19 Mar 2014 | Campaigns, Europe and Central Asia, United Kingdom
(Image: Semmick Photo/Shutterstock)
Restricting press freedom in the name of national security, the Royal Charter press regulator and the UK’s lack of constitutional guarantees for freedom of expression were only some of the things criticised in a new report by the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA). The organisation represents over 18,000 publications and 15,000 websites in over 120 countries.
Referring to the UK’s influence internationally WAN-IFRA says: “How changes to the system of press regulation are managed in the UK will have an unparalleled impact beyond its shores.” They fear that a regulator with government involvement — such as the Royal Charter — risks being “an open invitation for abuse” of press freedom in less democratic countries. The report in many ways echoes Index on Censorship’s position on press regulation and threats to press freedom in the UK.
The report comes after concerns were expressed by UK media and press freedom organisations over the state of press freedom following the Leveson debate, and the threats and pressure faced by the Guardian over their reporting on Snowden and mass surveillance, culminating in the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian’s basement overseen by GCHQ representatives. A delegation from WAN-IFRA travelled to the UK on a fact-finding mission in January.
The report agrees that the phone hacking scandal led to a major breach in public confidence in the press, but stressed that the vast majority of British journalists “adhere to professional standards”. It warns against conflating the hacking scandal with the regulatory debate, stressing that: “British law provides appropriate remedy for illegal activity in proven cases of wrongdoing.”
The report makes several heavy criticisms of the proposed Royal Charter system. Punitive damages, enshrined in statute, for not signing up to the regulator “defies any definition of ‘voluntary’ as understood by the WAN-IFRA delegation”. The report in particular says that it was quite inappropriate to develop a system of press regulation without the involvement of the industry in the final stages of discussion, when the government’s preferred Royal Charter was drawn up. The speed of implementation, the lack of legislative scrutiny, parliamentary vote or public consultation was criticised, with the report arguing the whole process should have been more transparent. “The Royal Charter system — used as an example or transposed elsewhere to countries lacking the United Kingdom’s historic commitment to human rights — risks an open invitation for abuse in other parts of the world,” it argues.
The report further states that claims of the Royal Charter being a “hands-offs” regulator is “undermined by the readiness of the UK government to intervene against the Guardian newspaper”. The treatment the Guardian has been subject to following their mass surveillance revelations was identified as a cause for concern. Prime Minister David Cameron’s claims that the reporting harmed national security, with no evidence to back this up, “suggest an unprecedented level of political interference in the freedom of the press”. The report states that he should distance his government from conflating terrorism with journalism. However, the recent court judgement finding the detention of David Miranda (partner of Glen Greenwald) legal under the UK’s Terrorism Act suggests that any positive response to this recommendation is unlikely. The report also criticised other publisher’s perceived lack of support for the Guardian, calling it a “low point” given “the apparent need for solidarity within the media fraternity”.
“If the UK government feels it is acceptable, in the name of national security, to dictate what is in the public interest, and given the UK’s continued influence over developing nations where media are essential for the spread of democratic values, the future of a free, independent press that can hold power to account is under threat worldwide,” said WAN-IFRA CEO, Vincent Peyrègne.
The report also expresses, among other things, worries over the arrests of journalists, criminalisation of social media, mass surveillance and proposals to introduce web filters.
Recommendations include urging the UK government “to step back from any further involvement – perceived or otherwise – in the regulation issue”, to defend and support public interest journalism, and encourage investigative reporting “as an essential benefit to society”.
This article was posted on 19 March 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
19 Mar 2014 | Campaigns, Europe and Central Asia, Statements, United Kingdom
Index welcomes the report by the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA) on the worrying state of press freedom in the UK. The WAN-IFRA report criticises the use of national security concerns to threaten and restrict investigative journalism, in particular the Guardian’s revelations and reporting on the Snowden mass surveillance scandal. WAN-IFRA also provides detailed analysis of the post-Leveson debate about press regulation, and challenges in particular both the involvement of politicians in the Royal Charter approach, the use of exemplary damages enshrined in statute for those who do not participate in a “voluntary”, Royal Charter-compliant press regulator, and the failure to bring the print industry on board in the final discussions around the Royal Charter.
Index CEO, Kirsty Hughes, said: “It is a sad day when the state of press freedom in Britain is so degraded that an international mission of editors and journalists finds so many concerns – from mass surveillance to politicians intervening in press regulation to national security being used to trump investigative journalism.”
She went on: “Index hopes that politicians from all parties will read and take very seriously this damning report – it should be a wake-up call to all those who see a free press as fundamental to our democracy.”
This statement was posted on 19 March 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
19 Mar 2014 | China, News and features
Hong Kong journalists are anxious at present – with good reason. On the morning of 26 February Kevin Lau, former chief editor of Hong Kong daily newspaper Ming Pao, was attacked as he got out of his car. Suffering stab wounds to his back and legs, Lau was rushed to hospital where he underwent emergency surgery.
Nine men have since been arrested over the attack, with police saying some are linked to organised crime. But many media workers believe differently, namely that the stabbing was provoked by Lau’s record of pushing journalistic boundaries at Ming Pao, and that it’s a message for local journalists to beware criticising Beijing.
Once a British colony, Hong Kong reverted to Chinese rule in 1997. Under the policy of “One Country, Two Systems”, Hong Kong was granted a degree of autonomy, with press freedom protected under the Basic Law.
The law isn’t a total farce. To this day, the city’s newsstands display a varied, vibrant collection of papers. In Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index 2013 Hong Kong was ranked 58 globally, just one slot below Italy and far above China at 173.
However, beneath the surface a different story emerges. Over the past year, half a dozen violent attacks on people in media who are critical of the Hong Kong and Chinese governments have been reported, as have abrupt dismissals and resignations of several outspoken journalists.
Meanwhile, self-censorship is growing.
“It’s a creeping, insidious type of thing. If you want to keep your job, you tow the line. I work with guys who are pro press freedom, but they are still censoring constantly,” said a journalist who only agreed to talk on condition of anonymity. The man, who is a reporter at a prominent local newspaper and has been living in Hong Kong for three decades, explained how self-censorship started to emerge in the mid-90s and has become rife in recent years.
Then there are the “gatekeepers”, as he refers to them – journalists who have been educated in the Chinese school of journalism (“never question authority”) and are encouraged to run stories according to a Beijing agenda. They now get their information from Chinese media sources such as Xinhua and China Daily, as opposed to the past practice of using Reuters, AP and other international news wires.
Why has this situation emerged? Money’s a big factor. Media owners in Hong Kong used to be either local business tycoons or people in media themselves. Now they’re predominantly international businessmen with links to China, who are reliant on Chinese currency to stay afloat. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, over 50% of Hong Kong’s media owners are closely connected to the Chinese government. Other media owners, such as the Malaysian billionaire Robert Kuok from the South China Morning Post and Malaysian Tiong Hiew-king of Ming Pao, have strong commercial interests in China.
One exception to the rule is Next Media, a profitable company that owns Apple Daily, one of Hong Kong’s most widely read newspapers – and the most openly critical of China. Next Media has survived the onslaught. But certain advertisers have withdrawn sponsorship, acting as a deterrent for smaller, less profitable papers.
Gregory Lee, an academic and writer who lived in Hong Kong on both sides of the handover, says the academic press is under attack too. The days of people publishing in Hong Kong because they couldn’t in China have ended. Lee knows of one academic who criticised China’s former leader Hu Jintao and had his entire book pulled.
Lee currently teaches Chinese studies at the University of Lyon, France. Even thousands of miles from Beijing, the Communist government’s touch is still felt.
“I’ve got Hong Kong students here who are desperate about the encroachment of mainland China on Hong Kong culture. What’s interesting is that these students were very young when the handover happened, but they still see their identity as Hong Kong.”
One thing’s for sure, Hong Kong residents will not be easily silenced. In the wake of Lau’s attack, thousands took to the streets to voice support for press freedom and to denounce the violence, and this protest was just a warm-up. Occupy Central, which is set to take place in July, should see plenty more out in public demanding rights to freedom of expression.
“Hong Kong has a golden opportunity to be a watchdog for what’s happening in the mainland, due to its proximity and links to China, and yet the press are failing in their duties,” says prominent blogger and activist Tom Grundy, who plans to attend Occupy Central. Grundy believes the protest will be “a defining moment for Hong Kong autonomy” as the government is presented with different ways to respond.
Attending Occupy Central is not just about protecting Hong Kong’s present – it’s about the future too.
“There’s a concern that when 2047 comes, Hong Kong will be absorbed by the mainland,” Grundy says of the “One Country, Two systems” agreement that will expire then.
Back in the hospital, Lau’s recovery is underway. The nerves in his legs are healing and doctors are confident he will walk again. The future of Hong Kong’s free press, on the other hand, remains in the balance.
This article was posted on 19 March 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
11 Mar 2014 | Europe and Central Asia, News and features, Russia
RIA Novosti newsroom (Image: Jürg Vollmer/maiak.info Reusse/Wikimedia Commons)
“I just got fired,” a RIA Novosti journalist told Index a few days ago. On 9 December 2013, a surprise decree by president Putin ordered the closure of the state-owned, 73-year-old RIA — one of Russia’s most established news services. It’s liquidation has now kicked in, and it will be replaced by a new agency named Rossiya Segodnya (“Russia Today”), headed by Dmitry Kiselyov, who made his name as an abrasive Kremlin-loyal television personality. Employees have had to choose between staying at the replacement agency or sign redundancy contracts. Most journalists at RIA’s well-respected English service are leaving. They have no intention of taking orders from Kiselyov, who is famous for his homophobic and anti-Western rants. He once said, on TV, that “fining gays is not sufficient — they should not be allowed to give blood, or sperm and in case of a car accident, their hearts should be burnt or buried as useless”.
With 60 offices abroad, RIA was a vast media empire presenting a wide range of information. In April 2013, over 9 million internet users visited its website, which made it the 11th most popular European news website. Christopher Boian, who directed RIA’s foreign language news website and helped make it more dynamic and more respected, told Index: “This was a big state-owned media outlet. It was unique. It seemed to reflect a maturity about the Russian media. We were not anti-Putin or pro-Putin but just trying to look objectively at what was going on.”
Rossiya Segodnya will share its editor in chief with the Kremlin-funded TV news channel RT. It is unlikely to strive for objectivity. In his first speech at RIA’s office, Kiselyov declared: “[Russia’s] post-Soviet journalism is unlike Western journalism in that it does not reproduce values, it produces them.” And added: “Objectivity is a myth which is proposed and imposed on us. Imagine a young man puts his hand on the shoulder of a girl, and in the best case, says ‘you know, I have long wanted to tell you that I regard you objectively.’ Is that what she is expecting? Not likely. In the same way our country — Russia — needs our love.”
In January, Dozhd, a popular independent TV channel which came to prominence for its coverage of anti-government protests in late 2011, was dropped by satellite and cable operators after it caused outrage publishing a poll asking readers whether Leningrad should have been surrendered to the Nazis in order to save hundreds of thousands of lives. Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov declared that the “station had crossed all the limits of what can be tolerated” and that the question posed by the survey was an offence “much more serious from the point of view of morality and ethics”. The channel has now lost around 80 per cent of its audience and, as a result, most of its advertisers. It’s facing imminent closure.
“The situation does not look promising. Things seem to have been orchestrated, as five independent operators dropped us in a matter of weeks, but we can’t prove they have been,” Pavel Lobkov, a veteran journalist who was dismissed from federal channel NTV in 2012 — for what he alleges were political reasons — and found a new home in Dozhd, tells Index. “When it comes to the press, the threat is not direct anymore. The strategy is now more refined. It’s like chess”, he adds.
In February, Ekho Moskvy (Echo of Moscow), one of Russia’s few independent broadcasters, majority-owned by Gazprom-Media — the media arm of the gigantic conglomerate that is one of the bases of Kremlin power — encountered difficulties. Its head was dismissed and replaced by an editor from state media, after a reshuffling of the board of directors tilted the balance in favour of pro-government people. Alexei Venediktov, Ekho’s long-standing editor, has just been reelected by the journalists at the station, though his position still needs to be approved by the board.
“As soon as Putin became president, he moved against the media and made sure national TV was under control – which proved to be a very effective tool,” Maria Lipman, chair of the Carnegie Moscow Centre’s Society and Regions Program, told Index. Financial and legal leverage was used to shut down media outlets that were seen as potential threats. In 2000, the independent TV channel NTV — which had been critical of the war in Chechnya — was acquired by Gazprom-Media, its owner forced to flee the country and its editorial line changed. “What remained were oases of non governmental media. The government was permissive because there was no political opposition. You could make noise, but no one would pick it up,” Lipman adds.
According to her, a new crackdown began in 2012 with the return of Putin to power in the wake of big protests. A series of dismissals took place and a few publications closed down — always explained by economic factors. “Gradually there was a sense that the realm of free expression was shrinking, that there were fewer jobs to be found and more self censorship,” she says.
The recent years have seen an unprecedented increase in the concentration of media ownership, with huge media properties accumulating in the hands of a few Kremlin loyalists. These include Yuri Kovalchuk, a member of Putin’s close circle dubbed “Russia’s Murdoch”, who owns the National Media Group, or Alisher Usmanov, Russia’s richest man (who fired the editor of Kommersant Vlast in 2011 for having published pictures with anti-Putin slogans in an issue alleging election fraud). Usmanov recently acquired control over VKontakte, Russia’s largest social network, whose founder has left Russia. Lobkov tells me he believes the Kremlin’s next target will be the internet. In January, parliament passed a law giving the state powers to close blacklisted websites.
“The Kremlin has been sophisticated enough not to go against individuals or editors. Its favourite tool is to exert its influence through media owners,” Lipman says, pointing out that not every case of pressure against a media outlet necessarily comes from the government, as there are “competitions, personal scores, a combination of factors.” Dozhd owners say their troubles started after they reported on the expensive properties owned by certain Kremlin officials.
“Following recent events in Ukraine, the propaganda on national media has been extremely intense. State media has presented the picture of a fascist coup inspired by the west. For anyone interested there is no shortage of information on the web. When the crisis subsides it remains to be seen whether the outlets that have covered it in a different fashion will be punished,” Lipman says.
Last week, Izvestia newspaper reported that a United Russia party deputy is readying legislation that would, among other things, make it a crime to “allow publications of false anti-Russian information.” The tightening of control over the Russian media is likely to continue.
This article was posted on March 11, 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
