12 Aug 2013 | Asia and Pacific, China, News and features, Politics and Society, Taiwan
Activists and civic groups march in Taipei in protest against the Want Want China Times Group’s planned acquisition of China Network Systems’s cable TV services in Sept 2012.
(Photo: Craig Ferguson / Demotix)
The connections between China and Taiwanese media owners has given rise to concerns, along with some evidence, that the industry is under growing pressure to curb reporting on topics detrimental to Chinese interests and cross-strait ties.
The capital, Taipei, erupted in protests when it became known that Tsai Eng-ming, a pro-Beijing businessman, attempted to wrest control of Taiwan’s largest newspaper, the Apple Daily, earlier this year. The attempt failed amid popular outrage. But conversations with several journalists suggest that Beijing continues to exert a quieter influence – involving self-censorship and lucrative business interests – in attempt to avoid further scrutiny.
This is perhaps most prominent at the China Times Group, a Taiwanese media conglomerate that Tsai purchased in 2008. Estimated to be worth up to US$10.6 billion, the snack manufacturer has since led its subsidiaries to become more China-friendly, accepting payment from Beijing in return for camouflaged advertising and one-sided reporting. His flagship daily, the China Times, has been fined multiple times by Taiwan’s media regulators for masquerading advertising as reporting.
“It happens far more frequently than most people realize,” said Lin Chao-yi, the former head of the Association of Taiwan Journalists, that uncovered one such example last year. After receiving a copy of a schedule detailing how a visit from a ranking Chinese official was to be covered, including pre-defined topics and article lengths, Lin then impersonated a China Times employee to ask the delegation how the paper was going to be compensated.
Caught on tape, the Chinese press officer replied that the payment would be wired to a China Times Group subsidiary in Beijing. But far from discouraging such deals from taking place again, Lin said that his report “just made them more careful.” Indeed, accepting Chinese money is not only lucrative business, but also allows the paper to stay on Beijing’s good graces – guaranteeing access from behind China’s Great Firewall – according to sources familiar with the relationship.
The China Times Group’s cosy relationship with Beijing has led some journalists working under its banner to become more aware of what might, and might not, be publishable. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, one China Times reporter said that, there is an “unspoken understanding” of what articles or reports might contradict the paper’s political viewpoint, including, for example, pieces critical of either Beijing or Taiwan’s China-friendly president, Ma Ying-jeou.
“In these cases, we might choose to just drop the subject, instead of choosing to pursue it further,” the reporter said, in words reminiscent of the self-censorship taking place elsewhere in the Chinese-speaking region.
But far from taking place only at the China Times Group, self-censorship is also seen as a necessity by other media groups keen on maintaining access to the Chinese market. Much of this has to do with Taiwan’s highly profitable entertainment industry that feeds thousands of hours of programming each year into local Chinese television channels. Produced by the same media groups that also run cable news stations, coverage of some politically sensitive topics, such as the Dalai Lama or the Falungong movement, are toned down to avoid antagonizing Beijing.
“China uses its vast market as a bargaining chip,” said Cheryl Lai, the former editor-in-chief of the state run Central News Agency, adding that most of this takes place secretly and away from public scrutiny. “They know that most of these media companies are in it for the money. All they have to do is threaten to cut it off.”
The trend towards greater Chinese influence in the media is reflective of the realization that its political objectives of unifying Taiwan, which it claims to be a breakaway province, can be achieved cheaper and more effectively through propaganda, rather than force. Instead of “spilling blood on Taiwan,” an old rallying call for conquering the island by force if necessary, Beijing has deemed it easier to “spill money on Taiwan,” said Lai, who has been writing on China’s growing political sway on the island.
The same trend can be seen elsewhere where China holds political interests, such as Hong Kong, where a large number of publications are ostensibly under its influence. The South China Morning Post, for example, has reportedly been hit by allegations of self-censorship after the appointment of new Editor-in-Chief Wang Xiangwei, a member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Congress, a Chinese government body.
In Taiwan, even as most media interests are controlled by large corporations, some with extensive business ties to China, there is, however also a realization that hard-fought press freedoms must be protected. More than 100,000 protestors, including students and reporters, rallied in defence of the Apple Daily during the failed purchase in January this year, with some groups vowing to raise the equivalent funds if it meant protecting the paper’s journalistic integrity.
All this is reason why Beijing is likely to continue and incubate its media influence behind the scenes, at least for now.
7 Aug 2013 | Africa, Digital Freedom, Index Reports, News and features, Politics and Society, Religion and Culture, South Africa
(Photo illustration: Shutterstock)
Though the shackles of apartheid and the public role of Nelson Mandela have faded, South Africa is confronting questions about government surveillance in the digital era, media regulation and artistic censorship.
Apartheid in South Africa (1948-1994) was partially kept in place with restrictions on the flow of information. The state attempted to draw a veil of secrecy over the intensification of repression through detention without trial, house arrests and the torture and killing of opponents from the 1960s onwards. Music and literature were among the modes of anti-apartheid resistance from the 1960s onwards. Literature and music supportive of political opposition or that was deemed sexually permissive was banned. Some journalists, authors and musicians left the country to escape prosecution while many who stayed were persecuted. Television was only allowed in the country in the mid-1970s and only when the then ruling National Party was convinced it could control the medium.
The transition to democracy in the 1990s under Mandela marked a radical departure, with openness and transparency declared primary aims. Clause 16 of the Bill of Rights in the South African Constitution of 1996 guarantees that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of the press and other media; freedom to receive or impart information or ideas; freedom of artistic creativity; and academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.” However, this right is not absolute. The same clause warns that it “does not extend to propaganda for war, incitement of imminent violence; or advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.” Clause 14 (d) of the Bill of Rights safeguards the right to privacy, including the right not to have the privacy of communications infringed.
South Africa’s adoption of the right to freedom of expression in its Constitution is reflected in a lively national debate as democracy takes root. However, as pundits claim the space to hold to account the government and, less frequently, business, the past five years have seen worrying moves against free expression. These range from verbal threats to legislative measures to the irregular arrest of a journalist. Protesters have also targeted journalists at community-level demonstrations about socio-economic rights.
Media Freedom
Four large corporations dominate South Africa’s print media sector, which limits diversity in opinion. While the sector has been battling plunging circulation figures, as elsewhere in the world, it has still managed to invest in investigative journalism, which remains vibrant. Art and related types of journalism have however suffered from a lack of resources. The media stand at the centre of vehement political debates in the country, with newspaper leaks common in the infighting between factions of the ruling African National Congress (ANC). The combination of political and investigative exposures has led to ANC threats of appointing a “media tribunal” to replace the system of self-regulation. In response, the media funded a public consultation process, and a new system has been instituted which remains self-regulatory but includes more mechanisms to allow greater accountability of the press to the public. However, the ANC has decided that the country’s parliament should still investigate the creation of a media tribunal “that is empowered to impose sanctions without the loss of any constitutional rights”.
The Protection of State Information Bill was adopted by parliament this year, despite concerted resistance from a wide range of organisations and individuals. The bill, driven by state security agencies, is expected to undermine access to state information and inhibit investigative journalism. Revisions did not address its draconian penalties of up to 25 years or the overly narrow scope of its belatedly included public interest clause. In a significant improvement, however, the bill no longer overrides the Protection of Access to Information Act or the Protected Disclosures Act, both passed in 2000.
Recent changes in print media ownership have seen the Independent Newspapers (former Argus) group returned by the Irish company Independent News and Media (INM) to South African control. While INM is generally regarded as having “harvested” the Independent Newspapers and thereby stunting its growth in South Africa, the acquisition by Sekunjalo has raised concerns about political control as business allies of the ruling party are involved in the deal.
Most South Africans remain dependent on television and especially radio for information. The state-owned South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) remains the dominant TV and radio outlet with its programming in all 11 languages. However, the SABC has been riddled with management battles and repeated allegations of political interference, which included the blacklisting of commentators critical of the government.
Digital Freedom
After a good start in the 1990s when Internet use was commercialised in South Africa, tardy and expensive broadband has slowed connectivity. Recent research suggests that 39 percent of adults, or 14 million people, access the Internet at least once a week. Another study found that a relatively high percentage of South Africans use mobile phone services (66 percent). According to the 2011 government census, half of those who use the Internet use their mobiles to do so, as only about 23 percent of households have a computer at home. Internet service providers believe this number would be higher if mobile broadband prices were more competitive. While mobile broadband is more affordable and faster than fixed-line services, prepaid mobile customers pay more than contract customers, which means poorer people have less access.
Regarding government measures, the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act of 2002 (RICA) requires service providers to record and keep customer information, which can be requested by government agencies. The act disallows interception of communication, subject to judicial approval. Similarly, a judge has to grant permission before government agencies can access mobile phone records.
The Right2Know (R2K) civil society campaign in 2012 mobilised against the General Intelligence Laws Amendment Bill, which would have empowered state-security operatives to monitor e-mails and social media communication without permission from a judge. While this expansion of powers was avoided, R2K pointed out that the final version of the bill still did not provide clarity regarding the monitoring of electronic communication passing through a foreign server. The Mail and Guardian newspaper has reported on the illegal bugging of private citizens’ communication. Security agencies’ illegal monitoring of communications has become a weapon between factions in the ruling party. In the most notorious case, the ascendancy of the current president, Jacob Zuma, to the highest office was clinched with the withdrawal of corruption charges against him on the basis of “spy tapes”. These recordings, seemingly illegally made, allegedly showed a political plot against Zuma that involved the National Prosecuting Authority. Interceptions by the police’s crime intelligence divisions rose sharply between 2009 and 2010, including illegal bugging that led to the recent resignation of the head of the South African Revenue Services for attempting to recruit someone in return for sexual favours. Meanwhile, the implications are unclear of the National Cyber Security Policy that the ANC wants the government to adopt by 2014 to prevent the distribution of “harmful and anti-social” content.
Artistic Freedom
Artists have enjoyed unprecedented freedom to be creative in South Africa since the transition to democracy. However, political tensions have risen about art seen as ridiculing Zuma. In 2012, Brett Murray’s painting called “The Spear” was exhibited at a Johannesburg art gallery, depicting Zuma in a well-known pose of Communist leader Vladimir Lenin but with his genitals exposed. ANC leaders pressurised the gallery by leading a march of ANC supporters to its doors. Two men defaced the painting while on display.
An amendment in 2009 to the Film and Publications Act of 1996 that every unregistered print and online publication that contains sexual content be submitted for classification by the Film and Publications Board has since been declared unconstitutional by the High Court. The Constitutional Court still has to confirm the High Court’s decision. The board has been skittish about films depicting teenagers in sexual situations, whether consensual or forced. In 2008 it banned the Argentinian film “XXY” and this year it banned the South African film “Of Good Report” on the basis of being “child pornography”. Both bans have since been overturned.
This article was originally published on 7 Aug, 2013 at indexoncensorship.org. Index on Censorship: The voice of free expression
2 Jul 2013 | Europe and Central Asia
Taking their cue from the neo-nazi Golden Dawn, Greece’s far-right newspapers have recently been targeting alternative opinions. While hardly breaking news, the language and symbolism of the campaign is of vital importance because it represents just the tip of the iceberg, Christos Syllas writes
Greece’s far right newspapers have been targeting groups they see as “anti-Greek”
The rise of the Golden Dawn and its campaign against groups it perceives to be anti-Greek — leftists, immigrants, gays and lesbians — has encouraged nationalist and far-right sympathisers to spread their ideologies through existing and new media outlets both online and off.
On 6 June, for instance, the far-right publication Stohos, or Target, mocked Tasos Theodoropoulos for being “a self-proclaimed gay” who criticised a bishop’s persistent attempts to abolish a gay pride festival. Theodoropoulos had called the bishop a “flowery priest’s wife”. The turn of phrase apparently hit a conservative nerve.
Theodoropoulos, who was beaten shortly after the paper blasted him, wrote about his terrifying experience and suggested an explanation for the attack.
“They maybe didn’t know me. Even if they didn’t, newspapers like ‘Stohos’ have succeeded in helping them recognise me, as a target”.
Stohos is a far-right newspaper with a history of offensive and abusive language. It has always held anti-communist views, defended the Greek Orthodox church and launched campaigns against ‘anti-Greek’ sentiments. Its publisher, Savvas Hatziparaskeyas, was sentenced to 10 months in prison for repeatedly libelling the Migrants’ Forum in Crete (MFC).
In that case, Stohos had accused two MFC members of “unpatriotic plotting intended to cause chaos and unrest” and appealed to Greek residents of Crete to break “this abcess”. MFC won its case against Hatziparaskeyas in September 2012.
In a telephone interview on 26 June, Dimitris Psarras, known for his prominent investigative journalism on Golden Dawn and on the far-right spectrum, shared some of his thoughts about the violence encouraged by far-right publishers:
“Stohos has been following for years the method of targeting people and journalists. I remember that back in the nineties, while reporting as a member of ‘Ios’ (an investigative journalistic team), we were denounced as ‘traitors’, ‘agents’ and ‘people who should leave Greece immediately’. At the time we were reporting on the protection of minorities and on human rights issues. Even though we largely documented our stories on decisions from Greek or European courts, they wouldn’t stop. I recollect several open calls for violent deeds from nationalists and far-rightists. However, attacks and conflicts were disproportionate to the calls.”
The “anti-Greek” foreigner
Far-right publications have rejected voices considered to undermine “the purity of the Greek race and the glory of the nation.” And such publications also find “any distortion of religious beliefs” or support for the rights of immigrants to be unacceptable.
Indymedia Athens, for example, is a local collective of grassroots activists that heavily criticises Golden Dawn’s practises and nationalist ideas. For publishing calls for pro-immigrant rallies, and condemning racist attacks against immigrants, far-right voices have labelled the group as a “cesspit” and its members “snitches” and “employees of billionaire George Soros.”
The notion of being supported by ‘foreign’ funding is part of building a case that groups like Indymedia are part of an external threat. According to far-right rhetoric, anarchists and antifascists with the support of left-wing Syriza are anti-Greeks who must be fought. A far-right blog called Maiandrioi has previously made such a call to arms:
“We invite all Greeks in blood and soul, to be awake and military ready… in days to come, anti-Greeks will reveal their real face and they will jointly fight against Greeks.”
Golden Dawn recently published a newspaper called Embros. Next to the main story calling for Golden Dawn victories in upcoming mayoral elections there was a photograph with children holding placards during a pro-immigrant rally. The caption underneath read: “foreign criminals thresh in Athens”. Insulting language for immigrants and children does not come as such a great surprise.
Artist Panayiotis Hatzistefanou wrote a piece entitled “Why I am anti-Greek” on 15 May, where he said that he can no longer stand to hear homophobic, racist, and far-right remarks in a country falling apart. Without hesitation Stohos attacked him for the piece, calling for his citizenship to be revoked.
It is worth noting that newspaper Stohos targeted Paris Karvounopoulos, an experienced military journalist. After publishing a piece critical of Frangos Frangoulis, a former chief of the Hellenic Army general staff and former minister for national defense, Karvounopoulos found himself reprimanded by “Stohos”. The title of that story was a call to Frangoulis: “General, if you must f*#k people up, start from him”.
Κarvounopoulos, however, claimed on 26 June that the former general had previously spoken against his self-proclaimed supporters.
“Lawsuit industry”
At the same time, far-right targeting seems to have another dimension. Many argue about the building of a “lawsuit industry” by extreme right-wingers to those opposed to far-right viewpoints. Savvas Michail, general secretary of EEK, the Revolutionary Labor party, was sued by Golden Dawn because he labelled it as a nazi organization that attacks immigrants.
Katerina Thoidou, a journalist for the newspaper Workers’ Solidarity and anti-fascist activist (member of KEERFA, Movement Against Racism and Fascism Threat) was sued by Ioannis Andriopoulos, a lawyer who offers his services to a Golden Dawn MPs. Andriopoulos says that Thoidou insulted him by calling him “a fascist”.
Thoidou had used the label when Andriopoulos’ petition prompted the Greek Council of State to declare the country’s citizenship law (L. 3838/2010) unconstitutional. The law had been criticised for easing the process for citizenship, which moderate critics saw as an effort by political parties to gain the votes of newly-minted Greeks.
Thoidou, said in a telephone interview on 26 June, that recent targeting of journalists and people who oppose the Golden Dawn can be explained: “It is clearly an orchestrated effort to silence journalists reporting on Golden Dawn’s attacks on immigrants and homosexuals. The exposure of such incidents results in uncomfortable pressure not only against the ‘typical’ far-right advocates but against the government”.
Christos Syllas is a freelance journalist. Tweets from @csyllas
1 Jul 2013 | Europe and Central Asia
At the stroke of midnight on Sunday, Croatia officially became the 28th member of the European Union. Croatia will be a “serious, responsible and active member”, said President Ivo Josipovic as he ushered in “the first day of our European future”. But threats to freedom of expression, especially in the media, remain.
While the 2012 accession referendum was passed with the lowest ever turnout in a prospective member state, and enthusiasm has since waned further, today is a momentous occasion for a country that was at war only two decades ago – and still grapples with the aftermath. However, with the European Commission regarding freedom of expression a ‘key indicator’ for a country’s readiness to join the union, we should acknowledge that while Croatia has taken some important steps forward, there is work left to do.
The constitution guarantees freedom of expression and the press, and Croatia has recently seen a modest increase in its Freedom House global press freedom ranking, from 78 in 2009, to 64 this year. However, this comes after a significant tumble from 41 in 2007. Croatian journalists, especially those covering war crimes, organised crime and corruption, face continued threats to their well-being and livelihoods.
OSCE media freedom representative, Dunja Mijatovic has repeatedly expressed concerns about public broadcaster HRTs apparent practice of silencing critical journalists. Most recently, in March this year, journalists Denis Latin, Katja Kusec and Ruzica Renic were fired from HRT in suspicious circumstances.
In 2008, Ivo Pukanic, a journalist covering organised crime, intelligence and war profiteering was killed by a car bomb outside his office. It was the third attempt on his life, and also killed his associate Niko Franjic. Six men were convicted for the murders in 2010, but it is still unknown who commissioned the assassination.
This is far from the only attack on Croatian media. In 2007, journalist Zalko Peratovic was detained and his house searched for violating state secrets after publishing a story on war crimes on his blog. Owner of Nova TV, Ivan Caleta, and former media mogul Miroslav Kutle, have both been shot at. Ninoslav Pavic, co-owner of Croatia’s biggest publishing house had his car bombed. Andrej Maksimovic, editor of OTV, has been attacked twice. This handful of examples goes some way in explaining the overall environment of fear and intimidation that has chilled press freedom and consequently freedom of expression in Croatia.
But challenges to freedom of expression exist outside of the realm of the media too. While prison sentences for defamation were abolished in 2006, libel is a criminal offense punishable by fines. Given the country’s recent history, hate speech is not taken lightly. Hate speech based on race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity, or unspecified ‘other characteristics’ are punishable by up to five years in prison — three years if committed over the internet. Insulting ‘the Republic of Croatia, its flag, coat of arms or national anthem’ can bring up to three years in prison.
Unlike neighbouring countries Croatia has not banned gay pride parades, but freedom of assembly for Croatia’s LGBT population has still be under threat. When a parade was organised for the first time in Split in 2011, the small number of participants were pelted with eggs and rocks by thousands of counter-protesters. The police also failed to investigate an attack on six young men and women in the aftermath of the parade. Authorities have also come under fire for failure to investigate persistent acts of vandalism aimed at the country’s minority Serbian Orthodox community.
Despite this, some aspects of freedom of expression have improved recently. This year’s Zagreb pride parade saw its biggest turnout ever, as 15,000 people attended the peaceful march. In another positive development, this February, parliament adopted a Freedom of Information Act. A new body will be set up, specifically dedicated to freedom of expression, with greater focus on public interest and proactive publishing of information.
Croatian leaders and EU politicians have taken pains to stress that accession does not automatically solve the country’s problems. While they were largely referring to the economic situation, the same principle goes for freedom of expression. You only have to look to EU members like Hungary to see that membership alone does not necessarily improve media freedom. For Croatia, as with other recent additions to the union, membership is merely an initial, tentative step towards increased political and civil rights for its citizens.
