Myanmar’s deadly earthquake highlights the country’s media restrictions

Blocking international media from reporting in Myanmar following the huge earthquake in March shows the military junta does not tolerate press freedom, experts say.

A huge 7.7 earthquake struck central Myanmar on 28 March, mostly impacting Mandalay and Sagaing, causing the death of thousands of civilians and the collapse of homes and buildings.

International media outlets flew from all over the world, hoping to get inside Myanmar to cover the disaster. Most had flown into Bangkok, Thailand, where the tremors of the earthquake hit, causing a 30-storey skyscraper to collapse with dozens of construction workers trapped underneath.

But the Myanmar military, officially the State Administration Council, claimed the situation was too dangerous for reporters, and also said accommodation options were limited for reporters entering the country. 

Journalist struggles

Silvia Squizzato, an Italian journalist for Rai TV, says she was informed that entering Myanmar brought risks.

“As soon as I arrived in Thailand, I called the Italian embassy in Myanmar to ask if they could help me speed up the visa process, as it takes at least three months to get a journalist visa,” she said. “The Italian embassy repeatedly said it wasn’t possible; they also repeated that entering Myanmar with a tourist visa was too dangerous given the civil war in the country.”

Because of the rejection of a visa, Silvia and her outlet were unable to report on the ground.

“We couldn’t report on the earthquake up close, it was very frustrating. The military junta doesn’t want journalists in the country but neither do various rebel groups. I interviewed many refugees from Myanmar, and they all didn’t agree with this choice,” she added.

Arjan Oldenkamp, a cameraman for RTL Nederland, was another journalist who flew from Europe to cover the disaster. He had travelled all the way from Amsterdam to Bangkok, in the hope that he would get into Myanmar.

“[It was frustrating] for me as a cameraman,” he said. “I wanted only one thing: to get the news right, especially in a place like Myanmar. I would have liked to make a good report. We could not get to the core of the earthquake, it was very frustrating for me. After all, I had flown 13 hours only to be told that we could not get there.”

Damage done 

At least 3,700 people have been killed in Myanmar because of the earthquake, with more than 5,000 injured. Recovery efforts are still ongoing, nearly a month after the quake struck.

The earthquake has caused damage to more than 50,000 buildings with nearly 200,000 people displaced, according to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

For those who have survived the disaster, the cost of rebuilding their homes is unmanageable, and many have been left without food, water or shelter. Bill Birtles, Indonesia correspondent for Australia Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), says if the military had allowed foreign media to enter, more aid and assistance could have been provided from the international community.

“We simply went to the embassy in Bangkok and were told to contact the Ministry of Information in Myanmar via generic email, and only after they ordered it could the embassy begin accepting and processing materials in Bangkok,” he said. “It was obvious there wasn’t a clear way to apply for the J [journalist] visa.

“I think, had the military government allowed international media crews to easily enter, they could have shown the devastation more easily to global audiences, which potentially could have increased the global aid response,” he added.

International aid 

The quake did see the military make a rare plea to the international community for aid.

Teams from the UK, USA, China, Malaysia, New Zealand and South Korea pledged millions of dollars in emergency aid, while Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, India, Japan, Singapore and Russia sent rescue units to help with the emergency.

But relief efforts have been complicated, as Myanmar has been suffering from a brutal civil war since the military coup of 2021.

The Myanmar military has been in battle with resistance groups, including the National Unity Government of Myanmar, and ethnic armed organisations. Today, the junta has full control over less than a quarter of the country’s territory.

But any international aid that has come into Myanmar has had to go via major cities, including the capital Naypyidaw, Yangon and Mandalay. These cities are controlled by the Myanmar military, which has raised concerns about how the aid will be distributed to earthquake-affected areas, such as Sagaing, which is partially under the control of opposition groups.

Even though state-controlled media outlets from China and Russia, two of the Myanmar military’s few international allies, were provided some reporting access, international media reporting on the ground in Myanmar has been limited. The BBC managed to get a team into Myanmar via India, while Al Jazeera and Agence France-Presse (AFP) already had small teams in Myanmar when the earthquake struck.

Local criticism

Tin Tin Nyo, the managing director of Burma News International, said the military has restricted local media, too.

“The blocking of international media demonstrates that the military junta does not tolerate press freedom or free flow of information,” she said.

“They want to prevent the media from uncovering their mistreatment of the people and their negligence regarding public wellbeing and safety. This pattern will likely extend to various disasters and human rights violations occurring in Myanmar. They have clearly restricted not only local media but also international media from conducting ground reporting on the earthquake and its aftermath, which gravely impacted on the relief and recovery process,” she added.

The Independent Press Council of Myanmar (IPCM) has called the military’s decision to ban international media a “blatant violation of press freedom”.

“The exclusion of international media from reporting on the earthquake’s aftermath, as indicated by General Zaw Min Tun’s pronouncements, is a blatant violation of press freedom and a deliberate attempt to obscure the scale of the disaster. We categorically denounce this obstruction and insist upon the unfettered right of journalists, both domestic and international, to report on this crisis, for the sake of the affected population, the international community, and humanitarian aid organisations,” an IPCM statement read.

Myanmar press freedom environment

The denial of international media only adds to the dire environment for press freedom in the country.

For years, the Myanmar military has cracked down on independent media over the past four years with outlets having their media licences revoked. Hundreds of journalists have been arrested, dozens have been detained while others have been killed. Two freelance journalists were shot dead last year during a military raid. Access to information in the country remains difficult, as journalists continue to be targeted by the military authorities.

As part of that crackdown, the junta has used other tools to prevent information flow into the country.

In January, the military enacted a new cybersecurity law in Myanmar that banned the use of virtual private networks (VPNs). Myanmar also had the most internet shutdowns across the world in 2024, according to a report released earlier this year by digital rights group Access Now. It revealed that most of the 85 shutdowns came at the hands of the military authorities.

In Mexico and Honduras, state agents target journalists while governments claim to protect them

This article was commissioned and first published by The Conversation – the news, science and arts website written entirely by academics. You can read the original version here.

Humberto Padgett was reporting on the effects of drought in Cuitzeo, a rural area of central Mexico, when his car was intercepted by armed men on September 13 2024. They threatened him and stole the car, his identity papers and work equipment, including two bullet-proof jackets.

Padgett, a Mexican investigative journalist and author, was reporting on Mexico’s growing environmental worries for national talk radio station Radio Fórmula. It proved to be his last assignment for the station. Two days later, he tweeted:

“Today I’m leaving journalism indefinitely. The losses I’ve suffered, the harassment and threats my family and I have endured, and the neglect I’ve faced have forced me to give up after 26 years of work. Thank you and good luck.”

Padgett made this decision despite the fact he, like many other journalists in Mexico, has been enrolled in a government protection scheme for years – the Protection Mechanism for Journalists and Human Rights Defenders, set up in 2012. Several other Latin American countries have similar protection programmes, including Honduras since 2015.

These programmes offer journalists measures such as panic buttons and emergency phone alerts, police or private security patrols, and security cameras and alarm systems for their homes and offices. Some are provided with bodyguards – at times, Padgett has received 24-hour protection.

In Honduras, reporter Wendy Funes, founder of the online news site RI, was given a police bodyguard after being threatened while covering an extortion trial that linked the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), an international criminal gang, with the Honduran government of former president Juan Orlando Hernández, who is now serving a 45-year prison sentence in the US for drug trafficking and arms offences.

Yet even once journalists are enrolled in these government protection schemes, the attacks and threats continue. Shockingly, many come from state employees who, in both Mexico and Honduras, are thought to be responsible for almost half of all attacks on journalists. But the prospect of punishment is remote: at least 90% of attacks on journalists go unprosecuted and unpunished, meaning there is little deterrent for committing these crimes.

Both Mexico and Honduras currently have leftwing governments which have promised to protect journalists, following a long history of crimes against media professionals in both countries. Yet the risk to journalists posed by the state has worsened in recent years amid increasing use of spyware, online smear campaigns, and rising levels of anti-media rhetoric.

Journalists perceived as critical of the leadership are regularly accused of being corrupt, in the pay of foreign governments, and putting out fake news. Donald Trump’s vocal criticism of mainstream media since returning to power in the US is likely to have encouraged this anti-media hostility in Mexico and Honduras, as elsewhere in the world.

Many journalists there have developed strategies for self-protection, including setting up NGOs that support colleagues at risk. But while they are doing journalism in ways that make reporting safer, their work has been further threatened by the abrupt suspension of USAID and other US grants, which is heightening the dangers faced by journalists in Latin America and around the world.

Threats from the state

When I tell people about my research into how journalists in Latin America deal with the relentless violence and impunity, their first question is usually: “Oh, you mean drug cartels?” And indeed, both Padgett and Funes have received death threats for their investigations into cartels and other organised crime groups.

Padgett was once sent an unsolicited photo of a dismembered body in a morgue. He was beaten and kicked in the head by armed men who threatened to kill him and his family while he was reporting on drug dealing on a university campus in Mexico City in 2017. He wears a bullet-proof jacket – or did until it was stolen – and keeps his home address a closely guarded secret.

But cartels and gangs are only part of the story when it comes to anti-press violence and impunity in these countries. In many ways, the bigger story is the threat from the state. This has been a constant despite changes in government, whether right or left wing.

My research project and resulting book were inspired by my work providing advocacy, practical and moral support for journalists at risk in Latin America for an international NGO between 2007 and 2016. The extent of the risk posed by state agents – acting alone or in cahoots with organised crime groups – is clear from the many journalists I’ve spoken to in both Mexico and Honduras.

I first interviewed these reporters, and the organisations that assist them, in 2018, then again in 2022-23 (89 interviews in total), to chart how journalists struggle for protection and justice from the state in the face of growing challenges at both domestic and international level.

For both Padgett and Funes, the intimidation, threats and attacks from organised crime groups often followed them reporting on state agents and their alleged links with such groups. Organised crime groups have deeply infiltrated the fabric of society in many parts of Mexico and Honduras – including politics, state institutions, justice and law enforcement, particularly at a local level.

In Padgett’s case, the suspected cartel threats came after he published a book and investigation into links between state governments and drug cartels, including drug money for political campaigns in Tamaulipas and a surge in cartel-related violence in Morelos under a certain local administration.

Padgett had first joined the federal protection mechanism after he was attacked by police when filming a raid in central Mexico City in 2016. The police confiscated his phone and arrested him.

He was later assigned an around-the-clock bodyguard after the Mexico City prosecutor’s office made available his contact details and his risk assessment and protection plan – produced by the state programme that was supposed to safeguard him – for inclusion in the court file on the 2017 attack on him at the university. This meant the criminals behind the attack had full access to this information.

Being part of this protection programme did not stop the threats by state employees. In April 2024, while trying to report from the scene of the murder of a local mayoral candidate in Guanajuato state, Padgett was punched in the face by a police officer from the state prosecutor’s office, who also smashed his glasses and deleted his photos.

Years earlier, he had been subjected to a protracted legal battle by former Mexico state governor and presidential candidate Eruviel Ávila Villegas, who sued Padgett for “moral damages” to the tune of more than half a million US dollars. His offence? A 2017 profile which mentioned that the politician had attended parties where a bishop had sexually abused male minors.

Padgett eventually won the case – but only on appeal, thanks to a pro bono legal team, after 18 months of stress and travelling to attend the hearings. This is a part of a growing trend of “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (Slapps) in Mexico and Latin America, aimed at silencing journalists and other critical voices.

As Padgett put it: “[Even] once we manage to win, there are no consequences for the politicians who call us to a trial without merit – no consequences at all. Eruviel Ávila is still a senator for the PRI [Institutional Revolutionary Party]” – and he was not even liable for costs.

Mexico’s federal government and army have also carried out illegal surveillance of the mobile phones of journalists and human rights defenders investigating federal government corruption and serious human rights violations on multiple occasions, including by using Pegasus spyware.

In Honduras, Funes is no stranger to state harassment either. In 2011, she was among around 100 journalists, many of them women, who were teargassed and beaten with truncheons by officers of the presidential guard and the national police during a peaceful protest against journalist murders.

In recent years, according to Funes, she and her team at RI have been targeted by cyberattacks and orchestrated smear campaigns on social media that have sought to tar them as being corrupt or associated with criminal gangs. She suspects the army is behind some of these attacks since RI has written in favour of demilitarising the police. Several RI team members have been stopped at army checkpoints; when they have denounced this on TikTok or Facebook, they have been flooded by negative comments.

RI has also been attacked by government supporters unhappy with its critical coverage of the Honduras president Xiomara Castro’s leftwing administration. In August 2024, Funes was threatened with prosecution by the governor of Choluteca, southern Honduras, over RI’s investigation into alleged involvement by local government officials in migrant trafficking. And earlier in 2025, Funes and a human rights activist were subjected to misogynistic and sexist diatribes and threats by the head of customs for the same regional department, for demanding justice for a murdered environmental defender.

Almost half of all attacks on journalists in Mexico and Honduras are attributable to state agents, particularly at the local level. In Mexico, the NGO Article 19 has attributed 46% of all such assaults over the last decade to state agents including officials, civil servants and the armed forces.

In Honduras, according to the Committee for Free Expression (C-Libre), 45% of attacks on journalists in the first quarter of 2024 were attributed to state agents, up from 41% in 2021. These include the national police, the Military Public Order Police, officials and members of the government.

Impunity is a fact of life

One key reason for the failure of the journalist protection schemes in Mexico and Honduras is they lack the power to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the attacks that caused the journalists to enter the programmes in the first place.

Padgett is yet to see justice, either for the attack on him by drug dealers at the university campus almost eight years ago or the results of the official investigation into the Mexico City prosecutor office’s apparent leaking of his contact details to the assailants. When he asked the prosecutor’s office for an update on its investigation in June 2024, he was told it had been closed two years earlier. His request for a copy of the file was denied.

When he went to the office to ask why, he was detained by police officers. “This is justice in Mexico City,” he said in a video he filmed during his arrest, adding:

“Drug dealing is allowed. My personal data is leaked to the organised crime [group] that threatened to kill me and my family. Then the matter is shelved. I come to ask for my file and instead of giving it to me, they take me to court. That is the reality today.”

Padgett lodged a complaint and, following “a tortuous judicial process”, eventually managed to get the investigation re-opened. But he says he has lost hope in the process and the justice system in general. Even something as simple as filing a report on the theft of his bullet-proof jacket during the armed attack in September 2024 has proved beyond the official responsible for the task, so the protection programme has not replaced it.

Funes says she reported one of the cyber-attacks on RI to the special prosecutor established by Honduras in 2018 to investigate crimes against journalists and human rights defenders. Funes provided the name and mobile phone number used by the hacker. However, she said the case was later closed for “lack of merit”.

Previously, the official investigation into the 2011 attack on her and other women journalists had also been quietly shelved after the evidence was “lost”. Funes says this put her off reporting subsequent incidents to the authorities:

“What for? I just want them to protect me … why waste my time? Really, you get used to impunity, you normalise it.”

There have been a few important advances in Mexico in recent years, including the successful prosecution of some of those behind the 2017 murder of two high-profile journalists, Javier Valdez and Miroslava Breach, but such cases remain the exception. Around 90% of attacks on journalists still go unprosecuted and unpunished by the state in both Mexico and Honduras, meaning there is little deterrent against these crimes.

Safer, better ways of working

Many of the journalists I have interviewed prioritise covering under-reported issues relating to human rights and democracy, corruption, violence and impunity. They use in-depth, investigative journalism to try to reveal the truth about what is happening in their countries – which is often obscured by the failings and corruption of the justice system and rule of law.

Many are developing safer, better ways of working, with three strategies having grown noticeably in recent years: building collaborations, seeking international support, and professionalising their ways of working.

Journalists from different media outlets often overcome professional rivalries to collaborate on sensitive and dangerous stories. In Mexico, members of some journalists’ collectives and networks alert each other of security risks on the ground, share and corroborate information, and monitor their members during risky assignments. Others travel as a group – when investigating the mass graves used by drug cartels, for example.

In Mexico and increasingly in Honduras, they publish controversial stories, such as on serious human rights violations involving the state, in more than one outlet simultaneously to reduce the chance of individual journalists being targeted in reprisal. Such collaborations build trust, solidarity and mutual support among reporters and editors – something that has traditionally been lacking in both countries.

Increasingly, international media partners also play an important role regarding the safety of Mexican and Honduran journalists and amplifying public awareness of the issues they report on – encouraging the mainstream media in their own countries to take notice and increasing pressure on their governments to act.

According to Jennifer Ávila, director of the Honduran investigative journalism platform ContraCorriente, transnational collaborations are a “super-important protection mechanism” because they give journalists access to external editors and legal assistance – as well as help leaving the country if necessary.

International partners also bring increased resources. In Mexico and Honduras, as in other Latin American countries, the main source of funding is government advertising and other state financial incentives. But these come with expectations about influence over editorial policies and content, so are not an option for most independent outlets. Private advertising is also challenging for these and other reasons. So, most independent media outlets and journalistic projects are heavily dependent on US and European donors such as the National Endowment for Democracy (Ned), Ford Foundation and Open Society Foundations.

Much of Latin America has high levels of media concentration, with the mainstream media typically being owned by a handful of wealthy individuals or families with wider business interests – and close economic and political links to politicians and the state. Combined with the strings of government advertising, this often results in “soft” censorship of the content that these outlets publish. Some journalists are escaping this either by setting up their own media digital outlets, like Funes, or by going freelance – as Padgett has decided to do following the attack on him in Cuitzeo in 2024.

At the same time, there has been a widespread raising of standards through increased training in techniques such as journalistic ethics, making freedom of information requests, digital and investigative journalism, and covering elections. This all helps to promote “journalistic security” – using information as a “shield in such a way that no one can deny what you’re saying”, according to Daniela Pastrana of the NGO Journalists on the Ground (PdP). It also helps counter the perception – and in some cases, reality – of longstanding corruption in parts of the profession.

Hostile environment puts progress at risk

Despite the promise of transforming journalism through increasing collaboration, professionalisation and international support, the current outlook for journalists in Mexico and Honduras – and other countries in Latin America – is not encouraging. Hostile government rhetoric against independent reporters and media outlets is on the rise, despite the presidents of both Mexico and Honduras having pledged to protect journalists and freedom of expression.

In Honduras, the hostile rhetoric towards journalists is growing in the run-up to the presidential elections in November. According to Funes: “There is a violent public discourse from the government which is repeated by officials [and] prepares the ground for worse attacks on the press … This is dangerous.”

In both countries, such attitudes at the top are often replicated by local politicians and citizens, including online, with the threat of violent discourse leading to physical violence. This hostility appears likely to grow given the example of Donald Trump’s aggressive and litigious attitude towards journalists and the media in the United States.

Indeed, the policies of the second Trump administration are already jeopardising progress made in terms of transforming journalism in Mexico and Honduras. In late January 2025, the US government suspended international aid and shuttered USAID, amid unsubstantiated accusations of fraud and corruption.

According to the press freedom group Reporters Without Borders, the USAID freeze included more than US$268m (£216m) that had been allocated to support “independent media and the free flow of information” in 2025.

USAID has been a key funder of organisations such as the nonprofits Internews and Freedom House, which in turn have been vital to the development of independent and investigative journalism in Latin America through their support of new media outlets, journalistic projects and media freedom groups. Another important donor, Ned – a bipartisan nonprofit organisation largely funded by the US Congress – has had its funding frozen.

Uncertainty about future funding has led to the immediate suspension of operations and layoffs by many nonprofit media organisations in Mexico, Honduras and across the region. While this seismic shift in the Latin American media landscape reinforces the urgent need to diversify its sources of funding, there is no doubt that in the short and even medium term, it has dealt a serious blow to the development of free and independent journalism and the safety of all journalists.

In a region of increasingly authoritarian leaders, it is now a lot harder to hold them accountable for corruption, human rights violations, impunity and other abuses.

International impotence

Anti-press violence and impunity are global problems, with more than 1,700 journalists killed worldwide between 2006 and 2024 – around 85% of which went unpunished, according to Unesco.

Although international organisations, protection mechanisms and pressure can be important tools in the fight against anti-press violence and impunity, they are ultimately limited in impact due to their reliance on the state to comply. Some journalists in Mexico and Honduras suggest the impact of such international attention can even be counter-productive, due to their governments’ increasing hostility toward any criticism by international organisations, journalists and other perceived opponents.

Twenty years ago, Lydia Cacho, a renowned journalist and women’s rights activist, was arbitrarily detained and tortured in Puebla state, east-central Mexico, after publishing a book exposing a corruption and child sexual exploitation network involving authorities and well-known businessmen. Unable to get redress for her torture through the Mexican justice system, Cacho eventually took her case to the United Nations.

Finally, in 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that her rights had been violated and ordered the Mexican state to re-open the investigation into the attack, and to give her adequate compensation. This judgment has led to several arrests of state agents in Puebla, including a former governor and chief of the judicial police and several police officers, as well as a public apology from the federal government.

But cases like Cacho’s are the exception. Securing rulings from international bodies requires resources and energy, the help of NGOs or lawyers – and can take years. What’s more, enforcement of international decisions relies on the state to comply.

While international pressure was key to persuading the Mexican and Honduran states to set up their government protection schemes for journalists and specialised prosecutors to investigate attacks against them, these institutions have generally proved ineffective.

Resourcing is always an issue: typically, protection mechanisms and prosecutors’ offices are underfunded and the staff are poorly trained. Some bodies have limited mandates, such as protection mechanisms that lack the power to investigate attacks on journalists. Sometimes, these failings are believed to be deliberate. According to Padgett, the Mexican journalist protection scheme has “political biases against those whom officials consider to be hostile to the regime”.

Indeed, many journalists and support groups suspect the Mexican and Honduran governments don’t really want these institutions to work. As the pro-democracy judge Guillermo López Lone commented about the repeated failure to secure convictions for crimes against journalists and human rights defenders in Honduras: “These are international commitments [made] due to pressure, but there is no political will.”

López Lone, who was illegally removed from his position after the 2009 coup in Honduras and only reinstated as a judge after a years-long struggle, including a ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, alleged that these institutions “play a merely formal role” in Honduras, because they have been “captured by the political interests of the current rulers, and by criminal networks”.

Similarly, according to Sara Mendiola, director of Mexico City-based NGO Propuesta Cívica, it’s not enough to talk about a lack of resources or training: “Even if you doubled the [state] prosecutors’ offices’ budgets, you’d still have the same impunity because the structures [that generate impunity] remain.”

Activism is a risky business

It’s clear that in both Mexico and Honduras, despite the governments’ stated commitment to freedom of expression, there is a deep-seated ambivalence about how important or desirable it is to protect journalists and media freedom.

The heart of this issue is the contradiction of the state as both protector and perpetrator – a state that does not want to, or is incapable of, constraining or investigating itself and its allies. This in turn is linked to longstanding structural problems of corruption, impunity and human rights violations, and a legacy of controlling the media dating to pre-democracy days.

Activism by journalists against this situation – another form of self-protection – takes various forms, including public protests and advocacy, and working for and setting up NGOs that support colleagues at risk. Increasingly, activism also involves the coming together of those who are the victims of violence.

In Mexico City, groups of journalists displaced from their homes by threats and attacks, many of whom end up without a job or income, have formed collectives and networks to provide mutual support and assist colleagues in similar circumstances. In Veracruz state, the Network in Memory of and Struggle for Killed and Disappeared Journalists was formed by the relatives of the many such journalists in 2022.

But activism is a risky business in Mexico and Honduras, opening journalists and their loved ones up to further repression and attacks by the state – and sometimes raising questions about their impartiality and credibility. While many journalists have taken part in activism out of necessity or desperation, in both countries their main source of optimism in the face of violence and impunity is journalism itself.

Journalism as the solution

Fortunately, journalists like Padgett don’t give up easily. After an eight-month hiatus following the attack in Cuitzeo and its aftermath, he now feels ready to go back to reporting.

Although he succeeded in getting the shelved investigation into the 2017 attack on him and subsequent data leak reopened, the lack of any action since means he’s decided to draw a line under this labyrinthine process. He is now looking for “alternative means of justice to compensate for the impunity”.

As a part of the reparations, he has been promised a formal apology from the Mexico City Prosecutor’s Office (similar to the apology received by Cacho). Such a ceremony is not justice and may largely be symbolic, but Padgett feels it will allow him to move on and focus on journalism again – this time as a freelancer. He is keen to make the point that Mexico remains “an extraordinary place to be a reporter”.

Despite the lack of state protection and all the other challenges, journalists like Padgett and Funes are determined to keep going – investigating their countries’ ills, probing the root causes, transforming their profession. Their commitment offers a ray of hope for the emergence of a truly free and independent media in Mexico, Honduras and beyond.

Tamsin Mitchell’s new book, Human Rights, Impunity and Anti-Press Violence: How Journalists Survive and Resist, is published by Routledge.

World Press Freedom Day 2025: Journalists reflect

Tomorrow marks World Press Freedom Day, a day started in 1993 to remind governments of their duty to protect freedom of the press. This year, the need for this reminder feels more urgent than ever. 

In the USA, President Donald Trump has been in office for just over 100 days and already we’ve witnessed attempts to attack independent media and dismantle press freedom. Since the beginning of his second term in office, Index has reported on Trump’s war on truth, on the devastating implications on journalism his cuts to the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) entities including Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) will have, and how he’s worked to remove critical media from the White House.  

Within this context, on World Press Freedom Day, Index has called upon its contributors from around the world, working in countries where they fight for press freedom every day, to reflect on what it means to them and why it is so important we defend it.

SOMALIA
Hinda Abdi Mohamoud, chief editor at Bilan Media 

“As a journalist and the chief editor of Bilan Media, the only all-women newsroom in Somalia, I know that press freedom isn’t just important – it’s essential to our survival and our work. In a place where speaking the truth can be dangerous, where women’s voices have long been silenced or sidelined, press freedom is the tool that allows us to challenge injustice, elevate unheard stories, and advocate for real change. 

That’s why organisations like Index on Censorship are so vital. They support journalists who risk their safety to ensure the truth is told. They defend journalists’ right to report and protect the public’s right to know.”

TURKEY
Nedim Türfent, journalist 

“Freedom of the press is, above all, the first bastion we must defend for the sake of all our other rights and freedoms. Ultimately, in a time and place where the press is not free, it becomes impossible to make our demands for rights visible, known, and heard. If we do not want our rights and freedoms to be dismantled piece by piece, we must be unwavering defenders of press freedom.

The fight for press freedom by international organisations is essential to ensure that the voices of journalists and media outlets facing oppression and persecution anywhere in the world are heard. This cross-border struggle also serves to prevent enemies of press freedom from casually and effortlessly exerting pressure on journalists – as if it were something ordinary. The louder and stronger the voice of international institutions, the more hesitation those enemies will have before violating the rights of journalists.

However, the heavy burden of this struggle should not rest solely on the shoulders of journalists and media organisations. We must remember: when the rights of even a single journalist are violated, the right of thousands of people to access information is also restricted. Shortly, in a world where press and freedom of expression are increasingly eroded, none of our rights or freedoms can be truly guaranteed. It’s that simple.”

AFGHANISTAN
Spozhmai Maani, journalist

“For me, press freedom is not just a principle, it is a lifeline for truth and justice, especially in places like Afghanistan where silence is often enforced with fear. As a journalist who fled persecution for simply telling the truth, I know firsthand how critical it is to protect the voices that hold power to account. Organisations like Index on Censorship are essential in this fight. They give strength, visibility, and protection to those of us who risk everything to speak out. In a world where even established democracies are seeing press freedom eroded, their work is more urgent than ever.”

INDIA
Salil Tripathi, contributing editor at Index on Censorship 

“We only have to look at closed societies from our past and present to know what life is like without press freedom. That some leaders and many people continue to believe in controlling the press – through laws, oligarchs, governments, and intimidation – shows what they are afraid of, and it shows why publications like Index on Censorship continue to matter.”

UGANDA
Danson Kahyana, contributing editor at Index on Censorship  

“Press freedom is the foundation of democracy – the press should be able to report on any matter of public importance without fear or favour. The moment press freedom is threatened, expect democracy to rot and die from within because nobody will be able to say, ‘Look – the emperor is naked!’ So nakedness (corruption, impunity, heavy-handedness, tyranny, etc.) will go unreported, thereby weakening institutions into comatose. In Uganda, we have seen this happen: The emperor called General Yoweri Museveni has gotten worse every year that passes. The more power he amasses by weakening institutions like the parliament and the judiciary the more naked he gets. It is because Ugandans have reported on his myriad abuses of power that the world has come to know that all along, he was a tyrant in democracy’s skin.

Because authoritarian regimes wield immense resources to punish critics as a means of stifling dissent, we need organisations like Index on Censorship to shine a light on tyrants’ assaults on freedom. Like witches and wizards, tyrants do their evil work in the safety of the dark. Index and other organisations like it remind the tyrants that someone is watching them, and that sooner than later, they will be held accountable for their misdeeds. In other words, Index and other organisations like it provide an archive of the tyrants’ atrocities that will be used against them in the courts of law. What is happening to former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte is a good example – the reports against him caught up with him.  Besides, by providing constant companionship and solidarity to journalists, Index and other organisations like it embolden the defenders of good governance and human rights in their castigation of impunity.”

BELARUS
Jana Paliashchuk, researcher

“While press freedom is a basic right in many countries, for millions of Belarusians it’s been denied for three decades under Aliaksandr Lukashenka’s dictatorship. Speaking out against repression often leads to prison – and journalists are hit hardest.

Today, 40 media workers are behind bars in Belarus for simply doing their jobs. Journalists like RFE/RL’s Ihar Losik and Belsat TV’s Katsiaryna Andreyeva. are serving harsh sentences and enduring torture behind bars. Other journalists were forced into exile, continuing their work from abroad, while Belarusians inside the country risk punishment just for reading independent news.

This may sound grim, but it’s the reality in Belarus, a European country. That’s why defending press freedom matters. It may seem like a solid foundation of society, but it’s as fragile as glass.”

Press freedom is deteriorating in Turkey

In the 2024 World Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders, Turkey ranked 158th among 180 countries. Just days before the release of this year’s index, 37 journalists remain imprisoned in the country, according to the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA), an NGO defending freedom of the press in Turkey.

However, evaluating violations of freedom of thought and press solely based on the number of jailed journalists would be insufficient, as pressure on journalism intensifies daily in a number of ways.

Even though the first four months of the year are not yet over, 60 journalists have been detained so far. Among them, 25 have been arrested. These numbers are according to monthly reports from the Kurdish journalist organisation Dicle Firat Journalist Union (DFG). One of those arrested was Joakim Medin, a reporter for Swedish newspaper Dagens ETC.

On 27 March, Medin was taken into custody on charges of “membership in an armed terrorist organisation” and “insulting the president”, and just one day later, he found himself in a Turkish prison cell. On Wednesday this week, he was given an 11-month suspended sentence for “insulting the president”, and remains behind bars while he awaits a trial on the second charge. Additionally, three foreign journalists who entered Turkey for reporting purposes have been deported this year alone, according to DFG.

For some journalists, the repressions have been fatal. Within the first two months of the year, Kurdish journalists Aziz Köylüoğlu and Egît Roj were killed in Turkish drone strikes targeting Syria’s autonomous Rojava region – controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) – and Iraq’s Kurdistan region. Over the past 10 months, seven Kurdish journalists have been killed in Turkish airstrikes (some confirmed, some suspected). Despite the gravity of these killings, the international media have largely ignored what human rights organisations have described as war crimes.

Another journalist arrested this year is Yıldız Tar, editor-in-chief of KaosGL.org, known for reporting on violations against the LGBTQ+ community. Detained in Istanbul on 21 February, Tar spoke to Index on Censorship from prison, via his lawyer.

Tar said that the judiciary is criminalising journalistic work, and that interviews with women’s rights defenders and LGBTQ+ activists are treated as criminal evidence.

“For a long time now, the judiciary has failed to define journalism as an activity tied to the public’s right to be informed,” Tar wrote to Index. “Instead, it is framed within a security-focused paradigm. Unfortunately, we cannot talk about an independent judiciary in Turkey. The political power’s anti-LGBTI+ stance also influences the judiciary.”

With World Press Freedom Day in mind, Tar said: “We have no choice but to defend journalism. Journalism is not only journalists’ concern. When we are imprisoned, both the public’s right to information and our mission to be the voice of the voiceless are violated. The oppression and injustices remain unheard. All institutions must act accordingly to this reality.”

Beyond the record number of imprisoned journalists, detentions have become almost systematic in Turkey. Many detained journalists are released under judicial control measures such as regular reporting to the police, travel bans or house arrest. These increasingly common practices not only function as punitive measures but also significantly hinder journalistic work. Measures that should be exceptional have become the norm. For example, a single social media post may result in house arrest, and criticising the government might be enough to trigger a travel ban.

One of the many journalists who has been detained multiple times is Kurdish reporter Erdoğan Alayumat. With several lawsuits and investigations pending, Alayumat is under judicial control and must go to the police headquarters to give his signature weekly in Istanbul.

Speaking to Index, Alayumat said: “If you’re Kurdish and critical, journalism in Turkey becomes nearly impossible. I was arrested in 2017 and spent one year in prison. I was acquitted of all charges. Then, I was arrested again last year and later released. How easy do you think it is to work under the shadow of ongoing trials and investigations?”

Alayumat explained that judicial control functions as punishment, even without a trial.

“Living under judicial control is very difficult. Dozens of journalists are in prison, but hundreds more are forced to live under such restrictions. I couldn’t leave Istanbul for a long time because I wasn’t allowed to leave the city. This made it impossible to do my job. I also have a travel ban, and no one knows when it will be lifted. Going to the police station every week is exhausting – especially when you have to face the same officers who raided your home and detained you violently,” he said.

He added that this situation has had a severe psychological and economic toll and that journalists in Turkey continue their work at a great cost.

Last year, 36 journalists were sentenced and 53 acquitted in Turkey, and these trials resulted in nearly 100 years of cumulative prison sentences.

In addition to grotesque judicial repression, journalists in Turkey also face police violence. Especially during street protests and public demonstrations, journalists documenting police aggression often become victims of it themselves.

Following the arrest of Istanbul Metropolitan mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu in March, several journalists covering mass protests in Istanbul were injured due to police violence. One of them was İlke TV reporter Eylül Deniz Yaşar.

Speaking to Index, Yaşar recounted both her own and her colleagues’ experiences of police brutality.

“While documenting the police’s disproportionate response to protesters, we were physically assaulted. One officer sprayed tear gas directly into my eye at close range. I couldn’t open my eye for half an hour, and my vision remained blurry for hours. I feared permanent damage. Another journalist’s nose was broken. Someone else suffered head trauma. I’m not even counting verbal abuse and harassment,” she said.

She believes the police are now trying to build a “new press regime” in Turkey.

“Police are becoming the architects of this regime. They want to decide where, what and how we film. It’s getting harder to go out in the field,” she said. “I’m one of many journalists frequently detained. My home has been raided twice – home raids have become routine.”

Yaşar added that the repression journalists face in Turkey reminds them of “World War documentaries”.

“Like the terrifying scenes from those times. It feels like we’re living in a dystopian horror film,” she explained.

As Erdoğan’s regime seeks to suffocate journalism with both judicial stick and police baton, critical journalists in Turkey continue to resist – armed with the power of the camera and the pen, at great personal sacrifice.

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK