FREEDOM OF THE PRESS 2004 FREEDOM OF THE PRESS 2004 A Global Survey of Media Independence Edited by Karin Deutsch Karlekar WITH ESSAYS BY BRIAN KATULIS, JEREMY DRUKER AND DEAN COX, AND RONALD KOVEN FREEDOM HOUSE NEW YORK WASHINGTON, D.C. ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC. LANHAM BOULDER NEW YORK TORONTO OXFORD ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC. Published in the United States of America by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, MD 20706 www.rowmanlittlefield.com P.O. Box 317, Oxford OX2 9RU, United Kingdom Copyright © 2004 by Freedom House All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. ISSN 1551-9163 ISBN 0-7425-3648-3 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN 0-7425-3649-1 (pbk. : alk. paper) Printed in the United States of America The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. Table of Contents Acknowledgments, vii Survey Methodology, ix Press Freedom in 2003, 1 Karin Deutsch Karlekar Global and Regional Tables, 9 Liberated and Occupied Iraq: New Beginnings and Challenges for Press Freedom, 17 Brian Katulis Under Assault: Ukraine’s News Media and the 2004 Presidential Elections, 29 Jeremy Druker and Dean Cox In Defiance of Common Sense: The Practical Effects of International Press Restrictions, 41 Ronald Koven Country Reports and Ratings, 49 Freedom House Board of Trustees, 195 About Freedom House, 197 Acknowledgments Freedom of the Press 2004 could not have been completed without the contributions of numerous Freedom House staff and consultants. Freedom House would like to thank the World Press Freedom Committee, the Freedom Forum, and Bette Bao Lord for their generous contributions toward our ongoing work to promote freedom of expression. Additional support for this year’s survey was provided by The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Lilly Endowment, and the F. M. Kirby Foundation. This year’s survey was written by Karin Deutsch Karlekar, Mark Rosenberg, Jane Stockman, Sarah Repucci, Leigh Tomppert, Aili Piano, Michael Goldfarb, Arch Puddington, Yves Sorokobi, Brian Katulis, Ana Andjelic, Paula Schriefer, Jennifer Whatley, Felicity Amos, Joseph McSpedon, Ignacio Prado, Vanessa Brown, and Ryan Gottschall. Freedom House would also like to thank Ronald Koven, European representative of the World Press Freedom Committee, Jeremy Druker and Dean Cox, and Brian Katulis, for their contributions. We are grateful for the insights provided by those who served on this year’s review team, including Freedom House staff members Jennifer Windsor, Arch Puddington, Christopher Walker, Leonard R. Sussman, and Adrian Karatnycky, as well as Mark Bench and Ronald Koven of the World Press Freedom Committee and Ann Olson of the International Center for Journalists. In addition, the ratings and narratives were reviewed by a number of regional and country analysts, including Charles Graybow vii viii ❚ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (Asia), Martin Edwin Andersen (Latin America), Yves Sorokobi (Africa), Brian Katulis (Middle East and North Africa), and Amanda Schnetzer, Aili Piano, Margarita Assenova, Stuart Kahn, Mike Stone, John Kubiniec, Mike Staresinic, Cristina Guseth, and Roland Kovats (Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union). This report also reflects the findings of the Freedom House study Freedom in the World 2004: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties. Karin Deutsch Karlekar, a senior researcher at Freedom House, served as managing editor of this year’s survey. Overall guidance for the project was provided by Arch Puddington, director of research, and by Christopher Walker, director of studies. Research, editorial, and administrative assistance was provided by Sarah Repucci, Mark Rosenberg, Jane Stockman, Amy Phillips, and Elizabeth Howell. Anne Green, of Greenways Graphic Design, was responsible for the design and layout of the book, while Nancy van Itallie served as the principal copy editor. Survey Methodology This survey of 192 countries and one territory expands a process conducted since 1980 by Freedom House. The findings are widely used by governments, academics, and the news media in many countries. The degree to which each country permits the free flow of information determines the classification of its media as “Free,” “Partly Free,” or “Not Free.” Countries scoring 0 to 30 are regarded as having “Free” media; 31 to 60, “Partly Free” media; and 61 to 100, “Not Free” media. The criteria for such judgments and the arithmetic scheme for displaying the judgments are described below. Assigning numerical points allows for comparative analysis among the countries surveyed as well as facilitating an examination of trends over time. Criteria This study is based on universal criteria. The starting point is the smallest, most universal unit of concern: the individual. We recognize cultural differences, diverse national interests, and varying levels of economic development. Yet Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers. ix x ❚ SURVEY METHODOLOGY The operative word for this survey is everyone. All states, from the most democratic to the most authoritarian, are committed to this doctrine through the UN system. To deny that doctrine is to deny the universality of information freedom—a basic human right. We recognize that cultural distinctions or economic underdevelopment may limit the volume of news flows within a country, but these and other arguments are not acceptable explanations for outright centralized control of the content of news and information. Some poor countries allow for the exchange of diverse views, while some developed countries restrict content diversity. We seek to recognize press freedom wherever it exists, in poor and rich countries, as well as in countries of various ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds. This survey does not assess the degree to which the press in any country serves responsibly, reflecting a high ethical standard. The issue of “press responsibility” is often raised to defend governmental control of the press. Indeed, a truly irresponsible press does a disservice to its public and diminishes its own credibility. However, governmental efforts to rein in the press on the pretext of making the press “responsible” has far worse results, in most cases. This issue is reflected in the degree of freedom in the flow of information as assessed in the survey. Sources Our data come from correspondents overseas, staff travel, international visitors, the findings of human rights and press-freedom organizations, specialists in geographic and geopolitical areas, the reports of governments and multilateral bodies, and a variety of domestic and international news media. We would particularly like to thank other members of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX) network for providing detailed and timely analyses of press freedom violations in a variety of countries worldwide. Methodology Through the years, we have refined and expanded our methodology. Recent changes to our methodology are intended to simplify the presentation of information without altering the comparability of data for a given country over the 24-year span, or of the comparative ratings of all countries over that period. SURVEY METHODOLOGY ❚ xi Our examination of the level of press freedom in each country is divided into three broad categories: the legal environment, the political environment, and the economic environment. ❚ The legal environment encompasses an examination of both the laws and regulations that could influence media content and the government’s inclination to use these laws and legal institutions in order to restrict the media’s ability to operate. We assess the positive impact of legal and constitutional guarantees for freedom of expression; the potentially negative aspects of security legislation, the penal code and other criminal statutes; penalties for libel and defamation; the existence of and ability to use freedom of information legislation; the independence of the judiciary and of official media regulatory bodies; registration requirements for both media outlets and journalists; and the ability of journalists’ groups to operate freely. ❚ Under the category of political environment, we evaluate the degree of political control over the content of news media. Issues examined in this category include the editorial independence of both the state-owned and privately-owned media; access to information and sources; official censorship and self-censorship; the vibrancy of the media; the ability of both foreign and local reporters to cover the news freely and without harassment; and the intimidation of journalists by the state or other actors, including arbitrary detention and imprisonment, violent assaults, and other threats. ❚ Our third category examines the economic environment for the media. This includes the structure of media ownership; transparency and concentration of ownership;