DOCSLIB.ORG

A Systematic Analysis of the Discrepancies Between Press Freedom As Measured by Reporters Without Borders and Freedom House

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Systematic Analysis of the Discrepancies Between Press Freedom As Measured by Reporters Without Borders and Freedom House A Systematic Analysis of the Discrepancies between Press Freedom as Measured by Reporters Without Borders and Freedom House Lee B. Becker James M. Cox Jr. Center for International Mass Communication Training and Research Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication University of Georgia U.S.A. Laura Schneider Graduate School Media and Communication Department of Journalism and Communication Science University of Hamburg Germany Tudor Vlad James M. Cox Jr. Center for International Mass Communication Training and Research Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication University of Georgia U.S.A. ABSTRACT Since 2002, Reporters Without Borders, based in Paris, and Freedom House, based in New York, have conducted parallel, and ostensibly independent, measures of press freedom around the world. Across those years, the two nongovernmental organizations have produced measures that are extremely highly correlated. Perhaps because of the high correlations, no systematic analysis has been conducted of the discrepancies. This paper does just that, focusing on discrepancies that are consistent year-to-year as well as those that do not replicate. By using the textual summaries of discrepant cases, the authors attempt to understand the differences as a way of illuminating consistencies and discrepancies in the methodologies of the two evaluators. Paper presented to the international conference Media and the Public Sphere, Lyon, France, July 2-3, 2012. Introduction Two organizations currently produce quantitative measures of media freedom around the world based on the work of professional evaluators. The best known and most widely used measure of press freedom is that of Freedom House (FH). A nongovernmental organization based in Washington, D.C., Freedom House was founded in 1941 to promote democracy globally. In 1980, Freedom House began conducting its media freedom survey Freedom of the Press: A Global Survey of Media Independence which in 2011 covered 196 countries and territories (Freedom House, 2011). The second organization that rates media freedom globally and ranks countries based on these evaluations is Reporters Without Borders (RWB). Reporters Without Borders has released annually since 2002 its media freedom survey Press Freedom Index, which in 2011 covered 179 countries and territories (RWB, 2012a). Based in Paris, RWB defends journalists and media outlets by condemning attacks on press freedom worldwide, by publishing a variety of annual and special reports on media freedom, and by appealing to governments and international organizations on behalf of journalists and media organizations. One criticism of the FH ranking is that it reflected U.S. perspectives on economic and political pressures on the media in different countries and on their judicial systems. The creation of the RWB index has been an alternative tool to the FH ranking. Both of these indices have been widely used by governments, nongovernmental organizations and, more recently, by media scholars. They also have been repeatedly challenged and contested. In Germany in 2006, for example, the political opposition blamed the ruling coalition for doing nothing in order to strengthen the “defaulted and endangered” press freedom in the country, when Reporters Without Borders downgraded Germany by five ranks (Spiegel Online, 2006). When Freedom House changed the status of the Italian media from “free” to “partly free” in 2009, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s spokesman Paolo Bonaiuti said in a plenary session of the European Parliament: “The left has made them (the press freedom indices, author’s note) become famous like Pink Floyd. (…) Why do 27 left-wing European MPs accuse Italy over a lack of 1 freedom of information when everybody knows it’s not true?” (adnkronos, 2010). When Malawi plunged 67 places in the RWB index in 2011, the presidential and the government spokespersons strongly argued that the report was biased and did not reflect the media reality in the country (Media Institute of Southern Africa, 2012). Two professors at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication criticized the most recent RWB ranking of the U.S. (Grobmeier, 2012). They argued that the arrests of journalists who participated in the “Occupy” movement should not have led to a drop of 27 places in the index. The Freedom House measure for 2011 showed only a drop of one point in the country’s rating. Despite the challenges to both measures and the discrepancies between them, relatively little analysis has been done comparing the two indices (Becker, Vlad and Nusser, 2007; Becker and Vlad, 2011). This paper focuses on those similarities and differences. Freedom House and Reporters Without Borders Measurement Both the Freedom House and the Reporters Without Borders global press freedom indices are generally based on the principles constituted in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights approved by the U.N. in 1948, although RWB does not state that explicitly. Freedom House, however, claims that its study is based on “universal criteria”, taking as a starting point “the smallest, most universal unit of concern: the individual” (Freedom House, 2011). Although neither of the two organizations provides a detailed definition of its concept of press freedom, the methodology sections of their reports indicate what the respective indices attempt to measure. Freedom House’s Freedom of the Press index has an institutionalized perspective and seeks to detect the various ways in which “pressure can be placed upon the flow of information and the ability of print, broadcast, and internet-based media to operate freely and without fear of repercussions” (Freedom House, 2011). Thus, it aims to provide an idea of the entire enabling environment in which the media in each country operate. Freedom House uses three broad categories in order to measure the status of press freedom in the almost 200 countries included in the index: the legal environment, the political environment and the economic environment. Every category comprises between seven and eight 2 methodology questions that are filled out by the evaluators. The legal environment category “encompasses an examination of both the laws and regulations that could influence media content and the government’s inclination to use these laws and legal institutions to restrict the media’s ability to operate” (Freedom House, 2011). Hence, this category includes questions about the protection of press freedom through the constitution and other basic laws, the independence of the judiciary, Freedom of Information legislation as well as about the market entry for all kinds of media. The political environment category evaluates “the degree of political control over the content of news media.” Issues examined include the control over sources, censorship and self-censorship, citizens’ access to a wide range of news media and the safety of both local and foreign journalists. Finally, the last category measures the economic environment for the media, looking at media ownership and its concentration, limitations to news production and distribution and control through advertising and subsidies, among others. Each methodology question contains several sub-questions. Those 109 indicators are meant to provide guidance and help to evaluate each question correctly. For each country an analyst prepares the draft rating and country report. The analysts are external scholars as well as members of the core research team in New York. In the next step, the ratings are reviewed individually and on a comparative basis during regional and cross-regional meetings with the analysts and a dozen senior-level advisers. According to Freedom House the information needed to determine the score for each question is gathered from professional contacts, staff and consultant travel, international visitors, the findings of human rights and press freedom organizations, specialists in geographic and geopolitical areas, the reports of governments and multilateral bodies, and a variety of domestic and international news media. The overall score of a country is calculated by determining the score for each of the 23 methodology questions and then, in a last step, adding the scores of the three categories. With 40 possible points, the weighting of the political environment category is greater in the final index than the scores of the other two, accounting for a maximum of 30 points each. The scores resulting from the Freedom House evaluations range from 0 to 100. The current scale, however, is a replacement for a three-point ordinal measure used from the initiation of the measures in 1980 until 1992. In those early years, Freedom House differentiated between media systems judged to be “Free”, “Partly Free”, or “Not Free”. Since the 100-point scale was created, Freedom House reduces the data by labeling countries with a total score of 0 to 30 as 3 “Free.” Nations that score 31 to 60 are classified as “Partly Free.” And countries with more than 60 points are labeled as “Not Free.” The status of the countries is shown graphically in Freedom House’s Map of Press Freedom every year. According to Reporters Without Borders, the Press Freedom Index reflects “the degree of freedom that journalists, news media and netizens enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom” (Reporters Without Borders, 2012). As an organization with the mission of defending journalists RWB’s Press Freedom Index focuses on attacks
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Measurement Issues and the Relationship Between Media Freedom and Corruption
    Measurement Issues and the Relationship Between Media Freedom and Corruption By Lee B. Becker University of Georgia, USA ([email protected]) Teresa K. Naab Hochschule für Musik, Theater und Medien, Hannover, Germany ([email protected]) Cynthia English Gallup, USA ([email protected]) Tudor Vlad University of Georgia, USA ([email protected]) Direct correspondence to: Dr. Lee B. Becker, Grady College of Journalism & Mass Communication, University of Georgia, 120 Hooper St., Athens, GA 30602 USA Abstract Advocates for media freedom have consistently argued that corruption goes down when journalists operating in a free media environment are able to expose the excesses of governmental leaders. An evolving body of research finds evidence to support this assertion. Measurement of corruption is a complicated undertaking, and it has received little attention in this literature. This paper focuses on perceptual measures of corruption based on public opinion surveys. It attempts to replicate the finding of a negative relationship between media freedom and corruption using multiple measures of media freedom. The findings challenge the general argument that media freedom unambiguously is associated with lower levels of corruption. Presented to the Journalism Research and Education Section, International Association for Media and Communication Research, Dublin, Ireland, June 25-29, 2013. -1- Measurement Issues and the Relationship Between Media Freedom and Corruption Advocates for media freedom have consistently argued that corruption goes down when journalists operating in a free media environment are able to expose the excesses of governmental leaders. Indeed an evolving body of research finds evidence of a negative relationship between media freedom and level of corruption of a country even when controlling for several other political, social and economic characteristics of the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Predators 2021 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 PREDATORS 2021 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Azerbaijan 167/180* Eritrea 180/180* Isaias AFWERKI Ilham Aliyev Born 2 February 1946 Born 24 December 1961 > President of the Republic of Eritrea > President of the Republic of Azerbaijan since 19 May 1993 since 2003 > Predator since 18 September 2001, the day he suddenly eliminated > Predator since taking office, but especially since 2014 his political rivals, closed all privately-owned media and jailed outspoken PREDATORY METHOD: Subservient judicial system journalists Azerbaijan’s subservient judicial system convicts journalists on absurd, spurious PREDATORY METHOD: Paranoid totalitarianism charges that are sometimes very serious, while the security services never The least attempt to question or challenge the regime is regarded as a threat to rush to investigate physical attacks on journalists and sometimes protect their “national security.” There are no more privately-owned media, only state media assailants, even when they have committed appalling crimes. Under President with Stalinist editorial policies. Journalists are regarded as enemies. Some have Aliyev, news sites can be legally blocked if they pose a “danger to the state died in prison, others have been imprisoned for the past 20 years in the most or society.” Censorship was stepped up during the war with neighbouring appalling conditions, without access to their family or a lawyer. According to Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh and the government routinely refuses to give the information RSF has been getting for the past two decades, journalists accreditation to foreign journalists.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Peace Index 2018: Measuring Peace in a Complex World, Sydney, June 2018
    Quantifying Peace and its Benefits The Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank dedicated to shifting the world’s focus to peace as a positive, achievable, and tangible measure of human well-being and progress. IEP achieves its goals by developing new conceptual frameworks to define peacefulness; providing metrics for measuring peace; and uncovering the relationships between business, peace and prosperity as well as promoting a better understanding of the cultural, economic and political factors that create peace. IEP is headquartered in Sydney, with offices in New York, The Hague, Mexico City and Brussels. It works with a wide range of partners internationally and collaborates with intergovernmental organisations on measuring and communicating the economic value of peace. For more information visit www.economicsandpeace.org Please cite this report as: Institute for Economics & Peace. Global Peace Index 2018: Measuring Peace in a Complex World, Sydney, June 2018. Available from: http://visionofhumanity.org/reports (accessed Date Month Year). Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 Key Findings 4 RESULTS 5 Highlights 6 2018 Global Peace Index rankings 8 Regional overview 12 Improvements & deteriorations 19 TRENDS 23 Ten year trends in the Global Peace Index 26 100 year trends in peace 32 ECONOMIC IMPACT OF VIOLENCE 45 Results 46 The macroeconomic impact of peace 52 POSITIVE PEACE 59 What is Positive Peace? 60 Trends in Positive Peace 65 What precedes a change in peacefulness? 69 Positive Peace and the economy 73 APPENDICES 77 Appendix A: GPI Methodology 78 Appendix B: GPI indicator sources, definitions & scoring criteria 82 Appendix C: GPI Domain scores 90 Appendix D: Economic cost of violence 93 GLOBAL PEACE INDEX 2018 | 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the twelfth edition of the Global Peace Index Afghanistan, South Sudan, Iraq, and Somalia comprise (GPI), which ranks 163 independent states and the remaining least peaceful countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Further Deterioration of Media Freedoms and Freedom of Expression
    Monitoring of Media in Republic of Macedonia REPORT No. 1 - 2013 MEDIA MIRROR FURTHER DETERIORATION OF MEDIA FREEDOMS AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION FEBRUARY 2013 “Media Mirror” Program is implemented with financial support from Foundation Open Sociey-Macedonia. 1. Introduction and Methodology The NGO Info-centre, with financial support from the Foundation Open Society Macedonia (FOSM), under the auspices of its "Media Mirror" programme, implements monitoring of media reporting on issues and topics related to media freedoms and freedom of expression. This report covers the period from January 1 to February 6, 2013. The monitoring included the following media: seven daily newspapers ("Utrinski vesnik”, “Dnevnik”, “Vest”, “Večer“, "Nova Makedonija”, “Fokus” and “Den”), the central news programmes aired by seven television stations that broadcast nationally or over the satellite (24 Vesti TV, Kanal 5 TV, Sitel TV, Telma TV, MTV1, Alfa TV and AlsatM TV), and six internet news portals (Sky.mk, MKD.mk, Libertas.mk, Plusinfo.mk, Kurir.mk and A1on.mk). The monitoring was conducted daily, depending on the actual coverage of events and topics related to media freedoms and freedom of expression in the media. The monitoring applied contents analysis of published journalistic articles and broadcast stories and reports. 2. Key Findings The events that transpired in January and the first week of February of this year, related to the media scene in the Republic of Macedonia, as well as the analysis of the contents of media coverage of those events and developments, indicate a continued deterioration of media freedoms and freedom of expression in the country. Pressures, Threats and Harangues Directed at Critical Media and Journalists The types, scope and frequency of events during the short period of time covered by this analysis indicate that: The media and journalists critical of the Government are under constant pressure of the Government; the censorship is gaining in intensity while self- censorship becomes an everyday occurrence and a regular practice.
    [Show full text]
  • RSF 190X270 Classement4:Mise En Page 1 31/01/14 15:47 Page 1
    RSF_190x270_Classement4:Mise en page 1 31/01/14 15:47 Page 1 WORLD PRESS FREEDOM INDEX 2014 RSF_190x270_Classement4:Mise en page 1 31/01/14 15:47 Page 2 World Press Freedom index - Methodology The press freedom index that Reporters Without occupying force are treated as violations of the right to Borders publishes every year measures the level of information in foreign territory and are incorporated into freedom of information in 180 countries. It reflects the the score of the occupying force’s country. degree of freedom that journalists, news organizations The rest of the questionnaire, which is sent to outside and netizens enjoy in each country, and the efforts experts and members of the RWB network, made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect concentrates on issues that are hard to quantify such for this freedom. as the degree to which news providers censor It is based partly on a questionnaire that is sent to our themselves, government interference in editorial partner organizations (18 freedom of expression NGOs content, or the transparency of government decision- located in all five continents), to our network of 150 making. Legislation and its effectiveness are the subject correspondents, and to journalists, researchers, jurists of more detailed questions. Questions have been and human rights activists. added or expanded, for example, questions about The 180 countries ranked in this year’s index are those concentration of media ownership and favouritism for which Reporters Without Borders received in the allocation of subsidies or state advertising. completed questionnaires from various sources. Some Similarly, discrimination in access to journalism and countries were not included because of a lack of reliable, journalism training is also included.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between Press Freedom and Corruption the Perception of Journalism Students
    Chapter 5 The Relationship between Press Freedom and Corruption The Perception of Journalism Students Solveig Steien ‘Without journalists working all over the world, we hardly would be able to expose corruption’, one employee at Transparency International (TI) says, addressing one of the biggest threats to welfare and prosperity within nations and societies – corrup- tion. But the relationship between corruption and a free and independent press is complex, and the safety of journalists reporting on corruption is an issue for concern and deeper reflections. In February 2012, two television journalists, Sagar Sarwar and his wife Meherun Runi, were murdered in Dhaka, Bangladesh, while they were investigating corruption within their own governmental institutions (BBC News 2012). The murderers have never been prosecuted, and journalists who have tried to dig into the situation have been threatened, harassed and lost their jobs. The same year, 2012, the Tunisian blogger Olfa Riahi went to court because she reported that Tunisia’s foreign minister, Rafik Abdessalem, had spent public money for private purposes (the ‘Sheraton gate’). Abdessalem’s father in law, Ennahda’s party leader Rachid Ghannouchi, urged flogging of the blogger Al( Arabiya News 2012). According to Reporters sans Frontières (RSF), four years after initiating ‘The Arab Spring’, Tunisia’s journalists experienced threats (RSF 2017). In Norway in 2005, three journalists in Aftenposten revealed that the head of the Romerike Waterworks, owned by the nearby municipalities, was guilty of corruption. He was later sentenced to almost eight years imprisonment and the journalists were awarded the SKUP prize1. William Horsley reports that between 2006 and 2009 a total of 244 journalists in 36 countries were killed, yet only eight convictions related to those deaths were recorded (Horsley 2014:149).
    [Show full text]
  • United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review 38TH SESSION of the UPR WORKING GROUP (3 – 14 MAY 2021) Contribu
    United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review 38TH SESSION OF THE UPR WORKING GROUP (3 – 14 MAY 2021) Contribution by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) an NGO with special consultative status, on press freedom and the freedom to inform in Singapore 1. Summary of the press freedom situation The press freedom situation in Singapore further declined in 2020. According to the World Press Freedom Index established by RSF, in which Singapore now ranks 158 out of 180 countries after dropping seven places in a year’s time, the situation is now classified as “very bad”. This deterioration was largely propelled by the adoption of an “anti-fake news” law that allows the government the power to determine whether statements made online are true or false by ordering media outlets, digital platforms, and ordinary users to publish mandated “corrections”, or to remove access to the content completely. This latest piece of legislation further exacerbates an already poor situation, in which the People’s Action Party government has access to broad powers to censor journalistic content or apply pressure on mainstream media outlets. Powerful politicians have been known to use defamation suits to silence critics and political opponents. Vague and ambiguous “OB markers” (for out-of-bounds markers) keep journalists and Singaporeans in a state of uncertainty, encouraging fear and self-censorship. During its second review in 2016, Singapore accepted one hundred and seventeen (117) recommendations. Among these recommendations, Singapore accepted only a few recommendations related to freedom of expression1, and none affecting specifically the media, despite the fact that several States had made recommendations in direct relation to the freedom of the media2, including the removal of discriminatory media guidelines, the reform of the regime of defamation offences, the elimination of media censorship, and the prevention of self-censorship.
    [Show full text]
  • World Press Freedom Index, Compiled by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Reflects Growing Animosity Towards Journalists
    Press release Information under embargo until April 25, 2018 – 12:01AM EST RSF Index 2018: Hatred of journalism threatens democracies The 2018 World Press Freedom Index, compiled by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), reflects growing animosity towards journalists. Hostility towards the media, openly encouraged by political leaders, and the efforts of authoritarian regimes to export their vision of journalism pose a threat to democracies. The climate of hatred is steadily more visible in the Index, which evaluates the level of press freedom in 180 countries each year. Hostility towards the media from political leaders is no longer limited to authoritarian countries such as Turkey (down two at 157th) and Egypt (161st), where “media-phobia” is now so pronounced that journalists are routinely accused of terrorism and all those who don’t offer loyalty are arbitrarily imprisoned. More and more democratically-elected leaders no longer see the media as part of democracy’s essential underpinning, but as an adversary to which they openly display their aversion. The United States, the country of the First Amendment, has fallen again in the Index under Donald Trump, this time two places to 45th. A media-bashing enthusiast, Trump has referred to reporters as “enemies of the people,” the term once used by Joseph Stalin. The line separating verbal violence from physical violence is dissolving. In the Philippines (down six at 133rd), President Rodrigo Duterte not only constantly insults reporters but has also warned them that they “are not exempted from assassination.” In India (down two at 138th), hate speech targeting journalists is shared and amplified on social networks, often by troll armies in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s pay.
    [Show full text]
  • World Press Freedom Index 2020
    WORLD PRESS FREEDOM INDEX 2020 PRESS KIT 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 VIRTUAL PRESS CONFERENCE 4 THE MAP 5 GENERAL ANALYSIS 11 REGIONAL ANALYSIS 11 1/AFRICA 14 2/ NORTH AFRICA 15 3/ LATIN AMERICA 17 4/ PACIFIC ASIA 20 5/ NORTH AMERICA 23 6/ EASTERN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA 26 7/ EUROPEAN UNION AND BALKANS 29 8/ MIDDLE EAST 31 WORLD PRESS FREEDOM INDEX 2020 2 I VIRTUAL PRESS CONFERENCE I To launch the 2020 Press Freedom Index, RSF is hosting a virtual conference: JOURNALISM IN CRISIS: A DECISIVE DECADE Tuesday, 21st April 2020 at 18.00 PM CEST With speakers including: - Maria Ressa (Moderator), Journalist and author, co-founder of Rappler - Edward Snowden, Whistleblower, President of Freedom of the Press Foundation - Joseph E. Stiglitz, recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics - Rana Ayyub, Journalist, Global Opinions Writer at the Washington Post, author of Gujarat Files - Christophe Deloire, Secretary general of Reporters Without Borders The conference will be in English only, limited seats MerciHERE deTO vous SUSCRIBE inscrire ici 3 I THE MAP I THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION MUST REMAIN UNDER EMBARGO UNTIL 21 APRIL 2020, 6 AM CEST ICELAND FINLAND NORWAY RUSSIA SWEDEN ESTONIA LATVIA CANADA UNITED DENMARK LITHUANIA IRELAND KINGDOM THE BELARUS NETHERLANDS POLAND BELGIUM GERMANY LUXEMBOURG CZECH REP. LIECHTENSTEIN SLOVAKIA UKRAINE AUSTRIA FRANCE SWITZERLAND HUNGARY MOLDOVA KAZAKHSTAN SLOVENIA MONGOLIA ITALY CROATIA ROMANIA BOSNIA-H ANDORRA SERBIA MONTENEGRO BULGARIA AZERBAIJAN UZBEKISTAN KOSOVO MACEDONIA GEORGIA KYRGYZSTAN ALBANIA ARMENIA NORTH PORTUGAL SPAIN GREECE TURKEY TURKMENISTAN TAJIKISTAN KOREA UNITED STATES JAPAN NORTH CYPRUS CYPRUS SYRIA TUNISIA MALTA LEBANON AFGHANISTAN ISRAEL IRAQ IRAN CHINA MOROCCO PALESTINE JORDAN SOUTH NEPAL KOREA KUWAIT BHUTAN ALGERIA LIBYA BAHRAIN PAKISTAN WESTERN EGYPT QATAR MEXICO TAIWAN CUBA SAHARA SAUDI U.A.E ARABIA HONG KONG HAITI DOM.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Global Terrorism Index Report
    MEASURING AND UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF TERRORISM Quantifying Peace and its Benefits The Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank dedicated to shifting the world’s focus to peace as a positive, achievable, and tangible measure of human well-being and progress. IEP achieves its goals by developing new conceptual frameworks to define peacefulness; providing metrics for measuring peace; and uncovering the relationships between business, peace and prosperity as well as promoting a better understanding of the cultural, economic and political factors that create peace. IEP has offices in Sydney, New York and Mexico City. It works with a wide range of partners internationally and collaborates with intergovernmental organizations on measuring and communicating the economic value of peace. For more information visit www.economicsandpeace.org SPECIAL THANKS to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), a Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence led by the University of Maryland, for their cooperation on this study and for providing the Institute for Economics and Peace with their Global Terrorism Database (GTD) datasets on terrorism. CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 ABOUT THE GLOBAL TERRORISM INDEX 6 1 RESULTS 9 Global Terrorism Index map 10 Terrorist incidents map 12 Ten countries most impacted by terrorism 20 Terrorism compared to other forms of violence 30 2 TRENDS 33 Changes in the patterns and characteristics of terrorist activity 34
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom of the Press 2011
    Freedom of the Press 2011 SIGNS OF CHANGE AMID REPRESSION selected data from freedom house’s annual press freedom index PRESS FREEDOM IN 2010: SIGNS OF CHANGE AMID REPRESSION by Karin Deutsch Karlekar The proportion of the world’s population that findings are a vivid reminder of the central role has access to a Free press declined to its lowest that the denial of press freedom and freedom of point in over a decade during 2010, as repressive expression has played in the suppression of governments intensified their efforts to control broader democratic rights in the Middle East and traditional media and developed new techniques elsewhere. A principal complaint of the Middle to limit the independence of rapidly expanding East protesters has been the role of regime- internet-based media. Among the countries to controlled media in circulating government experience significant declines in press freedom propaganda and stifling opposition voices. were Egypt, Honduras, Hungary, Mexico, South While the fate of political reform in the region Korea, Thailand, and Ukraine. And in the remains unclear, the demands for change could Middle East, a number of governments with well have ripple effects in other parts of the long-standing records of hostility to the free world, including sub-Saharan Africa, the former flow of information took further steps to Soviet Union, and even China. constrict press freedom by arresting journalists During 2010, however, many of these and bloggers and censoring reports on sensitive positive pressures remained below the surface. political issues. These developments constitute Indeed, authoritarian efforts to place restrictions the principal findings of on the press, new media, Freedom of the Press In 2010, only 1 in 6 people lived in and other instruments of 2011: A Global Survey of countries with a Free press.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom of the Press 2013
    Freedom of the Press 2013 Middle east Volatility Amid Global decline selected data from freedom house’s annual press freedom index PRESS FREEDOM IN 2012: MIDDLE EAST VOLATILITY AMID GLOBAL DECLINE by Karin Deutsch Karlekar and Jennifer Dunham Ongoing political turmoil produced uneven political commentary online. Influential conditions for press freedom in the Middle East powers—such as China, Russia, Iran, and in 2012, with Tunisia and Libya largely Venezuela—have long resorted to a variety of retaining their gains from 2011 even as Egypt techniques to maintain a tight grip on the media, slid backward into the Not Free category. The detaining some press critics, closing down or region as a whole experienced a net decline for otherwise censoring media outlets and blogs, the year, in keeping with a broader global and bringing libel or defamation suits against pattern in which the percentage of people world- journalists. Russia, which adopted additional wide who enjoy a free media environment fell to restrictions on internet content in 2012, set a its lowest point in more than a decade. Among negative tone for the rest of Eurasia, where the more disturbing developments in 2012 were conditions remained largely grim. In China, the dramatic declines for Mali, significant installation of a new Communist Party deterioration in Greece, and a further tightening leadership did not produce any immediate of controls on press freedom in Latin America, relaxation of constraints on either traditional punctuated by the decline media or the internet. In of two countries, Ecuador In 2012, the percentage of people fact, the Chinese regime, and Paraguay, from Partly worldwide who enjoy a free media which boasts the world’s Free to Not Free status.
    [Show full text]