By: Mark Fitzgerald Overall, press freedom around the world declined for the third consecutive year in 2004 -- and events in the United States helped drag the level down, the New York City-based group Freedom House concludes in a new study.
Just 17% of people in the world live in countries that enjoy a free press, while 45% live where the press is not free, a percentage that increased by 2% in the past year, Freedom House said. Another 38% of the world population lives in countries with a "partly free" press, the organization said.
Measured by the number of nations that shifted between Freedom House's categories of Free, Partly Free and Not Free, press freedom gains outnumbered setbacks, the organization said. But measured by the numerical score it assigns each country, overall press freedom declined, it said, principally because of reverses in three nations of the Americas -- the United States, Mexico, Venezuela -- as well as in Third World nations such as Kenya and Pakistan.
"Freedom of the Press 2005: A Global Survey of Media Independence" is the 15th annual survey undertaken by Freedom House to assess the degree of freedom enjoyed by print, broadcast, and digital media. Each country is assigned a numerical score from 0 to 100 based on three broad categories: "the legal environment in which media operate; political influences on reporting and access to information; and economic pressures on content and the dissemination of news." A lower score equates to more press freedom.
According to those calculations, the United States is rated a 17, which puts it well within the Free range. The United States is tied at 24th place worldwide with Barbados, Canada, Dominica, Estonia, and Latvia.
Freedom House said the United States had declined to a 17 from a 15 a year ago "due to a number of legal cases in which prosecutors sought to compel journalists to reveal sources or turn over notes or other material they had gathered in the course of investigations." The organizations also noted concerns about "official influence," such as the grants paid to several political commentators to promote White House initiatives.
"Even in established democracies, press freedom should not be taken for granted," Freedom House Executive Director Jennifer Windsor said in a statement.
The freest nations in 2004, according to Freedom House were Finland, Iceland, and Sweden, each assigned a score of 9.
At the very bottom of the list of 194 countries was North Korea, rated a 97. Just above the Stalinist hermit state were Burma, Cuba, and Turkmenistan, each rated a 96.
The report was released in advance of World Press Freedom Day on Tuesday May 3. Data from the report and detailed country narratives are available online
at
www.freedomhouse.org/research/.
Of the 194 countries and territories Freedom House assessed, 75, or 39%, were rated Free. Another 50, or 26%, were deemed Partly Free, and 69, or 35%, were rated Not Free.
During 2004, five countries moved up the scale, with Ukraine, Lebanon, Guatemala, and Guinea-Bissau going from Not Free to Partly Free, while Namibia moved from Partly Free to Free.
Two countries -- Pakistan and Kenya ? were downgraded from Partly Free in 2003 to Not Free.
"The Kenya example serves as a reminder that gains in press freedom can be easily and quickly reversed, especially in countries where democracy has yet to be fully consolidated," Karin Deutsch Karlekar, the survey's
managing editor, said in a statement.
Western Europe was the brightest spot in the world for press freedom. Fully 92% of its 25 countries were rated Free, with just two countries deemed Partly Free.
While Asia Pacific is home to two of the worst press environments, Burma and North Korea, it has a relatively high level of freedom, the organization said. Freedom House rated 18 countries, or 45%, Free; seven, or 17.5% Partly Free; and 15, or 37.5% Not Free.
Viewed by population, however, Asia presents a more troubling picture. Just 7% of its peoples live in places with a free press.
Russia remained in the Not Free category, to which it was consigned in 2003 after the government takeover of broadcast media, and its use of legal and financial pressures to intimidate broadcasters.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here