Patrick Baz/AFP/Getty Image

Journalists are being imprisoned in Turkey, the Venezuelan media has been brought under government control and in Syria, dozens of journalists have been killed or threatened to silence with torture. The global spread of the internet was originally expected to usher in an age of participation and democracy. Yet, free speech is in a crisis, according to Joel Simon, executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists. And it’s not just free speech that’s under attack, he points out, but also journalists – the last three years have been the most dangerous for journalists in at least two decades.

“We live in a period in which information is incredibly abundant and yet journalists are being imprisoned and killed in record numbers and press freedom is in decline,” says Simon, who has drawn on these findings for his recent book, “The New Censorship. Inside the Global Battle for Media Freedom.”

In his book, Simon outlines several reasons for this situation.

Firstly, the media institutions that used to dominate the news business have lost some of their power, including the ability to protect their reporters.

“The people who are out there today gathering the information are freelancers, some are local journalists and some are just eyewitnesses,” Simon explains. Because they often lack the journalistic experience and institutional safety nets that are crucial when reporting from conflict zones, they are much more vulnerable.

Secondly, social media might be fantastic for finding and sharing information. But it’s also a gold mine for governments wanting to spy on people, Simon says, because it is now “a lot easier to harvest the technology to monitor our communications.”

Finally, journalists are simply not as essential as they used to be.

Previously, when journalists went off to cover a war, they used to identify themselves as journalists because that made them safer, says Simon.  “The best insurance policy they had was their utility.”

Today, the information monopoly reporters long held has ended because technology allows groups, such as the Islamic State in Syria or drug cartels in Mexico, to communicate with the outside world without the help of reporters on the ground.

“Journalists are less important because there are alternative ways of communicating.”

But this isn’t just a problem of war zones or autocratic governments. The same dynamic, Simon says, comes into play even in democratic countries.

According to him, the main obstacle to freedom of expression is what he calls the “democratators” – a term he uses to refer to regimes such as the ones in Turkey, Russia and Venezuela.

These are governments that have often come to power through the ballot box and still enjoy popular support. Once in power, Simon says, they use their support to justify repressive strategies and present their censorship policies as being consistent with international norms.

Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan uses anti-terror laws, for example, to justify prosecutions against journalists.

Venezuela is also an interesting case. The leadership in Venezuela is using the excuse that the media operates in a monopolistic fashion (a claim which Simon says is not entirely trumped up) to shift media ownership to pro-government groups. Several newspapers – including the best-selling Últimas Noticias and Venezuela’s oldest newspaper, El Universal – have been sold to government-friendly buyers.

Press freedom is a global challenge

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives everybody the freedom “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas (…) regardless of frontiers.”

When the declaration was adopted in 1948, it was purely notional, Simon says, but technology has made it real.

People need to think about information as a “shared global resource,” he argues, as information can create deep inequalities when people in some parts of the world have access to it while those in other regions do not.

As a possible solution, Simon proposes a global freedom of speech agenda, supported by civil society groups, government organizations and business. It would be similar to international treaties on trade and climate change.

“There needs to be an awareness that freedom of expression is the defining issue of our time,” he says.

Related onMedia posts

Myanmar journalists cautiously optimistic about press freedom

Press freedom rankings ‘problematic’

Written by Jannis Hagmann, edited by Kate Hairsine

Myanmar’s media sector has opened up remarkably over the past few years (photo: Kyle James)

The country of Myanmar is a complicated patchwork of ethnic groups, languages and cultural identities. Ethnic conflict in the country, also known as Burma, existed even before independence in 1948 and increased under the iron-fisted military rule that began in 1962.

In addition, ethnic media was suppressed by the junta, which increased the sense of marginalization felt by over one-third of the population belonging to an ethnic minority.

But as the country has opened up over the past few years, ethnic media publications have begun to appear, speaking to their communities in their own languages and addressing issues relevant to them. Still, there are a good many hurdles in the way of the creation of a flourishing ethnic media sector, as onMedia’s Kyle James found during two recent trips to the Southeast Asian country.

The media landscape in Myanmar has changed dramatically since President Thein Sein assumed office in 2011 and began a series of reforms to open up the long-time pariah state, including loosening restrictions on the media sector and removing draconian censorship laws.

The one-time military government, which came to power in a 1962 coup, had suppressed local media for decades. The junta made the Burmese language, spoken by a majority in the central parts of the country, dominant in politics, education and the media. Even teaching in ethnic languages was banned. The only ethnic-language media people heard was propaganda on the state broadcaster.

Groups who wanted to publish in their own languages had to do it from outside the country. About a dozen ethnic media outlets set up operations abroad to escape government control.

A new day

Things changed dramatically in late December 2012, when the reformist government lifted restrictions on news publication in ethnic languages as part of its reform drive. Many journalists from ethnic groups heralded the decision as a watershed moment in the country’s history and of critical importance to many of the 135 ethnic groups recognized by the government.

Myanmar is enjoying more press freedom than ever, but there are concerns some people are being left out (photoi: Kyle James)

“Ethnic media lets people get information in their own language and it preserves ethnic cultures and traditions, which are in danger of dying out in some places,” Khaing Mrat Kyaw, a director at Burma News International, told me in Yangon. BNI is an umbrella group of ethnic media organizations that got started in 2002. Based in Thailand, it was finally able to open up an office in Myanmar in 2012.

Many other journalists and editors I spoke to around the country echoed his statements, saying that ethnic communities needed media in their own language about topics relevant to their own lives and communities – not just news focused on the main cities of Yangon, Mandalay and the new capital, Naypyidaw.

The Myanmar State Based Media Guide 2014 lists just under 50 ethnic outlets in the country. The hope is that these publications can regain the trust of ethnic community members, long eroded by acrimonious relations with the central government.

Local media could help local economic and social development, sorely needed in many areas and play a role in peace-building efforts and reconciliation

“But there are still problems,” Khaing Mrat Kyaw said. “Television and FM radio promote only Burmese culture, even today.”

While coverage of ethnic issues has increased some in the mainstream press recently, it’s still quite limited, journalists said.

High hurdles

In fact, while the heavy hand of the government has been lifted, ethnic media still faces a host of other problems.

Mai Democracy of the Chin World Media Group, which publishes a paper focused on the country’s Chin minority, said people in ethnic areas often simply don’t have much access to media. Bad or even non-existent roads in many areas mean newspapers never reach far-flung communities, or get there days late.

Much media coverage focuses only on a few big cities like Yangon (photo: Kyle James)

“Chin State is very poor. People don’t have time to read the paper or the money to buy it, they’re busy trying to survive,” she said.

In addition, decades of suppression of education in ethnic languages have limited the audience for ethnic publications. Some ethnic newspapers publish in Burmese, since fewer people these days can actually read well in their mother tongue. Education levels in some ethnic areas are very low.

Economic survival is a constant worry for many of these publications, which are often teetering on the edge of insolvency, and sometimes have to shut down until they find new sources of revenue and can start printing again.

It can be hard to sell advertising for ethnic media, who have a hard time competing with government-backed outlets with subsidies and bigger commercial publications. Plus, finding qualified reporters is tough since very few people in Myanmar have any journalistic training beyond maybe the occasional one-off course sponsored by an international NGO or media organization.

Despite the challenges, groups like BNI are working to improve cooperation among ethnic media outlets and get them talking to each other and holding regular conferences.

There’s strength in numbers and networks, the thinking goes. And if more people are talking with one another, sharing strategies and information, it’s more likely that ethnic media can finally take its place at the country’s media table.

Author: Kyle James

Photo: flickr/magalie l’abbé

In Cambodia, most media outlets firmly toe the government line. But one area where Cambodians can express themselves freely and receive and share unbiased information is on the Internet. However, a bill drafted in secret by the ruling party could put an end to that. For this year’s World Press Freedom Day, Kyle James examines the possible new restrictions that have press freedom advocates very worried, and possible reasons the government is getting strict.

Here in Cambodia, the media largely fails to fulfill its duty to keep a check on those in power. All local television stations are either in direct government hands or owned by people with close ties to the ruling party. TV news here is filled with footage of officials giving speeches or inaugurating new projects. News about the serious problems plaguing this country of 15 million, such as corruption, forced evictions, land grabs and rampant deforestation, never make the broadcast.

Newspapers are also by and large in the government’s pocket. Radio, too, although there are a few independent stations, but with limited reach. For years, that served the authoritarian government’s interests well. But now, officials perceive a growing threat to their near monopoly on information: the internet.

Until fairly recently, few people in Cambodia, relative to the population, had internet access. It’s a poor country, and 80 percent of the population lives in the countryside. Many are not even on the national electricity grid. But things have begun to change, rapidly. With the advent of cheaper smartphones, better 3G mobile coverage and Facebook, Cambodians have been getting online in droves, especially the younger generation. In 2010, 320,190 were online, according to the Ministry of Post and Communications. Last year, it was 3.8 million.

Photo: Kyle James

In 2011, according to Kounila Keo, probably the country’s best-known blogger, people started sharing info online—news and videos of traffic accidents, land grabbing incidents, protests, etc. These were the kinds of things they wouldn’t see in the media. Then, in 2013, the country’s most popular social media site, Facebook, “blew up with information, videos and texts about events,” Kounila said. “Some people even joke that TV, radio, newspapers belong to the government or companies while Facebook belongs to the people.”

This spooked the government, especially since the social media crowd tends to support the political opposition, which was enjoying unprecedented popularity. Young people used online tools to mobilize, campaign, and openly express criticism that would have been only discussed in private just a few years earlier.

The phenomenon appeared to take the government by surprise. And the ruling party, the CPP, suffered its worst setback in years and the first real challenge to its iron-fisted rule.

Vague provisions, stiff penalties

Last month, the London-based freedom of expression advocate Article 19 got hold of a leaked copy of a draft Cambodian cybercrime law. The government had said back in 2012 it was planning such legislation, but it would not release any information to the public, nor consult with outside experts or NGOs.

If this current draft is signed into law, it looks as if one of the last windows of free expression Cambodians have left could slam shut.

Most worrying to observers is Article 28, which contains a long list of criminal offenses. For instance, content deemed to generate “insecurity or instability” is punishable by one to three years in jail and a fine of up to $1,500, a very large sum in this developing country. Publication of content that slanders or undermines “the integrity of any governmental agencies or ministries” carries a similar penalty, as does posting something that “damage[s] the moral and cultural values of society.”

The jail terms for these transgressions are the same as those stipulated for producing or distributing child pornography.

“The law is vague and it challenges and criminalizes legitimate forms of online expression that, for example, might challenge corruption or wrongdoing by authorities, or are simply critical of the government,” David Diaz-Jogeix, director of programs at Article 19, told me from London.

Concerned journalists

His concerns are shared by several Cambodian journalists I spoke with.

“I think the draft bill will affect the online freedom of expression,” said Sun Narin, a reporter at the independent Voice of Democracy radio and a stringer for Reuters and the Wall Street Journal. “I am so worried about Article 28, which will affect the work of journalists. They will not dare write about sensitive stories.”

Photo: flickr/Stephen Bugno

Suy Heimkhemra, who reports for the VOA Khmer service, says the law will make his job much harder and will hurt information sharing in general. “Everyone is scared that the law will cause them trouble when they post something sensitive,” he said.

Kimsay Hor, who reports for the Phnom Penh Post, says social media like Facebook and YouTube exploded in popularity and often had information critical of the government. “So the government is trying to keep control of these popular social media tools [with this law],” he wrote.

Advocates for freedom of expression are calling on the government to stop the draft’s progress and open up a series of public consultations for amendments. But few think the government will agree to that. Secrecy and closed-door decisions are the norm for the government of Prime Minister Hun Sen, who has been in power since 1985. Calls and emails to the government to comment on the draft for this post went unanswered.

It’s not clear when the draft law could go to the National Assembly and become the law of the land. The government, as so often is the case, is keeping mum. But many suggest it could be this year, perhaps even this summer.

If it does enter the law books, Chak Sopheap of the Cambodian Center for Human Rights, says the space for free expression in the country will become a lot smaller. “The draft law is clearly aimed at cracking down on critical voices.”

Author: Kyle James

DW Akademie’s Holger Hank highlights the four most pressing issues from the perspective of media freedom.

Internet Principles
Do we need a Declaration of Internet Rights?  Do people, for instance, have the same rights online that they have offline? There is currently a lot of debate about establishing a political consensus on what is allowed, accepted, and wanted on the Internet. Such a widely accepted list of principles would serve as a point of reference for national and international rules and regulations – but also for individuals whose right to free expression online is jeopardized.

Here are some key points that should be included in such a list:

• Keep the internet a global entity that should not be separated into different (e.g. regional or national) networks;

•  Participation by all interested parties in Internet governance discussions and decision-making. This means that not only Governments should have a say but civil society and business actors as well;

• Privacy online should protected as much as possible;

• Access to the Internet should be non-discriminatory and transparent.

Surveillance
Following the NSA scandal the issue of online surveillance is still shaking up the online world. Under what circumstances do governments have the right to spy on online communication of their own and foreign citizens? After an intense debate at the recent NetMundial Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in São Paulo, the organizers settled on saying the right to privacy means freedom from arbitrary and unlawful surveillance. This angered many online activists in São Paulo who had pushed for a stronger statement against mass-surveillance on the Internet. The issue of online eavesdropping is of immense importance if the Internet’s promise of more freedom and participation is to be fulfilled. After all, if you cannot trust that your personal communication remains private, more and more people will shy away from the Internet. Journalists and media activists especially have a lot to loose if the Internet becomes a place of state control rather than free expression.

For the Freedom Online Coalition this issue is particularly tricky: One of its members, the United States, is the biggest culprit in the NSA scandal and doesn’t want to restrict its surveillance activities – especially of non-US citizens.

DW Akademie’s Holger Hank

Net Neutrality
Net neutrality means that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally. For example, paying content producers shouldn’t get preferential treatment, thereby making it more cumbersome to access content by small and independent publishers. This could in practice restrict the freedom of expression online. Net neutrality was a very controversial topic at the NetMundial Internet Governance Meeting and no agreement was reached. Prediction: Intense lobbying by big internet infrastructure and content providers will lead to some form of traffic discrimination within the next two years. Without safeguards this could limit access and make it more difficult for independent voices to find an audience on the Internet.

Who runs the Internet?  ICANN 2.0
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an US-based nonprofit organization that coordinates the Internet’s global domain name system which is one of the crucial building blocks of online communication. The United States has recently announced that it would like to transfer ICANN to a yet undefined international body. In the aftermath of the Edward Snowden NSA revelations this sounds like a good idea, but the big question is: what is to replace the US-centered oversight? Perhaps the United Nations? That could give countries with a long history of internet censorship like China more influence on the Internet’s technical architecture. Bad news from the perspective of Internet Freedom. However, setting up an international organization that can act as independently as possible from state interference and safeguard free internet access and usage is going to be very complicated. Expect the US to stay in charge for some time to come. And maybe that’s not so bad after all.

Holger Hank is the head of the digital division at DW Akademie where he oversees the implementation of the ICT-based learning and communication infrastructure. You can follow Holger on Twitter: @holgerhank

© Soe Than WIN/AFP/Getty Images

The media landscape in Myanmar is rapidly opening up. Last year, the government ended the direct censorship of the country’s media after almost fifty years of some of the most draconian press laws in the world. Privately owned newspapers are flourishing and newspaper stands now feature on many street corners. Reporters Without Borders even talked of “historic progress” in its last report on the country’s media health.

One of the few newspapers which was allowed to be published during Myanmar’s military rule was The Myanmar Times. The paper’s managing director, Zaw Win Than, has seen many changes since he first started working there as a journalist in 2006. DW Akademie’s Nadine Wojcik asked him about the shifts in the media landscape since the military junta ended in 2011.

What have been the changes for you as a journalist?
This biggest change is that there is no more censorship. We used to have to show the censors everything – including ads – ahead of time in order to get approval. They marked stories they didn’t like which meant we couldn’t publish them. If we had, there would have been repercussions. We had so many stories that were well researched and written but we weren’t allowed to print them.

How did you react when you heard that censorship had been dropped?
Everyone, including myself, literally jumped for joy. I never thought it could happen and was amazed when it actually did. Nevertheless, even though we can now write much more freely, we still lean towards self-censorship because we’re not always sure how far we can go. My newspaper has applied for a license allowing us to publish a daily edition, but so far we haven’t received one. We don’t know why that is but the current media law isn’t very transparent. On the other hand many new newspapers are now on the market so we’re definitely on the right path.

How are the newspapers doing financially?
As far as I can tell they’re not doing very well. There’s much more competition now and due to Myanmar’s poor infrastructure it’s difficult to distribute newspapers nationwide. Still, The Myanmar Times itself is doing well and we now have more advertisements than before. This has to do with the fact that we’re a quality newspaper and that we offer both an English- and Myanmar-language edition.

What about training programs for journalists?
There aren’t really any. There is a state journalism program but I’m not impressed. Some of the graduates applied to our newspaper and when we interviewed them they in fact knew very little. What we need at this point are good journalism schools and institutes. But we can now at least take part in external trainings and international organizations have been approaching us. Through this DW Akademie project, for example, I’ve gained a number of new insights.

Zaw Win Than has worked at The Myanmar Times since 2006

In Germany many involved in the print media are afraid of competition coming from the Internet. Is this an issue in Myanmar?
Not at this point. Newspapers are still the main medium partly because there’s limited access to the Internet. In fact only two percent of the population have access and it will take at least another decade before access becomes widespread. However, like many publishing houses in Myanmar, we do have our own website but it’s not our priority.

What are your hopes for Myanmar’s media sector ?
I hope more than anything that we will have a free press and that there will be no censorship at all. Although pre-censorship has disappeared, the Ministry of Information still requires us to send them issues once they’ve been published, and so the ministry retains the right to reprehend us. We also need a transparent media law as soon as possible.  The Lower House recently passed a media law but many journalists and media experts feel it doesn’t go far enough. The bill came directly from the Ministry of Information and was the exact opposite of what the independent press council had suggested. Still, I hope that Myanmar will soon have a transparent media law that truly ensures a free press.

Zaw Win Than visited Germany in October together with 10 other Myanmar journalists as part of a DW Akademie research trip to find out more about ways newspapers are developing different models to deal with the print crisis.