14 Mar 2017 | Magazine, media freedom featured, News and features, Syria, Volume 45.02 Summer 2016
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”This is the second of a series of articles from the Index on Censorship magazine archives exploring the erosion of media freedom around the world.
Writing in the summer 2016 issue award-winning journalist LINDSEY HILSUM asked if reporters should still be heading to warzones.” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][vc_single_image image=”76650″ img_size=”large” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]
THE SUNDAY TIMES war correspondent Marie Colvin used to say that she felt like the last reporter in the YouTube world.
I understand what she meant: old-fashioned journalists like us put a premium on being there, rather than sitting in a newsroom piecing together bits of footage uploaded by activists and journalists more daring or foolish than ourselves. Yet we have to acknowledge the power as well as the limitations of this new kind of reporting.
At Channel 4 News we employ a Lebanese journalist who is a specialist in sourcing video. He knows who uploads the pictures of barrel bomb damage, who destroyed hospitals in Aleppo, who to Skype for a reliable account. Marie might have sniffed, but it’s become an integral part of our coverage – in early May the inmates of Hama prison were filming with their mobile phones and sending out pictures even as government forces tear-gassed them.
It was compelling television, yet left many questions unanswered. The Hama prisoners showed the army about to attack, but not the guards they had themselves taken hostage. We knew their demands, but little of the background – and we weren’t there to probe further.
As Western media organisations cut costs by slashing foreign bureaux, and succumb to pressure constantly to update online, the temptation is to pull it all together in London or Paris or New York rather than venturing out. Danger forms another part of the calculation. Kidnap and beheading is the most extreme form of censorship. In Syria, US photojournalist James Foley was murdered in 2014, several European journalists were later kidnapped and ransomed and the British photographer John Cantlie is still held by IS.
Yet, whatever the risks, in the end being an eyewitness will always be the most honest form of journalism. It is still essential. In Rwanda, in 1994, I watched as the genocide unfolded around me. I reported what I saw: the drunken red-eyed men with machetes at the roadblocks, the blood running in the gutters. And what I heard: Rwandans calling me up to describe how the murderous gangs were banging on their doors and breaking through their windows. There was no substitute for being there.
More recently, travelling on a Syrian government visa, I was among the first journalists to visit the ancient city of Palmyra after regime forces took it back from IS. Beyond the normal journalistic enthusiasm to get to where the story was happening, I feared being used for propaganda. But in fact we were able to move reasonably freely. I could see – and the cameraman could film – the destruction that IS had wrought on the ancient city, and the parallel devastation that government and Russian forces had wrought on the adjacent, modern town of Tadmur. We even managed to film government troops looting people’s houses. None of this could we have seen or understood if we had reported long-distance.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row equal_height=”yes” css=”.vc_custom_1489514604735{background-color: #dd3333 !important;}” el_class=”text_white”][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_custom_heading text=”Protect Media Freedom” use_theme_fonts=”yes” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fdefend-media-freedom-donate-index%2F|||”][vc_column_text]
We monitor threats to press freedom, produce an award-winning magazine and publish work by censored writers.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″ css=”.vc_custom_1489513352356{background-image: url(https://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/newspapers.jpg?id=50885) !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: cover !important;}”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
In a speech at London’s St Bride’s Church, often a hub for journalists, in 2010, Marie said: “We always have to ask ourselves whether the level of risk is worth the story. What is bravery, and what is bravado?”
That is a difficult question. Few mainstream news organisations are willing to let their journalists cross the border from Turkey into Syria these days, because the risk of kidnap is so great. Most editors now understand that they should not buy material from freelancers in places where they would not send their own staff because of the danger.
It’s progress – there was a time when broadcasters and newspapers routinely used freelancers without taking any responsibility for their safety. But it means we are left with the information from prisoners in Hama and citizen journalist reports from Aleppo – better than nothing, filmed by brave people, but frequently incomplete, often confusing, biased, not always easy to interpret.
In February 2012, Marie and photographer Paul Conroy crawled through a sewer to get to Homs, as the Syrian regime’s bombs turned the buildings of rebel-controlled Baba Amr to burnt-out carcasses and rubble. In her dispatches, Marie described the makeshift beds on which children slept underground to avoid the bombs, the operations without anaesthetic, the despair of people who felt they had been abandoned by the world. It was classic, old-fashioned eyewitness reporting.
On 22 February, a government mortar shell killed Marie and the French photographer, Rémi Ochlik. Conroy and the French reporter Edith Bouvier were seriously injured.
Marie felt she had a responsibility to report; she refused to leave it to YouTube. Yet, on this occasion, the risk was too great. Was she brave, or – in her own words – was it bravado? Either way, we are all the poorer because Marie Colvin is no longer reporting from Syria.
Lindsey Hilsum is international editor for Channel 4 News. She is currently writing a biography of Marie Colvin
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This article appeared in the summer 2016 issue of Index on Censorship magazine.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”From the Archives”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”80560″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0306422014526122″][vc_custom_heading text=”Dispatches from the frontlines” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1177%2F0306422014526122|||”][vc_column_text]March 2014
Seasoned foreign correspondent Lyse Doucet discusses war reporting and how it and journalists have changed in the past 25 years.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”80561″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0306422014535688″][vc_custom_heading text=”Syria’s inside track: citizens” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1177%2F0306422014535688|||”][vc_column_text]June 2014
Vicky Baker reports on an ambitious project to chart and verify Syria’s countrywide citizen reports, social media updates and news articles.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”92004″ img_size=”213×289″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064228908534569″][vc_custom_heading text=”Reporting the Sudan” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sagepub.com%2Fdoi%2Fpdf%2F10.1080%2F03064228908534569|||”][vc_column_text]January 1987
Accused of exaggerating’ religious conflict in war-torn Sudan, foreign journalists are frequently barred from entering the country at all.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_separator][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Danger in truth: truth in danger” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2016%2F05%2Fdanger-in-truth-truth-in-danger%2F|||”][vc_column_text]The summer 2016 issue of Index on Censorship magazine looks at why journalists around the world face increasing threats.
In the issue: articles by journalists Lindsey Hilsum and Jean-Paul Marthoz plus Stephen Grey. Special report on dangerous journalism, China’s most famous political cartoonist and the late Henning Mankell on colonialism in Africa.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_single_image image=”80569″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2016/05/danger-in-truth-truth-in-danger/”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:p|font_size:24|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fsubscribe%2F|||”][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.
Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.
Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.
SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
14 Mar 2017 | Digital Freedom, Mapping Media Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Each week, Index on Censorship’s Mapping Media Freedom project verifies threats, violations and limitations faced by the media throughout the European Union and neighbouring countries. Here are recent reports that give us cause for concern.
The Madrid Journalists Association (APM) received a petition from a group of journalists they had experienced a “systemised campaign of personal and network harassment” from the left-wing Podemos party.
According to a press release from APM, the reporters said they had been harassed and pressured by the Podemos, led by Pablo Iglesias, for over a year. The press release also said that the harassment came in the form of threatening phone calls, emails, and messages or comments on social media such as Twitter. APM believes that the harassment is an attempt by Podemos officials to improve their reputation and image by eliminating any media criticism of the party.
Elvi Fundo, the news editor for the online publication Citynews.al and Radio Best, was attacked in Tirana on the morning of 8 March. The reporter was on his way to his office in the city when he was violently assaulted by two unknown assailants and suffered from injuries which landed him in the hospital.
Fundo, who is known for publishing investigations into corruption and conflict of interests, told the Balkan Insight that he does not believe the attacks had political connotations. Instead, Fundo said, he believes the attack was “the work of criminals financed by corrupt media clans tied to drug-trafficking.” Both journalists and politicians, including the Albanian Union of Journalists and Prime Minister Edi Rama, have condemned the attack as a threat to media and press freedom.
Journalists and politicians, including the Albanian Union of Journalists and Prime Minister Edi Rama, have condemned the attack as a threat to media and press freedom. Although the police have launched an investigation into the assault, the identity and motive of the assailants are still unknown.
Reporter Igor Zalyubovin and photographer Vladimir Yarotsky were arrested and detained by officers of the Russian Security Service (FSB) in Svetogorsk on 7 March. The journalists, who work for Snob, a Moscow-based independent news magazine, were taken to a detention centre and charged with crossing into a border zone without permission.
Zalyubovin and Yarotsky had rented an apartment in Svetogorsk, a town of about 15,000 outside the border of Finald, to use while reporting on Mayor Sergey Davydov’s claim that it is a “city without sin” because there are no homosexual residents. A 2014 law requires journalists to have specific permission from the FSB to work in the border zone, however, according to Snob’s editor-in-chief, they did not apply for a permit due to time constraints.
The Committee to Protect Journalists denounced the incident and said that this is the second time that journalists were detained and forced to leave Svetogorsk for border zone violations while doing follow-up reporting on the Mayor’s comments. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row equal_height=”yes” content_placement=”middle” css=”.vc_custom_1489421829923{background-color: #d5473c !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: cover !important;}” el_class=”text_white”][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″ css=”.vc_custom_1489422066539{background-image: url(https://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/MMF_report_2016_WEB-1-1A.jpg?id=85872) !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: cover !important;}”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Nu Ener, a news editor for the Yeni Asya daily, said was arrested by police on charges of association and membership to the FETO/PDY terrorist organisation.
According to a report published in Yeni Asya, Ener was originally detained following a police raid on her home on 3 March. Three days later, the 4th Criminal Judicature of Peace found that she was guilty of membership to the terrorist organisation which has ties to Fethullah Gulen, the Muslim preacher whom the Turkish government blames for the failed coup this past July. Ener was specifically accused of using Bylock, a mobile communications application, to help organise the coup attempt.
Ener, who remains incarcerated in the Bakirkoy Prison for women, is one out of 155 journalists currently imprisoned in Turkey.
The circulation of Pras Press, a new satirical newspaper by Bulgaria’s “Society of Rude Cartoonists,” was blocked by the State Distribution Company on 5 March. The newspaper, which is known as the Bulgarian version of ‘Charlie Hebdo,’ first went on sale on 1 March, but since distribution ceased, only one tenth of the printed copies has been sold.
Journalist Ivan Bakalov said that he believes MP Delyan Peevski is behind the incident although he is not one of the listed owners of the State Distribution Company. Bakalov and his colleagues believe that the mocking of political elites in Pras Press likely contributed to the circulation block.
Despite Bulgaria’s low ranking of 113 in the 2016 Press Freedom Ranking of Reporters without Borders, the journalists of Pras Press have pledged to bring their case to the Commission for Protection of Competition, the state prosecution, caretaker government, and President Rumen Radev in hopes to resume circulation.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Click on the bubbles to view reports or double-click to zoom in on specific regions. The full site can be accessed at https://mappingmediafreedom.org/
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1489422274293-9bbe61ad-21b3-2″ taxonomies=”6564″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
13 Mar 2017 | Bahrain, Bahrain News, Middle East and North Africa, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
The trial of jailed Bahraini human rights activist Nabeel Rajab on charges of spreading “rumours and false news” was deferred for a second time on 7 March until 16 April. The charges relate to televised interviews in 2014 and 2015 in which he criticised authorities. In the meantime, he remains in detention after being denied bail.
This is one of two separate trials Rajab faces. The other is over tweets and retweets about the war in Yemen, which his accusers say “spread rumours in wartime”, insulted a neighbouring country (Saudi Arabia) and offended a statutory body within Bahrain. This trial has been postponed 11 times.
If convicted on all charges, Rajab faces up to 18 years in prison.
Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, director of advocacy at Bahrain Institute of Rights and Democracy, said: “Bahrain is persecuting Nabeel Rajab for his speech. They would rather jail the messenger on human rights and double-down on repression than listen to what he has to say. The international community must take a stance.”
In February 2017 the European Parliament passed a resolution urging the EU and its member states “to intervene with the Bahraini Government in order to appeal for the release of Nabeel Rajab and of all those held solely on the basis of their peaceful exercise of freedom of expression and assembly”.
Rajab is the winner of a 2012 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award for his efforts against human rights violations by the Bahraini government in 2011. He judged the Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards last year and is also the president of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights.
Previously, Rajab had been arrested and sentenced to five years in prison in 2012 for criticising Bahraini authorities and for leading pro-democracy demonstrations. He has faced serious health problems due to his numerous detentions, which often were marked by solitary confinement and unclean conditions.
Bahrain regularly breaches basic human rights, and the persecution of Rajab is merely one example of the unjust treatment of those who attempt to exercise their freedom of expression within the country. Authorities have been taking increasingly harsh measures to prevent and punish dissent in the country.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1489420587513-b30cc26d-4ec8-5″ taxonomies=”716″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
10 Mar 2017 | Denmark, Digital Freedom, Europe and Central Asia, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Few people take religion less seriously than the Danes.
Only 19% consider religion to be an important factor in their day to day lives. While some 76% remain members of the state church, that figure is down from 83% in 2006, and more than 24,000 people left the institution last year. Church going remains popular at Christmas, weddings and baptisms, but many churches are almost empty on any given Sunday. Long gone are the days when criticising the doctrines of Lutheranism or the Lutheran state church would land you in prison (or on the scaffold). So it created quite a stir when in February a local prosecutor announced that a Danish man was being charged for violating Denmark’s blasphemy law, which has been dormant since 1971 and last resulted in a conviction in 1946. A move approved by Denmark’s chief prosecutor.
How was a dead letter such as the Danish blasphemy ban suddenly revived?
The first step was taken by the Danish Criminal Law Council, an expert body advising the Ministry of Justice. In 2015 it released a lengthy statement on the blasphemy ban arguing that the burning of holy books would still be punishable, despite the decades-long practice of emphasising the importance of free speech over religious feelings. However, suspiciously, the expert body omitted any reference to a case from 1997 in which a Danish artist burned the Bible on national television.
Back then a number of complaints from the public were dismissed by the chief prosecutor emphasising among other things the importance of freedom of expression. It is difficult to understand why this seemingly clear precedent was disregarded by the expert body. But it was this questionable interpretation that paved the way for bringing back from the dead a ban thought of as antiquated and incompatible with a secular liberal democracy by most Danes, and indeed by most Europeans, since only five EU-member states still have blasphemy bans on the books.
One of the reasons cited by the expert body for punishing the burning of holy books is the need to prevent religious extremists – at home and abroad – from instigating riots and violence as a result of having their religious feelings insulted. This is a deeply problematic argument in and of itself, but even more so in the context of Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten having been the target of at least four foiled terrorist attacks since publishing cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in 2005, the murderous attack on Charlie Hebdo in 2015 and the killings of atheists and free thinkers in Bangladesh. A blasphemy ban indirectly legitimizes the Jihadist’s Veto, rather than confronting it. It is not punishable – nor should it be – to burn the Danish flag as has happened repeatedly in protests against the cartoons both in Denmark and abroad. No one would dream of arguing that it should be a crime to burn the Communist manifesto, Burke’s Reflection on the French Revolution, or Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations even though communists, conservatives and classical liberals might view these works as essential to their identities and deeply held beliefs. In all likelihood one of the most frequently burned book of the 20th century was Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, which went up in flames all over the world as offended Muslims took to the streets. Offended Muslims were free to do so, while Rushdie had to spend years living underground.
While burning books is certainly a crude and primitive practice with deeply troublesome historical connotations, it is nonetheless a peaceful symbolic expression, that should be protected free speech, whether the content of the scorched paper is secular or religious. By solely protecting religious books against such desecration the Danish blasphemy ban not only violates free speech and equality before the law, it is also tantamount to victim blaming and a dereliction of duty on the part of a liberal society which in no uncertain terms should make clear to religious fundamentalists that they cannot hope to have democracies impose their religious red lines on the rest of society through threats, intimidation and violence.
This was a point made clear by both Norway and Iceland whose parliaments chose to abolish these countries’ respective blasphemy bans as a direct consequence of the attack against Charlie Hebdo.
It would be wrong however, to suggest that Denmark has succumbed to the will of Islamists in particular, rather than to a loss of faith in free speech in general. Last year Parliament adopted a bill prohibiting “religious teachings” that “expressly condone” certain punishable acts and allows the government to maintain a dynamic list of “hate preachers” barred from entering Denmark. These initiatives were the direct consequence of a documentary exposing radical imams in Danish mosques preaching that the punishment for adultery and apostasy is stoning. And the current government has also presented a bill that would criminalize the mere sharing of “terrorist propaganda” online and allow the police to block access to websites containing criminal material such as terrorist propaganda or racist content. These developments signal a marked shift in the Danish approach to free speech.
In the post-World War II era Denmark has with a few exceptions been a liberal democracy committed to the idea that freedom of expression was an essential tool in defeating extremism and totalitarian ideologies. But Denmark is turning towards a model of militant democracy where free speech is often seen as the problem rather than the solution, and as a hindrance rather than the foundation of social peace. The revival of the Danish blasphemy ban should therefore be seen in the wider context of a world where respect for freedom of expression is at its lowest level in 12 years, a development that has now affected even one of the global bastions and beacons of free speech.
Jacob Mchangama is director of Justicia, a Copenhagen think tank focusing on human rights and the rule of law[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1489139072253-6b7daeee-fe12-8″ taxonomies=”53″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
