PressEthic

Our Press Ethics class has seen a number of heated debates about free speech in the press, many of which have been based on the assumption that America's First Ammendment makes it a freedom of expression haven, even a benchmark to other countries. At one point I argued against a British compatriot to praise America's free speech society.

Silly me.

The Worldwide Press Freedom Index for 2006 released by Reporters Without Borders has ranked the United States FIFTY-THIRD. Yes, that's right, more than fifty countries have more press freedom than the U.S., which is on a par with Croatia, Tonga, and Botswana.

Four years ago, when the index was first published, the U.S. came 17th, and since 2005 it has fallen nine places in the rankings. What is the cause of this significant relegation? According to Reporters without Borders:

Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.” The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism.

It goes on to remind us of some very disturbing examples:

Freelance journalist and blogger Josh Wolf was imprisoned when he refused to hand over his video archives. Sudanese cameraman Sami al-Haj, who works for the pan-Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera, has been held without trial since June 2002 at the US military base at Guantanamo, and Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein has been held by US authorities in Iraq since April this year.

But if it's any consolation, it's not just the U.S. that is cause for concern among Western countries. Both France and Japan have also had hard falls in the rankings.

Reporters in both countries were physically attacked and threatened by demonstrators and activists last year. In France an "increase in searches of media offices and journalists’ homes [has been] very worrying for media organisations and trade unions." In Japan a newspaper was firebombed.

The "Mohammed cartoons" row also had a significant effect on Denmark's ranking, as serious threats made against the authors of the cartoons caused it to fall from joint first place to 19th. The lower rankings of Yemen, Algeria, Jordan, Indonesia and India were also affected by this issue.

As for those at the bottom of the 168-nation list, RWB says:

Unfortunately nothing has changed in the countries that are the worst predators of press freedom [...] journalists in North Korea, Eritrea, Turkmenistan, Cuba, Burma and China are still risking their life or imprisonment for trying to keep us informed. These situations are extremely serious and it is urgent that leaders of these countries accept criticism and stop routinely cracking down on the media so harshly.

There is a silver lining, however, as a number of less-developed countries have risen up the rankings, with Bolivia leading at 16th position, on a par with Austria and Canada (and thirty-seven places ahead of the States). Furthermore, press freedom improvements in Ghana (34th), Panama (39th), Bosnia-Herzegovina (19th), Haiti (87th) and Togo (66th) have demonstrated the positive effects of regime change.

Indices should always be taken with a pinch of salt. But when they are conducted by a trusted organisation, they can be taken as a good indication. Sadly,the bright side of this year's Press Freedom Index cannot off-set the disturbing trend for press freedom in parts of the Western world. RWB again:

Each year new countries in less-developed parts of the world move up the Index to positions above some European countries or the United States. This is good news and shows once again that, even though very poor, countries can be very observant of freedom of expression. Meanwhile the steady erosion of press freedom in the United States, France and Japan is extremely alarming.