Journalists in Turkey face increasing harassment and imprisonment due to a handful of loosely interpreted anti-terrorism laws.

As publicity of the intimidation continues, convincing the Turkish government to enact reforms proves to be a delicate task. A new report published early this month by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) reveals the number of working journalists imprisoned in Turkey has nearly doubled in the past year, bringing the total to 95.

The report, published in conjunction with Reporters Without Borders, details how Turkey has become one of the world’s worst offenders when it comes to jailing journalists. According to the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatović, the number of imprisoned journalists raises serious questions about the level of free expression in Turkey.

Most agree that a handful of broadly interpreted laws are to blame for the majority of the convictions, namely Articles five and seven of Turkey’s anti-terror law and Article 314 of Turkey’s criminal code.

Both legal provisions are designed to target individuals who knowingly create or distribute propaganda on behalf of a known terrorist group, and to punish individuals who join or participate in an armed organization with the aim of harming individuals or conspiring against the state.

Mijatović, who recognizes the right of governments to fight terrorism and protect national security and their citizens, is fearful of government intimidation and its effects on Turkey’s budding democracy. “Objective reporting about all issues, including sensitive topics such as terrorism, is a fundamental part of democratic societies and journalists play an indispensable role by providing information to the public.”

Also at issue is the manner in which journalists are jailed. Turkish courts have been known to impose exceptionally long prison terms, with many journalists facing double life sentences. In addition, journalists often face several trials and are regularly convicted for multiple offences.

Turkey dealt with scrutiny over failing to protect press freedom from numerous organizations within Europe without ever formally acknowledging the accusations. Last November the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) said that among all 47-member states in the Council of Europe, Turkey had the worst press-freedom record. In addition, the ECHR received almost 9000 complaints against Turkey in 2011 for infringing on the rights of the press, compared with 6,500 in 2009. More recently a Columbia Journalism Review poll placed Turkey in the top 10 of countries jailing the greatest number of journalists per capita, ahead of both Iran and Yemen.

While numerous officials have been named in reports, a New York Times article published in January 2012 took a particularly hard line with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, claiming Erdogan is actively seeking to silence his opponents after a failed attempt by opposition members to ban his party in 2008.

The Times article used reports from government officials and Turkish media members who feared Prime Minister Erdogan was “repressing freedom of the press through a mixture of intimidation, arrests and financial machinations, including the sale in 2008 of a leading newspaper and television station to a company linked to the prime minister’s son-in-law.”

What remains to be seen are the long-term effects of the added publicity from the European Union and foreign media outlets in promoting alterations to Turkish law. Reports of released journalists are few and far between, with the last high profile report coming in early March 2011 when four journalists were released pending their upcoming conspiracy trial.

With government officials denying accusations of press intimidation and downplaying the legitimacy of reports of jailed journalists, mediators will need to tread lightly when convincing officials to modify their anti-terror law interpretations.

International Press Institute’s Freedom Manager Barbara Trionfi said this month, “While we welcome Turkey’s rise on the world stage, we are concerned that press freedom in the country is coming under ever greater threat. Turkey has an extraordinary opportunity to shine as an example of a healthy democracy – but this can only be accomplished if the country respects its citizens’ right to information via a free press.”

If ordered by court to reveal a confidential source of information, what should a journalist do?

Should she disclose it, and draw contempt and condemnation from her colleagues in the media? Or should she defy the court ruling and protect her source by all means, abiding by the sacred value journalism ethics?

This is the dilemma that well-known Lithuanian journalist Laima Lavaste  currently faces. With the sword of justice hanging above her head, the uncompliant journalist for the daily newspaper Lietuvos Rytas (Lithuanian Morning) is going through a period of uncertainty caused by her defiance to give in to the demands of justice.

The award-winning Lavaste infuriated judges after writing a series of articles for Lietuvos Rytas last year under the intriguing front-page headline: “The sins of judges are both public and silent.” Quoting a high-profile judge who spoke on the condition of anonymity, Lavaste revealed wide-spread corruption among judges, cases of connivance with prosecutors and authorities, judges’ failure to comply with the Ethics of Judges, and other professional transgressions.

The stories actually supported what many Lithuanians had long suspected: many judges would need to take the stand themselves.

Instead the journalist was sued by a low-rung Vilnius District Court, who accused the journalist of libel and defamation. The court demanded Lavaste to reveal the name of the judge who had broken the ranks and provided her information for her articles.

In defense of the defiant journalist, Lithuania’s Union of Journalists (LUJ) made a public statement denouncing the court ruling.

“According to the current Law on Public Information, Lithuanian journalists must comply with the ethics of journalism. Besides, the LUJ stands by the recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the European Council to EU member states, which defines the protection of sources of information as a crucial condition of media freedom for every journalist,” the LUJ statement read.

“The disclosure of information identifying a source should therefore be limited to exceptional circumstances where essential public or individual interests are at stake and can be convincingly established,” says Dainius Radzevicius, president of the LUJ.

What can the EU do to better protect the confidentiality of journalists’ sources?

The LUJ also noted that EU institutions have always defended the protection of journalists’ sources of information as a basic condition for both the full exercise of journalistic work and the right of the public to be informed on matters of public concern.

During a parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in 2010, Morgan Johansson, a prominent member of the Swedish Parliament, speaking on the protection of journalists’ sources, noted that in a large number of cases, public authorities have forced, or attempted to force, journalists to disclose their sources, despite the clear standards set by the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

Johansson said that the EU member states and the Council of Europe must do more in order to ensure that the standards set by the European Convention on Human Rights are fully respected.

“Only a few European countries have officially recognised the need to protect individuals who have professional relations with journalists. Clear legislation would facilitate the work of law-enforcement authorities and better protect the confidentiality of sources,” he pointed out.

Such a legislation that would be mandatory to all EU member states does not exist in the European Union yet.

Will common sense prevail?

LUJ chairman Dainius Radzevicius,  speaking on the Lavaste case, asks rhetorically “how Lithuania would look like” if Laima Lavaste turned in her informant for the sake of the judicial system..

“If journalists betrayed their sources, people would feel much more insecure, as, for many of them, journalists are the last resort to find justice and truth. If Lavaste broke the principles of journalism ethics, she would be considered as a traitor, and would not be trusted by any media organisation anymore,” Radzevicius says.

He adds the revelation of the informant’s identity would be a blow to the entire Lithuanian journalistic profession.

“The Lithuanian courts are obviously not aware of the EU laws defending journalists. Undoubtedly, they expected the journalist to break down and make her informant’s name public. She did not. In this trial, she is standing not only for herself, but for all Lithuanian journalists,” Radzevicius says.

He stresses that informing the public about possible infringements in the law system is a significant aspect of the defense of society’s interest.

“The recent cases of shady judges who were forced to leave the system are partially the result of Lavaste’s revelations. They confirm the legitimacy of the public’s concern about the judiciary system and the behaviour of some of its servants,” says Radzevicius.

Nevertheless, Radzevicius points out that the Lavaste case is rather “exceptional” than a daily occurance affecting Lithuanian journalists.

The only other similar case dates back from 2003, when Lithuanian journalist Remigijus Bielinskas made published a document from Lithuania’s State Security Department that was deemed confidential. He was ordered by court to reveal his source, but refused to do so.

“I have not been punished for that. But I had long to walk from one law enforcement office to another until I was finally left alone,” Bielinskas remembers.

Lavaste hopes that common sense will prevail and that law enforcement officials will eventually drop their charges against her. She says that some prosecutors have hinted at a possible review of the case.

*Original article written by Lineas Jegelevicius, published by the European Journalism Centre on March 12, 2012

Debates about press freedom have raged often in Albania’s 20 years of democracy.

Now, as the country enters its third decade of democracy, the debate must be waged in a new context.  Journalist Sokol Balla’s new book entitled Freedom of Expression – A European Challenge serves as an introduction to the new course of press freedom in Albania.

In his book, Balla provides several guidelines to consider as press freedom evolves in Albania. He emphasizes the fact that Albanians don’t have the same issues they had 10 or 15 years ago, when the independent press was in its infancy. While Balla doesn’t suggest there is a thriving “media industry” in Albania per se, today’s system of media is highly complex.

At the heart of media freedom in Albania there stands the economic problem from which all the other issues are derived. The first and perhaps most significant problem can be found in financing. Today’s media system is constructed as an industry, and while the system is essentially a business, it operates without the fear of bankruptcy. More than one-third of media funding will arrive through the sale of products or advertisements. The remainder is then provided through sponsorships from those in power, or from trafficking and abstruse segements of the economy.

Most alarming is the failure of journalists to confront the media industry with efforts to investigate sources of funding, as the salaries of those working in the media would be reduced by at least two-thirds, and jobs would be cut.

In Albania, new conditions produce different circumstances for economic and cultural development. More than ever we may see the media system become part of the service industry, as an extension of economic and marketing groups.

In this situation, new issues related to freedom of expression become more complicated and cynical questions must be raised. For example, when the media does not justify itself financially, is it worth having a sense of tension between journalists and funding sources? In addition, does freedom of expression suffer when the media is funded by economic groups possessing distinct marketing interests?

Balla’s final point is related to the rapid appearance and development of public relations in the era of mass communication. All societal actors in Albania – economic, institutional and the like – have begun to intensively develop their public relations accumen, even though Albania has little experience in the free market of expression. Critical questions must be raised concerning the point at which information on products and services is transformed into advertising. We must then ask where the line falls when coverage of governmental activity can be considered transparent and when it is considered propaganda. And finally, how will the future of media ethics evolve with the new context of public relations and marketing?

Balla poses these considerations in order to encourage Albanians to ponder beyond the traditional realms of media known in Albanian society, with the hope that they may eventually come to embody this “European Challenge.”

As the EJO continues its eastward expansion, we’re pleased to announce our latest language version, EJO Romania.

In the following article, Alina Vasiliu, our Romanian Web Editor, provides an overview of the Romanian media landscape, past and present.

The year 1989 marks a distinct turning point in Romanian mass media. It signifies the full stop in all areas of Romanian society, a year when communist media institutions disappeared, soon to be replaced by democratic institutions. Nearly all of Romania’s media outlets changed their names to replace demagogic communist labels, deciding instead to incorporate the word “free” in the new titles, for example: Free Youth (national newspaper), Free Romanian Television  (public television) Free Life (newspaper in Galati), and Free Mind (newspaper in Constanta). The newspaper The Spark became The Truth. The only publication that didn’t require a name change was România Liberă (“Free Romania”), although its epithet certainly acquired a different meaning in December of 1989.

Journalism Professionals

Unfortunately, while the names of the media institutions changed, in most cases the staff remained the same. Pre-revolutionary journalists – obliged to write as commanded under the terror of censorship – became post-revolutionary journalists, behaving aggressively enough to equal the previously manifested docility. During this short period of transition to democracy, journalists took great liberties in violating rules, writing anything about anyone without sanction. Heads of the publications changed, but those who coordinated and censored journalists before the revolution didn’t disappear, rather they remained dormant only to reappear a few years later at the helm of many media outlets. Those who took leading positions in 1989 were hardly “model” journalists, as attitudes and reflexes induced by too many years of survival under communism hadn’t suddenly vanished.

Hence, the most promising option for the future of Romanian journalism may be to completely replace the generation educated in the “golden age,” to turn instead to young journalists ready to apply rules acquired in universities rather than habits borrowed from older colleagues.

Deontology

An important sociological study (“Media Self-Regulation in Romania” conducted in 2009 by IMAS, the Center for Independent Journalism and Active Watch) revealed many deviations from generally accepted professional standards. Thirty-one percent of journalists admitted to being forced to pursue advertising contracts themselves as though they were commercial agents. Many also claim it is difficult to rectify an error in the media. Forty-three percent agree it is difficult to verify information from several independent sources, and 33 percent say it’s hard to present the views of all parties involved in a particular issue. Most journalists recognize that professional standards are not met in the press, and 60 percent of journalists say this is because of political pressure. Other potential causes listed are the insufficient training of journalists, the influence of employers, commercial pressures, and the opacity of state institutions. Half of the journalists are not aware of any “code of ethics,” and 17 percent say that certain topics are taboo in their newsrooms.

Professional issues in the press culminated with several scandals, prompted first by the 2009 release of transcripts documenting a recording wherein two famous journalists, Sorin Roşca Stănescu and Bogdan Chirieac, attempted to blackmail a public figure.

The following year saw the release of controversial transcripts of Sorin Ovidiu Vântu’s – owner of Realitatea TV, one of the first Romanian television stations – conversations with journalists and politicians. Beyond the contextual political significance of the transcripts, they revealed the subordination and even servility which can exist between journalists and media owners.

At a 2011 conference in Bucharest held by the Romanian Federation of Journalists, MediaSind, President and CEO of TVR Alexandru Lăzescu explains, “In addition to the clear economic weakness of the media, the ethical standards have also completely collapsed, while the overthrow of values receives an air of normality. To what extent are the media media and is the journalist a journalist and not a weapon? If someone is called a journalist it does not mean that journalism is what he does. For nearly 10 years there has been a phenomenon that is hollow inside and eats away at media credibility. The press blackmails in Romania – though less in Bucharest – are practiced with great skill in this country. There are clear patterns applied. I know people who are exasperated by what is happening. It has grown to a sophisticated, orchestrated attack.”

It works like this: Journalists investigate and uncover negative facts concerning a particular public figure. They then offer never to disclose the information to the public in exchange for money or advertising for their publications. There are also situations when the blackmailed individuals occupying important positions in state organizations are forced to provide confidential information.

Lăzescu – who maintained his position as a professor of journalism despite being appointed to head Romania’s public television – confesses to encountering difficulties in communicating with his students, as the students realize that what is taught in university contradicts the reality of journalistic practice.

Press Freedom

Even in this context, all non-governmental organizations and press associations cling to the idea that journalists do not need to be regulated by law, as this would create preconditions for limiting the freedom of expression. Even if a bill were to be developed and debated by journalists, there remains the belief that once inside the Romanian parliament “mixer,” politicians perceiving the press as a menace would irreparably taint the legislation.

Due to a constant lobby from the industry organizations, primarily against Articles 205 and 206 of the Penal Code which condemn insult and slander, the law has not been a threat to freedom of expression in Romania since 2006. Nevertheless, Romania is ranked only 52nd in the global Press Freedom Index (2010) conducted by Reporters without Borders, down two places from the previous year. According to this ranking, press freedom has declined for the third consecutive year (2007 – 42nd place, 2008 – 47th place,  2009 – 50th place, 2010 – 52nd place).

Journalistic freedom in Romania is limited not by laws, but by the media outlets in which they operate. The absence of a regulating law or self-regulating institutions may have led to the increase of the press blackmail phenomenon and to “the suffocation of relevant and verifiable editorial content by manipulative journalism, partisan opinion and information turned into entertainment,” as the FreeEx report “Press Freedom in Romania – 2010″ revealed.

Among many others, one of the challenges faced by post-revolutionary countries concerns journalism and the media.

A free, pluralistic, and responsible media is a prerequisite for a functioning democracy, and requires, in turn, a base of qualified contributors – professional journalists and citizen stakeholders alike. Yet to achieve this is anything but simple.

At the recent Brussels conference Media Futures – Policy, Politics and Power, organised by the European Neighbourhood Journalism Network (ENJN), it was Polish journalist and civil rights activist Konstanty Gebert who drove this point home most emphatically. He warned that the transition to a free and democratic media system may be almost as difficult for revolutionaries themselves as it usually turns out to be for the former mouthpieces of defunct authoritarian regimes.

Flipping the switch

“We all have lived in countries which had official journalism that looked like the real thing, the way a stuffed bird might look like a real bird – except it can’t fly,” Gebert said. Irrespective of their individual degree of guilt and depth of involvement, journalists who used to serve the old system typically cannot simply flip a switch and instantly, if ever, provide appropriate coverage under the new auspices. Still, many of them tend to keep their jobs at least for a while, either due to the inertia of existing publishing outlets, or because their know-how remains essential to keep news organisations running at all.

At the same time, the proponents of political change – i.e., the victors of the revolution – need to adapt fundamentally to the new situation as well, lest they all too quickly forfeit the legitimacy and credibility they earned hard in their time as underground activists. They must avoid succumbing to self-righteousness and patronising, while being careful not to let the rush of newly found liberties get to their heads either.
Gebert spoke from experience. After in 1989 the Solidarność movement had successfully toppled the communist regime in Poland, formerly underground journalists learned that they had to scrutinise their own friends, who now ran for government office, just as closely as they used to investigate the communists. Readers actually protested when Gazeta Wyborcza (literally the Electoral Gazette, which had emerged from Solidarność) started backing specific candidates – fed up with being told what to think, the audience craved for impartial information and analysis.

Principles of journalism

And yet, post-communist Poland benefited massively from the extensive network of clandestine opposition media that had existed in the country under the old regime. “The only thing we in the underground had going for us was credibility”, said Gebert. “If the government caught us lying just once, if they could prove that underground press was not telling the truth, our credibility would be in tatters… We learned the hard way the principles of professional journalism.”

Other countries in a similar situation – Gebert quoted the example of Romania, but the Arab Spring region comes to mind, too – do not necessarily have this kind of a self-trained, seasoned, and quasi-professional journalistic workforce to fall back on. Such a deficit makes it all the more difficult to launch a free media system and to thoroughly reform the ways of journalism. Political value judgements aside, even the most well-intentioned incumbent reporters may find it tough to adapt to new ways of thinking and working.

This is, of course, not a specific problem of journalism. Just think of how outdated industries tend to stick stubbornly to their accustomed business practices until abandoning them for good has become glaringly unavoidable. However, once it comes to state-building, the issue is more serious than where it is merely about the continued existence of some business sector. In the words of Konstanty Gebert: “It’s not democratic institutions that create democracy, it’s democrats. It’s not a formally free media system that ensures that you get free media, it’s independent professional journalists.”

European lessons learned

It appears that some insight from such first-hand experience has managed to trickle into the European Union’s institutions. Under the neighbourhood policy budget for the next years, a portion of funding is specifically earmarked for actions to raise awareness of journalism ethics, media independence, and good working practices in the entire region, but with particular emphasis on the Maghreb – certainly not an easy task. While the EU and its private contractors (such as the ENJN organisers) must take the utmost care not to patronise aspiring or experienced journalists, there remains the challenge to stimulate an intrinsic change of attitude in media actors who may not even realise their need to develop a new perspective (including, possibly, their take on citizen journalism and social media).

The European Union has all the prerequisites to achieve this, as long as it manages to translate its own experience into action wisely. Over the current financial woes, it is easily forgotten that the very foundations of the EU lie in first overcoming the seemingly insurmountable enmity between European states after the Second World War, and later in the integration of post-communist Eastern Europe, rocky though actual progress in some cases may be. The many specific flaws aside, Europe is visionary and, overall, magnificently successful in this respect.

The EU’s history can thus become a highly credible source of inspiration for countries now going through post-revolutionary and post-war transitions. As Dagmar Hovestädt, spokesperson of the German Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Archives, emphasised, the best – if not only – way to achieve this may be to openly share best and worst practice and then to work out with the appropriate representatives of the countries concerned what lessons can be learned and how they can be applied to their situation.

Revision of policy

It is precisely the EU’s own domestic track record that also provides the rationale for insisting on peace-building and reconciliation between conflicting countries, no matter what. Arab participants at the conference asked, for instance, how Israel could be included in the programme, and a few journalists even refused to be in the same room with their Israeli colleagues. However, building on the tradition of the European integration process, EU policy may actually be at its best where it is inclusive by default.

In his speech at the conference, Štefan Füle, the European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), acknowledged that for too long the EU had believed long-term stability could be guaranteed by non-democratic regimes, implying that it had given economic and power interests a higher priority than democracy. For the revised ENP, Füle pledged a new commitment to civil society, freedom, and the rule of law. When the ENP was originally launched in 2007, he said referring to the EU’s funding programme for activities in neighbour countries, “we focused on the instrument. This time we have focused more on the endgame.”

Indeed, the ENP is, in principle, based on the blueprint of the seminal Enlargement Policy, but Europe’s trust and credibility in the region have suffered a great deal from ill-conceived political manoeuvring (including cosying up to the late Muammar Gaddafi). By making recourse to the European values in earnest, perhaps the damages can be repaired and the citizens’ respect recovered.

This applies not least to providing appropriate support for journalism and the media, too. Dependable, trust-inspiring news media are indispensable for meaningful and sustainable political reform in the neighbourhood countries, yet will remain extremely precarious for years, if not decades, to come. Still, to quote Konstanty Gebert again: “Somebody who has witnessed 1989 no longer has the right to be a pessimist… If we made it, you can!”

This article was originally published on on Eric Karstens’ blog and on the website of the EJC. Please note that the author Eric Karstens is involved in the ENJN project as a tender writer for the EJC.

How the news in Belarus remains…upbeat.

A few weeks ago Sovetskaya Belarussia – the most widely circulated daily in Belarus – ran a lead story proclaiming the country’s GDP had risen a glorious 9.8 percent since January and that exports hit record levels of $20 billion over the past seven months. To be quite gentle, this is a generous report. The paper’s next story goes on to detail the remodeling of ATM machines in Belarus to better suit the needs of its handicapped citizens who, apparently, find the burden of withdrawing cash exceedingly irritating. Not because the national currency has crashed, of course, but rather because it’s just so terribly inconvenient to fumble around with an ill-placed keypad.

Journalist Tom Balmforth, who describes Belarus as a “population hungry for reliable information amid the sea of state-sponsored propaganda,” uses Sovetskaya Belarussia’s reporting to illustrate the widening gap between information presented by state-run media outlets and the information needs of a country deep in economic crisis. He believes Belarus’s bountifully subsidized state media has increasingly distanced itself from the authentic realities of everyday Belarusian life.

The offense of dramatically divergent “official” news narratives is, of course, commonplace and hardly limited to Eastern nations (WMDs, anyone?). However, in consulting the 2010 Press Freedom Index, journalism’s vulnerability in Belarus does seem to adopt a particular urgency, as it surpasses only 24 countries (out of 178 total) in ranking. Belarus is more or less the Waterworld of press freedom.  Not the worst, per se, but still pretty awful. As testament, authoritarian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka received the prestigious title of prédateur, awarded by Reporters Without Borders to an elite handful of repressive scoundrels. Lukashenka landed the honor after his controversial “reelection” on December 19, 2010, wherein throngs of journalists covering the event were arrested and beaten by police. Physical violence is surely a mark of severity, however it doesn’t end there. This past July a number of popular Russian songs featuring “dissident undertones” were banned from airwaves amid protests against Lukashenka’s regime.

According to Reporters Without Borders, “The state monopoly of all printing and distribution networks [in Belarus] allows for instant crackdown on journalists who try to rock the boat. Selective granting of accreditation forces many foreign media outlets and their local correspondents to work illegally, making them even more vulnerable. More than ever, the only option is to go underground, returning to Soviet-era ‘samizdats’ (forbidden material copied and distributed clandestinely).”

Belarus’s state media may coat a gloss of sunshine over what otherwise appears to be a rather grim forecast, but are Belarusians falling for it?

As far as Balmforth is concerned, the answer seems to be no. In a recent article published by Radio Free Europe, he discusses how a suspiciously cheery state media seems to have forced the population toward alternative sources of information.  “As the crisis continues to deepen,” writes Balmforth, “this has led to a rise in demand for the low-circulation newspapers and news websites produced by the country’s feisty, yet beleaguered, independent and opposition press.”

For more alternative news from Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Balkans, Belarus, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, North Caucasus, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, Tatar-Bashkir, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan, see Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty where journalists provide reportage when a free press is banned by the government or not fully established.

A reason for the Swiss to be proud.

In the most recent ranking of Transparency International, Switzerland lands in a group of 10 nations perceived to be least endangered by corruption. Denmark, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands and Norway are the other European nations belonging to the club, while Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore make up the rest.

In another global ranking, the state of press freedom is analyzed annually by Reporters Without Borders. Here, Switzerland slid into the #1 position – together with Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. Austria and Ireland make the top 10 along with Estonia, the only country from the former Soviet Empire to score so high. The only non-European nation to make the top ten is New Zealand.

Analyzing the two rankings in greater detail, the following findings might be of interest:

• Europe, North American and Oceanic countries hold strong positions in containing corruption as well as in guaranteeing press freedom. It is obvious that press freedom and affinity to corruption are correlating negatively. Singapore is, by the way, the only country in the world to successfully fight corruption without high marks in press freedom.

• Inside Europe the North/South and the East/West gap is dramatic. Switzerland’s three large neighbors (Germany, France and Italy) score quite differently: In the anti-corruption ranking Germany arrives 15th and France at 25th. Italy lags far behind at 67th – one position behind Rwanda and ahead of former Soviet satellite Georgia. Concerning press freedom, Germany ranks 17th, France 44th and Italy 49th. 
• At the bottom of the corruption table are Sudan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Myanmar and Somalia as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, the two countries which may have suffered from war most during the last years. Bringing up the rear in terms of press freedom are Syria, Myanmar, Iran, Turkmenistan, North Korea and Eritrea.

The correlation between a high degree of press freedom and reduced susceptibility to corruption is so impressive one might conclude the latter is caused by the former. Experience, however, reminds us to be cautious with such generalizations: If the number of newborn children decreases along with the number of storks, this doesn’t necessarily prove it’s storks bringing babies into the world.

Susceptibility to corruption is, at first, a question of ethics – and thus of socialization and socio-political culture. Yet economists make a good point in arguing that corruption will spread where it pays off. And whether it provides the desired “return on investment” depends heavily on the probability of being caught engaging in corruption and what the potential sanction will be. Knowing an independent press might discover and scandalize corrupt actors probably remains the best prevention against corruption. To become effective, guaranteed press freedom is – however – just one precondition. The other is the financial independence of journalism and sufficient capacity for investigative research.

For many decades the latter was subsidized by the advertising industries. As they’re able to produce higher-quality, targeted work today with the help of social networks and search engines, the investigative capacity of journalism is vanishing in the Western democracies of Northern America and Europe at a rapid pace – and therefore the value of press freedom is also decreasing. Thus, the laurel for Switzerland may wither before we even realize we’ve earned it.

Published in Werbewoche, November 4th 2010

Paris-based NGO

Last year was a particularly grim one for journalists, as the number of murdered reporters rose 26 percent, while violence against journalists increased by a third. This year the Press Freedom Index casts a glaring eye on Europe, noting particular concern about the deteriorating press freedom situation in the European Union, as 2010 saw several EU countries take a dive in ranking.

According to Reporters Without Borders secretary general Jean-François Julliard, “It is disturbing to see several European Union member countries continuing to fall in the index. If it does not pull itself together, the European Union risks losing its position as world leader in respect for human rights. And if that were to happen, how could it be convincing when it asked authoritarian regimes to make improvements? There is an urgent need for the European countries to recover their exemplary status.”

The report places 13 of the EU’s 27 members in the top 20, however it appears the other 14 are slinking toward the shameful side of the index. Italy rolls in at 49th, Romania at 52nd and Greece and Bulgaria tied up at 70th. Notes Julliard, “There has been no progress in several countries where Reporters Without Borders pointed out problems. They include, above all, France and Italy, where events of the past year – violation of the protection of journalists’ sources, the continuing concentration of media ownership, displays of contempt and impatience on the part of government officials towards journalists and their work, and judicial summonses – have confirmed their inability to reverse this trend.”

Yet things are looking up on top.  Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland ranked highest, applauded for their efforts in facilitating press freedom. Iceland chalks up special points for the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative (IMMI), a bill aimed at offering an unprecedented level of protection for the media. Sweden’s Press Freedom Act deserves similar kudos for helping to secure an amicable climate for journalists, providing shelter from judicial abuse.

On the bum end of the stick Rwanda, Yemen and Syria joined Burma, North Korea, Eritrea, Iran and Turkmenistan, listed as the world’s most repressive countries towards journalists.

See Reporters Without Borders for more.

Study finds restrictions on press freedoms tighten across the globe.

Freedom of the Press 2010: A Global Survey of Media Independence, a study conducted by Freedom House, an independent watchdog organization, registered declines in press freedoms in nearly all corners of the world. This is the eighth consecutive year such declines were recorded by Freedom House, where a sorry one out of six persons is considered to be living in a country that can claim a free press. In fact the only region to boast improvement is Asia-Pacific, where gains were attributed to transformations in Bangladesh, Bhutan, and the Maldives.

Restrictive laws, violence against journalists, political conflict and heightened governmental grasp on Internet freedoms are among the standard batch of explanations for freedom’s grim status. The “globalization of censorship,” was also indicated, specifying countries like China and internal groups like the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

See IFEX for more on the study.

How oppositional journalists and bloggers inform, discuss, and bypass censorship in Iran – all the while risking their lives.

What influence does the Internet have on the formation of public opinion in Iran? Such a question arises with regard to Iran’s backdrop of repression, constricted freedom of expression and government-influenced media. Samira Kügler from the Institute of Journalism at the University of Dortmund, Germany, examines this question in her diploma thesis as she interviews eight oppositional journalists and bloggers, three of whom spent time living in exile. Identities of the interviewees remain anonymous.

Planned well in advance, the interviews occurred (coincidentally) during the most severe riots Iran has experienced in 30 years – incited by the controversial June 2009 presidential elections. Mass demonstrations against the visibly manipulated elections appeared on the agenda as well as the violent suppression of protests by government troops and the detention of hundreds of oppositionists, among them many bloggers and journalists.

Providing a synopsis of her findings, Samira Kügler writes:

“Freedom of speech and oppositional journalism critical of the government would not be imaginable in Iran without the Internet.

The journalists I interviewed utilise the World Wide Web as a main resource for their research. Here, they find information that does not exist in any other medium because print and broadcast outlets are state-controlled and censored. The Internet has become the most important publishing platform for underground journalists. It is an opportunity to publish reports that are governmentally restricted and wouldn’t otherwise be published in official media. Furthermore, the Internet gained importance as a free forum where journalists can communicate with colleagues in Iran and abroad as well as with their audiences.

The Iranian government has one of the most extensive Internet filter systems in the world and deprives Iranian citizens of much information. However, the journalists interviewed are aware of several technical tricks which allow them to gain access to censored content and to then make it accessible to large audiences. Thus, the oppositional journalists have become an important component of the Iranian counter public. They enrich the public opinion formation process – at least in the portion of the population that can access the Internet (35 percent of Iranians thus far).

Aside from the journalists, many Iranians with Internet access utilize the Internet as an outlet for freedom of expression – particularly as they are able to write anonymously. In several Iranian blogs citizens discuss banned music and films from democratic-liberal states or domestic and external issues of Iranian politics.

While leeway for criticism in civil society’s public spaces becomes increasingly limited, critical activities are migrating to the Internet. Non governmental organisations and citizens’ groups network in the World Wide Web and organise political activities. All these components created a form of “cyber counter public” which may influence the country toward a more open, Western-orientated society with a pluralistic structure of information and communication.

The Iranian government, however, has done its utmost to limit the potential of the Internet and to hinder the development of freely expressed opinions and information. This was particularly visible throughout the course of the presidential elections and the resulting constraints of freedom of expression. Thousands of Web sites were blocked, filtered and censored. Hundreds of bloggers, government-critical journalists and opposition politicians were arrested, tortured, threatened and even murdered. For the journalists I interviewed, to write critical texts meant to risk their own lives.

In the election year, journalists took more caution than usual. Even on the Internet self-censorship increased and the bravest journalists wrote under pseudonyms. Explosive topics they were able to cover a few months ago – such as religion – suddenly became taboo again. Internet communication inside and outside Iran no longer felt free, although it was a safer outlet for expression than actual public spaces.

Many journalists and bloggers continued to publish critical contributions despite all threats. However, being confronted with arrests and tortured colleagues discouraged and disillusioned many critical online journalists and bloggers. The first wave of euphoria associated with utilising the Internet was put in perspective.

Despite all restrictions, the Internet executed many important functions in Iran that are relevant to the formation of public opinion. Aside from the officially banned satellite television, the Internet has been the only medium that offers rudimentary independent information. It has been vital to communication among government critics, oppositional journalists, activists and for individuals both within Iran and abroad. The Internet serves as one of the remaining possibilities for publishing opinion – even as it grows increasingly dangerous.”