Egypt’s newly-elected President Mohamed Morsi has been the target of a media campaign aimed at tarnishing both his image and that of Islamists.
The campaign, launched by several Egyptian media outlets suspected of having close links with both the former regime and the military generals (who ruled the country in the transitional period), has been defending the military council’s policies while vilifying their critics. (more…)
This post originally appeared on the Independent Blogs
As the often theatrical spectacle of the Leveson hearings — with its mix of posturing, jousting, inquisition and exposé — draws to a close, the big question is what Leveson will recommend this autumn. Will we see proposals that defend press freedom and promote high professional standards, or do we risk facing proposals that limit press freedom and serious investigative journalism?
Given the range of unethical and illegal behaviour exposed in the phone-hacking scandal, and the tawdry tales of political-media cronyism under the spotlight at the Inquiry, there may be a risk that Lord Justice Leveson will prioritise standards and regulation over our sometimes riotous press freedom.
Calling for independent, self-regulation in the face of the excesses of some in News International and elsewhere cuts little ice with many. But it is worth recalling the most basic elements of our democracy that underpin the need to keep the state well out of our press. Our universal and fundamental right to free speech, to hold opinions, share information (across borders and different types of media), and express views is enshrined in international charters and laws for good reason, not least given governments’ proclivity to interfere in that right.
The governments that most go in for controlling the press, bugging their own citizens, snooping on the net, or criminalising speech tend to be the authoritarian or totalitarian ones, whether we are thinking China, Azerbaijan, Iran or North Korea. But intrusions into press freedom in Italy and Hungary show the problem is closer to home and within democracies too. Without a free press — both online and off — we would lose a big element of our free speech, our ability to hold government and other power-holders (including big business) to account, to investigate wrongdoing, lies, and other cock-ups and conspiracies.
So higher press standards cannot come from statutory government control or regulation. But if the excesses of phone-hacking, and over-close cronyism between some in the media, police and politics, are to be tackled, then we need a new deal. That must include a new self-regulatory body with greater teeth to tackle unwarranted invasions of privacy, false allegations and unethical behaviour. It must be a body that can set and monitor standards. And one that can offer rapid, effective and fair resolution of complaints — including a quick, fair voluntary mediation service as an alternative to lengthy, expensive court cases.
One solution propounded by some given the inadequacies of our current set-up is that press outsiders and retired editors should run the new body. But a press regulator that does not include current senior representatives of the press — not least at a time of rapid change in the technology and business model — will not get buy-in. Nor do we need to reinvent the wheel. Where appropriate laws exist we don’t need to give those powers to a statutory regulator: current laws can tackle most unwarranted invasions of privacy and can deal with bribery of public officials.
One big challenge for a new self-regulating body — and for Leveson in his report — will be how to balance the right to privacy with the need for serious journalism in the public interest. Journalists need to know that if they are digging deep into questions of misleading or false statements by politicians, or investigating public health or security risks, or tracking potentially criminal behaviour, that they have a public interest defence. At the moment, some UK laws allow such a defence, others don’t. Journalists are operating in an ad hoc and unclear legal framework that can lead them to draw their horns in and shift towards self-censorship.
And last but not least, while the tales of texts, lunches and cosy chats between some leading media figures, politicians and police may encourage an ever downward trend in trust for these groups, regulating such contacts, beyond existing law, is not the way to go either. Whether it’s the whistle-blower, or just a good source in a government department tipping a journalist off in the right direction, serious probing journalism depends on informal interaction with politicians and officials.
Some of our senior figures have shown they have little idea of where to draw the line in such relationships, so clear professional standards need setting out. But the state will over-regulate given a chance. Voluntary and professional standards combined with good corporate governance remain the only route to go if we still credit press freedom and democracy as inextricable. That is the challenge for Leveson.
Kirsty Hughes is Index on Censorship’s Chief Executive.
We are looking to recruit correspondents with excellent local contacts, expertise and language skills in Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, East Africa, India, Thailand (covering East Asia)To widen our reach and impact both at home and abroad, in 2010 Index on Censorship launched a worldwide regional editors programme. Each year we have established new correspondents in different priority regions for freedom of expression, each one led by a regional expert with local contacts and language skills.
These part-time positions are offered on a 12-month basis, with the intention and possibility that editors will continue to contribute to Index at the end of this period.
Correspondents play an essential role in Index’s plans for website expansion. Their role is to contribute original copy to the Index website on freedom of expression in their country and some of the other countries in the region. This will support Index’s website – which is currently undergoing a redesign – in becoming one of the foremost portals for discussing free speech around the world, to develop original content and new audiences, break news, publish insightful analysis, interviews and opinion, and share ideas through social media. Editors may also be asked to contribute to Index’s quarterly award-winning magazine, suggest contributors and help to research / commission pieces.
As well as writing for the site we want correspondents to help connect us to a wider group of contributors and bloggers – advising us on emerging artists, musicians, free speech advocates, lawyers and writers directly engaging with censorship and other challenging political issues. Index correspondents will also communicate with Index colleagues based in London giving short updates on the wider political context and developments within which freedom of expression challenges sit.
Index correspondents must have excellent writing skills and proven writing experience and be able to contribute blogposts and longer articles to Index’s website both at short notice, for breaking news, and through planned features and interviews. They will also be expected to submit original ideas for articles and features. Ideally correspondents should have multimedia skills and the ability to submit video / audio interviews for our site. Correspondents should also be adept at using social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc)
Applicants should also have proven expertise in writing about and/or commenting on freedom expression.
The experts will coordinate closely with Index’s web team, and also where relevant our advocacy team, under the direction of online editor Emily Butselaar.
Index correspondents will situate their writing and other work for Index mostly within our five overarching themes: free expression in the digital world; religion and culture; totalitarian and authoritarian regimes; the use of national security, public order and defamation as excuses for censorship in democracies; and access to free expression (eg issues of illiteracy or discrimination as they impact directly on free expression). They will work to a discrete programme of activities in each region, to enhance and extend Index on Censorship’s publishing activities, advocacy initiatives and arts programming, including a special focus on free expression in the world of literature.
In-country correspondents will also be expected to cover wider issues in the region in which they are based – for instance our Turkey correspondent will also need to look at issues in Iran and Syria.
If you are interested in applying for one of these positions please write to Emily Butselaar via jobs[at]indexoncensorship.org
The Azerbaijani government must resolve the cases of 89 political prisoners and put an end to politically motivated arrests, the Council of Europe (CoE) said on 26 June. The resolution followed the publication of a report on Azerbaijan by Christoph Strässer, the CoE’s Special Rapporteur on political prisoners. The German MP has repeatedly been denied entry to Azerbaijan to report on the situation there. His report states that some individuals had been imprisoned for such lengthy periods that they should be released “even if the verdicts against them, following controversial trials, were deemed to be justified”. Those held on politically motivated charges should either be released or have their cases reassessed in fresh trials.
Index on Censorship, ARTICLE 19, Human Rights House, Reporters sans Frontières and other members of the International Partnership Group for Azerbaijan (IPGA), have called on Council of Europe Committee Members to taker a tougher stand against President Aliyev and his government, which has repeatedly ignored calls for it to honour its commitments under the European Convention on European Rights. The special rapporteur’s report references IPGA findings and conclusions.
Currently, there are seven journalists and civil society activists in Azerbaijani jails being held on politically motivated charges or punished for exercising their right to free expression. They include Anar Bayramli, Zaur Guliyev and Vidadi Iskenderov.
Free expression advocates welcomed yesterday’s draft resolution, but also pointed to the continued clampdown against those critical of the government or taking part in protests. Although nine activists were released on 22 June, only the day before, Hilal Mamedov, editor-in-chief of Talysh language newspaper Tolishi Sado was arrested on spurious drugs charges. One activist, youth leader activist Tural Abbasli from from the Musavat Party, has already been issued a summons to begin military service with immediate effect, a move that has been widely regarded as an attempt to limit his political activities.
While the draft resolution had been approved, details of the Azerbaijani authorities’ repeated refusals to allow Special Rapporteur Strässer from entering the country were omitted by committee members prior to its adoption. And the resolution will not come into effect until it secures approval from the Council of Europe’s plenary session in October. Azerbaijani authorities have been known to ignore the Council; and it remains to be seen if the resolution will help end the clampdown that started after the Eurovision Song Contest left town.
