29 Sep 2014 | Europe and Central Asia, News and features, Serbia
Serbian journalists last night gathered outside the studios of national broadcaster B92, in protest at the decision to cancel politics talk show Utisak Nedelje (Impressions of the Week).
B92 claims the popular show — on air since 1991 — has not been cancelled but postponed due to a breakdown in negotiations with its author and presenter Olja Beckovic, according to news site Balkan Insight. The channel says they had offered to continue broadcasting the show on its national frequency channel — its home since 2002 — until November, when it would be bumped to the cable channel B92 Info. But Beckovic says the show has been banned following political pressure.
“I absolutely never experienced such blackmail and pressure before,” she told website Vesti in an interview published on Friday. “And there’s something very interesting about that. People say this is a return to the 1990s. No it’s not, it’s worse than the 1990s.”
In March, the Progressive Party (SNS) convincingly won Serbia’s general election and its leader Aleksandar Vucic became the prime minister. With a chequered track record on press freedom, both as deputy prime minister in the previous government and as Slobodan Milosevic’s information minister, Index wondered at the time what impact his new role may have on Serbia’s media. Six months on, what is happening with Utisak Nedelje is just the latest addition to a worrying pattern.
It did not take long for claims of censorship to be levelled at the Vucic government. In May, Serbia and surrounding countries were hit by devastating floods. Authorities imposed a temporary state of emergency, which gave them the power to detain people for “inciting panic”. Meanwhile, online criticism of the government’s handling of the crisis was targeted. Critical articles and blogs were removed, and whole websites, including the independent news outlet Pescanik, were blocked and subjected to DDoS attacks. While it is unconfirmed who exactly was behind these incidents, they already then constituted a “worrying trend”, according to the Organisation for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE).
Index has tracked the media freedom situation in Serbia since the early days of the current government. There have been reports of a journalist being interrogated by police for sharing a Facebook post, as well as physical and verbal attacks — often with impunity. But indirect control of media, smear campaigns and other methods of covert “soft censorship” also pose a serious challenge to Serbian press freedom. “Milošević never muzzled the media this perfidiously. His methods were far less sophisticated and everything was out in the open,” said Beckovic. And it seems her colleagues agree that censorship is prevalent. Ninety per cent of journalists responding to a recent survey said censorship and self-censorship does exist in Serbian media, while 73% and 95%, respectively, said the media does not report objectively and critically.
The public dispute between authorities and the Balkan Investigative Journalism Network (Birn) is one example. The group reported that the government paid significantly more than partner Etihad Airways for a nearly equal stake in new company Air Serbia. Vucic denied the story, saying it was based on an unused draft version of the contract. Days later, pro-government newspaper Informer published an article accusing journalists from Birn and Serbia’s Centre for Investigative Journalism (Cins) of stalking and spying on Vucic. Birn has called this a “campaign to discredit” their work.
“I have the impression that the situation is getting worse,” Mehmet Koksal from the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) told Index. He cites recent reports of Serbian politicians allegedly faking academic qualifications. “In those articles you can easily measure the level of tolerance from the government to independent media owners,” he explains. He says some newspaper that pushed the story were accused in pro-government outlets of carrying out propaganda for foreign countries. “This is the kind of conspiracy theory that we used to see from different countries.” Pescanik was again brought down by DDoS attacks for reporting the story.
Recent amendments to the country’s media laws will see the state withdraw from nearly all media funding by July 2015. The move has been welcomed by many, but as think tank Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso points out, this alone will have limited impact: “Private tabloids have been for some time the main supporters of the government, and influence is exerted indirectly, mostly through the advertising market.”
Serbia has also adopted a new labour law which was heavily opposed by trade unions. Koksal claims that union leaders have faced media attacks and smear campaigns. If certain media groups or owners have an interest developing good relationships with the Serbian government, he explains, you can “easily understand why they are doing the dirty job” of attacking opposition. But finding out who exactly funds which outlet is not always easy, as bids to increase transparency of ownership has been met with resistance from private media.
After the elections, Index spoke to Lily Lynch, the founder and editor of the English-language online magazine The Balkanist, which used to be based in Belgrade. She recently decided to leave Serbia due to the pressure she has faced as an independent journalists.
“I was pessimistic about the potential for the media situation in Serbia to worsen when the new government, led by Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic, came to power in March. But I think the mask has slipped much faster than any of us expected,” she tells Index.
Lynch also believes international actors have a role to play in the worsening levels of press freedom in Serbia, explaining how the US embassy in Belgrade earlier this year told her to leave the country until after the election. “It seems the US embassy thought it was probably a better idea if I was gone because we were critical of the Vucic regime, which they supported pretty unambiguously.”
She also argues that international media bears some responsibility. “In the pre-election period, the English-language media was pretty uniform in its portrayal of Vucic as some kind of redemptive success story. There were headlines like ‘From Authoritarian Censor to EU Partner’, or ‘From Nationalist Hawk to Devout Europeanist’,” she says.
“Was it responsible for major, supposedly ‘objective’, well-respected publications to project such an image? I would say no, and it’s something I think we need to look at ourselves.”
Vucic has been widely lauded as a reformer, who has set Serbia firmly on the path to EU accession — the country’s main driver of reforms. In 2015, Serbia will also take over the chairmanship of the OSCE. During that organisation’s ongoing high-level human rights conference, the Serbian delegate said the OSCE region’s freedom of expression and media in will be high on their agenda as chairs. Many would argue they could start the work at home.
Correction 09:34, September 30: An earlier version of the article stated that Mehmet Koksal works for the International Federation of Journalists.
This article was published on Monday September 29 at indexoncensorship.org
Serbia: Protesters opposing Belgrade Pride Parade attack B92 offices
Serbia: Photographer injured by anti-pride parade protesters
Serbia: B92 TV station scrapped well-known political talk show
Serbia: Security officer interfered with journalist during political party rally
Serbia: Journalists from “Juzne vesti” labelled foreign mercenaries
17 Sep 2014 | Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan News, News and features, United Kingdom
London-based daily newspaper Metro ran a feature this month extolling the delights of Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. The photo-driven feature article comes at a time when the government of President Ilham Aliyev is ratcheting up pressure on dissenters, including denying independent news outlets the kind of freedoms that a paper such as Metro, whose parent company is outspoken on the importance of press freedoms, enjoys in the UK.
Despite attempts to present itself to the outside world as a modern and open society — in part through a concerted international PR campaign — Azerbaijan has a woeful human rights record and continues to arrest, detain and harass any opponents to the regime of President Ilham Aliyev. In the last few months, many campaigners and activists have been arrested in an attempt to silence them.
Metro highlighted 10 things to do in Baku. Here we list just five things you need to know about Azerbaijan before you go. We ask our supporters and all those who care about a free press and free expression to draw attention to these so we can counter the whitewash of the Aliyev regime.
There is an ongoing crackdown on government critics
A number of high profile Azerbaijanis known for their criticism of authorities have been jailed in a matter of weeks. These include human rights activists Leyla and Arif Yunus and Rasul Jafarov, human rights lawyer Intigam Aliyev and journalist Seymur Hezi. This new wave of repression followed the jailing of two human rights defenders who lead the only independent group monitoring elections in Azerbaijan.
Independent media is silenced
Azerbaijan’s last independent newspaper Azadliq, which was named 2013 Guardian Journalism award winner at the Index Freedom of Expression awards in March 2014, was forced to suspend printing in July because of financial pressures from the government. This is a familiar pattern for Azerbaijan’s critical press, which has long been subjected to an array of attacks. Independent news outlets face economic sanctions and are often barred from distribution networks. Journalists are also victim to legal threats. In the first six months of 2013, 36 defamation suits were brought against media outlets or journalists. Award-winning investigative journalist Khadija Ismayilova was subjected to an aggressive smear and blackmail campaign in retaliation for her coverage of government corruption and continues to be targeted by authorities.
Internet users are targeted
Ahead of last year’s election Azerbaijan extended penalties for criminal defamation and insult to cover not just traditional media, but also online content, including social networks. The potential length of pre-trial detention has increased from 15 to 90 days. In May, a university student and member of the Free Youth organisation, was arrested for a Harlem Shake video posted on YouTube. A human rights defender was sentenced to four years in jail on hooliganism charges after posting videos on YouTube containing interviews with victims of a gang they alleged had connections to local police officers. A freelance journalist who was outspoken in his criticism of the government on social media was given a four-and-a-half-year prison sentence on charges that included appealing for mass disorder.
Artists are censored
Despite the fact that Azerbaijan has committed to respect and protect artistic freedom of expression, authorities restrict this right. This is especially the case for alternative artists and those deemed to be critical of the government, whose ability to perform, display, or disseminate their work is limited. Self-censorship is one consequence of this, with many artists shying away from producing critical or controversial work for fear of the possible consequences. Musician Jamal Ali, who has spoken out against President Aliyev, was allegedly tortured by the police.
Democratic principles are ignored
Current president Aliyev has been in power since 2003, when he took over from his father Heydar, and in 2009 he removed term limits for the presidency. According to the international observer mission, the October 2013 election “was undermined by limitations on the freedoms of expression, assembly and association”, with “significant problems” observed throughout election day. The 2003 and 2008 votes also failed to meet international standards. Transparency International has called Aliyev’s government the most corrupt in Europe. Meanwhile, authorities have engaged in a wide-reaching international PR campaign. In 2012, the country was given a chance to project a positive image to the world through hosting the Eurovision Song Contents. Preparations included urban renewal programs that saw homes demolished and families evicted. It remains to be seen what will happen next year, when the inaugural European Games come to Baku.
This article was published on Wednesday 17 Sept 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
16 Sep 2014 | Europe and Central Asia, Mapping Media Freedom, Netherlands, News and features
Journalist Richeron Balentien woke up one night to find his car had been torched (Photo: Richeron Balentien)
It’s a Wednesday morning in May 2014, around 3am and still dark outside. Radio journalist Richeron Balentien, his girlfriend and their 2-year-old daughter are sound asleep until the smell of fire wakes them up. When they look out of the window they see Balentien’s car burning in the yard in front of the house. He immediately knows what is going on.
“It was a clear threat,” Balentien told Index on Censorship over the phone. “It was a warning, to shut me up.” The police confirmed the car was purposely set alight. The perpetrator has not been brought to justice.
The Netherlands is always found near the top of press freedom rankings, this year second only to Finland in the Reporters Without Border’s Press Freedom Index. But rarely taken into account, however, are the Dutch islands in the Caribbean sea. The largest of these, Curacao, became a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 2010.
If Curacao was included in the Netherlands’ press freedom score, it might not place so high on the list. Journalists like Balentien face threats and attacks, as they fight a lonely and dangerous battle to get the truth about corruption and organised crime on the island out.
The attack on Balentien’s car happened just a few hours after Gerrit Schotte, the first prime minister of an autonomous Curacao, was arrested on allegations of money laundering and forgery during his time on power. He was released after a week in custody, but the investigation is ongoing.
Balentien aired the news on his radio station Radio Direct, while many other media outlets kept silent. “This is a small island,” he said. “Everybody knows each other. Most journalists don’t investigate. They don’t want to get into trouble”.
According to a recently published Unesco report, Curacao’s media are “not able to fulfil their role as watchdog of authorities and other powerful stakeholders in society”. It also highlights issues around journalist safety, stating that “some recent cases of harassment of journalists have caused public debate on the issue of safety and are reason for concern”.
The report concludes that social and political pressures lead to self censorship among the press, as “dependency on good relationships with sources of information on one hand and protection of relatives on the other hand is very much a threat”.
In May 2013 the island was shocked by a political murder. Helmin Wiels, a popular politician determined to rid the island of high level corruption, was shot dead by an assassin in broad daylight.
The atmosphere on the island has been tense ever since, Balentien said. “Nobody thought it was possible that someone of that calibre could get killed. It shocked the entire island,” he explained. “The atmosphere changed. Everyone is afraid.”
Two men were sentenced to life in prison for killing Wiels, but it’s still unclear who gave the orders. Many believe they came from high up. There has been speculation that former Prime Minister Schotte knew about the plan, said Balentien — something Schotte himself denies. Wiels had accused the state telecommunications company of involvement in illegal sales of lottery tickets.
The Wiels case is one of Balentien’s ongoing investigations. “I feel everything is being done to keep the truth about this murder behind closed doors,” he said. “We need to know who gave the orders.”
A 2013 Transparency International study shows “a general lack of trust in key institutions” in Curacao. The anti-corruption watchdog labels this “a major obstacle” which will “limit the success of any programme addressing corruption and promoting good governance”. As for the media, the report highlights the lack of trained journalists, with content open to influence by the private financiers and advertisers on which “many media companies are heavily dependent”. Few requirements to ensure the integrity of media employees also “undermines the independence and accountability of the media,” according to the group.
Balentien is sure that former prime minister Schotte gave the order to attack his car. “Sources told me that it was discussed within the party to set my car alight to frighten me,” he said. “I have never been afraid to talk about Schotte, his party or the corruption.”
Dick Drayer, the Curacao correspondent for the Dutch national broadcaster NOS, also believes there was a political motive behind the attack. “Schotte’s party is behind this, everybody knows that,” he told Index on Censorship.
Drayer has been working as a journalist on the island for nearly ten years. “I see is an increase of intimidation towards journalists. Journalists here are taught not to ask questions. There is verbal and physical violence. When you dig in dirty business in Curacao, you know you can get into trouble. That leads to self censorship,” he said. “In Netherlands the media controls the power, in Curacao it’s the other way around.”
While the island has had its own government since 2010, ties with the Netherlands are still strong. Corruption and organised crime in Curacao are occasionally discussed in Dutch parliament and the Dutch police is involved in the Wiels murder investigation.
But “the relationship is disturbed,” according to Dryer. “The Netherlands is careful to intervene when things are going the wrong way on the islands, because they’re afraid to be seen as the coloniser.” He thinks his country could be more involved when it comes to corruption and organised crime. “They should speak up more. The Netherlands worries about human rights in China, but when it comes to Curacao they say it’s an internal matter.”
After the car incident, Balentien’s station Radio Direct continued to receive anonymous phone threats. “I am aware,” he said. “I look around. I turn to see who’s driving behind me. I check my house before I enter.”
Despite this, he maintains he will keep up his investigative reporting on high level corruption and the Wiels murder case.”Because I don’t want this island to be ruined by these people anymore”.
More reports from The Netherlands via mediafreedom.ushahidi.com
Bloemendaal municipality accused of censoring local newspaper
Journalists attacked during anti-ISIS protest in The Hague
Journalist on trial for defamation
Photographer assaulted by housing corporation employee
Restrictions on filming inside parliament building
This article was posted on 16 Sept 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
10 Sep 2014 | Leveson Inquiry, News and features, United Kingdom
“The greatest threat to freedom of the press in our country is our libel law. Why do we have this weird defamation law, where the idea is that if we get something wrong about someone, we have to pay a pile of money? We should correct it with equal prominence. Take money and costs out of the picture. Because, on the whole, only the rich can afford it,” investigative journalist Nick Davies told an audience at the Frontline Club last night.
Davies, who unveiled the extent of the phone-hacking scandal and has just published his book Hack Attack, was in conversation with author and former ITN chief Stewart Purvis (above), talking about hacking, press regulation and this week’s launch of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso).
Below are some highlights.
On his hacking investigation:
“The crimes weren’t serious enough to spend seven years of your life working on it. What makes it interesting is it’s about power. The thing that Murdoch generates – aside from money and circulation figures – is fear. Once a media mogul has established this kind of fear – he doesn’t have to tell the government, the police or the PCC what to do. They will all try and placate him. That’s really what this book is about and if there is any justification for doing this much work on one story, it’s that.”
On Ipso – which he describes as a “phoney regulator”:
“If Ipso turns out to be subject to the same influences of the big news organisations as its predecessor the PCC, then it is very worrying because Ipso has considerably more power. It has the power to investigate; it has the power to levy fines. You imagine what would have happened if that had been in place when we were investigating phone hacking. They could have killed that story off.”
On the greatest threat to freedom of the press:
“The greatest threat to freedom of the press in our country is our libel law. Why do we have this weird defamation law, where the idea is that if we get something wrong about someone, we have to pay a pile of money? We should correct it with equal prominence. Take money and costs out of the picture. Because, on the whole, only the rich can afford it.”
On whether the truth has caught up with Murdoch, as the book’s subheading suggests:
“There was a moment when the truth caught up with Murdoch – that day in Parliament with his son – but slowly the power comes back. Now he is meeting Nigel Farage [Ukip leader] as if this Australian with American citizenship has any sort of influence at all about what happens in our next election. What is wrong with our system that he is allowed to display such arrogance? We are the voters. It will be interesting to see if in the run up to the 2015 elections he and his newspapers throw their weight around as usual. I fear we will see a familiar pattern, as the bully in the playground.”
On the future of journalism:
“The biggest best hope for journalism is that it continues to attract energetic, bright, idealistic young people. But then you see them being fed into this mincing machine. The key to our revival is fixing the broken business model. We need to find a solution to this problem.”
On the internet:
“[With internet news], you end up with fragmentation. The communist produces news for communists, the racist produces news for racists. Nobody is factchecking, nobody is accountable. It’s much worse, potentially, than the mainstream news organisations that come in for such a kicking. The internet is potentially a very destructive force. I’m not necessarily saying it will go this way, but it could rank up there with nuclear weapons, where you say, ‘Christ, that was clever of us to invent that, but we potentially wish we hadn’t done it’. I just don’t know where it is going to go.”
On citizen journalism:
“In an ideal world, we should have professional journalists. There are too many people on the left whose knee-jerk reaction is to assume that all journalists working for big corporations are corrupt and unable to tell the truth. To dismiss journalists from these organisations going to Syria and Iraq and risking their lives as corporate puppets is really disgusting. There is a belief that if the profession of journalism dies out, we’ll be better off with citizen journalists. Do you want citizen doctors too?”
On who he’d like to play him in the film version of his book (the rights to Hack Attack having just been bought by George Clooney):
Colin Firth
Join us to debate the future of journalism and whether it might lead to democratic deficit at the Frontline Club on October 22, or subscribe to Index on Censorship magazine to read our special report on the future of journalism and whether the public will end up with more knowledge or less.
This article was posted on 10 Sept 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
