Capital Letter

Press freedom might be having one of its toughest times in recent years. Partly, because of the rise of authoritarian governments across the globe, but partly because of its own errors regarding self-regulation. The paradoxicality on this is that some politicians that rose to power with an ‘anti-political correctness’ speech precisely because they felt ‘censured’ on expressing their ‘opinions’ are the ones who want to regulate the press the most.

According to an interesting current research from the Freedom House, only 33 countries, out of the 210 studied, were considered to have a free and independent media. Unfortunately, this number has decreased during the last decade, according to Sarah Repucci, one of the research leaders, “the trend is most acute in Europe, previously a bastion of well-established freedoms, and in Eurasia and the Middle East, where many of the world’s worst dictatorships are concentrated”.

Although some few countries have improved their score in the press freedom index, most democracies have reduced it. And that is the most worrying fact, for it could discourage the press in other countries fighting for more autonomy. “If democratic powers cease to support media independence at home and impose no consequences for its restriction abroad, the free press corps could be in danger of virtual extinction”, says Repucci.

In 2011, it was revealed that the News of the World newspaper, owned by Australian mogul, Rupert Murdoch, had hacked the phone of a missing schoolgirl. Many more investigations were then unfolded where it was demonstrated that such behaviour was more widespread than what previously thought, what ended up with the Leveson Inquiry. British newspapers had a self-regulatory organ, Press Complain Commission (PCC), that was accused of failing in playing its role properly.

One of the results from the Leveson Inquiry was the creation of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), that caused a good first impression, imposing itself as “the toughest regulator in the Western World”. But then IPSO’s President, Sir Alan Moses, gave a speech going in the same direction as PCC had taken previously and against what many believed to be a step down towards a needed media self-critique. “Government, the powers that be, want to goad you, prod you like sheep into doing what they want. The essence of successful regulation I believe is that it is voluntary. It’s something that you choose to do, not something into which you are driven,” he said.

In the United Kingdom, almost every other profession has specialised statutory regulators, some argue that self-regulation it’s a flawed concept. But the duty of journalism towards society maybe it’s unparalleled by any other line of work. “Journalism is arguably one of the key guarantors of good political governance in serving accountability and playing a watchdog role,” Tambini, 2012. By placing itself as an auditor for wrongdoing, the press has to be careful not to put itself above moral principles.

When this happens, careless actions from the press can entail a frustration from the public and governments what leads to the demand of some for regulation. “If journalists fail to pursue the public interest and ethical restraint, then it is self-evident that arguments that they should be more free are wrong” Tambini, 2012.

Freedom comes with responsibility. That should be the mantra followed by the media when covering any story, especially the ones that can be sensitive to people. The public is entitled to answer the press whenever they feel it is necessary, but now with social media, it became much easier and reactions are amplified almost automatically. The union of the two has an anthropophagic result generating self-feedback to the media.

A very recent example that can embody this, is the reply of David Merritt to the media coverage from the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, and Boris Johnson attempted political use of the murder of his son, Jack Merritt, in the London Bridge terrorist attack last November. David used his Twitter account to criticise both the Prime Minister and the newspapers. He posted a picture of the Daily Mail’s cover which brings attention to the ‘return of convicted terrorists to the streets,’ and wrote “don’t use my son’s death to promote your vile propaganda. Jack stood against everything you stand for – hatred, division, ignorance.”

Notwithstanding, free speech should not be misunderstood with press freedom. In fact, being independent must be the first sought quality for the press instead of complete liberty. “The principle of independence is not a feature of the press per se, however, but of all media and also their regulators. Media independence is more useful than press freedom,” Tambini, 2012.

Being independent means being able to write stories without any restraint to something or someone. But press independence is no carte blanche. “The press should be fully independent, but not free to do whatever it likes, so the freedom is not absolute,” Tambini, 2012.

Currently in South America we have many cases which could illustrate media independency – or the lack of, contrasting with freedom. One of the most suitable examples is the ongoing struggle between the government and the press in Brazil.

Just like the United States President Donald Trump, Brazil’s Bolsonaro is an ardent enemy of the press. Copycatting the North-American, he blocked numerous journalists and media accounts in social media and elected his favourites and trustworthy publishers. Bolsonaro promotes the boycott of media he disapproves of and has threatened to cease channels and newspapers who reported anything against him, regardless if it was a true story or not. He prefers, instead, to go live on his Facebook profile to make announcements and offer his plans for the future.

Yet, the Brazilian media does not take a definitive stand against Bolsonaro, unlike some do in the United States opposing Trump. And that is because the Brazilian press has no independency to perform in such way. They depend on government patronage as well as sponsorships from companies that don’t want to displease their share of customers that support the far-right leaning leader.

Freedom and democracy should not be taken for granted. However, not all is darkness. Some countries, like Armenia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, and Malaysia have improved their democratic attributes in the last few years, press freedom among them. As Repucci says, “like democracy itself, press freedom is not an end state that remains secure once it is achieved—it must be nurtured and defended against the forces that oppose it.”

REFERENCES

Barnett, S. (2016). Press regulation in Britain: a step forward – and a step back. [online] The Conversation. Available at: http://theconversation.com/press-regulation-in-britain-a-step-forward-and-a-step-back-67582 [Accessed 3 Dec. 2019].

David Merritt on Twitter. [online] Available at: https://twitter.com/butwhatifitsall/status/1201288614329692161 [Accessed 3 Dec. 2019].

Repucci, S. (2019). Freedom and the Media 2019: A Downward Spiral. [online] Available at: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-media/freedom-media-2019. [Accessed 3 Dec. 2019]

Tambini, D. (2012). The end of  press freedom, 2012.

Sabbagh, D. (2012). Leveson inquiry: the essential guide. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/28/leveson-inquiry-report-essential-guide [Accessed 3 Dec. 2019].

Waterson, J. (2018). Why is UK press regulation back in the headlines? [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/may/08/why-is-uk-press-regulation-back-in-the-headlines [Accessed 3 Dec. 2019].