Evaluating the Evaluators Media Freedom Indexes and What They Measure

Evaluating the Evaluators Media Freedom Indexes and What They Measure Evaluating the Evaluators: Media Freedom Indexes and What They Measure

Center for International Media Assistance National Endowment for Democracy 1025 F Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 378-9700 Fax: (202) 378-9407 E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://cima.ned.org

Author: John Burgess

Managing Editors: Libby Morgan, Marguerite Sullivan

Additional Assistance: Susan Abbott, Trixie Canivel, Spencer Hayne, Katharine Kendrick, Don Podesta, Monroe Price

Design and Layout: Kyle Cassidy, Laura Mottaz

Notice of Rights: Permission is granted to display, copy, and distribute this report in whole or in part, provided that (1) the materials are used with the acknowledgement ”The report Evaluating the Evaluators: Media Freedom Indexes and What They Measure is a product of the Center for International Media Assistance at the National Endowment for Democracy;” (2) the report is used solely for personal, noncommercial, or informational use; and (3) no modifications to the report are made.

ISBN 0-9818254-1-9

Original reporting commissioned by:

Center for Global Communication Studies Annenberg School for Communication University of Pennsylvania 202 S. 36th Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Phone: (215) 898-9727 Fax: (215) 573-2609 E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://www.global.asc.upenn.edu About the Center for Global Communication Studies

The Center for Global Communication Studies (CGCS) at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania is a leader in international education and training in comparative media law and policy. It affords students, academics, lawyers, regulators, civil society representatives, and others the opportunity to evaluate and discuss comparative, global, and international communications issues.

Working with the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania and research centers, scholars, and practitioners from around the world, CGCS provides research opportunities for graduate students; organizes conferences and trainings; and provides consulting and advisory assistance to academic centers, governments, and NGOs.

CGCS draws on various disciplines, including law, political science, and international relations, among others. The Center’s research and policy work addresses issues of media regulation, media and democracy, measurement and evaluation of media development programs, public service broadcasting,CGCS’s network and includes the media’s the Programme role in conflict in Comparative and post-conflict Media environments. Law and Policy (PCMLP) at the University of Oxford and the Center for Media and Communication Studies (CMCS) at Central European University in Budapest.

About the Center for International Media Assistance

The Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA), an initiative of the National Endowment for Democracy, works to strengthen the support, raise the visibility, and improve the effectiveness of media assistance programs around the world. The Center approaches its mission by providing information, building networks, conducting research, and highlighting the indispensable role independent media play in the creation and development of sustainable democracies around together policymakers, practitioners, funders, and academics to reach shared goals. the world. CIMA also serves as a catalyst to address needs in the media assistance field, bringing CIMA convenes working groups, commissions research reports, and holds events. The Center has also compiled a bibliographic database of international media assistance resources. CIMA’s Advisory Council advises the Center on topics in media development that need further study and how it can assist organizations involved in media assistance. About the Author

He worked for 28 years at The Washington Post in jobs that included Tokyo bureau chief, mass transitJohn Burgess and aviation is a Washington, reporter, technology DC-based writereditor, specializingand Europe ineditor. international Burgess has affairs a bachelor’s and technology. degree from the University of Michigan. Table of COntents

Preface 2 Academic Papers Cited 3 Executive Summary 4 Overview of the Evaluators 6 Freedom House 8 IREX 13 Reporters Without Borders 14 Taking the Studies to Task 17 Old Media Versus New Media 28 Changing with the Times 30 How Good is the Social Science? 33 Why Have Media Freedom if It Means Bad Media? 36 Whom to Ask? Experts or Citizens? 38 So Just How Good Are These Indexes? 40 Evaluating at the Micro Level 44 Recommendations 50 Endnotes 51 Appendix I: Freedom House’s Freedom of the Press 2010 56 Appendix II: IREX’s Media Sustainability Index 59 Appendix III: Reporters Without Borders’ Press Freedom Index 2009 61 Evaluating the Evaluators

Preface

This report had its origins in a workshop Measures of Press Freedom and Media convened at the Annenberg School for Contributions to Development,” will be Communication at the University of published in late 2010. Pennsylvania in November 2007. Entitled “Measuring Press Freedom and Democracy: In conversations with Marguerite H. Sullivan, senior director of the Center for long gathering brought together experts to International Media Assistance, an idea discussMethodologies, the increasingly Uses, and pressing Impact,” issue the day- of emerged for her organization to broaden how to measure media freedom worldwide, the debate and audience by commissioning particularly those countries receiving media development aid. Participants analyzed the of the Annenberg book’s papers. CIMA later philosophies and methodologies of existing selecteda report thatJohn would Burgess, synthesize a former the Washington findings indexes of worldwide media freedom and Post editor and reporter, for that job. In compared strengths and shortcomings of his own research, Burgess drew on the the different measurement systems. submitted papers and interviews with media Participants debated use and misuse experts, aid practitioners, and donors, and on other academic papers, reports, and organization (NGO), donor, government, conferences that addressed questions of andof findings academic in the communities, nongovernmental as well as by measuring media freedom. In addition, he the media themselves. spoke at length with people at the three organizations that produce the most widely From this workshop came a project to cited indexes: Freedom House, IREX, and publish a book of academic articles Reporters Without Borders. Burgess did addressing issues of measuring media not seek to condense each of the book’s freedom, as well as related questions of papers. Rather, he combined the papers’ key how to measure the impact of individual conclusions and data with his own reporting media aid programs. Monroe E. Price, to craft a narrative overview of efforts to director of the school’s Center for Global understand and improve the measurement Communication Studies, and Susan Abbott, systems that are invaluable tools in the then the Center’s associate director, took the world of media assistance. lead in commissioning papers from some of the world’s top thinkers on the subject. The papers used in the writing of this The book, titled “Evaluating the Evaluators: report are listed on the following page.

2 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

Academic Papers Cited

The following articles, part of a forthcoming book Andrei Richter (professor, School of to be published by the Annenberg School for Journalism, Moscow State University): Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, were drawn upon in the writing of this report. They Freedom of the Media: An Overview.” are listed alphabetically by the author’s last name. “Post-Soviet Perspective on Censorship and Russell S. Sobel (professor of economics, James Clark Coffman Distinguished Chair, Media & Democracy, Rhodes University): Department of Economics, West Virginia “WhatFackson Are Banda We Measuring? (SAB Ltd.-UNESCO A Critical Chair Review of University); Nabamita Dutta (assistant of Media Development Assessment Tools.” professor, Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin, La Crosse); and Sanjukta Roy Lee B. Becker (director, James M. Cox Jr. Center for (consultant, World Bank and Internews): “Beyond International Mass Communication Training and Borders: Is Media Freedom Contagious?” Research, Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Georgia) and Tudor Silvio R. Waisbord (associate professor of media Vlad (associate director): “Conceptualizing and and public affairs, George Washington University): Measuring Characteristics of Media Systems.” “Operational Models and Bureaucratic Imperatives in the Global Promotion of Media Diversity.”

Guobin Yang (associate professor of Nuremberg):Christina Holtz-Bacha “Freedom (professor of the Press—Is of a Worldwide Asian and Middle Eastern cultures, Comparisoncommunications, Possible University and What of Erlangen- Is It Good For?” Barnard College): “Press Freedom and Transnational Online Activism in China.” Thomas Jacobson (professor, School of Communications and Theater, Temple University); The following academic articles were substantially Lingling Pan (doctoral student, Mass Media and quoted but are not part of the Annenberg book: Communication Program, Temple University); and Seung Joon Jun (doctoral student, Department Steven E. Finkel (professor of political science, of Communication, University at Buffalo): “Indicators of Citizen Voice for Assessing Media (associate professor of political science, Development: A Communicative Action Approach.” University of Pittsburgh); MitchellAníbal Pérez-Liñán A. Seligson, (professor of political science, Vanderbilt Shanthi Kalathil (consultant, the World University); and C. Neal Tate (professor of Bank): “Measuring the Media: Examining political science and law, Vanderbilt University): the Interdisciplinary Approach.” “Deepening our Understanding of the Effects of US Foreign Assistance on Democracy Craig L. LaMay (associate professor, Institute for Building, Final Report,” January 28, 2008. Policy Research, Northwestern University): “What Works? The Problem of Program Evaluation.” Pippa Norris (McGuire Lecturer in Comparative Politics, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Gerry Power (managing director, InterMedia UK); Harvard University): “The Role of the Free Anna Godfrey (research manager, BBC World Service Press in Promoting Democratization, Good Trust); Patrick McCurdy (lecturer, Department of Governance and Human Development,” Media and Communications, Erasmus University): published in “Media Matters: Perspectives on Advancing Governance & Development from From the Field on Press Freedom Indices.” the Global Forum for Media Development.” “When Theory Meets Practice, Critical reflections Monroe E. Price (director, Center for Global A.S. Panneerselvan (executive director, Panos Communication Studies, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania): Model.” A version of this paper was presented at “Press Freedom Measures: An Introduction.” theSouth Measuring Asia): “Spheres Change of II Influence:conference A convened Practitioner’s Andrew Puddephatt (director, Global Partners & Associates Ltd.): “Examining and Critiquing by the Katholisch-Soziales-Institut in Bad Existing Measures of Media Development.” Honnef, Germany from October 12-14, 2009. The paper is also on file with the author. Center for International Media Assistance 3 Evaluating the Evaluators

Executive Summary

All over the world, studies that rank countries of the world. They serve to highlight the crucial role of a free press in democracy liberties debates, aid programming, foreign and good governance. policyby media decisions, freedom and figure academic prominently research. in civilThe three most widely cited indexes—compiled by Western industrialized countries tend to Freedom House, the International Research cluster at the top of the major studies that & Exchanges Board (IREX), and Reporters survey them (Freedom House and RSF), Without Borders (RSF in its French initials)— along with a few developing countries. often become media events in their own Arab countries generally do poorly in media right on release day, written about by local freedom rankings, as do China, Russia, and newspapers and Web sites and analyzed on television and radio. In view of the breadth very bottom ranks consistently include North and depth of their impact, academics have Korea,many countries Turkmenistan, of sub-Saharan Cuba, and Africa. Eritrea. The been studying the quality of the social science Academics say there is real value in having the that underlies these and other studies. Some same questions asked year after year about each country, even if there is disagreement as methodology, cultural neutrality, and focus about what to ask and to whom—should it be onacademics “old media.” claim Yet deficiencies many go on in tosuch conclude issues experts or ordinary citizens? that whatever the shortcomings, the studies Claims of Western bias in the studies have time and are credible, useful tools for tracking spurred the development of new rating theproduce evolution basically of media consistent freedom findings in the over countries systems that are meant to have universal

A news stand in Moscow. Photo by Svetlana Balashova

4 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

acceptance or to be tailored to the conditions communist countries. Some political of particular regions. The African Media scientists caution that the recipient countries’ Barometer, for instance, was devised to ranking in the three major studies should not be used to judge success or failure of in the developing nations of Africa. The individual aid programs, because a country’s measure media conditions specifically media landscape can be affected by countless Organization (UNESCO), meanwhile, has other factors, such as the election of a more devisedUN Educational, new media Scientific development and Cultural indicators tolerant government or improvement in that it calls culturally and politically the local economy. At the same time, other neutral. The indicators are applied only academic studies have found general with the cooperation of the country’s statistical correlation among media aid, government and the participation of improved media freedom, and a better overall commercial and civil society groups. The state of democracy. UNESCO studies do not produce numerical The organizations that conduct country rankings should continue to increase Otherscores analysts, or country-by-country meanwhile, feel rankings. that the technical sophistication, cultural neutrality, main problem with the existing surveys is and transparency. In particular, continued a perceived focus on “old media” such as attention must be paid to digital media, newspapers, radio, and TV. As the Internet notably the Internet and mobile phones, continues to expand and billions of people acquire mobile telephones with text messaging worldwide.1 Donors and implementers of capabilities, these analysts say, new indicators mediawhich nowassistance, number meanwhile, approximately should 4.6 keep billion are needed to measure digital media’s impact. Freedom House and RSF are both working to integrate new media into their studies; at the shareup efforts the resultingto find better information ways to withmonitor other same time, other groups are working toward and evaluate specific programs and to indexes aimed exclusively at new media. shortfalls, foundations and other funding bodiesaid organizations. should assure At athat time assessment of financial of Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in media quality at both the national and the program level receives the attention (and the money) that it deserves. 1991, hundreds of millions of dollars in media development aid has flowed into former

Center for International Media Assistance 5 Evaluating the Evaluators

Overview of the Evaluators

Reporters Without Borders (commonly known demonstrators gathered in a Rome plaza to by its French abbreviation, RSF), the accuseOn October Prime 3, Minister2009, tens Silvio of thousands Berlusconi of of International Research & Exchanges Board suppressing media freedom in Italy. The (IREX). The three surveys attempt to apply following week, spirited debate broke out in mathematical precision to a huge and, in many the European Parliament, as lawmakers ways, subjective state of affairs: the entire waving copies of Italian newspapers pressed media universe of individual countries. Such the same point. The European Union, they said, issues as libel law, censorship, news should take action in light of Berlusconi’s ownership of the country’s largest media languages of broadcasts, physical safety of reporters,organization and finances, dozens ofdiversity other factors of views, are prime minister, and defamation suits that he rated mathematically, with the results boiled company, his influence over state television as down to a single number. his personal ethics. “The situation in Italy is unprecedented,”had filed against saidnewspapers Claude Moraes, that questioned a Labour member of the European Parliament who like Italy’s but in a broad range of foreign represents the London area. “It could be The studies figure not only in political debates dangerous for the whole of Europe.”2 thempolicy, in journalism, deciding whether and aid adecision-making particular overseas all radioover the service world. should U.S. broadcast be converted officials into use “Everybody knows that television. World Bank researchers use the numbers when drafting papers that help these numbers are not determine how much aid a country will get. perfect and not without error … but they are really into spreadsheets in efforts to identify new correlationsPolitical scientists and relationships type the studies’ between findings media important and useful.” freedom and other factors of countries’ — Mark Nelson political systems. UN and national and private aid organizations use the surveys in programming hundreds of millions of dollars To rebut claims of partisan posturing, of media development funding. Reporters and Berlusconi’s critics pointed to a study columnists employ them in discoursing on published earlier in the year by Freedom media freedom, diplomats in bringing pressure House. There it was: statistical proof. In its on governments that rank low.

media freedom around the world, Freedom As use of these indexes expands, they are Houseannual scored country-by-country Italy at 32 on assessmenta scale of 0 toof drawing increasing attention from academics 100, three points worse than its number of and other media experts trying to judge the the previous year. This change was big quality of the underlying social science. enough to bump Italy’s media from the “Precisely because these are such important study’s category of “free” to “partly free.” institutions, it is desirable to try to shape a Italy was now in the company of such critical discourse about their work,” writes countries as Egypt, East Timor, and Ecuador, Monroe E. Price, director of the Center for rather than Sweden or Australia. Global Communication Studies of the Annenberg School for Communication, For three decades, Freedom House has been University of Pennsylvania.3 He and the ranking the world’s countries by media Center’s then associate director, Susan Abbott, freedom, joined in more recent years by commissioned a book of appraisals of the

6 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

studies, on which the current paper draws. In and ownership of the media in every country analyses for the book, as well as interviews for of the world. In the meantime, there are the this paper, media freedom experts from a media freedom studies, which he likens to selection of backgrounds and countries public opinion polls—worth paying attention variously faulted the major studies as having weak methodologies, excessive reliance on experts’ views, a lack of transparency, a Theto in indexes decision-making, by Freedom but House, not infallible. IREX, and RSF Western bias, and a focus on “old media” such have over the years drawn the most attention worldwide, forming a sort of oligopoly of expanding digital media. Yet at the same time media rating systems. But other systems have as newspapers and TV at the expense of fast- come into use as well, sometimes designed to comings, the studies have acceptable address perceived problems with the “Big statisticalmany concluded consistency that despite and reach the theshort- same Three.” The African Media Barometer, for general conclusions. In short, the studies instance, was crafted for use in Africa in provide a crucial, credible, and useful tool for tracking media freedom around the world and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 2008 approvedparticular. a The media UN evaluationEducational, system Scientific for use and in value in surveys that ask the same questions yearchanges after over year, time. even In if general, they disagree experts with find countries, it does not produce numerical what those questions should be and whether rankingsaid programming. and requires Applied cooperation so far to offive the experts or citizens should be answering them. country’s government and participation of As such, the surveys are used frequently in multiple civil society organizations. At academic analysis. MobileActive.org, an NGO that seeks to harness mobile communications for social “Everybody knows that these numbers are not change, work is underway on a “Fair Mobile perfect and not without error,” says Mark Index” aimed at measuring the burgeoning Nelson of the World Bank Institute. “You have impact of mobile devices such as cellphones. to use caution in interpreting the data ... but they are really important and useful.” In a But none of the new systems has put an end to perfect world, he says, there would be solid debate about the best way to evaluate. At the data on such issues as newspaper circulation most basic level, the question is: What exactly

A group of children rushes to use the first telephone in their village in Thailand. Photo courtesy of National Telecommunications Commission, Thailand. Center for International Media Assistance 7 Evaluating the Evaluators

is it that should be measured? Does media freedom equal independence from “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion government? Does it mean physical safety for andstates. expression; Article 19 this of the right Declaration includes freedom reads: to journalists and lack of censorship? Some hold opinions without interference and to seek, analysts feel that what matters most is whether receive and impart information and ideas media listen to their country’s citizens and act through any media and regardless of frontiers.”5 on their behalf. In this view, the central issue is whether media help them take part in the But from that common starting point, the democratic process. Good media can be owned studies strike out in different directions by anyone as long as they give “voice” to the concerning what to study and how. (Country ordinary citizen. rankings by Freedom House, IREX, and RSF appear in Appendixes I through III.) “In the world of media freedom advocacy and in government policy circles, the conceptual explication of media freedom has taken a back Freedom House seat to problems of its measurement,” write Lee Becker and Tudor Vlad of the University of The Freedom of the Press index of Freedom Georgia. “Never mind the obvious point that it House owes its existence to a map. In the is hard to measure something if you do not know exactly what it is.” their overall freedom hung in the lobby of the 4 New1970s, York a large headquarters world map of rating the NGO. countries Green on The surveys share the bedrock principle that meant “Free,” yellow meant “Partly Free,” and media freedom applies in every country of the purple meant “Not Free,” based on the world, enshrined in the Universal Declaration organization’s annual study of democratic of Human Rights. That document, proclaimed practices around the globe. Freedom House

in attracting media attention to the group’s by the UN General Assembly in 1948, is officials found the map to be a very useful tool officially embraced today by all UN member

A newspaper and magazine stand in Amman, Jordan. Photo by Nisreen Banat.

8 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

core issue. When countries were shifted from what scholars call “longitudinal” data—the one color to another based on events of the study’s 30th anniversary was April 2010. preceding year, TV crews sometimes showed The survey today has 23 questions divided into up to record the change. So Freedom House three categories: legal environment, political Director Leonard Sussman began wondering, environment, and economic environment. “Do why not produce a map for the more focused the penal code, security laws, or any other laws but related issue of press freedom? restrict reporting, and are journalists punished 6 under these laws?” That question in the legal The resulting press freedom index and its map (see page 10) were soon functioning as “Do the state or other actors try to control the a lobbying tool in the debate over one of the mediaenvironment through section allocation can beof advertisingscored from or 0 to 6. central international media issues of the subsidies?” Part of the economic section, this question carries a potential score of 0 to 3. For and Communication Order. Industrialized each question, a 0 score signals the highest countries1980s, the exercise proposed unfair New control World Informationover the possible level of media freedom—as in golf, a world’s information, said proponents of the low score is a good one. The sum of the “new order,” which was being pushed by some questions’ scores becomes the country’s member states of UNESCO. New laws and overall rating. Creating categories, Freedom House has deemed that a score of 0 to 30 argued. The United States strongly opposed means that the country has a “Free” media, thepractices idea as are potentially needed to harmful balance to the freedom flow, they of expression and its media companies. So did Freedom House and Sussman, who put the while 31 to 60 signals “Partly Free,” and 61 to new study to use. categories100 “Not Free.” to another. Just a oneThe point country’s change numerical year- rating,to-year compared can move witha country those from of other one countries,of these will determine its place in the global ranking. promote democratic principles worldwide at theFreedom time of House World was War founded II fascist in expansion.1941 to Its To head up the evaluation of a given country, Freedom House selects a writer/analyst Roosevelt, wife of President Franklin judged to have deep knowledge of the country first honorary co-chairs were Eleanor and its media. This person may be an academic presidential nominee Wendell Willkie. Ever or a journalist, a local citizen or a foreigner. In since,Roosevelt, the organization a Democrat, hasand spoken1940 Republican with a some cases a Freedom House staff member is generally bipartisan voice in Washington chosen. Depending on the political climate, the policy debates and advocacy abroad. person may work in the country or study it from the outside. Some writers handle policies, sometimes it has opposed them, but multiple countries at once. The analyst scores inSometimes a larger context it has supported it puts its specificweight behind U.S. the 23 questions based on events in the American notions of democratic government. country during the prior calendar year. The analyst may also write a narrative of the year’s

Freedom House has modified its press freedom Inmain past media years, freedom-related the next step has developments. been to send addedquestionnaire a scoring and system methodology by which in countries 1989, 1994, of the1997, world 1999, were and ranked 2002. Thenumerically 1994 revision by press freedom, rather than just being placed in a whomthe report Freedom and scoring House tohas one picked of a half-dozenas experts category of Free, Partly Free, or Not Free. With ontwo- the or countries three-member of a region. panels In of a peoplemeeting, each change, the organization has tried to often in New York, the panel goes over the report as well as reports from other countries weightings so that a country’s performance of the region. Particular scrutiny is applied, retain sufficient continuity in questions and other media freedom study has so long a run of score would move the country to a new can be credibly compared year-to-year. No Freedom House officials say, if a proposed new Center for International Media Assistance 9 Evaluating the Evaluators

FreedomFreedom HouseHouse MapMap ofof PressPress FreedomFreedom 20102010

ArcticArctic OceanOcean GreenlandGreenland Sea Sea BeaufortBeaufort Sea Sea GREENLANDGREENLAND NorwegianNorwegian Sea Sea (DENMARK(DENMARK) ) ICELANDICELAND NORWAYNORWAY U.S.A.U.S.A. SWEDENSWEDEN FINLANDFINLAND RUSSIARUSSIA

HudsonHudson Bay Bay ESTONIAESTONIA BeringBering Sea Sea LabradorLabrador Sea Sea DENMARKDENMARK LATVIALATVIA RUSSIARUSSIA LITHUANIALITHUANIA Sea of Okhotsk GulfGulf of of Alaska Alaska CANADACANADA U.K.U.K. Sea of Okhotsk BELARUSBELARUS IRELANDIRELAND NETHERLANDSNETHERLANDS POLANDPOLAND GERMANYGERMANY BELGIUMBELGIUM CZECH REP. LUXEMBOURGLUXEMBOURG CZECH REP. UKRAINEUKRAINE LIECHTENSTEINLIECHTENSTEIN SLOVAKIASLOVAKIA MOLDOVAMOLDOVA KAZAKHSTANKAZAKHSTAN SWITZERLANDSWITZERLAND AUSTRIAAUSTRIAHUNGARYHUNGARY North Atlantic Ocean SLOVENIASLOVENIA ROMANIA MONGOLIAMONGOLIA North Atlantic Ocean ITALY ROMANIA FRANCEFRANCE ITALY CROATIACROATIASERBIASERBIA BOSNIABOSNIA & & HERZ. HERZ. MONACO MONTENEGROMONTENEGRO BULGARIA MONACO BULGARIA GEORGIAGEORGIA UZBEKISTANUZBEKISTAN ANDORRAANDORRA SANSAN MARINO MARINO MACEDONIAMACEDONIA KYRGYZSTANKYRGYZSTAN PORTUGALPORTUGAL KOSOVOKOSOVO (SERBIA) (SERBIA) ARMENIAARMENIA AZERBAIJANAZERBAIJAN SPAIN GREECEGREECE TURKMENISTANTURKMENISTAN NORTHNORTH KOREA KOREA UNITEDUNITED STATES STATES OF OF AMERICA AMERICA SPAIN TURKEYTURKEY TAJIKISTANTAJIKISTAN ALBANIAALBANIA MALTA NorthNorth Paci cPaci c OceanOcean MALTA KASHMIRKASHMIR (PAKISTAN) (PAKISTAN) CHINACHINA SOUTHSOUTH KOREA KOREA TUNISIATUNISIA CYPRUSCYPRUS SYRIASYRIA LEBANONLEBANON AFGHANISTANAFGHANISTAN IRAQ KASHMIRKASHMIR (INDIA) (INDIA) MOROCCOMOROCCO ISRAELIISRAELI OCCUPIED/PAL. OCCUPIED/PAL. AUTHO. AUTHO. IRAQ IRAN JAPAN ISRAELISRAEL IRAN EastEast JAPAN JORDANJORDAN TIBETTIBET (CHINA) (CHINA) ChinaChina Sea Sea NEPAL KUWAITKUWAIT PAKISTANPAKISTAN NEPAL ALGERIAALGERIA BAHRAINBAHRAIN BHUTANBHUTAN LIBYALIBYA MEXICOMEXICO BAHAMASBAHAMAS EGYPTEGYPT QATARQATAR GulfGulf of of Mexico Mexico WESTERN WESTERN SAHARA SAHARA (MOROCCO)(MOROCCO) U.A.E.U.A.E. TAIWANTAIWAN North Paci c Ocean PUERTOPUERTO RICO RICO (U.S.A.) (U.S.A.) INDIAINDIA North Paci c Ocean SAUDISAUDI ARABIA ARABIA BURMABURMA HONGHONG KONG KONG (CHINA) (CHINA) CUBACUBA LAOSLAOS MAURITANIAMAURITANIA BANGLADESHBANGLADESH JAMAICAJAMAICA ST.ST. KITTS KITTS & & NEVIS NEVIS OMANOMAN MALIMALI BELIZEBELIZE HAITIHAITI ANTIGUAANTIGUA & & BARBUDA BARBUDA NIGERNIGER DOM.DOM. REP. REP. YEMENYEMEN SouthSouth China China Sea Sea HONDURASHONDURAS SENEGALSENEGAL CHADCHAD ERITREAERITREA Bay of Bengal THAILANDTHAILAND DOMINICADOMINICA Bay of Bengal VIETNAM CaribbeanCaribbean Sea Sea CAPE VERDE VIETNAM GUATEMALAGUATEMALA ST.ST. LUCIA LUCIA CAPE VERDE SUDAN MARSHALLMARSHALL GRENADAGRENADA THETHE GAMBIA GAMBIA SUDAN PHILIPPINESPHILIPPINES ISLANDSISLANDS ELEL SALVADOR SALVADOR NICARAGUANICARAGUA ST.ST. VINCENT VINCENT & & GRENADINES GRENADINES BURKINABURKINA CAMBODIACAMBODIA BARBADOSBARBADOS FASOFASO DJIBOUTIDJIBOUTI GUINEAGUINEA BISSAU BISSAU GUINEAGUINEA BENINBENIN NIGERIANIGERIA TRINIDADTRINIDAD & & TOBAGO TOBAGO SOMALILANDSOMALILAND (SOMALIA) (SOMALIA) COSTACOSTA RICA RICA CÔTE ETHIOPIAETHIOPIA SRISRI LANKA LANKA MICRONESIAMICRONESIA VENEZUELAVENEZUELA GUYANAGUYANA SIERRASIERRA LEONE LEONE CÔTE GHANAGHANA D’IVOIRED’IVOIRE CENTRALCENTRAL AFRICAN AFRICAN KIRIBATI PANAMAPANAMA SURINAMESURINAME NAURUNAURU KIRIBATI REPUBLICREPUBLIC BRUNEIBRUNEI LIBERIALIBERIA TOGOTOGO FRENCHFRENCH GUIANA GUIANA (FRANCE) (FRANCE) CAMEROON COLOMBIACOLOMBIA CAMEROON MALDIVESMALDIVES SOMALIASOMALIA MALAYSIAMALAYSIA PALAUPALAU EQUATORIALEQUATORIAL GUINEA GUINEA UGANDAUGANDA SAOSAO TOME TOME & & PRINCIPE PRINCIPE ECUADORECUADOR KENYAKENYA SINGAPORESINGAPORE TUVALUTUVALU GABONGABON RWANDARWANDA

CONGOCONGO (KINSHASA) (KINSHASA) BURUNDIBURUNDI CONGOCONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) (BRAZZAVILLE) PERUPERU INDONESIAINDONESIA PAPUA PAPUA SOLOMONSOLOMON TANZANIATANZANIA NEWNEW GUINEA GUINEA SEYCHELLESSEYCHELLES ISLANDSISLANDS EASTEAST TIMOR TIMOR BRAZILBRAZIL COMOROSCOMOROS IndianIndian OceanOcean ANGOLAANGOLA SAMOASAMOA ZAMBIAZAMBIA VANUATUVANUATU

MAURITIUSMAURITIUS BOLIVIABOLIVIA ZIMBABWEZIMBABWE MALAWIMALAWI FIJIFIJI NAMIBIANAMIBIA MADAGASCARMADAGASCAR MOZAMBIQUEMOZAMBIQUE TONGATONGA PARAGUAYPARAGUAY BOTSWANABOTSWANA

CHILECHILE SouthSouth AtlanticAtlantic OceanOcean AUSTRALIAAUSTRALIA

SWAZILANDSWAZILAND ARGENTINAARGENTINA LESOTHO SOUTHSOUTH AFRICA AFRICA LESOTHO URUGUAYURUGUAY SouthSouth Paci cPaci c OceanOcean TasmanTasman Sea Sea

NEWNEW ZEALAND ZEALAND

SurveySurvey Findings Findings TheThe MapMap ofof PressPress FreedomFreedom reflectsreflects thethe findingsfindings ofof FreeFree-- thethe ability ability of of print, print, broadcast, broadcast, and and internet-based internet-based news news outlets outlets rangingranging from from the the murder murder of of journalists journalists to to other other extralegal extralegal abuse abuse

FreedomFreedom Status Status CountryCountry Breakdown Breakdown PopulationPopulation Breakdown Breakdown (in (in billions) billions) domdom House’sHouse’s studystudy FFrreeeddoomm oof f ththee PPrreess s2 2001100: : AA GGlolobbaal l SSuurr-- toto operate operate freely freely and and without without fear fear of of repercussions. repercussions. The The studystudy andand harassment harassment by by both both state state and and nonstate nonstate actors. actors. veyvey of of Media Media Independence Independence, ,which which rates rates the the level level of of press press free free-- alsoalso assessesassesses thethe degreedegree ofof newsnews andand informationinformation diversitydiversity FreedomFreedom HouseHouse isis anan independentindependent nongovernmentalnongovernmental FREEFREE 6969(35%)(35%) 1.081.08(16%)(16%) domdom inin 196196 countriescountries andand territoriesterritories duringduring 2009.2009. BasedBased onon availableavailable to to the the public public in in any any given given country, country, from from either either local local or or organizationorganization thatthat hashas monitoredmonitored presspress freedomfreedom worldwideworldwide PARTLYPARTLY FREE FREE 6464(33%)(33%) 3.013.01(44%)(44%) thesethese ratings,ratings, countriescountries areare classifiedclassified asasFree Free , , PartlyPartly Free Free, , oror transnationaltransnational sources. sources. sincesince 1980. 1980. NotNot Free Free.. CriteriaCriteria include: include: the the legal legal environment environment in in which which the the media media NOT FREE 63 (32%) 2.71 (40%) NOT FREE 63 (32%) 2.71 (40%) TheThe ratingsratings systemsystem is is designeddesigned to to capturecapture the the variedvaried waysways in in operate;operate; thethe degreedegree ofof politicalpolitical controlcontrol overover thethe newsnews media;media; TOTALTOTAL 196196(100%)(100%) 6.806.80(100%)(100%) whichwhich pressure pressure can can be be placed placed on on the the flow flow ofof information information andand economiceconomic pressures pressures on on content; content; and and violations violations of of press press freedom freedom www.freedomhouse.orgwww.freedomhouse.org

ProductionProduction of of the the Map Map of of Press Press Freedom Freedom made made possible possible by by the the Hurford Hurford Foundation Foundation

10 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

FreedomFreedomFreedomFreedom House House House House Map Map Map Map of of ofPress ofPress Press Press Freedom Freedom Freedom Freedom 2010 201020102010

Arctic OceanArcticArctic OceanArctic Ocean Ocean Greenland SeaGreenland GreenlandSea Greenland Sea Sea Beaufort Sea Beaufort SeaBeaufort SeaBeaufort Sea GREENLAND GREENLAND GREENLAND Norwegian SeaNorwegianNorwegian Sea Sea (DENMARK) (DENMARK) (DENMARK) GREENLAND Norwegian Sea (DENMARK) ICELAND ICELAND ICELAND ICELAND NORWAY NORWAY NORWAY U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. SWEDEN SWEDEN SWEDENNORWAY U.S.A. SWEDEN FINLAND FINLAND FINLAND RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA FINLAND RUSSIA

ESTONIA ESTONIA ESTONIA Hudson Bay Hudson BayHudson BayHudson Bay ESTONIA Bering Sea Bering SeaBering Sea Labrador Sea Labrador SeaLabrador Sea DENMARK DENMARK DENMARKLATVIA LATVIA LATVIA Bering Sea Labrador Sea DENMARK LATVIA CANADA CANADA CANADA U.K. U.K. RUSSIA U.K.LITHUANIARUSSIA LITHUANIARUSSIA LITHUANIA Sea of OkhotskSea of OkhotskSea of Okhotsk Gulf of AlaskaGulf of AlaskaGulf of AlaskaGulf of Alaska CANADA U.K. RUSSIA LITHUANIA Sea of Okhotsk IRELAND IRELAND IRELAND BELARUS BELARUS BELARUS NETHERLANDS NETHERLANDSIRELANDPOLAND NETHERLANDSPOLAND POLAND BELARUS GERMANY GERMANY GERMANYNETHERLANDS POLAND BELGIUM BELGIUM BELGIUM GERMANY CZECH REP. CZECH REP.BELGIUMCZECH REP. LUXEMBOURG LUXEMBOURG LUXEMBOURG UKRAINE CZECHUKRAINE REP. UKRAINE LIECHTENSTEIN LIECHTENSTEINSLOVAKIA LIECHTENSTEINLUXEMBOURGSLOVAKIA SLOVAKIA UKRAINE LIECHTENSTEIN SLOVAKIA AUSTRIA HUNGARYAUSTRIAMOLDOVAHUNGARYAUSTRIAMOLDOVAHUNGARY MOLDOVA KAZAKHSTAN KAZAKHSTAN KAZAKHSTAN SWITZERLAND SWITZERLAND SWITZERLAND AUSTRIA HUNGARY MOLDOVA KAZAKHSTAN North AtlanticNorth NorthAtlantic Ocean Atlantic Ocean Ocean SLOVENIA ROMANIASLOVENIA SWITZERLANDSLOVENIAROMANIA ROMANIA MONGOLIA MONGOLIA MONGOLIA North Atlantic OceanITALY CROATIA ITALY CROATIAITALY CROATIA SLOVENIA ROMANIA MONGOLIA FRANCE FRANCE SERBIAFRANCE SERBIA ITALYSERBIACROATIA BOSNIA & HERZ. BOSNIAFRANCE & HERZ.BOSNIA & HERZ. SERBIA BOSNIA & HERZ. MONTENEGRO MONTENEGRO MONTENEGRO MONACO MONACO MONACOBULGARIA BULGARIAGEORGIABULGARIA GEORGIA UZBEKISTANGEORGIA UZBEKISTAN UZBEKISTAN ANDORRA SAN MARINOANDORRA SANANDORRA MARINO SAN MARINOMONACO MONTENEGRO BULGARIA KYRGYZSTAN KYRGYZSTANUZBEKISTANKYRGYZSTAN MACEDONIA ANDORRAMACEDONIASAN MARINOMACEDONIA GEORGIA KYRGYZSTAN PORTUGAL PORTUGAL PORTUGALKOSOVO (SERBIA) KOSOVO (SERBIA)KOSOVO (SERBIA) MACEDONIAAZERBAIJAN AZERBAIJAN AZERBAIJAN PORTUGAL KOSOVOARMENIA (SERBIA) ARMENIA ARMENIA AZERBAIJAN SPAIN SPAIN SPAIN GREECE GREECE GREECE TURKMENISTAN ARMENIATURKMENISTANTURKMENISTAN NORTH KOREA NORTH KOREA NORTH KOREA UNITED STATES OF AMERICAUNITED STATESUNITED OF AMERICA STATES OF AMERICA SPAIN TURKEY TURKEYGREECETURKEY TAJIKISTAN TAJIKISTANTURKMENISTANTAJIKISTAN NORTH KOREA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ALBANIA ALBANIA ALBANIA TURKEY TAJIKISTAN ALBANIA MALTA MALTA MALTA CHINA CHINA CHINA SOUTH KOREA SOUTH KOREA SOUTH KOREA North Paci cNorth NorthOceanPaci c Paci c Ocean Ocean CYPRUS SYRIACYPRUS MALTACYPRUSSYRIA SYRIA KASHMIR (PAKISTAN)KASHMIR (PAKISTAN)KASHMIR (PAKISTAN) CHINA SOUTH KOREA North Paci c Ocean TUNISIA TUNISIA TUNISIA CYPRUS SYRIA KASHMIR (PAKISTAN) LEBANON TUNISIALEBANON LEBANON AFGHANISTAN AFGHANISTAN AFGHANISTAN LEBANON KASHMIR (INDIA) KASHMIRAFGHANISTAN (INDIA)KASHMIR (INDIA) MOROCCO MOROCCO MOROCCOISRAELI OCCUPIED/PAL.ISRAELI AUTHO. OCCUPIED/PAL.ISRAELI OCCUPIED/PAL.AUTHO.IRAQ AUTHO.IRAQIRAN IRAQ IRAN IRAN KASHMIR (INDIA) MOROCCO ISRAEL ISRAEL ISRAELI OCCUPIED/PAL.ISRAEL AUTHO. IRAQ JAPAN JAPAN JAPAN ISRAEL IRAN East East East East JAPAN JORDAN JORDAN JORDAN TIBET (CHINA) TIBET (CHINA) TIBET (CHINA) JORDAN TIBET (CHINA) China Sea China Sea China SeaChina Sea KUWAIT KUWAIT KUWAIT NEPAL NEPAL NEPAL PAKISTAN KUWAITPAKISTAN PAKISTAN NEPAL ALGERIA ALGERIA ALGERIA BAHRAIN BAHRAIN BAHRAIN BHUTANPAKISTAN BHUTAN BHUTAN LIBYA ALGERIALIBYA LIBYA BAHRAIN BHUTAN MEXICO MEXICO MEXICO BAHAMAS BAHAMAS BAHAMAS EGYPT EGYPT LIBYAEGYPT QATAR QATAR QATAR Gulf of MexicoGulf of MexicoMEXICOGulf of MexicoGulf of Mexico BAHAMAS WESTERN SAHARA WESTERN SAHARA WESTERN SAHARA EGYPT QATAR (MOROCCO) (MOROCCO) (MOROCCO) WESTERN SAHARA (MOROCCO) U.A.E. U.A.E. U.A.E. INDIAU.A.E. INDIA INDIA TAIWAN TAIWAN TAIWAN North Paci cNorth NorthOceanPaci c Paci c Ocean Ocean PUERTO RICO (U.S.A.)PUERTO RICO (U.S.A.)PUERTO RICO (U.S.A.) INDIA TAIWAN North Paci c Ocean PUERTO RICO (U.S.A.) SAUDI ARABIA SAUDI ARABIA SAUDI ARABIA CUBA CUBA CUBA SAUDI ARABIA BURMA BURMA HONGBURMA KONG (CHINA)HONG KONG (CHINA)HONG KONG (CHINA) CUBA LAOS LAOS LAOSBURMA HONG KONG (CHINA) MAURITANIA MAURITANIA MAURITANIA BANGLADESH BANGLADESH BANGLADESH LAOS JAMAICA JAMAICA JAMAICAST. KITTS & NEVIS ST. KITTS & NEVISST. KITTS & NEVIS MAURITANIA OMAN OMAN OMAN BANGLADESH JAMAICA ST. KITTS & NEVIS MALI MALI MALI OMAN BELIZE BELIZEHAITI BELIZE HAITI ANTIGUAHAITI & BARBUDAANTIGUA & BARBUDAANTIGUA & BARBUDA MALI BELIZE HAITI ANTIGUA & BARBUDA NIGER NIGER NIGER YEMEN YEMEN YEMEN South China SeaSouth ChinaSouth Sea China Sea DOM. REP. DOM. REP. DOM. REP. SENEGAL SENEGAL SENEGAL CHAD CHAD NIGERERITREACHAD ERITREA ERITREA YEMEN THAILAND THAILAND THAILAND South China Sea HONDURAS HONDURAS HONDURAS DOMINICA DOMINICADOM. REP.DOMINICA SENEGAL CHAD ERITREA Bay of BengalBay of BengalBay of Bengal THAILAND HONDURAS DOMINICA VIETNAMBay of BengalVIETNAM VIETNAM Caribbean SeaCaribbean CaribbeanSeaST. LUCIA Caribbean Sea ST. LUCIA Sea ST. LUCIA CAPE VERDE CAPE VERDE CAPE VERDE VIETNAM MARSHALL MARSHALL MARSHALL GUATEMALA GUATEMALA GUATEMALA GRENADA GRENADA GRENADA ST. LUCIA THE GAMBIA THE GAMBIA CAPETHE GAMBIA VERDE SUDAN SUDAN SUDAN PHILIPPINES PHILIPPINES PHILIPPINES MARSHALL NICARAGUA NICARAGUAGUATEMALANICARAGUA ST. VINCENT & GRENADINESST. VINCENTGRENADA & GRENADINESST. VINCENT & GRENADINES THE GAMBIA SUDAN CAMBODIA CAMBODIA CAMBODIA PHILIPPINESISLANDS ISLANDS ISLANDS EL SALVADOR EL SALVADOR EL SALVADOR NICARAGUA ST. VINCENT & GRENADINES BURKINA BURKINA BURKINA CAMBODIA ISLANDS EL SALVADOR BARBADOS BARBADOS BARBADOS FASO FASO FASO BURKINA DJIBOUTI DJIBOUTI DJIBOUTI BARBADOS GUINEA BISSAU GUINEAGUINEA BISSAUGUINEAGUINEA BISSAU GUINEA FASO DJIBOUTI BENINGUINEANIGERIA BISSAU BENINGUINEANIGERIABENIN NIGERIA TRINIDAD & TOBAGOTRINIDAD & TOBAGOTRINIDAD & TOBAGO BENIN NIGERIA SOMALILAND (SOMALIA)SOMALILAND (SOMALIA)SOMALILAND (SOMALIA) COSTA RICA COSTA RICA COSTA RICA TRINIDAD & TOBAGO SOMALILAND (SOMALIA) COSTA RICA CÔTE CÔTE CÔTE ETHIOPIA ETHIOPIA ETHIOPIA SRI LANKA SRI LANKA SRI LANKA MICRONESIA MICRONESIA MICRONESIA VENEZUELA GUYANAVENEZUELA VENEZUELAGUYANA GUYANA SIERRA LEONE SIERRA LEONEGHANASIERRA LEONE GHANA GHANACÔTE ETHIOPIA SRI LANKA MICRONESIA VENEZUELA GUYANA D’IVOIRE D’IVOIRESIERRA LEONED’IVOIRECENTRAL AFRICANGHANA CENTRAL AFRICANCENTRAL AFRICAN KIRIBATI KIRIBATI KIRIBATI PANAMA PANAMA PANAMA SURINAME SURINAME SURINAME D’IVOIRE CENTRAL AFRICAN NAURU NAURU NAURU KIRIBATI PANAMA SURINAME REPUBLIC REPUBLIC REPUBLIC BRUNEI BRUNEI BRUNEI NAURU LIBERIA LIBERIATOGO LIBERIA TOGO TOGO REPUBLIC BRUNEI FRENCH GUIANA (FRANCE)FRENCH GUIANAFRENCH (FRANCE) GUIANA (FRANCE) CAMEROONLIBERIA CAMEROON CAMEROONTOGO COLOMBIA COLOMBIA COLOMBIA FRENCH GUIANA (FRANCE) CAMEROON MALDIVES MALDIVES MALDIVES PALAU PALAU PALAU COLOMBIA SOMALIA SOMALIA SOMALIA MALDIVES MALAYSIA MALAYSIA MALAYSIA PALAU EQUATORIAL GUINEAEQUATORIAL GUINEAEQUATORIAL GUINEA UGANDA UGANDA UGANDA SOMALIA MALAYSIA EQUATORIAL GUINEA UGANDA SAO TOME & PRINCIPESAO TOME & PRINCIPESAO TOME & PRINCIPE ECUADOR ECUADOR ECUADOR SAO TOME & PRINCIPE KENYA KENYA KENYA SINGAPORE SINGAPORE SINGAPORE TUVALU TUVALU TUVALU ECUADOR KENYA SINGAPORE TUVALU GABON GABONRWANDAGABON RWANDA RWANDA GABON RWANDA CONGO (KINSHASA)CONGOBURUNDI (KINSHASA)CONGO (KINSHASA)BURUNDI BURUNDI CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE)CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE)CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) CONGO (KINSHASA) BURUNDI PERU PERU PERU CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) PERU INDONESIA INDONESIA INDONESIA INDONESIAPAPUA PAPUA SOLOMONPAPUA SOLOMON SOLOMON TANZANIA TANZANIA TANZANIA NEW GUINEA NEW GUINEA NEW GUINEA PAPUA SOLOMON SEYCHELLES TANZANIASEYCHELLES SEYCHELLES ISLANDS NEWISLANDS GUINEA ISLANDS SEYCHELLES ISLANDS EAST TIMOR EAST TIMOR EAST TIMOR BRAZIL BRAZIL BRAZIL EAST TIMOR BRAZIL COMOROS COMOROS COMOROS IndianCOMOROS OceanIndianIndian Ocean Ocean ANGOLA ANGOLA ANGOLA Indian Ocean SAMOA SAMOA SAMOA ANGOLA SAMOA ZAMBIA ZAMBIA ZAMBIA VANUATU VANUATU VANUATU ZAMBIA VANUATU MAURITIUS MAURITIUS MAURITIUS BOLIVIA BOLIVIA BOLIVIA ZIMBABWE ZIMBABWE ZIMBABWE MAURITIUS BOLIVIA MALAWI MALAWIZIMBABWEMALAWI FIJI FIJI FIJI NAMIBIA NAMIBIA NAMIBIA MADAGASCAR MADAGASCARMALAWIMADAGASCAR FIJI NAMIBIA MADAGASCAR MOZAMBIQUE MOZAMBIQUE MOZAMBIQUE MOZAMBIQUE TONGA TONGA TONGA PARAGUAY PARAGUAY PARAGUAY BOTSWANA BOTSWANA BOTSWANA TONGA PARAGUAY BOTSWANA CHILE CHILE CHILE South AtlanticSouth SouthAtlantic Ocean Atlantic Ocean Ocean AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIA CHILE South Atlantic Ocean AUSTRALIA

SWAZILAND SWAZILAND SWAZILAND ARGENTINA ARGENTINA ARGENTINA SWAZILAND ARGENTINA SOUTH AFRICA SOUTHLESOTHO AFRICASOUTH AFRICALESOTHO LESOTHO SOUTH AFRICA LESOTHO URUGUAY URUGUAY URUGUAY URUGUAY South Paci cSouth OceanSouthPaci c SouthPaci c Ocean Paci c Ocean Ocean Tasman Sea Tasman SeaTasman SeaTasman Sea

NEW ZEALAND NEW ZEALANDNEW ZEALAND NEW ZEALAND

Survey FindingsSurveySurvey FindingsSurvey Findings Findings The Map of ThePress MapFreedom Theof Press reflectsMap Freedom Theof Press theMap reflectsfindings Freedomof Press the of reflectsFreedom Free-findings the reflects ofabilityfindings Free- theof print,the offindings Freeability- broadcast, theof print, Freeability- and broadcast, internet-basedtheof print, ability broadcast,and of print,internet-based news broadcast,and outlets internet-based news andranging outletsinternet-based news from outlets theranging murdernews from outletsranging of thejournalists murder fromranging the to of other journalistsmurder from extralegal the of journalistsmurderto other abuse of extralegal journalists to other abuse extralegal to other abuseextralegal abuse dom House’s domstudy House’sFreeddomom study oHouse’sf th Fer ePe rdstudyeossm 2 0o 1fF 0rte:h eeAd oPGmrel ososb fa2 lt0 h1Se0u :Pr -rAe sGs 2loto0b1 a0operatel : SAu rG- l ofreelybatol S uoperateandr- without tofreely operate fear and of freelywithout repercussions. and fear without of repercussions. The fear study of repercussions. Theand harassmentstudy The and study by harassment both andstate harassment and by both nonstate state by actors. andboth nonstate state and actors. nonstate actors. Freedom Status Freedom Status FreedomCountry Status BreakdownFreedom StatusCountry BreakdownPopulationCountry Breakdown BreakdownPopulation Country(in billions) Breakdown BreakdownPopulation (in billions) BreakdownPopulation (in billions) Breakdown (in billions) dom House’s study Freedom of the Press 2010: A Global Sur- to operate freely and without fear of repercussions. The study and harassment by both state and nonstate actors. vey of Media Independencevey of Mediavey ,Independence whichof Media ratesvey Independence of the, Mediawhich level Independence ratesof, presswhich the freelevel rates-, whichof the pressalso level rates freeassesses of thepress level alsothe free of degree- assessespressalso freeof the -newsassesses degree alsoand the assessesofinformation degreenews theand of degreenewsdiversityinformation andof newsinformation diversity Freedomand information diversity HouseFreedom diversityis an FreedomHouse independent is FreedomHousean independentnongovernmental is Housean independent isnongovernmental an independent nongovernmental nongovernmental FREE FREE FREE69 (35%)FREE 69 (35%) 1.0869 (35%)(16%)69 1.08(35%)(16%)1.08 (16%)1.08 (16%) dom in 196 countriesdom in 196 anddom countries territories in 196dom andcountries during in territories 196 2009. andcountries territoriesduringBased and on2009. territoriesduring Basedavailable 2009. onduring toBased the available2009. public on Based in to availableany the on given public to country,available inthe any public given from to inthe country, eitherany public given local infrom country, any or either given organizationfrom local country, either or from local organizationthat either or has localmonitoredorganization thator has organizationpress monitoredthat freedom has monitoredthatpress worldwide has freedom monitored press worldwidefreedom press worldwidefreedom worldwide PARTLY FREE PARTLY FREEPARTLY64 FREE(33%)PARTLY 64FREE(33%) 3.0164 (33%)(44%)64 3.01(33%)(44%)3.01 (44%)these3.01 ratings,(44%) thesecountries ratings, theseare countriesclassified ratings,these arecountriesas ratings,Free classified, Partly arecountries classifiedas FreeFree , are, orPartly classifiedasFree transnationalFree, Partly, orasFree Free ,sources. transnationalPartly, or Freetransnational, sources.or transnational sources. sources. since 1980. since 1980.since 1980.since 1980. Not Free. Not Free. Not Free. Not Free. Criteria include:Criteria the legal include:Criteria environment the include: legalCriteria inenvironment the which include: legal the environment the mediain legalwhich environment the in whichmedia the in whichmedia the media NOT FREE NOT FREE NOT63 FREE(32%) 63 (32%) 2.7163 (32%) (40%) 2.71 (40%)2.71 (40%) NOT FREE 63 (32%) 2.71The (40%) ratings systemThe ratings is designedThe system ratings to iscaptureThe designedsystem ratings the is to varied designed systemcapture ways is tothe designed incapture variedoperate; totheways capture varied in the thedegreewaysoperate; varied in of thepoliticalwaysoperate; degree in control the ofoperate; politicaldegree over the of thecontrol politicaldegree news over ofmedia; control political the news over control media;the news over media;the news media; TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL196 (100%)TOTAL196 (100%)1966.80(100%)(100%)196 6.80(100%)(100%)6.80 (100%)which6.80 (100%)pressurewhich can bepressure placedwhich can onpressure thebewhich placedflow can pressure ofonbe information placedthe can flow onbe ofplacedthe andinformation flow oneconomic ofthe information flowand pressures of economicinformation and on content; pressureseconomic and and on pressureseconomic violations content; on pressuresand of content; press violations freedom on and content; ofviolations press and www.freedomhouse.orgfreedom ofviolations press freedom ofwww.freedomhouse.org press freedomwww.freedomhouse.org www.freedomhouse.org

Production of the MapProduction of Press Freedom of theProduction Map made of possiblePress of the FreedomProduction byMap the of madeHurford Press of thepossible Freedom Foundation Map ofby made Pressthe Hurford possibleFreedom Foundation by made the Hurford possible Foundation by the Hurford Foundation

Center for International Media Assistance 11 Evaluating the Evaluators

category. (This is how Italy dropped from For many of its operations, Freedom House accepts money from governments, but only report for surveying the calendar year 2007 ones that it considers to be democratic. For became“Free” to 32 “Partly for 2008). Free”: A its number score ofof 29staff in the the press freedom index, however, it has members of Freedom House also review long declined to take money directly from the country report and scoring and make governments of any kind, in an attempt to head off accusations of serving government consensus is reached and the country is interests. It has relied instead on money formallysuggestions scored. as they see fit. In the end, from foundations, some of which are privately funded, some of which, such as When all countries of the world are completed, the U.S. National Endowment for they are ranked. The new annual report is Democracy (NED), receive government edited, and a new version of the tricolored support. The NED gave the index $20,000 map is devised, to become standard decoration

in each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010. on the walls of media aid offices in many parts blow, with the loss of some of its funding. controlledof the world. database Enlarged make to a up 36-by-20-foot a permanent scale, FreedomIn 2009, the House study found suffered other a donorsserious to financial exhibitthe map at and the an Newseum, accompanying the museum touch screen-of replace some of those funds, but it could not journalism in Washington, DC. close the shortfall and was forced to make

thesignificant Internet cuts and in not the on study’s paper. resources. No regional For Finland,In the report Iceland, released Norway, in May and 2010,Sweden reflecting were panelsthe first of time, outside the expertsstudy was were published convened, only with on allassessments tied for the for best events score of in calendar the world, year 10, 2009, their work of backup analysis being handled instead by Freedom House staff members. The United States got a score of 18, placing it with while North Korea had the worst, 99. The countries getting full treatment of numbers 7 report itself was shortened, with only about 40 one other 18-scoring country (the Czech Republic) in the 24th rank. and narrative reports of the year’s media-

A mobile phone user on Batumi Boulavard, Batumi, Georgia. Photo by Leli Blagonravova.

12 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

related events. Conditions in the rest were funding for its surveys. The index for Eastern reported only as scores, sometimes with brief Europe and Central Asia, for instance, is underwritten by USAID. The Middle East and North Africa study has been paid for by USAID 2010,bullet-point Freedom accounts House of resumed media events. the use For of the and the State Department, with UNESCO regionalcalendar reviewyear 2009 panels study of outsidereleased experts; in April other funding has come from the Canadian shortened reports, remained. Internationalbankrolling an Development Iraq-specific Agencystudy. Other (CIDA) and cuts, including online-only publication and the People Technology Foundation. Freedom House is canvassing for new funding and hopes to restore the study to its previous form in future years. that state what IREX views as the fundamental objectivesThe study isin basedcreating on goodfive declarative media systems: sentences

IREX ●● “Legal and social norms protect and promote free speech and The Media Sustainability Index was born out of access to public information. efforts to better direct the wave of media ●● “Journalism meets professional standards of quality. Eastern Europe and Central Asia following the collapseassistance of dollarscommunism that began there. flowing into ●● “Multiple news sources provide citizens with reliable, objective news. Among the groups deeply involved in U.S. media ●● which in Cold War days had administered managed businesses, allowing academicaid programs exchanges is the Washington-based with the Soviet Union IREX, and editorial“Independent independence. media are well- the other communist countries of Eastern Europe. According to Leon Morse, who oversees ●● “Supporting institutions function in the professional interest of independent media.” pursuing comprehensive programs aimed at buildingthe index media today, organizations in the 1990s IREX that couldwas one Under each of these objectives is a collection of day be weaned off foreign aid—they would be indicators, also expressed as declarative sustainable, in other words. With the Freedom sentences. “Independent broadcast media House index focusing on questions of media produce their own news programs” helps freedom, IREX felt the need for an assessment assess, for instance, the state of the multiple tool that paid particular attention to journalistic news sources objective. “Professional quality and economic factors in a country’s associations work to protect journalists’ rights” is linked to the supporting institutions objective. Each of these statements is scored 0 Agencymedia environment. for International Starting Development in 1999, IREX (USAID), plottedofficials, what working issues in toconjunction measure and with by the what U.S. to 4, with 0 signifying that the country basically methodologies, consulting outside experts to signaling that it meets it in full. Scores for the indicatorsdoes not meet are averagedthe indicator to produce at all and an 4 overall evaluated would be the former communist score for each objective. The objectives’ scores states,give their but views. IREX saw The broaderfirst countries application to be down are in turn averaged to yield a score for the the road. “We purposely sat down to make country as a whole. Like Freedom House, IREX these as universal as possible,” said Morse. “We has created categories to help in analysis of the didn’t want this to be an Eastern European conclusions. Countries with an overall 0 to 1 index.”8 IREX has since applied the index to 80 score are designated as “unsustainable, countries in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. From the start, “unsustainable mixed system.” Then comes anti-free press.” Above that, at 1.01 to 2.00, is IREX has relied heavily on U.S. government “near sustainability” at 2.01 to 3.00 and, at the

top, 3.01 to 4.00,Center “sustainable.” for International Media Assistance 13 Evaluating the Evaluators

Scores are compiled by groups that are political system, IREX includes the names and considerably bigger and more diverse than those used in Freedom House’s index. In each public report, though not their individual country, IREX strives to recruit a dozen scorings.affiliations The of thenarrative panel descriptionmembers in may the quote professionals from all types of media, including panel members by name concerning private and state organizations, representing a diversity of urban and rural populations and If a country’s politics are generally repressive, the country’s major ethnic groups. Panel IREXdiscussion keeps of the specific names events of the inmembers their countries. members may include media owners, editors, reporters, managers, and marketers, as well as countries—Uzbekistan, for instance—there is noconfidential. effort to convene And in highlya panel repressive inside the country. IREX settles for having specialists outside the representatives from academia, the legal field, country do the ratings and write the narrative. indicatorsand NGOs. andEach how person to score is given them. a 22-page single-spaced document that lays out the and Eurasia that were formerly communist, Reporters Without Borders IREXIn the put 2009 Turkmenistan report on 21 in countries the lowest of spot,Europe with a score of 0.32. The categories of prides itself on being a street- savvy rabble-rouser, its ranks including men and women nine“unsustainable countries, withmixed Bosnia system” and (1.01-2) Herzegovina holdingand “near the sustainability” best score of 2.81.(2.01-3) The each highest had ready to go to jail for their convictions. signaling “sustainable”—had not a single countrypossible incategory—the it for the year. 3.01-4 range

Later, panel members sit down together and discuss their scores under the direction of a Reporters Without Borders moderator. People are free to change their own numbers based on what they hear from fellow Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is the evaluators. Representatives of government latecomer to the group, bringing a media are not included in the panel if IREX contrasting approach and personality. While feels that they would intimidate those in Freedom House and IREX have acquired private media. On the other hand, IREX says, somewhat “establishment” reputations over government media representatives are sometimes found to be more than willing to score their employers badly and share candid andthe years, women RSF ready prides to goitself to jailon beingfor their a street- criticisms with the panel. savvy rabble-rouser, its ranks including men diplomatic,” says Clothilde Le Coz, the Often the moderator functions also as the group’sconvictions. Washington “We are director.not well-known as country’s writer, entering the numbers into an 9 Excel spreadsheet, determining the averages, The group has mastered the art of getting itself and drafting a narrative report. The and its issues featured in the worldwide media. spreadsheet, the questionnaires with the raw numbers, and the reports are sent to time leader of RSF, was detained with two Washington. There, Morse reads the reports otherIn 2008, RSF Robert members Ménard, at the co-founder kickoff Olympic and at the

contribution to the mathematical pool—his scoringand scores is treated the country as equivalent himself asto athat final of an flame ceremony in Greece after they unfurled thea banner president depicting of the the Beijing Olympic Olympics rings as hand- become the score in the published report. organizingcuffs—a defiant committee. statement10 That during was onea speech of many by Inindividual countries panel that member.have a relatively The final open averages protests that year against suppression of

14 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

media freedom in China, where the 2008 games were held. On the Games’ opening day, as the Soros Foundation and the NED. Under RSF’sminister’s funding office, procedures, as well as donors foundations do not such give radio transmitters that they had smuggled money exclusively to the press freedom index, August 8, RSF members used low-powered talk onto the airwaves in Beijing. It was, RSF regional programs that generate information into the country to put 40 minutes of dissident thatbut their goes grantsinto it. canFor underwriteinstance, according specific to the

declared, the first pirate radio in China since gave to RSF for work in Eritrea, Zimbabwe, Incommunist its survey, rule RSF began considers in 1949. some structural NED, the purposes of a $39,900 grant that it issues such as state ownership of printing included helping jailed journalists, conducting facilities. But most questions seek to measure trainingSomalia, workshops,and the Ivory and Coast writing in 2005 country and 2006 reports to analyze press freedom.11 media freedom: the murder or imprisonment ofthe journalists, traditional the blunt-object ransacking weapons of newsrooms, against RSF stresses that grants from governments and the suppression of information for and foundations make up only a small part of political purposes.

RSF consistently wins honors and funding saleits budget. of books The and majority calendars (68 andpercent the licensing in 2008) from Western groups, notably in Europe. ofis “self-generated”the RSF name.12 RSF,through in fact, such has things an as the entrepreneurial bent for bringing in cash: awareness about journalist safety and media Its Web site is unique among the three freedom,Citing work the on European five continents Parliament to raise in 2005 organizations in featuring ads for products awarded the group a Sakharov Prize for that have no connection to the press freedom Freedom of Thought, (an annual prize named mission—chic garments, weight loss methods, for Soviet scientist and dissident Andrei or other organizations. On one recent day, an Sakharov). Over the years, portions of RSF’s ad congratulated a visitor for being the overall budget have come from the European Commission, UNESCO, and the French prime they had a chance to win a BMW. 999,999th to come to the site and claimed

A TV production specialist in Kenya participates in a training session. Photo courtesy of Internews. Center for International Media Assistance 15 Evaluating the Evaluators

According to Le Coz, Ménard began to think concerned that they might really be working during the course of his work that the for the government. The group also sends the questionnaire to the countries’ as hard evidence of where individual countries governments, sometimes getting a organization needed its own specific numbers response, sometimes being ignored.

measure,stood vis-à-vis but as their the medianeighbors began concerning to show On its Web site, RSF does not detail the system interest,press freedom. it became It was a public first an document. internal The by which the questionnaire answers become a numerical ranking, but the organization new version is now released every October. provided a description on request for this Thefirst reportsglobal study are published was presented only on in the2002; Web. a

toreport. a question Its system as to assigns whether fixed there numbers were any to casesyes-no during questions. the year For ofinstance, journalists a “yes” being answer questionnaireThe 2009 survey as aconsisted whole: “Were of 40 therequestions. any kidnapped or disappearing converts into a 3, casesNumbers of journalists 1 through 1. 4 Illegallygive the detainedflavor of the a “no” answer into a 0. Questions that entail (without an arrest warrant, for longer than the some judgment are scored with a range of maximum period of police custody, without a numbers. For instance, a question lower down court appearance, etc)? 2. Being tortured or in the survey asks whether there was

owned media.” The answer can range from a resultill-treated? of harassment?” 3. Being kidnapped Recognizing or that “widespread self-censorship in the privately threatsdisappearing? come not 4. Fleeingonly from the government, country as a the questionnaire asks about armed militias and appliedscore of to0 (meaningthe answer no to self-censorship) produce a number to 5 secret organizations as well. Other parts of the that(strong goes self-censorship). into the country’s A formula total score. is then survey get at such issues as censorship and Likewise, in a question that asks how many journalists, media assistants, or press freedom ownership of media, economic and legal activists were killed in connection with their self-censorship, extent of government work during the course of the year, the number of deaths determines the number that pressure, and filtering of the Internet. goes into the country’s total score. One death means 3 points, more than 5 means 10 points. localAccording member to RSF, of RSF’s the questionnaire network of more is filled than As with the Freedom House index, an overall 120out by correspondents affiliated human around rights the groups, world, by and the by low score for a country is a good score. various other journalists, researchers, jurists, and human rights activists. The group does not In the latest ranking, taking into account routinely disclose who these people are, though in countries with generally open countries as having perfect scores of 0: political systems, the correspondents’ Denmark,events up toFinland, August Ireland, 31, 2009, Norway, RSF ranked and five identities are no secret. In some repressive Sweden. At the other end of the scale was countries RSF opts not to take on local people, Eritrea, with a score of 115.5.

16 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

Taking the Studies to Task

Over the years, the three studies have been strident campaign against the Cuban dissected ad infinitum in political science government, which has included such departments, foreign ministries, newsrooms, actions as the seizure in 2003 of a Cuban is entirely happy with them. Some are furious. the Cuba campaign is service rendered for the and media aid offices. Hardly anyone, it seems, tourism office in Paris. In these critics’ view, The most basic accusations involve bias. into the group’s budget. European In its starkest form, this critique depicts governments,U.S. funding that while in some highly years critical has of flowed Cuba’s the three organizations as arms of Western communist leadership, have in general governments, working to advance particular pursued a less direct approach. foreign policy outcomes. In some capitals, Freedom House is seen as delivering the American view of the hour; MSI’s close association with USAID has led to a similar differencesChristina Holtz-Bacha in Freedom of House the University and RSF ratingsof characterization. Reporters Without Borders ofErlangen-Nuremberg the United States and takes France note in of 2007 the wide and has the distinction of drawing charges from 2008. Freedom House put the United States in both sides of the Atlantic that its true the 21st rank in 2008, while putting France in loyalties lie on the other. th rank. RSF, meanwhile, did the reverse, ranking France higher than the United States. “Thatthe 40 is not yet proof for real or anticipated Over the years, the three studies have been dissected thepolitical numbers influence” supporting by the “the organizations’ assumption of a ad infinitum in political donors,bias towards writes the Holtz-Bacha. home country But of she the does see science departments, foreign organizations’ headquarters.” 14 ministries, newsrooms, and That, indeed, is the more common basis media aid offices. Hardly for claims of bias. It’s not that the three are anyone, it seems, is entirely faithfully carrying out instructions from funders. Rather, the home country’s views happy with them. Some of media freedom have made their way are furious. into each of the three questionnaires, thereby helping that country take a spot at least toward the top. RSF’s “highly curious rankings map far better upon the … political agenda of the European Union than upon any concrete the big question is ownership and regulation. indicators of press freedoms,” John Rosenthal Concerning American-European differences, market is seen as the best guarantor of media World Politics Review in 2007. Taking note independence.“In the United States,” In contrast, notes Western Holtz-Bacha, European “the ofwrote French in the and U.S.-based EU funding, online he cited publication what he countries examine the problems that arise for the media from a free and unregulated media of media freedom in Europe and play up such market much closer.”15 thingscalled ain tendency the United to States.soft-pedal13 curtailments

At the same time, some analysts in the whelmingly in private hands, as mainstream European and American left see the thinkingIn the United says States,it should the be. media The Americanis over- organization as an arm of Washington. In broadcasting industry was largely the creation of corporations drawing on particular, they cite RSF’s long-standing and Center for International Media Assistance 17 Evaluating the Evaluators

private capital; American newspapers have press. This positive guarantee historically been privately owned. for the press as an institution, Conventional wisdom in the United States is however, leaves the state on that government should stay out of the picture a tightrope walk between the concerning media. There are exceptions, of obligation to keep its hands off course. The congressionally funded the media and the obligation Corporation for Public Broadcasting helps to safeguard the conditions support public TV and radio stations all over necessary for a free and diverse the country. The U.S. Postal Service gives press … [T]he Portuguese discount rates for mailed publications. And in constitution makes it an explicit recent months, with so many American duty of the state to prevent concentration of the media. prominent voices in the American industry havenewspapers called for facing federally financial organized ruin, some aid or a Charter of Fundamental Rights. Declaring that 16 “theHoltz-Bacha freedom also and cites pluralism Article of 11 the of media the EU shall bigger role for the nonprofit financial model. be respected,” it provides another layer of Governments all over the world authority for state intervention.18 praise the concept of media So it was that President Nicolas Sarkozy of freedom but give very different France was not calling for anything radical descriptions of it.

subsidieswhen he proposed that were in already January running 2009 that at about about Still, compare that to Europe, where political $260 million be added to annual newspaper

circulation newspapers. Broadcasting free$360 subscription million. He also to the suggested newspaper that of every his or generallyparties hold began ownership as a state stakes enterprise in some in mass- her18-year-old choice, with in the the republic bill being should split beby given a Europe, sometimes run by the country’s post government and publishers. His plan was later adopted. 19 touch. Private broadcasters were only graduallyoffice as another introduced—Sweden, means for society for toinstance, keep in Many scholars see these contrasting points of views in the studies’ questions. “Media outlets 17 Though commercial broadcastinglicensed its first continues private toover-the-air expand in televisionEurope, station in 1991. isand one supporting of the MSI’s firms statements operate asof efficient,desired large and trusted presence in the daily lives of conditions.professional, “Independent and profit-generating media do businesses”not receive millionsstate-owned of people. television and radio remain a government subsidies” is another. Freedom House devotes much less attention to this There is broad political consensus in Europe issue, but does ask: “Does the economic that the state has a duty to actively promote situation in a country accentuate media the health and diversity of all forms of media. dependency on the state, political parties, big

for funding?” In the view of Fackson Banda of Holtz-BachaIn Germany, notes: for example, in Southbusiness, Africa’s or other Rhodes influential University, political Freedom actors

pretation of press freedom as a towards the state as predatory, always addition to the usual inter- encroachingHouse has a “neo-liberalon media freedom predisposition and the Federal Constitutional Court independence.”20 hasbarrier also against deduced state from influence, the press freedom article of the constitution The questionnaire of Reporters Without an obligation of the state to Borders, drafted on the other side of the secure the functioning of the Atlantic, marks countries down if the

18 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

state holds a media monopoly or there is The people who oversee the three studies have “narrow ownership of media outlets.” But heard all these arguments. In general, they overall the study pays little attention to respond that it’s simply not possible to be issues of ownership. biased in favor of the industrial world or the United States or Europe because under So how much do differing questions bring international law media freedom applies everywhere. Maintaining it is an obligation of inconsistencies in conclusions about European all UN members, as laid out in the Universal countries.different rankings? “Taking the Holtz-Bacha 27 member notes states of the Declaration of Human Rights. “We’re trying to European Union as an example, for a long time get at freedom of expression as a universal value,” said Paula Schriefer, director of On the [RSF] index of 2007, the country has advocacy at Freedom House.22 droppedthere was to a rankconsensus 5, whereas on Finland’s Freedom first House rank. The problem is that there is disagreement on Romania, placed in both studies at the bottom what media freedom is. Governments all over still lists Finland in first place.” Likewise, the world praise the concept but give very Cyprus and Bulgaria in 2007 on the RSF index different descriptions of it. Singapore, which of the EU countries in 2006, had overtaken consistently gets low rankings in media Freedom House’s report.21 freedom studies, is a case in point. In a speech but remained the EU bottom-ranker in in 2005, former Singaporean prime minister Goh Chok Tong dismissed the latest ranking European biases don’t matter that much. What from RSF as “a subjective measure computed Other analysts suggest that alleged American- through the prism of Western liberals.”23 Developing World spins. Is it coincidental that indicatorsdoes matter devised is West-East in Western or Industrial industrial World- These liberals “often argue that press freedom countries consistently rate Western industrial is a necessary ingredient of democracy and countries near the top? that it is the fourth estate to check elected

An equipment vehicle for Radio Rotana, a subsidiary of Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal’s Rotana Group. Photo by Nisreen Banat.

Center for International Media Assistance 19 Evaluating the Evaluators

governments, especially against corruption,” Singapore’s uniqueness as a country, our Goh said. “But a free press by Western standards does not always lead to a clean and vulnerabilities, and national goals,” Goh said. “Havingmultiracial our and media multi-religious play the role make-up, as the fourth economic freedom and prosperity.” Good estate cannot be the starting point for building mediaefficient work government to achieve or common contribute objectives, to he a stable, secure, incorrupt, and prosperous said. “Its corporate interests should coincide Singapore. The starting point is how to put in with the core interests of its home country.” place a good government to run a clean, just

In China, editors have been and efficient system.” Singapore as “Not Free,” placing it with dismissed and reporters and In its 2009 report, Freedom House ranked bloggers have been jailed for countries and territories surveyed. “There are strictArmenia defamation in the 151-152 and press spot laws, out ofand 195 the violating prohibitions against government vigorously punishes the press for publishing anything that divulges state secrets or is Freedom House report said. “As a result, the vastperceived majority personal of print attacks and broadcast on officials,” journalists the detrimental to the dignity and interests of the state. magazinespractice self-censorship.” are sometimes The censored” report andsaid thatthat “nearly“films, television all print and programs, broadcast music, media books, outlets, and Good media know when to restrain internet service providers (ISPs), and cable themselves, he said, adding that Western television services are either owned or media have on occasion demonstrated that controlled by the state or by companies with virtue. In Goh’s view, the BBC showed close ties to the ruling People’s Action Party.” commendable restraint in its coverage of the London transit bombings of July 2005. The report, 133rd out of 175 countries rated. broadcaster mostly used recorded video RSF also gave Singapore a low rank in its 2009 images that it could edit and “injected calm China’s government also routinely dismisses by reporting on the speed of the emergency its low media freedom ranking (181st out of services and the quick recovery of the London stock market.” He cited Singapore’s experience rankings). “Such kind of criticism is ridiculous during the 2002 crisis over the SARS illness. and196 notcountries worth incommenting Freedom House’s on,” Chinese 2010 “Our newspapers and TV stations produced Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu told special cartoons and programs to drive home reporters after Freedom House’s 2007 survey messages to promote public hygiene, increase again placed Chinese media in the “Not Free” awareness and dispel myths. The SARS episode was one of the most painful moments where, he went on to praise media freedom, for Singapore. Without the media working essentiallycategory. But, saying like thatnational Freedom officials House every- failed to with the Government, Singapore could not recognize that China has it. “Freedom of have pulled through.” speech and publication of its citizens are protected in China by law,” he said. “The Goh said he did not favor having a “subservient” or “unthinking” press and that reporting. Meanwhile, like in any other coverage should give people a varied but countriesChinese media of rule enjoy of law, sufficient the Chinese freedom media in balanced perspective. He repeated themes of should conduct their work within the responsibility and common societal scope of the Constitution and law.” objectives. “Editors and journalists must 24 have high personal integrity and sound In China, working within the scope of the judgment—people who understand Constitution and law generally means

20 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

serving the government and Communist Party. country’s TV stations and newspapers, while Authorities view vast categories of information as something to be held in secret unless government dole and told to support remaining state-owned, have been cut from the have been dismissed and reporters and advertising, which means offering content that bloggersrelease would have beenadvance jailed official for violating policies. Editors willthemselves draw readers financially. and viewers, That means which carrying means prohibitions against publishing anything that sometimes broaching subjects that may not divulges state secrets or is detrimental to the please party functionaries back in the capital. dignity and interests of the state. The Internet Evidence that control is less than total is seen is notoriously censored in China. give news organizations that they deem to The Communist Party’s Propaganda in the periodic public slap-downs that officials Department, whose status is signaled by the the government of Guangdong province told elegance of its headquarters building near have gone too far. In May 2009, for instance, provincial, municipal, and county levels, and it protests,state-controlled and other media sensitive there subjects.that they should routinelyBeijing’s Tiananmen lets media executivesSquare, has know offices what at the it curtail “negative” coverage of officials,26 public considers permissible. In public forums, leaders all the way up to the president have suggested that China has evolved a media that other countries would do The proper role of media is to well to emulate. The words “harmony” and “use their distinctive assets and advantages to convey statements. Close cooperation with the government“peace” figure and prominently advancement in these of common the messages of peace, goals is the core concept. development, cooperation, mutual benefit, and tolerance.” Summit bringing together about 300 media In October 2009, Beijing hosted a World Media — President Hu Jintao at Beijing’s Great Hall of the People. Among thoseexecutives in attendance and officials were from Rupert all over Murdoch, the world Li Dongdong, deputy director of China’s chairman of News Corporation; Tom Curley, General Administration of Press and chief executive of the Associated Press; and Satoshi Ishikawa, president of Kyodo News. Xinhua News Agency in March 2010 that a Addressing the group, President Hu Jintao smallPublications minority (GAPP), of journalists told the were government-run giving the declared that the proper role of media is to profession a bad name because they lacked “use their distinctive assets and advantages to political judgment. “There are some who have convey the messages of peace, development, not been thoroughly trained in the Marxist theory of news, or news media ethics,” Li said. media organizations should “strive to GAPP would institute training for journalists contributecooperation, to mutualbuilding benefit, a harmonious and tolerance.” world All on these topics and Communist Party with lasting peace and common prosperity.”27 propaganda regulations, she told Xinhua.25 This One way they can do this is to closely cover is not to say that China’s media are a monolith measures taken to combat the global recession, Hu said, noting that all countries are in the censors. Chinese news organizations same boat and have moved to strengthen sometimesin which every expose word corruption. gets pre-clearance They sometimes from cooperation. Hu’s views represent those of a give voice to unsanctioned citizen groups. But political party that holds monopoly power. Yet for the most part, the loosening is not it is hard to deny that in many East Asian deliberate party policy, but a side effect of past countries, millions of people well below the decades’ introduction of free enterprise into level of the leadership view the media’s proper myriad aspects of Chinese life. Many of the role in terms different from those common in

Center for International Media Assistance 21 Evaluating the Evaluators

the United States and Europe. Japan’s national may opt for a Jekyll and Hyde personality.”28 ethic of addressing problems quietly without journalist Muhammad Diyab observed: the generally staid reports of its national TV “ThereAfter RSF are issued some itswho 2009 believe report, that Saudi the report networksopen confrontation, and newspapers. for example, Likewise, is reflected many in does not take cultural differences into analysts posit the existence of an unwritten account and further consolidates the social contract in China: if the Communist hegemony of Western culture as the one Party continues to deliver a steadily rising culture that aims to dominate the world. … standard of living, the bulk of citizens will not The Reporters Without Borders’ freedom challenge its control of the political apparatus, index continued to save the bottom section of which includes the media. the list for most of the Arab countries.” 29 In Africa too, questions are aired, and not just So, work is underway by a number of groups to by leaders, about the surveys’ assumptions and develop indexes that everyone will recognize as whether Western concepts of media’s proper culturally neutral for the world, or at least for one region of it. University of Cape Town professor Francis Nyamnjoh,role fit the culturefor instance, of countries has said there. that he sees an Among the resulting systems is the African Media Barometer (AMB), developed by the loyalties to social and ethnic groups and Media Institute of Southern Africa and the principlesinnate conflict that betweenjournalists traditional must be aloofAfrican from the subjects they cover. The result, he said, can be “media whose professional values are not in Party.Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung The barometer’s stated (FES), purpose a foundation is not to tune with the expectations of those they compareaffiliated countrieswith Germany’s one to Socialthe other, Democratic but to purport to serve. … Torn between such create consistent and credible assessments of media development and freedom in African states so as to facilitate a rise to the next level competing and conflicting understandings of of quality. The index made its debut in 2005 democracy, the media find it increasingly difficult to marry rhetoric with practice … [and]

Radio frequency monitoring station in Thailand. Photo courtesy of National Telecommunications Commission, Thailand.

22 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

with studies of Zambia, Namibia, Botswana, and “criticized governments can more easily say that the report is based on a foreign conspiracy, agenda, or interest than with the AMB, where countriesKenya. By gettingthe end three of 2009, separate it had evaluations been applied over only local experts from the media and civil time.47 times30 Each in 25 assessment countries, is with carried six of out those by a panel society discuss, score, and thus own the of about 10 people that convene in the country product without any input from outside,” said being examined. Half are media professionals, Rolf Paasch, former director of fesmedia Africa, half are members of various civil society groups. 31 included. Panelists debate the issues and share an affiliate of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. No officials from a country’s government are Perceptions of Western indicators grouped under four assertions of the domination of the world’s views before giving 1 to 5 scores on 45 qualities of an ideal media system: news media have long been ●● “Freedom of expression, including freedom common among some UNESCO of the media, are effectively protected and promoted. member states.

●● “The media landscape, including new The barometer also invokes the authority of media, is characterized by diversity, regional agreements that African governments independence and sustainability. have pledged to uphold—for instance, the ●● “Broadcasting regulation is transparent Declaration of Principles on Freedom of and independent; the state broadcaster is Expression in Africa, adopted in 2002 by the transformed into a truly public broadcaster. African Union’s African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Likewise, the idea of a ●● “The media practice high levels of professional standards.” draws on the African Charter on Broadcasting, signedthree-tiered by governments broadcast system of the region being desirablein Windhoek, Namibia, in 2001. in the surveyed country, with diplomats and The findings are released at a press conference other dignitaries invited, with the hope of fueling Further evidence that this barometer is debate and building political will to address not solely African comes from pilot applications of the evaluation system in If they agree, the names of the panel members India and Pakistan. According to fesmedia, whatever shortcomings have been identified. the barometer “traveled” well, and was indicators) are normally published in the report. found to be acceptable in those countries. (though not their individual scorings on the 45

If much of this seems familiar, it is. The In the meantime, questions of how to measure methodology and many of the questions media development continued to percolate from this index draw liberally from the at UNESCO. The organization funds a broad IREX approach, down to the use of the word collection of media aid programs around “sustainability.” There are differences, such the world, and, like any donor, wants solid information about where its money should go. tiered broadcast system of public, private, and It is also a UN organization, sensitive to the as emphasis on the desirability of a three- community stations. But all in all, it’s hard to views of individual member governments and point to many assumptions and values in reluctant to act without their approval and the African Media Barometer that are cooperation. Perceptions of Western uniquely “African.” domination of the world’s news media have long been common among some UNESCO Rather, part of the goal was to create leverage member states. Thus, as the organization with governments that have a political allergy to considered how to create its media indicator system, a major objective was something that members would accept as universal. the Big Three studies. Concerning the findings of these Washington and Paris-based groups, Center for International Media Assistance 23 Evaluating the Evaluators

The job of creating the new indicator system a minimum set of core indicators derived from this approach that were considered council that oversees UNESCO’s International Programmefell to the 39-country for the Development intergovernmental of level UNESCO members were lukewarm Communication (IPDC), whose goal is creating aboutthe minimum this option, or optimum. considering At the that official it would free and pluralistic media and strengthening democracy. According to UNESCO, the program governmental organisation, preferring a has mobilized about $100 million for more create political difficulties in an international rather than a comparative tool dependent upon subjectivediagnostic judgmentstool specific and to aninadequate environment data.” Andrewthan 1,200 Puddephatt, projects in a more consultant than 140 with 34 experiencecountries. In in 2006, British the and council other commissioned European human rights, constitutional reform, and UNESCO headquarters in Paris in December media development organizations, to oversee 2007.The final In March draft came the following together year,at a meeting the council at an expert group that tapped people from unanimously adopted it. professional associations, universities, NGOs, and intergovernmental organizations. of indicators for media development: The system posits five general categories The world’s many systems ●● “A system of regulation conducive for measuring media may to freedom of expression, pluralism, and diversity of the media: existence be converging. of a legal, policy, and regulatory framework which protects and promotes freedom of expression and and regional indexes that evaluate various information, based on international aspectsThe team of identified media. Of andthese, analyzed 15 got especially26 global best practice standards and developed close examination. “The existing assessment in participation with civil society. tools adopt a wide range of categories, which ●● “Plurality and diversity of media, coincide only sporadically,” Puddephatt later transparency of ownership: the state initiatives seek to assess degrees of editorial activelya level economic promotes playing the development field and of independence,wrote. “For example, a different eight eight of the assess fifteen quality the media sector in a manner which of reporting, just four assess degrees of prevents undue concentration and censorship, three look at access to printing ensures plurality and transparency of and distribution, a different group of eight ownership and content across public, look at the presence of repressive defamation private, and community media. laws, and so on.”32 The team picked and chose from what they found, devising new ●● “Media as a platform for democratic discourse: the media, within a prevailing climate of self regulation and respect Politicalindicators concerns when they were saw always fit. present. “Special attention was paid to assure a and represent the diversity of views wide geographical representation among andfor the interests journalistic in society, profession, including reflect those participants, as the IPDC Council considered of marginalized groups. There is a high it important that perspectives from different level of information and media literacy. parts of the world be taken into account when elaborating the indicators,” a UNESCO ●● “Professional capacity building and report later said.33 supporting institutions that underpin freedom of expression, pluralism, and Puddephatt noted that during the drafting diversity: media workers have access to process “it was suggested that UNESCO professional training and development, consider benchmarking countries against both vocational and academic, at all

24 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

stages of their career, and the media University of Zagreb. Brought into the study sector as a whole is both monitored and were a journalists association, a media supported by professional associations ownership association, the public service and civil society organizations. media, human rights organizations, parliamentarians, the bar association, ●● to support independent and pluralistic media:“Infrastructural the media capacity sector isis characterizedsufficient workshopsacademics, andwere the convened attorney to general’s consider office. each of by high or rising levels of public access, Over the course of nine months, five including among marginalized groups, 80 study participants convened in the capital, Zagreb,the five indicators.under the auspices In September of President 2009 about and distribute news and information, 35 appropriateand efficient touse the of local technology context.” to gather AmongStjepan theMesic, conclusions: to discuss Croatia, and release “despite findings. These principles echo many of those found in legislation, is still a long way from securing sense, this suggests that the world’s many truesignificant freedom progress of the mediaregarding that media will not only be systemsthe three for major measuring Western-based media are studies. converging. In one guaranteed by the law declaratively but also truly be applied in practice. The problem of the world today at least goes through the ownership structure and the preference of motionsIt could also of praising reflect thatmedia most freedom—among every country of the members of the council that adopted the motivated) selection of members of the politicians, non-transparent (often politically party states North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam. evaluation standards unanimously were one- in the face of home practice that media must supportThey put communist their stamp party on a rule.document UNESCO that flies proceeds with an evaluation only if the country’s government approves and cooperates. And although the UN body frowns on the practice, countries could choose to be evaluated only on particular indicators.

Once in motion, the evaluation process bears little resemblance to what happens in a Big Three survey. UNESCO’s version can take months, involving committees and subcommittees, peer review, input by multiple professional groups, preliminary reports, and raised in the country, because UNESCO lacks thefinal money consensus to pay conclusions. for everything Funding itself. may At the be end of the process there is no numerical rating or ranking, but rather a report, sometimes

Seekinglengthy, layingto modernize out the itsfindings. media as it applies for entry into the European Union, Croatia was worked with the government to settle on who wouldthe first run country the evaluation, to take the choosing plunge. ZrinjkaUNESCO Perusko, founder and chair of the Centre for Media and Communication Research at the A reporter for Radio Bhutan interviews a boy. Photo courtesy of UNESCO. Center for International Media Assistance 25 Evaluating the Evaluators

Council which should monitor the media and to be virtually impossible,” Rønning wrote. ensure their independence, and the “What is necessary is a local perspective exclusion of the public and civil society and knowledge of the language in the from the process of making laws, are large country where the indicators are to be problems that the Croatian legislature, but applied. They thus do not lend themselves society as well, still need to solve.” to ‘parachute missions.’”37 36 The overall evaluation has been overseen by be evaluated using the UNESCO index. Helge the Mozambique chapter of the Media Institute Rønning,Mozambique a University is another of ofOslo the media first countries and to of Southern Africa, which, as was mentioned communications professor with long above, helped establish the Africa Media Barometer. In February 2010, it published work in March and April of 2008, from which conclusions from the evaluation (not all of experience in Mozambique, conducted field Rønning’s were included). “Mozambique has a political and legal framework that is generally arrivingcame a 100-page at solid conclusions preliminary in report a country for the that favorable to freedom of expression, and to hasstudy. very His little writing reliable underlined information the difficulties on basic in pluralism and diversity in the media, although functions of the media. Sometimes he had to constraints still persist in the practical rely on creative reporting techniques: For policies,” MISA stated. Among its Maputo, he drew on estimates devised by recommendationsapplication of media-friendly were calls forlaws the and repeal of multiplyingnewspaper circulationthe number figures of newsstands in the capital, by the number of copies that proprietors said they secret laws, stricter enforcement of a 20 typically sold in a day. “To apply the indicators percentanti-media foreign provisions ownership in security ceiling, and and state more only from an outside perspective seems to me equitable distribution of state advertising.38

A 14-year-old girl conducts an interview for a magazine in Kinshasa. Photo courtesy of Search for Common Ground.

26 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

Andrei Richter, a professor at Moscow State UNESCO evaluations but it remains unclear University’s Faculty of Journalism, designed a howSo far, many five countrieseventually have will. undergone “It will have to be system for numerically surveying the legal environment for media in former Soviet says Wijayananda Jayaweera, director of republics. It assigned mathematical values to UNESCO’sdemand-driven, Division rather for Communication than supply-driven,” such issues as whether the country had a Development. But he expresses hope that a media study will become a standard limitations on foreign ownership. His study part of UN aid. rankedcriminal Georgia defamation as having law concerning the most liberal officials or 39 system, with a score of 13 out of a possible 15. He describes the program as “a tool to help, At the bottom were Belarus, Kazakhstan, and rather than a tool to judge.” In his view, the Turkmenistan, all with scores of 3. indicators are invested with special legitimacy 41 because they are not seen as serving merely In an analysis of the numbers, Richter observes those people agitating for media freedom. “The that what is in the legal code is not necessarily governments have agreed that this is the level the last word: “The presence or absence of a of media development that they wish to see in particular law is no guarantee of media their own countries,” he said. In the meantime, freedom. What matters is the quality of the law and the media restrictions and guarantees that “No one can disregard these indicators—they it contains.” Still, he notes that “the very arefindings not imposed can be used by anyone. as leverage … This for is reform. what’s existence (or otherwise) of legal criteria universally agreed—a good media system.” approved by parliament means that there are 40 Elsewhere, individuals have devised their own is easier for the media to live with these than rating systems for particular sectors of the indefined a situation and long-term where the rules rules of change conduct, daily and at it media in particular parts of the world. Some use numerical rating systems. by law and therefore beyond control.” the discretion of officials who are unrestrained42

Center for International Media Assistance 27 Evaluating the Evaluators

Old Media versus New Media

As work to address claims of cultural and of the function of digital media is of course ideological bias continues, a parallel effort is more workaday than that. People check Web targeting perceived technology bias. sites for news on highway obstructions caused by construction projects or view sports scores All three studies have their roots in times sent out as text messages. when media essentially equaled print publications and broadcast stations. But the categorization of the old. Newspapers and dominance of these media arose from The new media technologies have often defied computersstarting in thewired 1990s, to the new Internet, challenges from to mobile the phones, and other digital devices. As long ago TV stations operated under a traditional one- to-many pattern of information distribution. rulers in Thailand used mobile phones to largeThey werenumbers capital-intensive of people. The institutions Internet reduced doing disseminateas 1992, demonstrators information confronting at a time when military business from fixed locations and employing newspapers and TV stations were under strict Essentially anyone could now act as a censorship and to move crowds or protestors journalistcosts to near and zero put andout theended word fixed through location. blogs from place to place. More recently, the Twitter network became43 a crucial mobilization one day from a computer in a university dorm, and news dissemination tool for the Iranian theor e-mail next from listservs. a machine The work used might by the take hour place in an opposition as its members protested the Internet cafe across town. Information could

official results of a presidential election. Much also circulate quickly and efficiently as mass

A woman learns to use video editing software at a training workshop in Egypt. Photo courtesy of International Center for Journalists.

28 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

text messages addressed to numerous phone to assess them in the traditional ways. In numbers. There was also the issue of China, the Internet is not just a domestic operation, but a transnational one. Human reaching into the new realm, such as rights activists inside China use it to network newspapersmeasuring old-media and broadcast institutions stations that putting were with allies beyond China’s borders and to reports on Web sites or sending them out publicize rights violations. Chinese living as text messages. overseas use it to reach into the country, as do foreign advocacy groups. And what Yang calls

In some countries, old forms of perceive slights to the Chinese nation. information dissemination are Sometimes“cyber-nationalists” this includes use ittrying to protest to shut when they heavily regulated, while new foreign Web sites down.

and expanding forms operate in relative freedom. for the Chinese government to apply the same restrictionsThis intense that complexity have worked has made well itfor difficult old

Monroe Price, of the Annenberg School for year history of the Internet in China is that as Communication, notes that in some countries governmentmedia. “The mostcontrol important of the Internet trend in tightens, the 15- the old forms of information dissemination are Chinese citizens are becoming more active and heavily regulated, while the new and creative users of the Internet in expressing expanding ones operate alongside them in dissent and protest,” Yang writes. “Thus, relative freedom. A country’s broadcast TV, speech freedom seems to be expanding at the for instance, may operate under tight same time as the state steps up efforts to limit direction while international satellite TV the spaces for public speech.” goes largely unregulated. In a similar way, 45 Thus, Yang cautions, ranking press freedom used blogospheres may reach degrees of freedomhe notes, even“societies if there that are have constraints liberal, much- … on property may run the risk of leaving out legacy [traditional] media.” dynamicon the assumption practices andthat processes, it “is a quantifiable 44 important aspects of public communication Guobin Yang, an associate professor at Barnard which are rendered extremely complex in College, has studied how the complexities and the age of the transnationalization of media and communication.” usage patterns of new media make it difficult

Center for International Media Assistance 29 Evaluating the Evaluators

Changing with the times

Many of the people who design media old model where journalism is practiced as freedom surveys felt the studies had to change with the times. Beginning in 2000, Freedom of an organization. House’s media freedom report included some a full-time occupation, under the umbrella comparatively simple tables on rates of Internet use. In June 2008, the organization to examine 15 countries. Diversity was got much more serious about the task. It sought—industrial,For the first survey, Freedomdeveloping; House democratic, decided

Georgia was included because its networks brainstormconvened a meetingabout what of five form outside a detailed digital index hadsingle-party; come under well-wired, cyber attack hardly during wired. the brief methodologyspecialists at itsshould Washington take to measureoffices to an array war with Russia in the summer of 2008— of digital communications technologies including the Internet and mobile phones. The one of the methodology questions. group eventually settled on assessing three cyber attacks were specifically addressed in broad issues: access to new media, limits on content, and violations of user rights. Later, In critiquing the proposed indicators, people from discarded and proposed again as a digital questionnairespecific questions made were its wayproposed through and 10 or so developing countries tended to focus on barriers to access, 20 people around the world for comment. The because without access methodologydrafts. The final proposed product to was examine sent out online to about access not only in terms of deliberate there could be no online obstruction by governments, but in terms of world to assess. the economic realities of building an affordable national broadband and telecommunications network. Freedom House Methods of information gathering and wanted to avoid overly penalizing countries analysis followed those used in Freedom that were too poor to have access for questions was broken into three categories: to be open with what they did have—South ObstaclesHouse’s press to Access, freedom Limits studies. on Content, A series and of 19 Africaeveryone, came but to were mind. making a good-faith effort Violations of User Rights. For each country, a writer was engaged to rate the country’s In critiquing the proposed indicators, people performance against the indicators and to from developing countries tended to focus on draft a narrative report on the year’s barriers to access, because without access developments in digital media. The report and there could be no online world to assess. But ratings were then discussed by a larger group people from industrialized countries, tending composed of Freedom House staff and outside to take access for granted, expressed more concern over evaluating such issues as scoring and would serve as a baseline, some protection of online privacy. Eventually a ofspecialists. the scores Because brought this on wasdebate the and index’s major first balance was reached. readjustments in these meetings. The writer who had been engaged to rate Britain, for The new indicators were crafted also to instance, started off giving it the worst assess not just the freedom of institutions possible scores on surveillance of digital to put out news by digital means but the communications. The larger group at freedom of individuals to do the same. This Freedom House argued that, yes, Britain had was meant to recognize the erosion of the

issues in that field—authorities there made 30 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

more than 500,000 requisitions of communications data from telephone companies and Internet service providers todown measure,” day jobs said in otherSigal. fields? “We’re in 2007—but that the country could not still figuring out what it48 is that we want properly be ranked among the worst For its part, IREX says that it does not surveillance offenders in the world. That score was revised for the better. in the MSI. From the start, it has shied 46 intend to include specific digital questions media, on the grounds that its objective Estonia the best score, 10, while Cuba was the isaway to assess from assessinga country’s specific general types climate. of Released in April Freedom 2009, the House survey plans gave to expand the study47 to between 30 and 35 index is adequately measuring digital countriesworst with in 90. 2010. Ivan Sigal, executive mediaAs such, as IREX they officialsgain in importance. argue that their director of the international blogger organization Global Voices, believes that the Reporters Without Borders, meanwhile, added Freedom House Internet survey gets at many digital media questions to its list. In line with of the right questions. But he can think of quite the group’s longtime focus, the questions a few more. What are a country’s legal stress such things as censorship and forms of practices considering “fair use” of copyrighted material? This is a big concern for bloggers access to certain Web sites blocked? Were who post other people’s material. Do the coercion. The 2009 questionnaire asked: Was software platforms available to a country’s The questions do not attempt to measure such bloggers make it easy for anyone anywhere in thingscyber-dissidents as the geographical detained forreach more of a than country’s a day? the world to see their postings, or are the network or the cost of using it. postings visible only to members of a closed online community? Should there perhaps be no gauge of professionalism in the digital of digital communications is giving rise to world, given that so many of the people who separateIn the meantime, systems thefor measuringleaps-and-bounds freedom growth in are creating content are amateurs, holding that sector. Particular attention is going to

An Egyptian student participates in a training program in Cairo. Photo courtesy of International Center for Journalists. Center for International Media Assistance 31 Evaluating the Evaluators

mobile phones and other handheld devices in cost, and that Latin America is somewhere as they become the primary platform of in between. Reasons for the disparities could digital communications in many developing include taxes, which in some countries countries. The United Nations’ International account for up to 25 percent of the consumer’s Telecommunication Union (ITU) estimated bill, and the lack of competitive telecom

high. Contrasting strategies on infrastructure subscriptionsin October 2009 (compared that by year’s to just end 500 the million mayenvironments, have an effect which as keepswell—some prices countriesartificially world would have 4.6 billion mobile device have networks used jointly by multiple service broadband Internet). providers, while in others each service subscriptions by the end49 of 2009 for provider builds its own. Verclas stresses that MobileActive.org, an NGO that seeks to these are early readings. What she wants is harness mobile communications for social hard facts, which could then be put before change, is working to create a “Fair Mobile Index” that would assess conditions for civil society groups to bring about reform. mobile users country by country. The idea government officials, network executives, and came out of a conference that the group Later on, if funding permits, MobileActive.org hosted in Johannesburg in 2008 in which much of the talk concerned the “enabling the indicators and incorporate issues such environment” of mobile communications, hopes to conduct its own fieldwork to expand censorship. Whatever form the index Verclas. Is a country hostile or nurturing to eventuallyas surveillance takes, of the mobile group traffic doesn’t and plan to thesaid new MobileActive.org methods of staying co-founder in touch? Katrin Pricing rank countries. “The shame and blame approach … doesn’t seem that pertinent,” said through analysis of corporate data and Verclas. Rather, the goal is to assemble a body studieswill be the by suchfirst issuegroups for as consideration, the World Bank of relevant, accurate, and usable data on and the ITU. The goal is to develop “a mobile costs, access, and security that local meaningful indicator … as to what advocacy groups can use. constitutes the cost of mobile in comparison to local wage and income conditions and Is it truly possible to reduce to a single where are the areas that are out of sync,” number the collective interaction of hundreds Verclas said.50Preliminary assessments of newspapers, Web sites, and broadcast stations; thousands of reporters, editors, and world’s most expensive region, that developingsuggest that parts sub-Saharan of Asia are Africa relatively is the low viewers; billions of words and images? government officials; millions of readers and

32 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

How good is the social science?

Freedom House’s Sussman, who originated has expressed interest in considering the the scoring approach and used the results suggestion made over the years that studies to create the tricolored world map, says he publish a margin of error, if that were found knew from the start he would hear claims of to be statistically feasible. Freedom House distortion. But Freedom House decided that says that a margin of error would not be “in this modern civilization, people want a viable for its own numbers. The organization’s

In his view, the map imparts basic information, says Karin Karlekar, managing editor of quickand with fix andthat a in map hand, is onemany way people of getting will be it.” Freedommethodology House’s is “not study. completely “We are scientific,”producing data, but I would say it’s soft data rather that the organization publishes about each than hard data.”51 Nonetheless, statistically country.inspired Certainly,to delve into reporters the nitty-gritty love rankings— of details questionable tiny shifts routinely translate into individual country numbers are among the very substantial changes in the Freedom House

Freedom House studies. “Free,” “Partly Free,” and “Not Free.” facts most noted in media write-ups of the classification, pushing countries between Crafting questions in public opinion polls “Press freedom indices tend to is an advanced art, with the objective of default to a homogenous view avoiding leading the witness and drawing only undisputable conclusions from the answers. of mass media which facilitates Some analysts feel that the media freedom comparisons between surveys do not measure up to these standards. countries ... but [this] masks “Press freedom indices tend to default to significant differences.” a homogenous view of mass media which then facilitates comparisons between — Patrick McCurdy, Gerry Power, countries,” write Patrick McCurdy, and Anna Godfrey Gerry Power, and Anna Godfrey: The challenge is that media is an aggregate term. It neatly Reporters Without Borders also opted for compresses a dynamic and scoring and ranking, and on release day each diverse range of platforms (e.g. year it also gets the same burst of media television, radio, print, online, attention. IREX, whose survey is aimed more mobile) into a single variable. at helping media professionals plan programs, While this consolidated view assigns scores but plays down notions of provides a means to speak generally about a country’s countries in clusters of similar development “media environment,” it also asneighbor-to-neighbor indicated by scores. ranking. But anyone Its reports who wants place between types of media bottom ranking. (platforms),masks significant between differences outlets to can use the numbers to create a full top-to- (within and across platforms) and between those who own X’s media freedom is one tiny point different and control them (e.g. state, thanWhat it is was the thevalidity previous of a findingyear? People that country commercial, and community).52 inside and outside the studies generally say that differences as small as that cannot be The authors note studies from Yemen that accurately measured by these studies. IREX

found significant differences in the political Center for International Media Assistance 33 Evaluating the Evaluators

news coverage of TV, radio, and newspapers run of data that allows comparisons across a stretch of time found with none of the then, ask the authors, could there be a valid other studies. Morse of IREX notes that long responsethat were toall an government-owned. RSF question: “Do theHow media questionnaires run the risk of alienating the report the negative side of government policies?” Moreover, the authors note that a come if a person hurries through a long list “yes” answer will be taken as evidence of the ofperson questions, filling or them if he out. or sheDo bettergives thoughtful results existence of watchdog journalism, whereas consideration to a shorter one? reporting government policies’ negative side could be merely due to a political agenda of Even if all this debate were somehow to end the media organization doing it. While the with global agreement on what questions to authors note that nuance and exception can be ask, disagreement would remain over how to answer them. that typically accompany the numbers, they contendexpressed that in the country-specificphrasing of the questions narratives could be improved. “It is important to cast the net even wider and draw in as Citing an RSF question about whether news was “suppressed or delayed because of many voices as possible as political or business pressure,” the authors say an attempt at ‘balancing’ the that in effect, four questions are being asked simultaneously. There’s a difference between assessment outcomes.” suppressing and delaying, they say, as there’s — Fackson Banda a difference between political and business pressure. Better, the authors write, to break this down into four questions. Was there One issue is the number of people rating news that was suppressed because of political a particular country. Freedom House, for pressure? Was there news that was suppressed instance, gives a lot of responsibility to a single because of business pressure? And so on. writer/analyst, with a small number of staff members or outside experts adding input The three authors note other shortcomings. later on. “One or a few people can have a large The questionnaires tend to focus on news and sway on things, which for social sciences is current affairs programming, even though in not a good indication,” says Devra Moehler, an many countries important political discourse assistant professor at the Annenberg School for Communication who has used and studied shows and dramas. Nor do the studies have the numbers over the years. Ideally, she said, takes place through such things as call-in a survey of this type would have 50 people scoring each country, in order to screen out electionsbuilt-in ways or scandals. to account for the influence statistical “noise” and personal bias.53 of one-time big events in a country, such as The authors say there is a resistance to Another issue is the reliability of the people rewriting the studies, with maintaining the on the rating panels. Do panel members consistency of questioning being offered as a whom an organization signs up tend to be ones who have bought into its world view, and do they answer their questionnaires notjustification. reduced by[“However, asking the the same threats questions to validity accordingly? Taking part in a panel may and reliability identified in this chapter are entail time off from work, a stipend, and in repeating methodological errors for the some travel. Do answers get shaped in part sakerepeatedly of consistency.”] over time and there is no benefit by hopes of getting invited back next year? In a few cases, the same people have served Freedom House takes the position that it has on different organizations’ panels. Overlap is to be very careful about altering its sometimes hard to avoid. In a small country, there may be just one person in the entire

34 Centerquestioning for International system, Media lest Assistance it upset a 30-year Evaluating the Evaluators

it is a strong democracy. An evaluation system organizer is looking for, say, a woman who that asked about media freedom in France population who fits the profile that a survey from inside a French model would be less particular ethnic group. universal, less useful in many ways, across heads a media-oriented NGO and is from a time and across states. But it would have Banda of South Africa’s Rhodes University compensating advantages for understanding cites the danger of respondents “knowing the interplay between media institutions and exactly how they ought to respond during political institutions.”57 focus group or panel discussions, especially when they know the results might be used for advocacy ends which will serve their causes.” He questions: “Why, for example, do certain isHoltz-Bacha appropriate offers to compare a similar freedom view that of thethere press is categories of respondents repeatedly describe amongno reliable similarly one-size-fits-all developed system.democracies Rather, where “it the media as tools for political repression? similar expectations are brought forward to the ... How can such respondents’ responses media.” Due for special examination would be be checked against other readings? This … such issues as the impact of national security laws, reliance on freelancers (rather than establishment’ discourse. It is thus important staff members), and the internationalization totends cast to the skew net theeven results wider in and favor draw of thein as ‘anti- many of ownership. Deep comparative studies voices as possible as an attempt at ‘balancing’ of just a few generally similar countries, the assessment outcomes.” 54 Finland, long a top ranker in existing studies, Concerning Reporters Without Borders’ reallyshe maintains, is “the heaven will let of us press find freedom.” out whether58 to what extent the experts apply their own experiencesexperts, Holtz-Bacha and the values writes: of “We their do own not cultureknow it makes a difference “to whom the experts and correspondentswhich influence talktheir in view.” a country She notes before also making that their judgments: Everybody knows from their own country that, for instance, the perspective of a journalist often differs considerably from that of a publisher.”55

Leon Morse of IREX says that his organization has worked from the beginning to assure that its panelists are diverse. “If panels were all editors, all owners, all reporters, or all human rights workers familiar with the media, then I would worry about skew. But the diversity provides many viewpoints.” He dismisses hopes of getting invited back as a distorting factor—serving on a panel takes just a day or a day and a half and is not particularly lucrative. In any case, he points out, panels are changed a bit every year, so there is no guarantee of a return invitation. 56 Other analysts challenge whether a universal questionnaire is always the best approach. An experiment to bring a phone connection to Price, for instance, notes: “France has a one of the most remote villages in Thailand. corporatist, statist tradition and one in which Photo courtesy of National Telecommunications there is a heavy emphasis on centralism, but Commission, Thailand. Center for International Media Assistance 35 Evaluating the Evaluators

Why have media freedom if it means bad media?

So far, this report has examined mainly the “Take, for example, the newspaper in measurement of environment—does Cameroon that published lists of homosexuals Country X have a political, economic, and in a country where homosexuality is legal environment in which quality considered a crime. Not only was their list journalism can exist? false but such an attitude is immoral and goes

Of the three studies, only IREX’s makes task in asking the government not to imprison a systematic attempt to measure quality, themagainst so any as not journalistic to make heroesethics. Iof had them.” a difficult through MSI questions such as: 59 But many analysts say that what ultimately “Reporting is fair, objective, and well sourced.” matters is not so much the environment as what the country’s media accomplishes in “Journalists follow recognized and accepted that environment, with whatever environment ethical standards.” mixture of freedom and repression it may have. A. S. Panneerselvan, executive director Members of IREX panels are asked to what of Panos South Asia, notes that: “[In] regions degree these and other statements of quality where data on ‘enabling environment’ have near perfect scores, like North America, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, countries,reflect reality for instance,in the country the range being of studied. quality the media is fast declining. In sharp contrast In the 2009 review of former communist to this, there is accelerated plural growth Uzbekistan to 2.50 in Bulgaria. clearly discernible in countries which do not ran from a low of 0.64 (out of a potential 4) in score high on the enabling environment graph, like India, Pakistan, or Nepal.” Many analysts say that the The “Global” South is not a problem most important thing is not the concerning media and the “Global” North is environment itself, but what a not its solution, he argues. “The American country’s media accomplishes War and the South Asian media’s strong in that environment. critiquemedia’s weak-kneedof issues of national reaction and to the Iraq international importance, whether it is the

RSF does ask in its questionnaire if there is crisis, are clear examples which enlighten “frequent detailed investigative reporting on a thisIndo-U.S. point,” nuclear he writes. deal or the global financial range of sensitive subjects.” But by and large, RSF and Freedom House leave the quality Panneerselvan offers Nepal as another question aside, taking the position that what case in point: “February 1st 2005 saw King matters is whether there’s an environment in Gyanendra declare himself absolute ruler which quality journalism can exist. Ménard in Nepal after dismissing the government has acknowledged that this has at times given and declaring a State of Emergency. Despite RSF some unsavory bedfellows. “We have ordinances, media gags, arrests, and constant harassment, the Nepali media stood up as defending people who are indefensible,” he one to take on the palace onslaught. Radio in lamentedfound ourselves in an interview in some difficult with the situations, Courier Nepal is the most popular medium of news magazine, which focuses on relations between dissemination even in the remotest corners the European Union and developing countries. of this Himalayan country. Censoring and

36 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

silencing could not prevent media from to country. “One society may think that across to the people and the world outside.” familiaritydefinition of with “informed” the Bible varies is a prerequisite from country for finding newer and newer ways to get news 60 what constitutes being an informed citizen; Price makes a related point, but from the another may have very high literacy demands viewpoint that it is citizens who may not take in international affairs or economics.” But a lack of freedom sitting down. “[T]he Partly still, he urges new attention to this issue, Free/Not Free designations might mask seeing “media literacy” as a crucial, if societies where individuals and large swaths elusive, quality to understand. “It is fairly of society may be substantially informed— easy to measure and evaluate the number of indeed perhaps more informed—on issues television and radio stations or the number of public moment than their counterparts in of newspapers in a state,” Price writes, “and those societies categorized as ‘Free,’ though at higher cost to the individual. number of Internet users, both in terms of 61 it is increasingly possible to find data on the “Societies may have a free press and a is to assess what technologies, old and very passive and disinterested citizenry. … old,reach as and well actual as new use. and What experimental, remains difficult actually Conversely, there are societies that have a have a major impact on persuasion.” tightly controlled press, but the structure of information diffusion on issues of public But ultimately, Price proposes, “free importance is robust and communities and independent media are not a good turn what is available into tools of in themselves, but only inasmuch as information and mobilization.” they support other, more intrinsic, values and goals, such as democracy, To Price, a prime question is: “Do the media a particular economic structure, in a particular society actually produce greater cultural understanding, general an informed citizenry?” He notes that the human development, and so on.” 62

Workers at Sudan Radio Service pose with one of the station’s hand crank-powered radios. Photo courtesy of Sudan Radio Service. Center for International Media Assistance 37 Evaluating the Evaluators

Whom to ask? Experts or the citizens?

To judge the state of the food in a restaurant, In the context of media development, should you query the people at its tables, or citizen voice is “the expression and the chef and waiters? Certainly the staff will circulation of the full range of citizen be better able to discuss the ingredients, the opinions in the public sphere. … Are all culinary artistry, the organizational skills that citizens able to participate in the media? go into producing a meal, as well as whether Are they able to express their interests in the restaurant is making enough money to ways that the media pick up and multiply, stay in business. But in the end, isn’t it best to and that the government hears? Most ask the customers? important, are the voices of marginalized peoples heard, those who are especially in need of poverty alleviation, social recognition, If a particular media and political representation?” That is the organization gives people Jacobson, Lingling Pan, and Seung Joon Jun. voice, it could follow that it definition of citizen voice used by Thomas 64 does not much matter whether If a particular media organization gives people voice, it could follow that it does not the organization is owned by much matter whether the organization is government, wealthy investors, owned by government, wealthy investors, or an NGO. or an NGO. Viewed from the other direction, ownership doesn’t give reliable guidance

For some years, a competing view has been gaining support that the thing to pay theconcerning party in voice.power, Most but othersstate-affiliated are studiously attention to concerning media freedom responsivebroadcasters to rigidlythe citizenry—the reflect the policy United line of is a quality known as “citizen voice.” This Kingdom’s BBC is sometimes held up as an gained credence in the larger world of example of a public broadcaster that listens

James Wolfensohn made it something of a crusadeeconomic during development his 10 years in the as 1990s, head of as the privatelyand reflects owned and doesnewspaper not become might the look tool to World Bank. He initiated a Voices of the Poor itsof whoeverreaders for is in guidance, office. Likewise, while another one program that by the bank’s count funneled might take its cues from the cabinet minister who is its patron.

the views of more than 60,000 low-income Jacobson calls the concept of citizen voice developmentpeople in 60 countries funding. His to the idea high-level was that (andthe insightshigh-income) of poor people people who could make help decisions craft better on workin media Four a Theoriespresent-day of the representation Press. The idea of people a role in public forums was vital to any ofan voiceidea presentedseems new, in he the says, 1956 because academic the country’sspecific programs hopes for but economic also that transformation giving poor community of multilateral agencies and and democratization. national development agencies has only recently given it serious attention in relation “I have been to literally hundreds of slums to development. and villages,” Wolfensohn said during a 65 speech in Amsterdam in 2000. “The best people you meet are in those slums and some of the Big Three studies do attempt villages. They are the people that understand toJacobson get at questions and his two of responsivenessco-authors note to that the poverty better than any of us.” public. The MSI, for instance, asks whether 63

38 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

want, and feel they get a real hearing? The the entire political spectrum, are nonpartisan, authors’ approach would narrow this down and“state serve or public the public media interest.” reflect the But, views the of to evaluate the media. three authors note, even on this question, the surveys ask professionals, rather than For validity claims, citizens might “those who would best seem suited to be asked questions including: answer questions about citizen voice, i.e., the citizens themselves.” ●● To what extent do you feel the 66 media are knowledgeable about The authors propose building on work of the the subjects they report? German sociologist and philosopher Jürgen ●● To what extent do you feel the media Habermas, who analyzed how legitimacy of behave in a manner that is appropriate democratic government rests on discourse, given their public responsibilities? on citizens being able to express views to government and draw a response, and in For speech conditions, citizens might be asked: particular on citizens knowing that they are ●● To what extent do you feel you and others note: “Of course, actual discourse in complex like you are given equal opportunities societiesbeing heard. is largely Jacobson mediated and his discourse. co-authors Citizen to present your views in the media? voice can only be possible to the extent that citizen and government views are elaborated ●● To what extent do you feel that in public through the media. However, the the media cover your positions mere existence of newspapers, broadcast fully and to your satisfaction? outlets, and sunshine laws does not guarantee The answers would help researchers identify that citizens will be heard. A certain quality of actual discourse is required.” So, modifying country. For instance, people might think that 67 a question set that Habermas developed for inspecific questions shortfalls of general in citizen access, voice the in media a given are understanding the give and take of general very open, but that there are certain topics political discourse, the authors have proposed that reporters and editors avoid. Findings opinion poll questionnaires that would get at like those could help in the crafting of new the question of citizen voice and the media. media aid programs. Overall, the authors say, the goal of the survey would be to ascertain, “are the media themselves democratically People involved in the major legitimate in carrying out their Fourth Estate existing surveys generally function?” The data could also be used to 68 welcome the idea of measuring create an index comparing voice in countries of a region or, ultimately, every country in the citizen voice, but say that it’s world, the authors say. just not within the scope or People involved in the major existing surveys resources of their studies. generally welcome the idea of measuring citizen voice, but say that it’s just not within the scope or resources of their studies. Moreover, Habermas saw two areas of consideration for citizens might not be able to provide the understanding overall democratic discourse. information that the studies set out to gather. “I do not think that readers and viewers would people believe their government; do they feel be able to answer our questions and provide itThe is actingfirst is inknown a sincere as “validity way, based claims.” on solid Do knowledge? The second is called “speech such things as access to information, broadcast conditions.” To what extent do citizens feel the in-depth analysis that we get regarding they get a chance to take part in the political process, are able to raise any issue or idea they andlicensing, training, self-censorship, etc.,” says Morse use of IREX.market research, efficacy of professional associations69 Center for International Media Assistance 39 Evaluating the Evaluators

So just how good are these indexes?

The Big Three studies bear the burden of Becker and Vlad, giving the numbers a myriad questions about quality, credibility, and scrubbing as political scientists, found general approach. And yet… uniformity of outcomes. Freedom House and Reporters Without Borders “reach much the same conclusion over the years about the media systems they evaluate,” they wrote. termsConflicting of groupings rankings of of countries. individual countries do not seem that significant when viewed in to compare directly to the other two because itIREX’s examines Media only Sustainability select countries Index that is difficult are targets of media assistance, leaving out Freedom House’s survey in 2009, for Western Europe and the United States. Still, uppermostinstance, was 20, top-heavy along with with New European Zealand, the authors found correlation where there Palau,countries, Jamaica, which and make St. Lucia.up 16 Soof thewas RSF’s was overlap of countries surveyed. All three measures, they concluded, appear to be “more 20 were European. The others were Canada, similar than dissimilar.”71 Japan,2009 line-up—again, Australia, and New 16 of Zealand. the top-ranked That consistency would seem to be evidence of fair Becker and Vlad also found signs of evaluation. Other numbers suggest that home internal statistical integrity: countries by no means always enjoy a home team advantage. “If you look at the countries The Freedom House measures that do the best in our index, it’s European of Press Freedom stretch across countries,” says Karlekar.70 And in RSF’s 28 years. ... The measure should be relatively consistent year to suggesting that it gets no special consideration. year, when changes are expected 2009 study, meanwhile, France ranked 43rd,

A child looks on as a reporter interviews a man in Hebron. Photo courtesy of International Palestinian Youth League.

40 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

to be slight, and less consistent across time, when changes that the three surveys often, but not always, are expected to accumulate. doOther a credible findings job from of getting Becker at and something Vlad suggest In other words, the measure resembling citizen voice, even if they do not set out to do so.

realshould change). be reliable The average (not reflect correlationrandom error), year but to yearvalid for (reflect the The relationship indicates that Freedom House measures is in those countries evaluated by Freedom House as Free, the .97 … Freedom House switched citizens also judge the media to changefrom a three-point made little differencescale to a in be free, and in those countries terms100-point of reliability. scale in 1993, By tracking but the the score for an individual judged by Freedom House year across time, however, it is to be low in terms of press possible to see that the Freedom freedom, the citizens agree. House measures are not static. The correlation between the measure of Press Freedom in The authors examined numbers compiled by the Web site WorldPublicOpinion.org, The correlation between the which asked randomly selected citizens in 1980 … with 1981, was .92. certain countries the same sets of questions measure, however, was .57 … that experts answered for Reporters Without In1981 sum, measure the data and are the consistent 2007 Borders and Freedom House. With Freedom with the argument that the House, comparisons of citizen and expert measure is reliable and valid.72 responses yielded a statistical correlation of 0.81, signaling a high degree of similarity. “The Reporters Without Borders measures “While the number of countries involved of Press Freedom also are consistent year is small (only 20), it is quite diverse, to year,” Becker and Vlad continue: ranging from Argentina to the United States, with Azerbaijan, Nigeria, India, and The average correlation is Indonesia included,” the authors wrote. “The relationship indicates that in those Borders measures are available countries evaluated by Freedom House as only.94. The across Reporters seven years, Without but Free, the citizens also judge the media to they, too, show evidence of be free, and in those countries judged by decreasing correlations across Freedom House to be low in terms of press time. The 2002 measure of freedom, the citizens agree.” A comparison of with the 2003 measure but only of Reporters Without Borders, meanwhile, .83Press with Freedom the 2008 correlates measure. .94 foundthe WorldPublicOpinion less of a correlation, findings 0.70. Becker with those and The IREX measures of Media Sustainability, or independence, to the smaller number of countries surveyed are harder to assess in this bothVlad didby it not and work WorldPublicOpinion. with figures from73 IREX due way, since IREX has added new The authors also looked at Gallup polls

public of various countries has in their werecountries being over measured, time. From and 1991 that measure how much confidence the to 1993, the same countries media. “If media systems evaluated as free were judged to be performing at a higher level—and consequently worthy of a vote 2007the average correlation correlation for the year- same to-year was .91. The 2001 to of confidence—the relationship would be group of countries was .76. Center for International Media Assistance 41 Evaluating the Evaluators

positive.” But in fact, it is “ever so slightly as something promoted by previous Italian negative based on the measures of Freedom governments and therefore not to be taken House and Reporters Without Borders,” the seriously. “The left has made them become authors wrote—that is, many people tended famous like Pink Floyd,” he said. not to trust media in societies evaluated as 76 place in the Freedom House country rankings When Taiwan dropped from 32nd to 43rd performance,free. When comparing the authors Gallup found figures a small to IREX quick to charge that government policies were correlation:findings in its “The category media measuring systems with journalistic more partlyin 2009, to oppositionblame. A government politicians spokesmanthere were professionally solid performance garner more gave a conciliatory response, saying that the report showed that there was “room for 74 improvement” in Taiwan’s media system.77 Moehlerconfidence of thefrom Annenberg their citizens.” School offers this summary: Despite widespread concerns over In Washington, foreign diplomats sometimes the social science credibility of the media freedom studies, “they are almost always in the to contest their countries’ rankings. In ballpark of being accurate.”75 comesome capitals,calling at governments the Freedom crowHouse about office the bad numbers of rival states. The news media in Armenia and Azerbaijan, for There is practically no one instance, have sometimes reported how who wishes that the three low the other country has scored, according to Freedom House. organizations would end their freedom rankings. and budget allocations in many industrial worldThe numbers capitals. also They figure are partin policy of the decisions raw data Another way to look at it: Even if one believes that goes into several categories of World Bank studies, including the Country Assistance notion of media freedom, they are applying it Strategy reports, which assess economic, withthat the reasonable studies are uniformity applying in a allWestern-centric countries of political, and social conditions in individual the world and therefore the information that states to help plan bank programs. results is worth considering.

In the end, there is practically no one (save U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors, which overseesThe numbers the approximately also figure in decisions $700 million at the who wishes that the three organizations would that the U.S. government spends annually on endperhaps their officials freedom in rankings. thin-skinned In the governments) absence services such as the Voice of America and of the ideal, universal, unbiased, statistically Radio Free Asia. The Freedom House data have a role in deliberations over such over the world rely on the existing ones for questions as where to increase programming aflawless great variety index, ofgreat uses numbers and do so of inpeople the belief all or shift it from radio to television. Entered into that the data is solid. spreadsheets, the numbers join data from other indexes such as Freedom House’s broader freedom rankings, the UN Human Development Index, and the Index of Economic measureThus the toFreedom condemn House Italian survey Prime figured Minister in Freedom compiled by the Wall Street Journal Berlusconithe 2009 European on media Parliament policies. RSF debate as well on a and the Heritage Foundation. “The virtue of jumped into the fray the day before the vote, all of these is that you get a score for every seconding Freedom House’s downgrading country and you can look at the overall of Italy. The parliamentary measure was progress of each country,” said James Morrow, narrowly defeated. A spokesman for a consultant to the board’s staff. “We like Berlusconi, Paolo Bonaiuti, dismissed RSF their methodology.” The board also considers

42 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

anecdotal information from narrative reports of Reporters Without Borders and IREX in policy makers who wish to making decisions concerning safety of staff improveAlternatively, internal reform-minded policies can 78 most easily consult with and copy the reforms undertaken Finally,members the in studies the field. have a major impact in in nearby countries. Thus, changes in the media freedom books, dissertations, and journal articles in one country can create a asthe political academic scientists world. They slice figurethe numbers in countless domino effect in which media this way, parse them that way in search of reforms ripple into neighboring new relationships, new causes and effects countries through time. concerning media freedom and evolution in world societies. The Freedom House studies Some analysts suggest

are the most common cited, due to their three- that changes in the media Typicaldecades-long of this run genre of data.is a recent study that freedom in one country can found that media freedom can be “contagious” create a domino effect for across borders, with countries catching it from their neighbors. Authors Russell S. Sobel, neighboring countries. Sanjukta Roy, and Nabamita Dutta write:

Most importantly, television About a quarter of press freedom in a given and radio broadcast signals country is attributable to this effect, the often reach beyond a country’s border. Citizens of one country generally have easy access to suggestsauthors conclude. that aiding Implicit the process in the offindings media radio, television, and newspapers is cross-border leverage of media aid. “This from neighboring countries. This spillover effects on media reform in makes it possible for them to neighboringreform in one countries.” country can But, have the significantthree compare the media at home with scholars note, “unfortunately, our results that in neighboring countries, also suggest that the impact works in the and demand changes to domestic opposite direction, in that if one country media institutions. has a relatively unfree media, that neighboring countries will have worse Citizens also have greater access media institutions as a result.” to knowledge about the rules 79 and laws governing media from What did they use to measure levels of media neighboring countries and freedom? The Freedom House numbers, can use these as models for which they call “the most comprehensive internal reform. Thus, pressure dataset available on global media freedom.” from an internal population (Like many academics working with the aware of a free press in a Freedom House numbers, they found it neighboring country can compel counterintuitive that high scores mean government to adopt reforms low press freedom and so mathematically promoting a free media at home. inverted the numbers for their study.)

Center for International Media Assistance 43 Evaluating the Evaluators

Evaluating at the micro level

If it is tough to rate the entire media system of a country, surely it is simpler to assess a sometimes by outside consultants deemed to single aid program in that country to see if in-house as part of day-to-day operations, it made a mark on overall journalistic quality. But evaluation at this micro level fundedhave no media personal development stake in finding programs, success the or has a similar history of competing failure. In a 2005 study of U.S. government- approaches and theories. a hodgepodge of evaluation methods being appliedU.S. Government in many U.S.Accountability missions overseas. Office found

“Donors sit on stores of measures, are frequently used to demonstrate data that, if accessible, success,”“Anecdotal it examples,said.81 rather than quantifiable

could potentially be used Shanthi Kalathil, a consultant working for further qualitative and with the World Bank, notes that evaluations often had modest goals to quantitative study.” begin with. Typically, she explains:

— Shanthi Kalathil Evaluations focus on the internal success of the individual media programs themselves (did and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet the program meet its stated UnionThe breaching set off a ofrush the of Berlin media Wall money in 1989 and objectives?). Of those surveyed advisors into the former communist societies by this author over the last of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. By one several years, only a handful count, Bosnia and Herzegovina alone attracted of evaluations attempted to draw methodical conclusions 80 As about the impact of media happensmore than during $60 million any emergency, of media aidpaperwork money assistance on the broader andafter accounting the Dayton sometimes peace accord got of short 1995. shrift. It issue of democratization and was largely a matter of faith that the money good governance. This may was making a difference. If 50 reporters be because there is no widely completed a training seminar in former usable, standardized template communist Country A, what result could there or tool by which one can judge be but stronger journalism? Reporters who the impact of a particular media development program would now know how to ask tough questions, on the broader governance maintainhad once balance,taken their and cues insist from on partyfactual officials context. … The program accuracy. Stronger journalism, in turn, could assessments also remain almost have no result except to improve Country A’s completely divorced from the general levels of democracy, accountability, theoretical literature presented and rule of law by putting information into the in the communication and 82 hands of a newly empowered citizenry. political science realms.

But even as evaluation data began to be collected, aid groups that preached the virtues asking for objective evidence of such impact. of openness and transparency in government By the end of the 1990s, donors were often and society at large have often treated that line items in their budgets for monitoring data as a sort of state secret, to be shared only andProgramming evaluation. officials Sometimes began the creating job was special done with the donor and other members of the

44 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

implementing team. “Donors sit on stores of To keep tabs on the project’s evolution and data that, if accessible, could potentially be impact, Deutsche Welle’s academy is relying in used for further qualitative and quantitative part on conventional evaluation methods. In study,” writes Kalathil.83 “Even if they aren’t from Germany to Savannakhet to interview 10 monitoring and evaluation reports by staffMay 2009,members the academyand six journalists flew an evaluator from outside implementers),perfect (i.e., self-reported they may proveindicators, useful project in some the radio project. Each was queried in detail way. However, donors frequently have political on such subjects as job likes and dislikes, what reasons for not wanting project evaluations it means to be a journalist in Laos, and publicized, particularly if the evaluations professional hopes for the future. Plans call for prove unfavorable.” Kalathil notes that if a second round of interviews with the same evaluation results were shared generally, people in about a year and a third round in there would still be challenges to face, two years, to create comparative data including “identifying the data to be collected, regarding changes in attitude over time. devising a reasonable method for collection, and ensuring reliable collection that does not prove a burden to program implementers and managers.” However, she notes, “none of these challenges are insurmountable.”

Program monitoring and evaluation remains an evolving art. Many donors now require that an M&E plan be part of any bid to carry out a media program. But with no standard approach, implementers are left to craft their own.

In Savannakhet, a Mekong River province in southern Laos, the training academy of Germany’s Deutsche Welle international broadcasting network is funding a new radio opening up to the outside world, inviting foreignservice. investment,By fits and starts, and giving Laos foreignhas been tourists access to many once closed places. It is also accepting media aid. One thing communist castingofficials from would across like to the do Mekong is win back in Thailand. listeners who habitually tune in to stations broad- mix of music, sports, health, and So the German-funded service is offering a state radio. For one of its pilot programs, reporterson-the-street took interviews, voice recorders broadcast to bus on stops to interview people about a controversial distance buses were no longer going all the waychange to thein transportation center of town service. but dropping Long- people off at bus stops in outlying areas, from which most had to pay again to complete their journeys. All in all, it’s a type of radio quite A man stands in front of a community radio station in Sierra Leone. Photo courtesy of Developing Radio Partners. unusual in the one-party state. Center for International Media Assistance 45 Evaluating the Evaluators

The station is also trying to evaluate by getting genuine views in a political tapping into a form of “citizen voice.” In the environment in which people are wary of saying the wrong thing. According to Helmut Osang, head of the Asia Division at Deutsche thefirst station. days after Listeners the radio were service spontaneously began in Welle Akademie, the academy hopes that by September 2009, the phone began to ring at continuing to gather and analyze this feedback mobile phones. After a while, station staff it will be able to better craft the service and calling in, using the ever-more-common program future money (it spent about a standard set of questions to ask. Through members fielding calls were using a form with and through outreach missions by van to €180,000—roughly $245,000—on the project surroundingfliers and announcements communities, on the the station broadcasts, sought whatin 2009). the resultSo far, willthe evaluationbe. is a work in to get more listeners to call in, by posing progress, and program officials are not sure simple questions that they could answer: Craig LaMay of Northwestern University What do you think of the new station? What suggests that media aid organizations seeking would you like it to carry? Do you have a story to keep tabs on their programs might do well to share? For the most part, the responses to borrow a business world management tool have been fairly simple. You have a new known as the “performance dashboard.” An program, many callers say. It sounds different, fresh. Some of them react directly to information heard on the program. One caller engineautomotive heat, dashboard and fuel supply. gives aThe driver management second- asked for the phone number of a chicken by-second readings on such things as speed, farmer who had explained his method of successfully selling eggs. operations,variant is an and information is available system to everyone that is Web-in an 84 organization.based, displays It real-timeis designed data “to about make The academy realizes that people who choose conceptual sense out of a hash of descriptive information. It should answer basic questions random one. There is also the question of about the organization’s operations, indicate to call are a self-selecting sample, not a

A group of newspaper vendors in India. Photo by Sevanti Ninan.

46 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

the presence and seriousness of any problems, caution against relying on upticks in a and guide decisions about future operations,” country’s overall rating. But in rare cases, writes LaMay. “In the business literature, the there can be an unmistakable connection. key to getting meaningful measures of Freedom House’s index, for instance, considers performance lies in choosing the right (i.e., whether a country “has restrictions on the understandable and relevant) indicators and means of journalistic production and then ensuring that data exist to accurately distribution.” That could mean printing plants. calculate the metric.”85 In 2003, Freedom House helped establish the

LaMay cites the case of the Media Development Result? An instant uptick in the Kyrgyz overall Loan Fund (MDLF), which has its headquarters pressfirst independent freedom score printing in that plant one indicator.in Kyrgyzstan. in New York. Rather than making grants to media organizations, as so many aid agencies But overall, using the national indicators to do, the fund invests in them or lends them money. Proponents of this approach say it mightjudge program-specificgive 50 reporters effectivenessa solid set of is journalisticdangerous. Askills. four-week But so training what? Could program they creates a long-term partnership rather than practice a better form of the craft if their systematicthe often tense view donor-supplicant of its operations, relationshipthe fund’s bosses remained wedded to their old ways? Or managersof grant programs. adopted Ina performance 2006, seeking dashboard. a if the local courts afforded no protection from As metrics for each client enterprise, they people angered by newly professional chose sales (what the client collects in reporting? Or if there was too little advertising advertising or subscriptions, for instance); audience (newspaper circulation, perhaps, or keep the reporters employed? in the shaky post-communist economy even to term viability (this is estimated through “Multiple factors affect press dynamics,” notes atotal rating number scale of readersseven risk or factors).viewers); These and long- Silvio Waisbord of George Washington numbers were all deemed to be knowable, University. “For example, a turn towards whether through reports from clients, authoritarianism may rapidly undo slow independent audits, or diligent risk analysis. advances in media democratization supported “MDLF’s performance dashboard is notable by global actors. Domestic economic growth mostly because it shows how the organization may open alternatives for press economies. The coming of administrations committed to LaMay writes. Still, he says, it is “susceptible media diversity may facilitate the work of as a whole is doing in fulfilling its mission,” global assistance programs.”87 There is growing the most critical of which has to focus on agreement that to have true effect, media theto a accuracylot of methodological and validity ofsecond-guessing, its metrics. Certainly, where MDLF relies on its clients larger strategy of assistance that addresses to provide data, it is hard to know whether otherprograms facets must of democratic be long-term governance. and part of a those data are collected consistently (for Waisbord feels that many aid organizations example, weekly or monthly).” lack the needed patience: 86 Whatever its strengths, LaMay notes that the [T]he promotion of media performance dashboard will not answer the following question: Is there causality “between building, a process that runs MDLF’s investment decisions and changes in a counterdiversity to requires the notorious institution- particular media organization or the media impatience of aid agencies with environment generally in any of the countries where it operates?” aboutlong-term rushed processes. disbursements … The aid Such links were once taken for granted, but forgrapevine intensive is filledtraining, with updated anecdotes now there is a continuing search for hard evidence of their existence. Most analysts trips, and other strategically equipments, fact-finding Center for International Media Assistance 47 Evaluating the Evaluators

questionable decisions driven product growth, which many studies have by bureaucratic imperatives suggested tends to help a society move such as spending funds to meet toward democratic practices. Another was a possible tendency by USAID planners to program implementation to direct their “DG” (democracy and governance) fiscal requirements, expedite money toward countries that were already events, and attending demands trending upward. fromcoincide Ministries with high-profile of Information of recipient countries. After months of analysis, calculations, drafts, … Indicators measuring and revisions, the team published a report in effectiveness are unlikely to be 2008 that found “a robust basis for drawing overhauled unless efforts to the conclusion that USAID DG assistance strengthen program evaluation acknowledge and address the USAID programs aimed at building democracy90 realities of aid agencies.88 ingenerally the post-Cold resulted War in countriesperiod has becoming worked.” democratic at a rate faster than they would have otherwise achieved, as measured by “Countries where the public has movement in the countries’ Freedom House access to a free press usually democracy numbers.

have greater political stability, As part of the study, the researchers analyzed rule of law, government the effects of USAID money that was efficiency in the policy process, regulatory quality, and the factorsspecifically that directedmight alter at media media and conditions— civil society least corruption.” democraticgroups. Again, diffusion after working from other to filter countries out other or years of prior democracy, for instance— —Pippa Norris the researchers found statistical evidence that media aid works. “USAID civil society

Still, media donors and implementers positive impact directly on their respective continue to press for solid answers to the sectors.”and media A $10assistance million have investment a significant in media nagging question. Does my own program in aid programs, the study concluded, could be Country X bring it any closer to the ultimate expected to produce a rise of 5.7 points in a goal of strengthened democracy there? In 0 to 100 media freedom indicator that the recent years, a number of academics have researchers derived from the Freedom House press freedom numbers and other sources. programs but for the sum effect of them all. tried to find answers, if not for individual One of the most comprehensive studies of this type was commissioned by USAID, a Therelationship USAID study between was media“not the assistance end-all andbe-all democratization,” answer to measuring Kalathil the writes. “But it serves to usefully highlight how thesemajor funds media into aid formerspender. communist Between 1989 countries and much room for further study exists in of2004 Eastern it channeled Europe. roughly A team $300 of academics million of 89 91 Otherthis quickly studies growing have taken field.” a crack at the examined data from 165 countries spanning question that lies one level higher: If tothe bring years greater 1990 to democracy? 2004. The researchers’Using statistical media aid programs do indeed result in analysisover-all question:techniques Does developed democracy in political aid tend better media freedom, does that higher media freedom necessarily improve the overall level of democracy in a country? growthscience, of they democracy. worked to One filter was out gross the domesticeffects At a UNESCO gathering in Sri Lanka to of other factors that might influence the 48 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

political stability, rule of law, government Harvard University political scientist Pippa Norrismark World addressed Press this Freedom issue. DayIn ain paper 2006, quality, and the least corruption. presented to the conference92 she noted that the efficiency in the policy process, regulatory belief that “yes” is the answer goes a long way “Overall,” Norris wrote, “the analysis lends back. “A long tradition of liberal theorists from considerable support to the claims of liberal Milton through Locke and Madison to John theorists about the critical role of the free Stuart Mill have argued that the existence of press, as one of the major components of both an unfettered and independent press within democracy and good governance.” each nation is essential in the process of democratization,” she said. Norris thus arrives by way of academic analysis at a conclusion that people in the world of Then Norris went on to look at theories that media aid have long held in the gut. The task now is to press ahead with development of The freest media systems tend to occur in new and more accurate ways to measure industrializedaffluence might nations, promote she media noted. freedom. A statistical analysis of the world as a whole showed a indicators have served well and tend to point “moderately strong” correlation between inspecific the right media direction, environments. they are While by no existingmeans foolproof. Here are some recommendations for keeping the improvement practice on track. theaffluence pattern, and Singapore, media freedom. Malaysia, Yet and a substantial Saudi number of upper-income countries didn’t fit income countries had media that operated withArabia relatively among them.high freedom. And a number Among of those lower- she

177 states in the 2003 Human Development Indexnoted compiledwas Benin, by which the UN ranked Development 161st among Programme, and where two thirds of the adult population is illiterate.

Turning to questions of how media might promote democracy, she employed techniques as economic growth, colonial experience, andto neutralize population the size. influence (Small of countries such factors are often believed to be good environments for democratic governments, partly based on the assumption that the fewer people, the greater potential for citizens to take part in horizontal axis tracked rising democracy and thekey verticaldecisions.) tracked On an rising X-Y graph media in freedom, which the her data mapped out a rough correlation— countries with high democracy tended to have high media freedom. There were exceptions, but, she found: “The impact of media liberalization was the most consistent predictor of democracy out of any of the factors under comparison, even stronger than wealth. … The models show that countries where much of the public has A former child soldier receives training in access to the free press usually have greater radio journalism in Sierra Leone. Photo courtesy of USAID. Center for International Media Assistance 49 Evaluating the Evaluators

Recommendations

►► Organizations that produce the three major ►► Media aid implementers should studies of media freedom and the many continue to be cautious in making

work to increase technical sophistication, in a country and changes in that validitylesser-known across ones time, should and transparency continue to country’sconnections overall between press a freedomspecific project rating. of sourcing, wherever possible without Donors and implementers should creating threats to the security of work toward common and increasingly people who help in compiling them. sophisticated methods of monitoring and evaluation at the program level. ►► Foundations and other organizations ►► Media aid organizations should be more assure that there is adequate funding open to releasing their monitoring and whetherthat finance economic the indexes times should are bright or evaluation reports, whether they show cloudy. They should fund an expansion of IREX’s Media Sustainability could help other organizations get better Index to additional countries. impactsuccess for or failure,their media because aid money.the findings

►► Governments should resist the ►► Survey administrators should continue temptation to dismiss studies and work to measure conditions of freedom rankings of media freedom in their for the Internet, mobile phone texting, countries as outside interference and and other digital technologies that are growing rapidly in importance when crafting media policies. in the world’s media systems. should consider the findings seriously

50 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

ENdnotes

1 International Telecommunication Union, Reporters Without Borders), in interview The World in 2009: ICT Facts and Figures,

. with the author, October 7, 2009. http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/material/ Tibet protestors strike as the Olympic 2 AsTelecom09_flyer.pdf quoted in Kate Holman, “Battle over 10 Helena SmithThe and Guardian Tania Branigan,, March 25, “Pro- 2008, media freedom in Italy shifts to European http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/ stage,” Tribune Magazine, October 15, mar/25/tibet.olympicgames2008flame is lit,” . http://www.tribunemagazine. 11 “Reporters Without Borders/Reporters 2009, . Sans Frontieres, NED Grant History (by co.uk/2009/10/15/battle-over-media- year),” internal document provided by NED 3 Monroefreedom-in-italy-shifts-to-european-stage E. Price (director, Center for to the author. Global Communication Studies, Annenberg School for Communication, University of 12 “Income and Expenditure,” September 7, Pennsylvania), “Press Freedom Measures: http://www. An Introduction,” prepared for forthcoming Annenberg School book. html2009,. report on RSF Web site, rsf.org/Income-and-expenditure,34401. 13 John Rosenthal, “The Reporters Cox Jr. Center for International Mass Without Borders Press Freedom 4 CommunicationLee B. Becker (director, Training James and Research,M. Index: Independent Assessment or Grady College of Journalism and Mass EU Propaganda?” World Political Communication, University of Georgia) Review http:// and Tudor Vlad (associate director), www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article. “Conceptualizing and Measuring aspx?id=1312, November. 6, 2007, Characteristics of Media Systems,” prepared for forthcoming Annenberg School book. 14 Nuremberg),Christina Holtz-Bacha “Freedom (professor of the Press—Is of a 5 United Nations, Universal Declaration of Worldwidecommunications, Comparison University Possible of Erlangen- and What Human Rights, http://www.un.org/en/ Is It Good For?” prepared for forthcoming documents/udhr. Annenberg School book.

15 Ibid. international communication, Freedom 6 House),Leonard in Sussman telephone (senior interview scholar with in the Jr. and Michael Schudson, “Finding a 16 NewFor an Model example, for News see Leonard Reporting,” Downie The 7 Forauthor, full Octoberscores, see 22, http://www. 2009. Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/ . , October 19, 2009, freedomhouse.org/uploads/fop/2009/ . FreedomofthePress2009_tables.pdf wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/18/ Development, IREX), in interview with the 17 WebAR2009101801461_pf.html site of Swedish public broadcaster 8 Leon Morse (senior program officer, Media SVT,

author, October 6, 2009. 2&lpos=lasMerhttp://svt.se/2.10775/1.1660790/. broadcasting_in_sweden?lid=puff_166089 9 Clothilde Le Coz (Washington director, Center for International Media Assistance 51 Evaluating the Evaluators

Democracy & the Politics of Belonging

18 Holtz-Bacha, “Freedom of the Press.” The New York Times (London: Zed Books, 2005), 2-3. 19 Eric Pfanner, “France to aid newspapers,” the Eyes of Reporters without Borders,” , January 23, 2009, 29 AsharqMuhammad Alawsat Diyab, “The Arab Press in http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/. http://aawsat.com/english/news. business/worldbusiness/23iht- , October 29,. 2009, 20 Facksonads.4.19637222.html Banda (SAB Ltd. and UNESCO Chair of Media & Democracy, Rhodes 30 Rolfasp?section=2&id=18622 Paasch (director, fesmedia Africa), University), “What Are We Measuring? “Perceptions and Realities in Assessing A Critical Review of Media Development Media Landscapes,” http://fesmedia.org/ Assessment Tools,” prepared for forthcoming Annenberg School book. AndRealitiesInAssessingMediaLandscape fileadmin/files-fesmedia.org/Paasch_

2221 PaulaHoltz-Bacha, Schriefer “Freedom (director of of the advocacy, Press.” 31 Paasch, in e-mail to the author, November Freedom House), in interview with the 32 Andrew5, 2009. Puddephatt (director, Global Partners & Associates Ltd.), “Examining and Critiquing Existing Measures of Media 23 Gohauthor, Chok October Tong (former8, 2009. prime minister Development,” prepared for forthcoming of Singapore), in speech commemorating Annenberg School book. Today newspaper, October 31, 2005, 33 Walter Fust (chairman, Intergovernmental thesearch?q=cache:CRfWspLgX7YJ:sitemaker. fifth anniversary of Council, International Programme for http://74.125.93.132/ the Development of Communication, c. UNESCO), in introduction to “Media umich.edu/globalmedia/files/the_straits_ Development Indicators: A framework times__singapore__november_1__20.do for assessing media development,” Ministry), May 11, 2007, in statement on 2008, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ 24 WebJiang site Yu (spokesperson, of Chinese embassy Chinese in London, Foreign .

eng/fyrth/t322250.htm. images/0016/001631/163102e.pdf http://www.chinese-embassy.org.uk/ Existing Measures of Media Development.” 25 Committee to Protect Journalists, “Chinese 34 Puddephatt, “Examining and Critiquing 35 UNESCO, “Media Development Indicators: journalists,” March 11, 2010, http://cpj. A framework for assessing media official urges political education for development”, 2008, http://portal. . org/2010/03/chinese-official-urges- political-education-for-jou.php SECTION=201.htmlunesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_. report, http://www.hrw.org/en/ ID=26032&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_ 26 Human Rights. Watch, China country Indicator 1, written by Martina Topic, 27 Accountsnode/87491 of President Hu’s speech and 36 Summary of findings on UNESCO . others that were delivered at the World Media Summit are available at http:// 37 Helgehttp://cim.fpzg.hr/pdf/indicator_1.pdf Rønning (professor, Department www.worldmediasummit.org/english/ of Media and Communication, University document/press.htm. of Oslo), “The Right to Communicate: An Analysis of the Media Development 28 Francis Nyamnjoh, Africa’s Media: Situation in Mozambique,” 2.

52 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

Voices), in interview with the author, 38 February“MISA-Mozambique 12, 2010, http://appablog. conducts media study,” 48 Ivan Sigal (executive director, Global press release by MISA-Mozambique issued October 20, 2009. wordpress.com/2010/02/12/misa-. mozambique-unveils-constrains-to-press- 49 International Telecommunication freedom-in-mozambique Union, “4.6 billion mobile subscriptions Communication Development, UNESCO), by the end of 2009,” October. 6, 2009, 39 W.in telephoneJayaweera interview(director, withDivision the forauthor, http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_ March 15, 2010. releases/2009/39.html org), in telephone interview with the 50 Katrin Verclas (co-founder, MobileActive.

40 Ibid. 51 Karlekar,author, November in telephone 2, 2009. interview with the Journalism, Moscow State University), 41 Andrei Richter (professor, School of and Freedom of the Media: An Overview,” 52 Gerryauthor, Power January (managing 29, 2010. director, International“Post-Soviet Perspective Communication on Censorship Gazette, Vol. InterMedia UK); Anna Godfrey (research 70, No. 5, http://gaz.sagepub.com/cgi/ manager, BBC World Service Trust); content/abstract/70/5/307. Patrick McCurdy (lecturer, Department of Media and Communications, Erasmus University), “When theory meets practice:

42 Ibid, 320. freedom indices,” prepared for forthcoming in Thailand and the Philippines,” The AnnenbergCritical reflections School book.from the field on press 43 OxfordRobin Mansell, Handbook “Mobile of Information Telephones and Communication Technologies (New York: 53 Devra Moehler (assistant professor, Oxford University Press, 2007), http:// Annenberg School for Communication), in telephone interview with the author, . books.google.com/books?id=X9b3fI- Ds70C&pg=PA548, 548 December 9, 2009. Introduction.” 44 Price, “Press Freedom Measures: An 54 Banda, “What Are We Measuring?”

and Middle Eastern cultures, Barnard 55 Holtz-Bacha, “Freedom of the Press.” 45 College),Guobin Yang “Press (associate Freedom professor and the Internetof Asian 2010. in China,” prepared for forthcoming 56 Morse, in e-mail to the author, February 1, Annenberg School book. 57 Price, “Press Freedom Measures: An Introduction.”

Freedom of the Press, Freedom House), 46 inKarin telephone Karlekar interview (managing with editor the author, of 58 Holtz-Bacha, “Freedom of the Press.” Without Borders), “The press in Africa, October 16, 2009. 59 asRobert seen Ménardby Robert (founder, Ménard,” Reporters The Courier , Global Assessment of Internet and Digital 47 Media,”Freedom http://www.freedomhouse. House, “Freedom on the Net: A org/uploads/specialreports/ December/January/February. 2009, http://www.acp-eucourier.info/The-press- FullReport.pdf. in-Africa-as-s.569.0.html NetFreedom2009/FreedomOnTheNet_ 60 A.S. PanneerselvanCenter for (executiveInternational director, Media Assistance 53 Evaluating the Evaluators

72 The decimal numbers the authors give are Practitioner’s Model.” a statistical measure known as the Pearson Panos South Asia), “Spheres of Influence: A standard way of judging correlation between Introduction.” twoProduct variables. Moment Correlation Coefficient, a 61 Price, “Press Freedom Measures: An 73 Becker and Vlad, “Conceptualizing and Measuring Characteristics of Media Systems.” 62 Ibid. World Bank), “Keynote Address at the 63 ConferenceJames Wolfensohn on World (former Poverty president, and The Development: A Challenge for the 74 Ibid. Private Sector,” October 3, 2000, http:// go.worldbank.org/UT37CTHQU0. 75 Moehler, December 9, 2009. spokesman responds to media freedom 76 Adnkronos International, “Italy:http://www. Berlusconi’s Communications and Theater, Temple adnkronos.com/AKI/English/CultureAndMe 64 University);Thomas Jacobson Lingling (professor, Pan (doctoral School of report,” October 21, 2009,. student, Mass Media and Communication Program, Temple University); and Seung dia/?id=3.0.3900135626 Joon Jun (doctoral student, Department “DPP cries foul on press freedom,” of Communication, University at Buffalo), 77 TaipeiTseng Wei-chenTimes and Fan Cheng-hsiang,http:// “Indicators of Citizen Voice for Assessing www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/ Media Development: A Communicative , May 4, 2009, . Action Approach,” prepared for forthcoming Annenberg School book. 78 Jamesarchives/2009/05/04/2003442714 Morrow (consultant, Broadcasting Board of Governors), in telephone interview

65 TheodoreJacobson, inPeterson, e-mail to and the Wilbur author, Schramm, October 9, with the author, October 27, 2009. Four2009. Theories He was referringof the Press: to Fred.The Authoritarian, S. Siebert, James Clark Coffman Distinguished Chair, Libertarian, Social Responsibility and Soviet 79 DepartmentRussell S. Sobel of Economics, (professor ofWest economics, Virginia Communist Concepts of What the Press Should University); Nabamita Dutta (assistant Be and Do, (Urbana, University of Illinois professor, Department of Economics, University of Wisconsin, La Crosse); and Sanjukta Roy (consultant, World Bank Press, 1956). and Internews), “Beyond Borders: Is Voice for Assessing Media Development.” Media Freedom Contagious?”,prepared for 66 Jacobson, Pan, and Jun, “Indicators of Citizen forthcoming Annenberg School book.

80 Jacobson, Pan, and Jun, quoting Maureen 67 Ibid. Taylor and Philip M. Napoli, “Media development in Bosnia: A Longitudinal 68 Ibid. Analysis of Citizen Perception of News 2010. Media Realism, Importance and Credibility,” 69 Morse, in e-mail to the author, February 1, International Communication Gazette 70 Karlekar, in telephone interview with the , Vol. 65, No. 6, 2003, 473-492. 71 Beckerauthor, andJanuary Vlad, 29, “Conceptualizing 2010. and “Independent Media Development Abroad: Measuring Characteristics of Media Systems.” 81 ChallengesU.S. General Exist Accountability in Implementing Office, U.S. Efforts

54 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

and Measuring Results,” July 2005, http:// www.gao.gov/new.items/d05803.pdf. posted on USAID Web site, http://www. Progress in Post-Soviet Countries,” report 82 Shanthi Kalathil (consultant, The World . Bank), “Measuring the Media: Examining usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/ the Interdisciplinary Approach,” prepared press/success/report_revolution.html for forthcoming Annenberg School book. science, University of Pittsburgh); Aníbal 90 Steven E. Finkel (professor of political 83 Ibid. political science, University of Pittsburgh); MitchellPérez-Liñán A. Seligson (associate (professor professor of ofpolitical science, Vanderbilt University); and C. Deutsche Welle Akademie), in presentation Neal Tate (professor of political science 84 toHelmut “Measuring Osang Change(head, Asia II,” a Division, media aid and law, Vanderbilt University), conference in Bad Honnef, Germany, “Deepening our Understanding of the Effects of US Foreign Assistance on Democracy Building, Final Report,” 85 CraigOctober L. LaMay 12-14, (associate2009. professor, January 28, 2008, http://www.usaid.gov/ Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University), “What Works? The Problem of Program Evaluation,” prepared for our_work/democracy_and_governance/. forthcoming Annenberg School book. publications/pdfs/SORA_FinalReport_ June08_508c.pdf

91 Kalathil, “Measuring the Media.” 8786 SilvioIbid. R. Waisbord (associate professor Comparative Politics, John F. Kennedy of media and public affairs, The George 92 SchoolPippa Norris of Government, (McGuire lecturerHarvard in Washington University), “Operational University), “The Role of the Free Press models and bureaucratic imperatives in in Promoting Democratization, Good the global promotion of media diversity,” Governance and Human Development,” prepared for forthcoming Annenberg in Global Forum for Media Development, School book. Media Matters: Perspectives on Advancing Governance & Development from the 88 Ibid. Global Forum for Media Development, http://www.internews.org/pubs/gfmd/ mediamatters.pdf.

89 USAID, “Report Links Revolution to Media

Center for International Media Assistance 55 Evaluating the Evaluators

Appendix I

Freedom House’s Freedom of the Press 2010 Table of Global Press Freedom Rankings

Rank Rank Country Rating Status Country Rating Status 2010 2010 1 Finland 10 Free Lithuania 21 Free Iceland 10 Free Micronesia 21 Free Norway 10 Free 37 Australia 22 Free Sweden 10 Free Cyprus 22 Free 5 Denmark 11 Free Malta 22 Free 6 Belgium 12 Free 40 Dominica 23 Free Luxembourg 12 Free France 23 Free 8 Andorra 13 Free Hungary 23 Free Switzerland 13 Free 43 Slovakia 23 Free 10 Liechtenstein 14 Free Suriname 23 Free Trinidad and 11 Netherlands 14 Free 23 Free Tobago New Zealand 14 Free Vanuatu 23 Free Palau 14 Free 47 Grenada 24 Free 14 Ireland 15 Free Papua New 24 Free St. Lucia 15 Free Guinea 16 Jamaica 16 Free Poland 24 Free Monaco 16 Free Spain 24 Free Portugal 16 Free Taiwan 24 Free 19 Estonia 17 Free 52 Mali 25 Free Germany 17 Free Slovenia 25 Free 21 Marshall Islands 17 Free Uruguay 25 Free San Marino 17 Free 55 Ghana 26 Free St. Vincent and Latvia 26 Free 17 Free Grenadines Tuvalu 26 Free 24 Czech Republic 18 Free 58 Kiribati 27 Free United States of 18 Free Mauritius 27 Free America 60 Cape Verde 28 Free 26 Barbados 19 Free Nauru 28 Free 19 Free Canada Sao Tome and 28 Free Costa Rica 19 Free Principe United Kingdom 19 Free 63 Greece 29 Free 30 Bahamas 20 Free Israel 29 Free St. Kitts and Nevis 20 Free Samoa 29 Free 32 Austria 21 Free Solomon Islands 29 Free Belize 21 Free 67 Chile 30 Free Japan 21 Free Guyana 30 Free

56 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

Rank Rank Country Rating Status Country Rating Status 2010 2010 South Korea 30 Free 108 Kosovo 53 Partly Free 70 South Africa 32 Partly Free Ukraine 53 Partly Free Congo Tonga 32 Partly Free 110 54 Partly Free (Brazzaville) 72 Benin 33 Partly Free Fiji 54 Partly Free Hong Kong 33 Partly Free Guinea-Bissau 54 Partly Free India 33 Partly Free Nigeria 54 Partly Free Italy 33 Partly Free Uganda 54 Partly Free 76 Bulgaria 34 Partly Free 115 Kuwait 55 Partly Free Namibia 34 Partly Free Lebanon 55 Partly Free 78 East Timor 35 Partly Free Sierra Leone 55 Partly Free Serbia 35 Partly Free 118 Bangladesh 56 Partly Free 80 Montenegro 37 Partly Free Malawi 56 Partly Free Antigua and Mauritania 56 Partly Free 81 38 Partly Free Barbuda 121 Bhutan 57 Partly Free 82 Botswana 39 Partly Free Kenya 57 Partly Free Dominican 39 Partly Free Senegal 57 Partly Free Republic 124 Seychelles 58 Partly Free Mongolia 39 Partly Free Thailand 58 Partly Free 85 Croatia 40 Partly Free 126 Georgia 59 Partly Free 86 Burkina Faso 41 Partly Free Honduras 59 Partly Free 87 Mozambique 42 Partly Free Nepal 59 Partly Free 88 Bolivia 43 Partly Free Paraguay 59 Partly Free Brazil 43 Partly Free 130 Colombia 60 Partly Free El Salvador 43 Partly Free Egypt 60 Partly Free Romania 43 Partly Free Guatemala 60 Partly Free 92 Panama 44 Partly Free Mexico 60 Partly Free Peru 44 Partly Free 134 Cambodia 61 Not Free 94 46 Partly Free Macedonia Central African 61 Not Free 95 Ecuador 47 Partly Free Republic Nicaragua 47 Partly Free Liberia 61 Not Free Bosnia- Madagascar 61 Not Free 97 48 Partly Free Herzegovina Pakistan 61 Not Free Lesotho 48 Partly Free 139 Angola 62 Not Free Philippines 48 Partly Free 140 Jordan 63 Not Free 100 Argentina 49 Partly Free 141 Algeria 64 Not Free Haiti 49 Partly Free Malaysia 64 Not Free 102 Albania 50 Partly Free Zambia 64 Not Free Comoros 50 Partly Free 144 Iraq 65 Not Free Maldives 50 Partly Free Moldova 65 Not Free Tanzania 50 Partly Free 146 Armenia 66 Not Free 106 Turkey 51 Partly Free Cameroon 66 Not Free 107 Indonesia 52 Partly Free Cote d’Ivoire 66 Not Free

Center for International Media Assistance 57 Evaluating the Evaluators

Rank Rank Country Rating Status Country Rating Status 2010 2010 Morocco 66 Not Free The Gambia 81 Not Free Qatar 66 Not Free 177 Vietnam 82 Not Free 151 Niger 68 Not Free 178 Rwanda 83 Not Free Singapore 68 Not Free Saudi Arabia 83 Not Free 153 Bahrain 71 Not Free Syria 83 Not Free Gabon 71 Not Free 181 China 84 Not Free Guinea 71 Not Free IOT/PA* 84 Not Free Oman 71 Not Free Laos 84 Not Free United Arab Somalia 84 Not Free 71 Not Free Emirates Zimbabwe 84 Not Free 158 Sri Lanka 72 Not Free 186 Tunisia 85 Not Free 159 Burundi 73 Not Free 187 Iran 89 Not Free Djibouti 73 Not Free 188 Equatorial Guinea 90 Not Free Kyrgyzstan 73 Not Free 189 Belarus 92 Not Free 162 To g o 74 Not Free Uzbekistan 92 Not Free 163 Brunei 75 Not Free 191 Cuba 93 Not Free Venezuela 75 Not Free 192 Eritrea 94 Not Free 165 Afghanistan 76 Not Free Libya 94 Not Free Sudan 76 Not Free 194 Burma 95 Not Free Swaziland 76 Not Free Turkmenistan 95 Not Free 168 Chad 77 Not Free 196 North Korea 99 Not Free 169 Ethiopia 78 Not Free *Israeli-Occupied Territories/Palestinian Authority Kazakhstan 78 Not Free

Tajikistan 78 Not Free Status Number Percentage 172 Azerbaijan 79 Not Free Free 69 35% 173 Yemen 80 Not Free Partly Free 64 33% 174 Congo (Kinshasa) 81 Not Free Not Free 63 32% 175 Russia 81 Not Free TOTAL 196 100%

58 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

Appendix II IREX’s Media Sustainability Index Overall Average Scores Europe and Eurasia 2010 MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 2010: OVERALL AVERAGE SCORES

□ Armenia (1.85) □ Albania (2.11) □ Azerbaijan (1.71) ▼ Bulgaria (2.43) □ Georgia (1.82) □ Montenegro ▼ Bosnia & (2.21) □ Kyrgyzstan Herzegovina ▼ Kazakhstan (1.92) ▼ Romania (2.60) (1.44) (2.30) ▲ Belarus ▼ Macedonia ▲ Croatia (0.96) ▼ Russia (1.45) (1.55) ▼ Serbia (2.07) (2.61) ‫ Turkmenistan □ Uzbekistan □ Tajikistan ▼ Moldova □ Ukraine ▲ Kosovo (0.33) (0.55) (1.45) (1.61) (2.05) (2.60) 0 – 0.50 0.51 – 1.00 1.01 – 1.50 1.51 – 2.00 2.01 – 2.50 2.51 – 3.00 3.01 – 3.50 3.51 – 4.00

UNSUSTAINABLE UNSUSTAINABLE Near SUSTAINABLE ANTI-FREE PRESS MIXED SYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY

Change since 2009 ▲ (increase greater than .10) ‫ (little or no change) ▼ (decrease greater than .10) Annual scores for 2001 through 2009 are available online at http://www.irex.org/programs/MSI_EUR/archive.asp MENA 2008 MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 2008: OVERALL AVERAGE SCORES

▲ Iraq (1.61) ▲ Algeria (1.63) ▲ Bahrain (1.76) ▼ Qatar (2.05) ‫ UAE (2.08) □ Palestine (1.76) ▲ Jordan (2.09) ▲ Iraq-Kurdis- ▼ Iran (1.16) tan (1.80) ▲ Kuwait (2.17) ▲ Libya (0.72) ‫ Yemen (1.20) ▲ Oman (1.96) ▼ Lebanon ▼ Syria (0.79) (2.19) ‫ Saudi Arabia □ Morocco □ Tunisia (0.98) (1.50) (1.98) ▲ Egypt (2.37) 0 – 0.50 0.51 – 1.00 1.01 – 1.50 1.51 – 2.00 2.01 – 2.50 2.51 – 3.00 3.01 – 3.50 3.51 – 4.00

UNSUSTAINABLE UNSUSTAINABLE Near SUSTAINABLE ANTI-FREE PRESS MIXED SYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY

Change since 2005 ▲ (increase greater than .10) ‫ (little or no change) ▼ (decrease greater than .10)

Center for International Media Assistance 59 Evaluating the Evaluators

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 2008: OVERALL AVERAGE SCORES Africa 2008

□ Benin (2.23) ▼ Botswana (2.34) ▲ Burkina Faso (2.14) ▼ Côte d’Ivoire (2.01) ▼ Ghana (2.45) □ Guinea (2.21) ▼ Kenya (2.13) ▼ Burundi Liberia (2.04) (1.95) ▼ Madagascar ▼ Cameroon (2.01) (1.55) ▲ Malawi ▼ Chad (1.76) (2.47) ▲ D. R. Congo □ Mozambique (1.73) (2.19) ▲ Rep. Congo ▼ Namibia (1.63) (2.50) Gabon (1.81) □ Niger (2.03) □ The Gambia ▼ Nigeria (1.68) (2.04) ▼ Mali (1.97) ▲ Rwanda ▲ Cent. Afr. ▲ Mauritania (2.40) Rep. (1.47) (1.93) ▼ Senegal □ Djibouti ▼ Somalia (2.07) (1.38) (1.52) ▲ Sierra Leone ▲ Ethiopia Somaliland (2.16) (1.35) (1.83) ▲ Tanzania ▲ Sudan (1.47) ▼ Togo (1.56) (2.43) ▼ Eq. Guinea ▼ Zimbabwe ▼ Zambia □ Uganda ▼ South Africa ‫ Eritrea (0.26) (0.79) (1.15) (1.89) (2.43) (2.77)

0 – 0.50 0.51 – 1.00 1.01 – 1.50 1.51 – 2.00 2.01 – 2.50 2.51 – 3.00 3.01 – 3.50 3.51 – 4.00

UNSUSTAINABLE UNSUSTAINABLE Near SUSTAINABLE ANTI-FREE PRESS MIXED SYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY

Change since 2006/2007 ▲ (increase greater than .10) ‫ (little or no change) ▼ (decrease greater than .10) IREX included Gabon, Liberia, and Somaliland for the first time in the current edition. Scores for 2006/2007 are available online at http://www.irex.org/programs/MSI_Africa/20067/index.asp

60 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

Appendix III Reporters Without Borders’ Press Freedom Index 2009

Rank Country Mark Rank Country Mark 1 Denmark 0,00 ↑↑ 37 Poland 9,50 ↑↑ Finland 0,00 ↑ Slovenia 9,50 ↓ Ireland 0,00 ↑ Bosnia and 39 Herzegovina 10,50 ↓ Norway 0,00 = Chile 10,50 ↑↑ Sweden 0,00 ↑ Guyana 10,50 ↑↑ 6 Estonia 0,50 ↓ 42 Surinam 10,60 ↓↓ 7 Netherlands 1,00 ↑ 43 France 10,67 ↓ Switzerland 1,00 = 44 Cape Verde 11,00 ↑↑ 9 Iceland 2,00 ↓ 10 Lithuania 2,25 ↑ 44 Slovakia 11,00 ↓↓ 11 Belgium 2,50 ↓ Spain 11,00 ↓ Malta 2,50 NC 47 Argentina 11,33 ↑↑ 13 Austria 3,00 ↑ 48 Hong-Kong 11,75 ↑ Latvia 3,00 ↓ 49 Italy 12,14 ↓ New Zealand 3,00 ↓ 50 Romania 12,50 ↓ 16 Australia 3,13 ↑↑ 51 Cyprus (North) 14,00 ↑ 17 Japan 3,25 ↑↑ Maldives 14,00 ↑↑ 18 Germany 3,50 ↑ Mauritius 14,00 ↓ 19 Canada 3,70 ↓ 54 Paraguay 14,33 ↑↑ 20 Luxembourg 4,00 ↓↓ 55 Panama 14,50 ↑ United Kingdom 4,00 ↑ 56 Papua New Guinea 14,70 NC United States of America 4,00 ↑↑ 57 Burkina Faso 15,00 ↑ 23 Jamaica 4,75 ↓ Haiti 15,00 ↑↑ 24 Czech Republic 5,00 ↓ 59 Taiwan 15,08 ↓↓ 25 Cyprus 5,50 ↑ 60 Kuwait 15,25 ↑ Hungary 5,50 ↓ 61 Lebanon 15,42 ↑ 27 Ghana 6,00 ↑ 62 Botswana 15,50 ↑ 28 Trinidadand Tobago 7,00 ↓ Liberia 15,50 ↓↓ 29 Uruguay 7,63 ↑↑ Malawi 15,50 ↑ 30 Costa Rica 8,00 ↓ Serbia 15,50 ↑ Mali 8,00 ↑ Tanzania 15,50 ↑ Portugal 8,00 ↓↓ To g o 15,50 ↓ 33 South Africa 8,50 ↑ 68 Bulgaria 15,61 ↓ 34 Macedonia 8,75 ↑ 69 South Korea 15,67 ↓↓ 35 Greece 9,00 ↓ 70 Bhutan 15,75 ↑ Namibia 9,00 ↓↓ 71 Brazil 15,88 ↑↑

Center for International Media Assistance 61 Evaluating the Evaluators

Rank Country Mark Rank Country Mark 72 Benin 16,00 ↓ 111 Armenia 31,13 ↓ Seychelles 16,00 ↑ 112 Jordan 31,88 ↑↑

Timor-Leste 16,00 ↓ 113 Tajikistan 32,00 ↓ 75 Kosovo 16,58 ↓↓ 114 Moldova 33,75 ↓↓ 76 Nicaragua 16,75 ↓↓ 115 Sierra Leone 34,00 ↓ 77 Montenegro 17,00 ↓↓ 116 Congo 34,25 ↓↓ 78 Croatia 17,17 ↓↓ 117 Cambodia 35,17 ↑ 79 El Salvador 17,25 ↓↓ 118 Nepal 35,63 ↑↑ Central African 119 Angola 36,50 ↓ 80 Republic 17,75 ↑ Bahrain 36,50 ↓↓ 81 Georgia 18,83 ↑↑ 121 Bangladesh 37,33 ↑↑ 82 Comoros 19,00 ↑ 122 Philippines 38,25 ↑↑ Mozambique 19,00 ↑ Turkey 38,25 ↓↓ 84 Ecuador 20,00 ↓↓ 124 Venezuela 39,50 ↓↓ 85 Peru 20,88 ↑↑ 125 Kyrgyzstan 40,00 ↓↓ 86 Uganda 21,50 ↑↑ 126 Colombia 40,13 = United Arab Emirates 21,50 ↓↓ 127 Morocco 41,00 ↓ 88 Albania 21,75 ↓ 128 Honduras 42,00 ↓↓ Ukraine 22,00 ↓ 129 Gabon 43,50 ↓↓ 91 Mongolia 23,33 ↑ 130 Thailand 44,00 ↓ 131 Malaysia 44,25 ↑ 92 Guinea-Bissau 23,50 ↓↓ 132 Chad 44,50 ↑ Israel (Israeli 93 territory) 23,75 ↓↓ 133 Singapore 45,00 ↑↑ 94 Qatar 24,00 ↓↓ 134 Madagascar 45,83 ↓↓ 95 Bolivia 24,17 ↑↑ 135 Nigeria 46,00 ↓ 96 Kenya 25,00 ↑ 136 Zimbabwe 46,50 ↑↑ 97 Zambia 26,75 ↓↓ 137 Gambia 48,25 = Mexico 48,25 ↑ 98 Dominican Republic 26,83 ↓↓ 139 Niger 48,50 ↓ 99 Lesotho 27,50 ↑↑ 140 Ethiopia 49,00 ↑ 100 Guinea 28,50 ↓ 141 Algeria 49,56 ↓↓ Indonesia 28,50 ↑↑ 142 Kazakhstan 49,67 ↓↓ Mauritania 28,50 ↑ 143 Egypt 51,38 ↑ 103 Burundi 29,00 ↓ 144 Swaziland 52,50 ↑ Côte d’Ivoire 29,00 ↑ 145 Iraq 53,30 ↑↑ 105 India 29,33 ↑↑ 146 Azerbaijan 53,50 ↑ 106 Guatemala 29,50 ↓ Democratic Oman 29,50 ↑↑ Republic of Congo 53,50 ↑ USA 148 Sudan 54,00 ↓↓ 108 (extra-territorial) 30,00 ↑↑ 149 Afghanistan 54,25 ↑ 109 Cameroon 30,50 ↑↑ Israel 110 Djibouti 31,00 ↑↑ 150 (extra-territorial) 55,50 ↓ 62 Center for International Media Assistance Evaluating the Evaluators

Rank Country Mark Rank Country Mark 151 Belarus 59,50 ↑ 163 Saudi Arabia 76,50 ↓ 152 Fiji 60,00 ↓↓ 164 Somalia 77,50 ↓↓ 153 Russia 60,88 ↓↓ 165 Syria 78,00 ↓ 154 Tunisia 61,50 ↓↓ 166 Vietnam 81,67 ↑ 155 Brunei 63,50 NC 167 Yemen 83,38 ↓↓

156 Libya 64,50 ↑ 168 China 84,50 ↓ 157 Rwanda 64,67 ↓↓ 169 Laos 92,00 ↓ 170 Cuba 94,00 ↓ 158 Equatorial Guinea 65,50 ↓ 171 Burma 102,67 ↓ 159 Pakistan 65,67 ↓ 172 Iran 104,14 ↓ 160 Uzbekistan 67,67 ↑ ↓ Palestinian 173 Turkmenistan 107,00 161 Territories 69,83 ↑ 174 North Korea 112,50 ↓ 162 Sri Lanka 75,00 ↑ 175 Eritrea 115,50 ↓

Center for International Media Assistance 63

Center for International Media Assistance National Endowment for Democracy

1025 F Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20004

Phone: (202) 378-9700 Fax: (202) 378-9407 E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://[email protected]