I found an interesting article on the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists. It is by Zubeida Mustafa and talks about how governments of Asia are reacting to the freedom that digital technology has brought. It starts like this:
“At a time when communication technology has facilitated the flow of information and made it difficult for governments to suppress the dissemination of news, authorities in South Asia are moving against the tide.
They have stepped up their effort to curb access to knowledge and information in a desperate bid to keep the people in the dark. This is a paradox that is difficult to explain.
A recently released publication titled The Fight Goes On: Press Freedom in South Asia 2006-2007, prepared by the International Federation of Journalists, documents the challenges journalists in South Asia have faced. Although erroneously the sub-title speaks of press freedom, the report covers print journalists as well as those working for the electronic and virtual media.
While one can celebrate the fact that the authorities in the eight countries of this region have failed to stifle the press, despite their resort to brutal methods, the question to be asked is: how long can this go on? The IFJ report lists the names and particulars of 143 journalists who were threatened, harassed, kidnapped, physically assaulted or even killed (18 of them) in May 2006-April 2007. Besides many more suffered when their organisation was attacked or there was a clampdown on the media.”
It’s a shame we didn’t find this before the presentation as it goes on to talk about how these governments have targeted journalists. It also goes on to say that the International Federation of Journalists believes Pakistan is the third most dangerous place to be a journalist.
It also talks about the fact that, rather obviously, places of political instability are more dangerous to journalists. In effect, saying that dodgy governments can: “set things right by shooting the messenger so that the message does not reach the people.” This is a really interesting point as today, with technology it is really hard for any information to be stemmed. New technology gets info to the people quicker and easier than ever. The article goes on to say:
“But the media can only expose the wrongdoings of the rulers and inform the people. It cannot actually try the wrongdoer, as a court of law would. Neither can it punish the guilty or provide redress to the victim. These are the functions of a law court, the police and the administration. The fact is that the media can operate effectively only in a democratic milieu when all the institutions are functioning perfectly.”And:
“The IFJ has rightly observed that there can be no press freedom if journalists exist in conditions of corruption, poverty or fear. The IFJ no doubt provides security to the journalists by extending them international support when they are at risk. But it should also help in improving professionalism in the media, especially in countries where journalists are most threatened.”
I wish we’d have said something about technology making it more difficult for governments to stifle the media. In a way it makes journalists safer because traditionally they would be killed before their stories were circulated. Now it is much more difficult to stop this.
T.I
March 13, 2008 at 11:02 am
Good article!
I think we briefly alluded to the fact that technology makes it more difficult for governments to stifle the media in one of the interviews. One of them said something like “the more information out there the better. And it makes it harder for countries like China to stop the spread of information.” BUT that’s definately something we could have expanded on.
I agree with your point that journalist’s stories are more easily circulated, and so, in a way, journalists are safer. BUT I think foriegn reporting is now more risky due to lack of protection from country regimes, military etc, and the very fact that journalists are becoming more of a target for what they say or do. In addition to this the advances in technology have made war reporting more immediate and reporters are always keen to get to the heart of a story. The completion to file a story as quickly and as accurately as possible places more stress and risk on the individual.
LC
March 13, 2008 at 12:16 pm
So, do you think that because of technology it’s easier to see who created which reports and so they are more obvious targets to repressive governments?
TI
March 16, 2008 at 8:57 pm
I don’t think that war reporting as I understand it has really changed that much. Sure the information can be relayed more quickly and we can ship correspondents out a lot quicker than even 20 years ago but as far as the danger goes I think as a journalist you are always necessarily on the front line. I vaguely recall this interview that was doine with some american journalists at the beginning of the Afghanistan War. They had ‘embedded’ themselves with a group of Taliban fighters that were fighting the American troops. They were asked in this interview whether they would have alerted American troops if they’d known theyu were about to be ambushed. When the said they would not have there was an outcry. At the time I was solidly on the side of the outcryers thinking that this was taking journalistica step too far. Now to be honest I’m not so sure anymore. Any thoughts?
EG