Press Freedom Is Set Back Worldwide p. 28

By: Leonard Sussman

Press Freedom Is Set Back Worldwide p. 28

More nations adopted democratic forms of government,
but press freedom faced significant threats in 1993 sp.

NEVER BEFORE HAVE 107 governments adopted democratic forms, yet the personal freedom of nearly a billion citizens decreased in 1993.
In a clear global trend, ethnic violence and political repression set back individual freedom to a degree not seen in the Freedom House survey since it began in 1972. In that climate, press freedom suffered or was threatened significantly.
With populous democracies such as India, Pakistan and Turkey listed as only "partly free," "free" people drop-ped to 19% of the world's 5.5 billion population; 40.4% are "partly free" and 40.6% are "not free."
Widespread proposals to restrict journalists reflected post-Cold War tensions. The frustrations of some greater political freedom in the absence of economic progress led to problem-prone lawmaking affecting the news media.
In 1993, only totalitarian states defended censorship, yet nowhere in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union or most of Africa was the press free of threats to enforce "responsibility" as defined by government. And this year, European democracies joined that bandwagon.
The end of harsh central controls has not yet produced viable democracies, free-market economies or news media independent of the new ruling parties.
The harshest censorship accompanied bloody fighting in the Balkans, the dictatorial standoff in Haiti and the aborted October coup in Russia. There, despite a new constitutional draft forbidding censorship, President Boris Yeltsin briefly censored even friendly papers, temporarily banned a dozen others, and closed several anti-Semitic and neo-fascist publications.
Paying the ultimate price for journalistic integrity, at least 65 newspeople were killed in 18 countries in 1993. Seven journalists died during the October insurgency in Moscow, 10 fell during military action in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, five died in Somalia and two were killed in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan. Another 45 newspeople were murdered in 15 countries because of opposition to their work.
In Algeria, eight journalists' deaths were attributed to religious terrorists. Five died in Colombia. In Turkey, official action to repress Kurdish demands for autonomy left four journalists and two support staffers dead.
About 1,060 cases of press-freedom violations were reported last year in 101 countries, including the most free nations. Forty-six journalists were kidnapped in 16 countries. About 330 were arrested in 48 nations. Attackers wounded 49 newspeople in 13 countries. Another 41 were beaten and
64 were otherwise assaulted. Death threats were received by 86 journalists in 28 countries. Other harassment was reported by 112 journalists in 37 countries. Since 1988, an average of 66 journalists have been killed each year, and an average of 960 cases of press-freedom violations have been reported.
At the end of the year, of 184 countries surveyed on press practices, 68 had "free" news media (37%), 60 had "partly free" (33%) and 56 had "not free" (30%). This represented a 1% decline in the "free" group from 1992. The drop would be a significant 3%, however, if the survey had not examined for the first time five small Pacific states, which appear in the "free" category.
Left unresolved, even in otherwise free-media countries, was the relationship of the press to the new ruling parties and particularly the role permitted independent media when political strains develop. Yearlong debates about proposed media laws, therefore, alarmed press-freedom advocates.
The best model for a free press was not promoted by democracies. While their governments and journalist and publisher associations offered substantial capital support and training for fledgling news media in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, Western European governments set dangerous legalistic models for the developing democracies.
The Council of Europe considered adopting a code on journalist ethics and a mechanism to regulate press fairness. The Parliamentary Assembly of the council defended the action as supporting truth and integrity in reporting. The International Federation of Newspaper Publishers, known by its French acronym FIEJ, calls it "one of the most profound attacks on the freedom and independence of the press in recent years."
Indeed, the council's call for a "European media ombudsman" was reminiscent of similar demands at United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization forums during the past 20 years. There, developing countries supported by the Soviet Union favored government action to ensure balanced reporting.
UNESCO formally ended such discussions in 1989, and since then, it actively has been promoting press freedom in Africa, Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The United States, which withdrew from UNESCO in 1985, has completed reappraisals and is likely to return in 1995.
There was one bright spot. The European Court of Human Rights in November unanimously ruled that the Austrian government's monopoly on broadcasting was a clear violation of Article 10 of the European Covenant on Human Rights. The covenant guarantees the right of freedom of expression and information.
The court acknowledged that the Austrian broadcasting system had provided diverse and impartial programming but said a monopoly is a restrictive method out of sync in a democracy. The ruling responded to similar claims in developing countries that state monopolies can be diverse and particularly are needed in small countries.
The World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, Austria, in June provided another showdown for press freedom. In advance meetings in Asia and Africa, developing countries signaled that they would reject as Western hang-ups the longstanding definitions of human rights in international covenants. They indicated too that they would rewrite Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration defines press freedom without restrictions.
The final Vienna document equivocates. It offers the media "freedom and protection" ? but "guaranteed within the framework of national law." That leaves news media hostage to domestic politics without the influence of internationally accepted freedom codes such as Article 19.
At the October meeting of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the British spokesman on behalf of the Europeans backed the European convention's restrictions. He said the right to freedom of expression "cannot be absolute, regardless of the consequences."
In the United Kingdom, after sensational violations of privacy by the tabloids, parliamentarians considered but held off applying legislative "cures."
No freedom, indeed, is absolute. There are obvious clashes of rights even in a free society. Free-press advocates argue, however, that it potentially is dangerous for governments or intergovernmental agencies to catalogue possible restrictions beforehand and monitor violations of a governmental code.
This may limit some sensationalism but impose socially undesirable self-censorship by journalists. Whether press responsibility is left to free journalists or government officials depends largely on whether one regards government or the public as the ultimate overseer. If you choose the public, neither government nor journalism should be controlled by the other, libertarians argue. And, as the FIEJ president declared, by taking such steps, democratic states set a bad model for the nascent democracies of Eastern Europe.
These countries, said Mico Gjikhima, Albania's director of Radio Tirana, "are restructuring their organs to adapt to pluralism, but they are still handicapped by the deeply rooted traditions of four decades of totalitarian rule."
In Hungary, journalists and 4,000 supporters in the streets protested the government's cancellation of radio and television programs that criticized official policy. A new draft of a press law would "suffocate Albanian journalism," editors there declared.
The new director-general of Bulgarian television, acting like the new regime in Romania, fired moderate TV programmers and restored communist-faction producers.
Poland's broadcast law stipulates that programs "may not advocate activities contrary to the law or to the interests of the Polish state" or "contrary to morality and the general interest."
Such broad reservations typically sustain censors or self-censors on many public issues.
In the Balkans, where journalists' lives as well as their freedoms are at risk daily, about 80 regional newspeople met in November to plead for help in sustaining independent journalism. They concluded that warring Balkan communities cannot be reconciled without independent electronic media, especially local community radio and TV networks.
As a signal of reality, the meeting condemned the May takeover by Serbian authorities of Albanian press and broadcast facilities in Kosovo.
Turkey remained one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists critical of government policies. Four journalists and two support staffers were murdered and dozens were beaten, threatened with death, arrested, sentenced, fined or had their publications banned or confiscated ? mainly because they support the appeal of Turkish Kurds for autonomy.
The Kurdish militants increasingly gained broad support among Kurds in Turkey. Their call for negotiation with Turkish authorities was reported by Kurdish journalists but rejected by Ankara officials. Violence increased along with ever-stronger bans on Kurdish journalists and publications.
In mid-December, the leading newspaper sympathetic to the Kurds, Ozgur Gundem, was banned for 10 days and most of its staff was detained.
In the wake of the press crackdown during the October putsch in Moscow, publishers and editors of 60 Russian newspapers formed an association to remove obstacles preventing development of a free, independent press in their country. The members, representing many shades of political opinion, discussed practical policies to enlarge press freedom. The focus was on ending press bids for government favors and developing solidarity when a publication is persecuted.
Yet, several messages emerged from the Yeltsin victory in October. The first, transmitted by reinstituted censors, was use of the media to support Yeltsin's choice of parliamentarians. The second, and more hopeful, was Yeltsin's creation of a special "arbitration court" to "protect mass media against unlawful interference in their activities during the electoral campaign and unhindered propaganda for or against candidates."
Nevertheless, during the campaign for parliamentary seats in the Dec. 12 election, the president warned the parties that they would lose the vital boon of free television time if they criticized the Yeltsin-sponsored draft constitution.
The constitution's paragraph on press freedom is the best of several press laws written in the Soviet Union and Russia. The new version does not provide voluminous details fraught with loopholes for potential press-controllers. Which press policy prevails in 1994 may determine whether the new association of Russian editors and publishers can expect substantial freedom or whether self-censorship will rise again.
That syndrome remains the hallmark of most African journalism. In 1993, nowhere was it better demonstrated than in Nigeria. The latest military crackdown, in November, sent new chills through the news media.
The commanding general lifted bans on outlawed news organizations but warned them to be careful about what they report, a classic invitation to self-censorship in a country of sometimes vibrant, diverse journalism.
At midyear, leading African journalists met in Zimbabwe to push for greater press freedom throughout the continent. Two years earlier, UNESCO had called them together for the same purpose. After the meeting, there were some temporary improvements and more official promises of liberation. They were followed, however, by distinct retrogression in many African countries.
In Tanzania, for example, where officials had been promising greater press freedom, the broadcast services formally were declared the mouthpiece of the ruling party. Radio Tanzania, moreover, concluded an agreement with Radio China International, in which the latter would provide the major source of technical, administrative and training assistance in Tanzania.
In Kenya, where rulers boast of improvement in human rights policies, police impounded newspapers; reporters were threatened, attacked and jailed; and, Blamuel Njururi, editor of the Nairobi Weekly Observer, said, "Police informers are in every aspect of Kenyan life. You've got them in almost every newspaper."
After years of harassment and imprisonment, Njehrn Gatabaki, editor of Finance magazine, announced that he no longer could publish. "The government will not give me a chance," said the most persecuted journalist in East Africa.
Ghana, which proclaims itself a democracy, kept state control of all radio and television in 1993. The country's most influential newspapers also are owned by the government.
At the Zimbabwe conference, Rich-ard Steyn, editor in chief of the Star, Johannesburg, the leading South African newspaper, said moves toward democracy in most African countries have been largely cosmetic.
Top posts at African broadcast services are controlled by the state, based on political rather than professional merit, Steyn said.
Nevertheless, SABC, the South African national broadcast service, slowly was opening its leadership and programs to blacks. Most notable, Ivy Matsepe-Casseburi, a black woman who long has fought for liberation, is the new chairwoman of South Africa's broadcast services.
Though the anti-apartheid revolution may not materialize until elections in April, the revolution at SABC was proceeding. Black political leaders were guests on talk shows, though some news bias remained. Higher standards of professionalism in journalism were developing.
Notable media professionalism has developed in parts of Asia: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Hong Kong (though press freedom is diminishing in advance of China's takeover in 1997) and India.
India's press freedom was marred, however, by the growing violence that spawned self-censorship, complete control by the Delhi center of radio and television, and enactment of a new cable law that provides for licensing and implies content control.
"The most striking aspect of the media in India today is the overwhelming extent of state control in which they operate," said K.S. Venkateswaran, an Indian lawyer researching press controls worldwide.
In his 1993 book on Indian media law, Nani Palkhivala declared in the foreword, "Our radio and television are boneless, spineless and gutless."
China moved on two tracks as President Slang Zemin flew west to discuss trade and human rights with President Clinton in November.
On one course, the country opened a 4,700-kilometer domestic fiber-optic telecommunications link, said to be the longest in the world. The cable simultaneously will carry tens of thousands of messages ? probably commercial calls, not mainly the politically risky personal kind.
At the same moment, however, the government restricted foreign television programming, cracked down on unauthorized publication of newspapers and magazines as well as on independent filmmakers, and threatened owners of satellite dishes.
The record in North and South America last year mirrored the global story. "Democracy alone is no guarantee of free expression for either the press or individuals," the Inter American Press Association said in November.
Chile was attempting to impose new educational requirements for journalists. Canada prohibited certain forms of news during election campaigns. That country, Costa Rica, El Salvador and Bolivia used electoral codes to "unreasonably limit political advertising in periods leading up to voting," IAPA noted. Numerous lower court actions in Canada barred the press from reporting important cases, including those focusing on freedom of expression.
Latin America's record of press murders remained high. Five were killed in Colombia last year, three in Mexico and one each in Argentina, El Salvador and Venezuela. A broadcaster of Haitian descent, who supported elected but exiled Haiti President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, was murdered in Miami.
There were some heartwarming signs. Hernan Lopez Echague, an ardent Argentine reporter at Pagina 12, was badly beaten twice in a month for writing that the government, facing an election, was using thugs to attack journalists. After the second attack on Lopez, his colleagues put his name as the only byline on all types of stories in the newspaper.