First, there is some good news. We wrote two letters that were not protests but congratulations. One went to Raul Castro for releasing 52 of the 75 journalists and human rights workers who had been held in appalling conditions since the roundup of 2003. But, of course, we tempered the congratulations with a demand that the rest of those 75 prisoners and others held for the same activities be released. We also congratulated President Obama for signing the Daniel Pearl Act authorizing the State Department to compile a list of countries violating freedom of expression. We have not yet been able to congratulate him on signing the Federal Shield Law, which he once backed and more recently opposed. But we’ll see what happens when the Senate passes the bill. We also wrote two protests to U.S. authorities, one to the Coast Guard for apparently following BP’s orders to shoo journalists off a polluted beach and the other was to the sheriff of Fort Myers for trying to eject a TV reporter from his news conference.
But these were minor tyrannies. Over much of the world, journalists had a terrifying year. They were murdered and kidnapped by criminals, terrorists and government officials. They were branded as traitors and criminals by more than a few governments. They were faced with new laws that made the normal work of a journalist a criminal offense.
There was of course the horrendous massacre of 26 journalists who were among 57 people massacred in the Philippines on 1 November. The killings and kidnappings go on in Mexico. Last month, five Mexican journalists were murdered and three Mexican TV stations were attacked with explosives. Nine Honduran broadcast journalists were shot to death in a space of four months this year. Journalists are murdered with impunity in these countries, as well as Russia, the Ukraine, and Africa.
We have, of course, written letters to these governments and many others urging them to give journalists better protection and follow through with prosecutions. But we’re also following the attempts by many governments to write more stringent laws and regulations to control the press. Reporters sans Frontiere (RSF) reports that “the amount of Draconian legislation has unfortunately hugely increased within the European Union and elsewhere in the world.” Notably:
- In Italy, the Senate has passed a bill that would restrict the publication of information obtained from wire taps. The bill would certainly make it harder to publish scandalous news about Prime Minister Berlusconi. There have been nationwide demonstrations and strikes against the gag law and I don’t know where it stands now.
- In the Ukraine, which has a terrible record on freedom of expression, President Yanukovich signed a law on “personal information protection.” You can gather any generally available information about a person but you can’t even print his or her name without that person’s permission. This would also seem to be aimed at stopping criticism of the government. Incidents of journalists being roughed up by police, threats to nullify TV licenses also continue in the Ukraine. One journalist has gone missing since August 11. Incidentally, Ukraine’s chief of security is one of the richest men in the country and owns a media empire.
- In South Africa, which would seem to be heading in the direction of real democracy, the ruling ANC is considering a “protection of information law,” which would ban the publication of information deemed against the national interest and punish violators with prison terms up to 25 years. Such information could be covered by broad definitions such as “matters relating to the advancement of public good.” The ANC has been infuriated by the revelation of scandals, some wild but others justified.
Fiji, which already censors its press, has now decreed that all media be at least 90% locally owned. The obvious and only target of this action is the Fiji Times, which is part of Rupert Murdoch’s empire. - Ecuador has made a number of violent and non-violent moves against the press. President Correa considers the media to be treacherous. A new law would be set up, among other things, a national Communications and Information Council, and prohibit the publication of news obtained from “secret” sources.
We have written or are about to write protests to all of these governments, as well as the usual suspects. We wrote four letters to Russia, two to China, two to Pakistan and to eight to various African dictators. In all, our nine FOP members wrote 55 letters in the last year (these letters are searchable by country, year and within the text). This is somewhat fewer than we have written in other years. We are tending to focus more on governments which might care what we write. Of course, we still want to call out any government that commits glaring crimes, such as Russia, or where criminals have impunity, as in Mexico, even though the government is unlikely or unable to react.
As you all know, we have had discussions about how to make the Freedom of the Press Committee (FOP Cmte.) more effective. We cannot possibly match the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) or Reporters sans Frontiere (RSF) or International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX) with their large budgets and resources, but we could sharpen our approach and be less derivative of their work. One thought, advanced by Bob Dowling, is that there be a follow-up to our letters to see how the people we are trying to protect are faring, to get in touch with their colleagues and relatives to show at least that we care. He suggested that we have a data base of press victims; whether they are in jail or being prosecuted, or, in the case of murdered journalists, we could update investigations, if any. We could track changes in the law or government or government policy. The other free press organizations do this to some extent, but very often, they report a case of abuse and then you hear no more. We could provide that follow-up. Of course, considering our size, we would have to focus quite narrowly, and even so, we would need more help than is available now. That is something for the Board to consider.
Respectfully submitted by: Jeremy Main, Co-chair