, whose Want Want China Times Group already controls major print media operations, television stations as well as cable systems in Taiwan.

The deal still requires approval from Taiwan’s Investment Commission of the Ministry of the Economic Affairs, Fair Trade Commission, National Communications Commission, and Financial Supervisory Commission. If it is approved, the media monopoly resulting from the buyout will be a disaster for the free flow of information and freedom of press in Taiwan.

Even prior to this deal, Tsai — one of Taiwan’s richest men, according to Forbes — caused a great wave of opposition when he planned to buy cable television services owned by China Network Systems earlier this year. Tsai’s acquisition of China Network Systems triggered fear of a media monopoly, and tens of thousands of students, journalists, academics and social activists took to the Taipai streets last September to protest the approval of the acquisition. If Tsai successfully acquires now a 32 per cent share of the Next Media’s daily newspaper and magazine businesses, together with the two newspapers and several magazines he already controls, his media kingdom will expand to dominate almost 50 per cent of Taiwan’s print market.

September 2012, March held against Want Want China Times acquisition plans – Taiwan (Craig Ferguson | Demotix)

Those who support the deal say that Taiwan’s media is a free sector and, even if Want Want China Times Group controls 50 per cent of the market, Taiwanese readers still have other choices of unfiltered information.

However, the media sector is unique. Media, as gatekeepers, have the power to filter or even distort information, and decide what their audiences or readers should know or not. Opinions expressed via media outlets influence people’s thinking and judgments, and impact social and political decision-making. Therefore, it is sensible to demand that government regulators take the public interest seriously, and pay particular attention to the potential problem of captive audience in the Next Media merger case.

A big concern is the possibility of self-censorship. All of the buyers in the Next Media deal are pro-China defenders, and they have big investment stakes in the Chinese market.

During a event held for the Formosa Plastic Group’s employees, journalists asked William Wang about the takeover. He candidly responded that he believed China’s government would appreciate their acquisition of Next Media’s Taiwan operations.

When seniors editors at Apple Daily — part of Next Media — asked in a joint conference with the future new owners of the group whether they would censor content in order to avoid irritating China, Koo and Wang said they would respect journalists’ professional judgment. But Tsai warned them: “You two shareholders [referring to Koo and Wang] should give it a second thought, because you’re going to do business in China. It’s hard to say what will happen. If something happens to you, don’t blame me for not warning you.” [The quote comes a report of the event published by United Daily News, in Chinese].

Tsai is also notorious for denying the Tiananmen massacre in an interview with Washington Post’s Andrew Higgins earlier this year.

One of the golden principles of freedom of the press is independence. It is therefore important to protect journalists from any interference. If what journalists deliver to the public is filtered or distorted by personal interest of media owners, the public can never get to know the facts, which is the basis for democratic dialogue and decision-making. Tsai’s warning has sent out a clear message that legitimises the worries shared by different sectors of Taiwan society.

Currently the Next Media buyout has met with fierce opposition from people who care about the future of free speech and democracy of Taiwan, including expat Taiwanese all around the world. Students, journalists, academics and social activists have launched a series of protests against the deal and called for Taiwan government agencies that oversee the media industry and market competition to look into the merger carefully. More protests are being planned.

It is still too early to predict whether Taiwan’s government will act to protect freedom of speech and the public interest. But it is not too late to demand that regulators listen to the public’s appeal and reconsider a decision pivotal to the future of a free press in Taiwan’s democracy.

Ching-Yi Liu is a Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard Law School (2012-13 Fulbright Senior Scholar), and Professor of Law at the National Taiwan University. Weiping Li is a contributor at Global Voices Advocacy

The post “Horrible disaster” brewing in Taiwanese media sector appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Kirsty Hughes outlines Index’s issues with the press inquiry’s recommendations

Lord Justice Leveson’s report could determine the path of the press in Britain for years to come.

There will be many more days of picking over the minutiae of the 2,000 page report, but some key elements are clear — and have already split the coalition and the House of Commons.

Statutory regulation threatens press freedom

Statutory regulation, or underpinning in the jargon, of an “independent” press regulator is Leveson’s core recommendation. If it happened, this would mean a specific law would set out aspects of control of the press for the first time in over 300 years. Index is strongly opposed to any such statutory involvement in press regulation.

In his brief remarks presenting the report today, Leveson attempted to pre-empt such criticism asserting: “This is not, and cannot be characterised as, statutory regulation of the press.” But the Prime Minister David Cameron disagreed in his statement to the House of Commons saying he had “serious concerns and misgivings” and that statutory underpinning of an “independent” regulator would be an “enormous” step.

Leveson’s report sets out in great detail the characteristics and criteria that the new regulator should meet. It also suggests that a “recognition body” would assess and “certify” that the regulator met these criteria — with Ofcom suggested as the best organisation to be this recognition body. MPs would vote into law these criteria, and would vote into law the process by which an “independent” appointments panel would select the chair and board of the regulator (which would exclude any current editor).

Politicians must not control the press

This politicisation of press control would be a major breach of the principles of freedom of expression and a free press. There are fundamental reasons why politicians and media should be distinct from and independent of each other. The cronyism between media, police and politicians, exposed in part in the Leveson Inquiry, is not a reason to establish a sort of “reverse cronyism” whereby media would risk being pressurised by government and other politicians.

The media has a vital role to play — as Leveson himself indicated — in monitoring and reporting the political scene, challenging and criticising and holding to account those in power; if journalists cannot do this robustly and without fear of interference or other political consequences, press freedom is constrained. Beyond this, even “light” statutory regulation could easily be revisited, toughened and potentially abused once the principle of no government control of the press is breached.

The fact that, in Leveson’s recommendations, it is left as “voluntary” for news publishers to decide to join, does not mitigate the fact that all those who do join are part of a statutorily-established process. And there is also a Catch-22 here since the Report states that the press regulator should only be recognised as effective if “all significant news publishers” join. So if one major news outfit doesn’t join, the regulator is deemed unacceptable. In that case, all “significant” news publishers would be part of the statutorily-established system.

The system Leveson proposes is very similar to that operating in Ireland since 2009. The Irish system does not however demand that all significant news outfits join. And, on the other hand, the Irish model is somewhat more intrusive in that the Justice Minister there essentially plays the role that Leveson suggests Ofcom would play in the UK system. While Ofcom is somewhat more arms-length than a UK minister acting as the “recognition body”, this does not solve the central problem of statute, which must be created by politicians.

Leveson goes to some lengths to set out criteria for an independent appointments panel to appoint the independent chair and board of the “independent” regulator. But if MPs first vote on the detailed statute that sets up the panel and the criteria for the regulator, then this proposal threatens press freedom in the UK and Cameron must remain resolute in his opposition to this.

Other key proposals

Leveson’s proposal for a cheap, effective arbitration service is one that Index welcomes — this can benefit both complainants and publishers in ensuring complaints can be dealt with swiftly, fairly, and without great costs. Swift, fair arbitration in this way can deal with those cases where the media is, or is felt to be, impervious to complaints. A much stronger standards arm, fines, and more independent figures on the regulator’s board can all act — as Leveson and the party leaders agree — to transform the behaviour of those parts of the press whose behaviour Leveson castigates in his report.

Leveson calls for much greater transparency in media relations with politicians and the police especially at senior level. Ending cronyism and inappropriate relationships between some journalists, some politicians and some police is important. But insisting all contact between senior police officers and journalists must be transparent risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater — deterring whistle-blowers and inhibiting legitimate journalism.

Leveson insisted today that it was wrong to say that the phone-hacking scandal and other examples of damaging and inappropriate press behaviour and intrusion into individuals’ privacy were due to failure to apply the law. But the criminal law does apply to the media, as to other organisations and individuals. And a combination of effective application of existing laws with a stronger independent regulator – set up without any statute or parliamentary vote — can provide the framework for genuine press freedom to be upheld in the UK and to ensure there are higher media standards, better governance, and greater protection for individuals’ from criminal, in appropriate and unjustified media behaviour. A statutory route will undermine the free press that Leveson — and Clegg and Miliband — claim they want to keep.

Kirsty Hughes is Chief Executive of Index on Censorship. She tweets at @Kirsty_Index

Background

Press Release: Index on Censorship’s response to the Leveson report

Index Policy Note: Freedom of the Press, Governance and Press Standards: Key Challenges for the Leveson Inquiry

 

The post Index: Leveson goes too far appeared first on Index on Censorship.

A flawed media law already hampers the work of journalists in Sudan. But now the government is considering introducing even more restrictions. Abdelgadir Mohamed Abdelgadir reports

The details of the proposed legislation have not been made available to the public; journalists and human rights experts have been excluded from the deliberations. The 2009 act already imposes serious limitations on press freedom because it enables strict state control over the press and journalists. Article 22 of the law restricts the types of companies that can issue newspapers. Any organisation that wishes to publish a newspapers must obtain permission from the state-run Council of the Press and Publications and reapply for approval from the Council every year.

On 8 July, the eve of South Sudan’s independence, the Council announced that it would be withdrawing the licences of six newspapers owned or part-owned by citizens of the new nation. The 2009 press law only allows Sudanese citizens to own newspapers. The Khartoum Monitor, Juba Post, Advocate, Democrat, Sudan Tribune, and Ajras Al-Hurriya were all closed. All six papers were critical of the government and many view the decision as an act of censorship.

International observers have condemned the practice of licensing print systems. In 2000, the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR) ruled that a licensing-to-print system is incompatible with the right to freedom of expression, protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The covenant is monitored by the OHCHR and has also been signed and ratified by Sudan. The current law is in direct violation of this, as it is an unjust restriction on freedom of the press and expression.

The law also restricts journalists, requiring that they be registered after an exam held by the Council of the Press and Publications, which is organised by the Union of Journalists. In order to work as a journalist, one must be registered.

The 2009 law also expanded the powers of the National Press and Publication Council, providing them with the power to close newspapers, stop publication, and provide licences to newspapers. While given the power to crush the press, the Council has not created mechanisms to protect journalists or provide them with any kind of public interest defence.

With a flawed law already in place, and the government’s recent crackdown on newspapers, it is frightening to think of what the new law will look like, but there is no doubt that it will further endanger press freedom.

Abdelgadir Mohamed Abdelgadir is a freelance journalist and  human rights activist

The post Sudan’s new press laws will threaten free speech appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Cambodia: Two critical newspapers shut down appeared first on Index on Censorship.

This article first appeared in the Guardian

On virtually any day of the week, if you so fancy, you can attend a conference somewhere in Britain on the state of the media. Even before the Guardian revealed the depravity of the hacking scandal, you could discuss the rights and wrongs of privacy, courtesy of Max Mosley et al; the need to reform our hideous libel laws, which my organisation and others have led; or the relationship between open information and confidentiality, thanks to Julian Assange.

Throw in the long-running discussion about print versus internet, and a veritable industry has been created on the future of the press. With so many people worrying about so much for so long, how did this crisis unfold before our eyes?

Two inquiries will seek answers. The first, which the government claims will have to await the outcome of police criminal investigations, will provide the great drama. Men and women, including some of the most powerful people in the land, may be led into the dock. The extent of corruption in the Metropolitan police will be unearthed. The biggest prize of all, if achieved, will be the emasculating of News International as a political force.

Free expression

The less exciting but just as important investigation will focus on the ethics of journalism. It is likely that a successor will emerge from the ruins of the Press Complaints Commission, a body that in its composition, remit and powers was woefully inadequate from the start.

Senior figures at the PCC became agitated with me for my criticisms, arguing that advocates for free expression should be more supportive. The opposite is true, and demonstrated their lack of understanding of the problem. Free speech is undermined by consistently poor standards and by limp supervision – a point forcefully put by the Commons culture select committee in March 2010.

The PCC, chaired by Lady Buscombe, was a mediation service, not a regulator. Even at the height of last week’s saga, it seemed to have no idea of the scale of the scandal. Its consistent plea over the years that it could intervene only after a complaint was made further eroded its credibility.

Up to this point there is some consensus. Root out and punish this industrial-scale criminality for sure; but then what? Can a strong media ever be whiter than white? And even if one could be created, would it benefit democracy?

In order to unearth wrongdoing, investigative journalism uses a variety of nefarious methods: secret recording and filming, impersonation, trading in “stolen goods”, and, yes, phone hacking. From WikiLeaks, to MPs’ expenses, to documentaries about MPs and lobbyists, to exposing arms trading, some of the most lauded reporters – including on this paper – have pushed the boundaries of legality. The inquiry should be careful about blanket bans.

For some there is an easy answer: stop the redtops plying their grubby trade and focus on political and business journalism and other “respectable” subjects. I would love the tabloids to return to the values of the Mirror of old, before the advent of celebrity and the paps – and we should certainly try – but do we want to replicate the media culture of countries such as France where three or four posh papers are read by a tiny proportion of the population?

The answer, as with privacy and other issues, requires a proper definition (which has so far eluded us) of public interest and accountability. Does a particular investigation serve the public good? That is almost always a subjective judgment. As for accountability, any such activity must on each occasion be signed off by an editor, responsible in law for those actions.

Impose further impediments to investigative journalism and the only people who will benefit are those with power who have something to hide. Hark back to Tony Blair’s illusory weapons of mass destruction or the sharp practices of bankers and ask: do we, as a society, know too much about what goes on or too little?

During the parliamentary debate last Wednesday, a number of MPs showed a creditable sensitivity to the problems. Others are simply chomping at the bit to exact revenge on a profession that has, in their minds, done them in.

Ignore the newfound piety of politicians bemoaning the influence of Rupert Murdoch. Did Blair have to fly halfway round the world in the mid-90s to pay homage? To what degree did some journalists help get some in Downing Street off the hook during the Hutton inquiry? And when that inquiry was published, controversially exonerating Alastair Campbell and others, how did it end up in the pages of the Sun in advance? At each year’s party conference, special seats would be reserved for Rebekah Wade (now Brooks) and her entourage, and she would take hers with the imperiousness of Cleopatra.

As David Cameron argued on Friday, in a vain attempt to deflect attention from his unhealthy links with Andy Coulson, Brooks and the Murdochs, they were all in it together, all these ministers and these editors and proprietors.

It is simply not good enough for politicians to claim they had no choice. They loved it. Labour chose not to deal with media cross-ownership when it had the chance. The Tories sought to wave through television dominance, until being shamed into a rethink.

This was a sordid trade-off in which politicians of all parties were culpable. In return for this humiliation, perhaps a sense of self-loathing, they sought to bully journalists from other stables who had the temerity to ask inconvenient questions. Any consideration of the ethics of journalism should look at the personal links between the Westminster press gallery and spin doctors and advisers. A much more subtle form of corruption has been at play there for decades.

So exactly what kind of media do we want? A new focus on standards, transparency and accountability can only be beneficial. Journalists love to dish it; most of them hate to take it. The industry operates a virtualomerta on exposing its own failings. Private Eye’s Street of Shame column provides a valuable public service in exposing what newspapersdo not publish as much as what they do. Several newspapers operate “non-aggression pacts”, in which they do not report the wrongdoings of their rivals – including revelations of affairs that they would readily publish about people in other walks of life.

Dogged reporting

This broader culture of collusion was one of the most appalling aspects of the phone-hacking scandal. Some of the journalists opining now in print or on Twitter about the evils of Murdoch-land either ignored the Guardian’s dogged reporting or sniped at the newspaper for its “obsessiveness”. Even in recent days, a number of newspapers – not only in the News International stable – tried hard to play down the significance until they were forced to give the story due prominence.

This story has pointed to the many dark corners of journalism. It is also a triumph of journalism. It would be a tragedy if, through the wrong kind of regulation, this kind of tenacious work was now stunted. Thanks to our libel laws, editors have for years advised reporters not to pursue certain people, even when they knew the story would stand up to scrutiny. Causing trouble usually damages cashflow.

This is a tough time to be promoting freedom of expression. You cannot have only the free speech you think is worthy. The instinct now is to tar everyone with the same brush. Even before this scandal happened, the government was looking at tightening controls of the internet. It has been moving towards libel reform with publication of the draft defamation bill; it should not use the past week’s events to dilute planned changes that are already cautious.

No country has the perfect media. The Americans love to scoff at our press standards, pointing to their “fact-checking” as a norm. Yet even that high altar of journalism, the New York Times, has got it terribly wrong on several important occasions. The US culture can lead to self-censorship on sensitive issues, particularly at times of crisis such as after 9/11, and to excessive respect for authority.

I remember wincing at summits when the Americans would stand to attention as president and prime minister walked in, while the Brits sat sullenly in their chairs. I know which I prefer and which is healthier for democracy. The same goes, in different ways, for France. Do we want privacy laws that render every photograph, every action private unless specifically rendered public?

It would be a tragedy if the impetus behind the past week’s events dissipated and, with a few short-term improvements in behaviour, the media returned to its past practices. It would be an equal tragedy if – as a result of both genuine and disingenuous anger – a new culture were developed of dull, hemmed-in journalism that appealed only to an elite.

The task facing the inquiry is to help foster a new journalism as a fearless and painstaking challenge to authority, one that makes mistakes, oversteps the mark, irritates and offends, but that is fully accountable for its actions.

John Kampfner is chief executive of Index on Censorship and author of “Freedom For Sale

The post News of the World fallout could change Britain’s media culture appeared first on Index on Censorship.

But nothing illustrated better how dangerous the situation was than a meeting with a group of reporters in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon last May. There was mistrust, fear and expectation. One reporter was paranoid when a colleague kept the list of participants in the meeting with him; another one asked a colleague not to take pictures of those present. And a third said he would be quizzed by local drug traffickers about his trip to Monterrey. Those from Monterrey listened carefully to what those in Matamoros and Ciudad Victoria, two cities on the US Mexico border, were saying. One of the reporters from Monterrey told me, “It looks like we could become like them.”

In May, we at the Fundacion MEPI de Periodismo de Investigacion, an independent investigative center based in Mexico City, were just beginning our probe into the media and violence “Mexico and the Spiral of Silence”, and were hoping to focus on the individual cases of threatened journalists. In July, the kidnapping of a group of journalists brought the story to a head. Because we were not ready to release our finding, we held back the report and decided to look deeper, the issue required more introspection. In the end we came out with a more targeted report that identified a few truths:

Traffickers have a clear public relations outlook and see the press and other forms of mass communication as an important part of their business.

The masters at this are the Zetas and the Gulf Cartel, two drug groups that started in the eastern states of Taumalipas, on the US/Mexico border and have controlled the local media with an iron hand. Their style is being copied by others like La Familia a cartel that operates in the state of Michoacan. The Zetas leadership is ex military and have implemented military techniques in the way they fight the government, but more importantly the way they engage the press.

With the split between the Gulf Cartel and the Zetas, their former enforcers, the hard-line style against the media has spread throughout Mexico creating virtual black news holes. While there are no good or bad drug cartels, some more established drug organisations like the Sinaloa Cartel have preferred to force the media to do what it wants through unwritten accords or a sort of détente. In Tijuana, the local cartel engaged early on in the high profile murders of several reporters, and a head on confrontation with the weekly Zeta, but as of lately this cartel has taken a lower profile approach, partly because of attacks by both Mexican and US police, but also because as a Tijuana journalist said, “they know we won’t back down.”

Today I understand the hesitation of reporters during the May meeting in Monterrey. There is widespread fear that the profession has been penetrated by the cartels. In some cases it is true, but in others is part of the new psy ops or psychological operations that the cartels have used to spread fear and mistrust amongst the press corps.

Click to see MEPI’s map of the impact of drug violence in news coverage

More details are listed in the report which can be found in Spanish in our website fundacionmepi.org , or a short story based on our study in the propublica.org website.

Ana Arana is Index on Censorship’s Mexico editor and director of the Fundación Mexicana de Periodismo de Investigación

The post Mexico’s regional press falls silent appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Sri Lanka: Police porn-star hunt meets media resistance appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Bolivia: Newspapers Protest Proposed Anti-racism Law appeared first on Index on Censorship.