Right to blog: New Article 19 Report

For Americans the idea of using any and all means to spread ideas is second nature.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution put in writing what had become common place in first the 13 colonies and then the United States. The protection given to freedom of speech and press has expanded as technology changed.

“Press” no longer means just a printed document. It has come to mean any method of communicating thoughts and ideas.

And so blogging and Tweeting are fully protected in the United States.

In other countries, not so much.

Now Article 19 has come out with a document that talks about how press freedom issues have evolved in the age of the Internet.

The Right To Blog

Executive summary

In this policy paper, ARTICLE 19 proposes a set of recommendations to state actors and policy makers about what they should do to promote and protect the rights of bloggers domestically and internationally. It also gives practical advice to bloggers about their rights and explains how – and in what situations – they can invoke some of the privileges and defences that traditional journalists have found vital to the integrity of their work.

In common with many other aspects of modern life, the Internet has transformed the way in which we communicate with one another. Where the printed press and broadcast media were once the main sources of information, the Internet has made it possible for any person to publish ideas, information and opinions to the entire world. In particular, blogging and social media now rival newspapers and television as dominant sources of news and information. Unsurprisingly, these developments have also called into question the very definition of ‘journalism’ and ‘media’ in the digital age. It has also raised difficult questions of how the activities of bloggers and ‘citizen journalists’ can be reconciled to existing models of media regulation.

ARTICLE 19 argues that it is no longer appropriate to define journalism and journalists by reference to some recognised body of training, or affiliation with a news entity or professional body. On the contrary, ARTICLE 19 believes that the definition of journalism should be functional, i.e. journalism is an activity that can be exercised by anyone. Accordingly, it argues that international human rights law must protect bloggers just as it protects journalists. The policy paper therefore addresses the key areas that bloggers are likely to face, that is: licensing, real-name registration (vs. anonymity), accreditation, the protection of sources, protection from violence, legal liability and ethical responsibility and suggests ways for them to be addressed.

Among the key recommendations to governments about bloggers are:

• Legal standards should reflect the fact that anyone who disseminated information or ideas to the public by any means of communication is a journalist.

• Bloggers, like journalists, should never be required to obtain a licence to blog.

• Bloggers, like journalists, should never be required to register with a government entity.

China’s censoring ideas have long reach

Many thanks to Freedom House for its latest report on how China is bullying organizations — and governments — around the world into preventing dissidents from having a forum

The Long Arm of China’s Transnational Censorship

Read full story.

The most recent in a growing list of these transnational censorship efforts involves the University of Sydney, one of Australia’s most respected institutions of higher education. According to a Reuters report, the university’s Institute for Democracy and Human Rights had invited the Dalai Lama to speak at a campus forum during his planned visit to the country in June. Subsequently, university authorities demanded that the event be moved off campus, that the university logo not be displayed, that there be no press coverage, and that attendance by campaigners for a free Tibet be barred. Not surprisingly, organizers called off the event instead.

The university administration’s intervention came in a context of increasingly close economic ties between China and Australia. Trade between the two countries has mushroomed in recent years, reaching $120 billion in 2011. Earlier, Prime Minister Julia Gillard had refused to meet with the Dalai Lama, a move that triggered strong criticism. As for the University of Sydney, it has recently opened a Confucius Institute, part of an international network of facilities funded and overseen by the Chinese government that provide instruction on Chinese culture and language. It is unclear whether Chinese officials directly asked university leaders to disinvite the Dalai Lama or the administration took preemptive action. The initial result, in any event, was a serious blow to the once-sacred value of academic freedom.

 

Just calling for press freedom is not enough. We need the WHY

In this month’s issue of the Quill – the official publication of the Society of Professional Journalists — is a brief piece on International Press Freedom day. (Take action for world press freedom)

While author Bruce C. Swaffield makes an important point that U.S. journalists should be more aware of threats to press freedom and do more to defend our colleagues under threat, he does not explain WHY.

Swaffield says journalists could write a story for your paper, broadcast station, website or blog, post a comment on Facebook or Twitter; hold a special discussion during lunch in the newsroom or in the  college newspaper office; send an email or letter to an ambassador in a country where the press is being suppressed or censored; place a small sign in the window of your car proclaiming, “Today is World Press Freedom Day.”

Those are all very good ideas. They cover the WHO, WHAT and WHERE. But what is missing is the WHY! And as all good journalists know, the WHY is an important part of putting the story into context.

• WHY should a local newspaper or television station care about press freedom issues in other countries? (Other than for  general humanitarian reasons.)
• WHY should local readers/viewers/listeners in the United States care?

For some of us, it is second nature to see how events in other countries affect Americans. That is because some of us have had the opportunity and privilege to either live overseas or visit other countries for more than just guided tourism. But for most Americans — included educated and intellectually curious people — making the link between foreign affairs and domestic affairs does not come as rapidly.

Answering the question of WHY people should be aware of international events puts these events into a context that all can understand. So let’s discuss some WHY-related issues.

Business/Trade

Americans can buy inexpensive goods from around the world because of foreign trade. Think of the Toyota or Honda you drive or the Chilean Granny Smith apples available in the winter or the toys made in China.

How does doing business at the local Honda dealer or Wal-Mart tie into press freedom?

Before any business signs a contract with a supplier or distributor it needs to know that the contract will be honored. Likewise, the business needs to have an accurate understanding of the economics of the deal. They need information about inflation, currency fluctuations, work force levels and infrastructure are vital to any business. And woe be it to the businessman who does not find a way to get that information before signing a contract.

This information is especially necessary if a company wants to sell to another country.

In North America and most of Europe that data are readily available either directly from the government or via enterprising reporting by journalists.

In China, Argentina, Venezuela, Cuba, etc that information is not available so easily because the governments hide the data and interfere with any attempts by the media to get it.

So for local companies looking to expand their markets, they should be concerned about how free the media are in their targeted market.

Foreign Investment in the United States

Just as American companies open factories and facilities around the world, foreign companies return the favor in the United States.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, direct foreign investment in the United States was valued at $2.34 trillion in 2009.

A look at employment from these direct investments is also telling. The Census Bureau shows that in 2008 direct investment in the United States by foreign companies accounted for 5.6 million jobs, or about 4.7 percent of the workforce.

And the nice thing about a lot of these tables is that you can get a state-by-state breakdown of investments. For example, about 140,000 jobs in Indiana are directly related to foreign investment in that state.

One of the reasons companies from other countries invest in the United States is because of the ready access to information that makes for good business decisions. A key element of that access is free and independent journalism.

For local news organizations, it might behoove local readers/viewers/listeners to know more about the countries that invest in the US.

How much you want to bet that the financial well-being of Germany, Japan, Brazil and others will affect their investments in the United States? Therefore, it makes sense for local media outlets to pay attention to what is going on in the investor countries, even if it only by using wire services or relationships with media outlets in those countries.

The link between free press and economic well-being and growth is not hard to make. It just takes some imagination and reporters and editors who can see the connections.

Immigration

One of the hot hot hot topics in the U.S. right now is immigration. It dominates the U.S. news as senators and congressmen try to come up with a plan that will accommodate the millions of aliens now in the United States without the proper paperwork.

No one seems to be looking at WHY there are so many immigrants working in the US without the proper documents. And, for Swaffield’s purposes, WHY there might be a connection between immigration and global press freedom.

To start with, the reason most immigrants come to the United States is for the same reason my family came: To have a better life.

But first, let’s admit there are people who are xenophobic and do not want more immigrants. They don’t want people who don’t “look or think like them” entering the United States. Oddly enough, many of these people are also those who argue for budget cuts that encourage more illegal immigration to the United States.

One way to reduce immigration to the US is to promote better economic opportunities in the source countries. That means supporting US development programs. And that means more money and support for USAID.

I have met a number of farmers here in Honduras who were ready to leave their families and risk the dangerous trip to the United States so they could send money back home. All they wanted to do is make sure their families did not starve and make sure their children got educated.

The reason the farmers did not leave was because of programs sponsored by USAID that taught the farmers how to shift from subsistence farming of just corn and beans to growing cash crops such as carrots and broccoli.

Once the USAID Feed the Future Program showed these farmers how to properly grow new cash crops, the USAID teams then helped the farm families learn how to properly handle their new-found wealth.

Thanks to the Feed the Future Program, more families are living in healthier situations, fewer children are malnourished and more children are getting an education.

For less than a penny on the dollar, USAID is building a growing group of people who will soon have enough income to buy more goods and services, including items from the United States. At the same time, it encourages people to make their fortunes in their own countries.

Now multiply this result around the world.

But all of this works only if accurate information about crops and markets are available. And this can only occur in countries that have free media. Free media keep governments honest and prevent unscrupulous business interests from manipulating the markets to the detriment of the farmers.

If there were more stories that point out how development programs prevent illegal immigration and promote more U.S. trade, soon readers/listeners/viewers in the United States will see why it is important to know more about what is going on in the world and why we should be concerned about press freedom issues elsewhere.

Immigrants also change the local markets.

McCormick Spice company tracks the growth of spice sales and finds that the changes in sales figures matched changes in the ethnic changes in the sales area.

How hard would it be to do stories about shifts in food sales – grocery stores and restaurants – that are linked to changes in the local immigrant population?

From there, a reporter could easily look at why the immigrants left their home countries and why they settled where they did in the US.

As with so much of reporting, getting to the WHY leads to so many more connections.

And so I repeat:

• WHY should a local newspaper or television station care about press freedom issues in other countries? (Other than for  general humanitarian reasons.)
• WHY should local readers/viewers/listeners in the United States care?

The answer is simple: Because what happens around the world DIRECTLY affects every American. It is up to journalists in America to explain to the American people WHY knowledge of global events is important.

Press freedom is an important issue. But it has to be explained. And explaining demands a WHY.

New China media policy cuts into Internet and press freedoms

Last week the Chinese State Administration of Press Publication, Radio, Film and Television issued a new directive forbidding media organizations from using foreign media or websites “without authorization” and from “using Internet platforms to participate in activities such as seeking illegal benefits.”

The agency also required Weibo (China’s Twitter-like site) to keep full records of all accounts.

The notice included “Three Furthers”:

• further standardize the behavior of news reporters and editors
• further strengthen the management of media news site
• further strengthen the management of blogs and microblogging.

Seems the Party leaders always have numbers with their policies.

The bottom line of the “Three Furthers” is that the screws are being tightened on not only the traditional media — newspaper, radio and television — but also the Internet.

As expected, the role of journalists is not defined to dig out information and reporting. Rather, it required “news gathering personnel to adhere to unity, stability, positive publicity…to guide public opinion [and] consciously resist the penetration of harmful information and communication.”

At least there was some reaction among China’s netizens.

• Even Myanmar is more open than you.
• I think you should just leave People’s Daily and kill every other newspaper. That way, it will be easy to manage, instead of being so annoying.
• We’re just one about-face away from North Korea.

Further Reading

• The Guardian: China clamps down on media’s use of micro-blogging site
• CPJ: China decrees use of foreign news must be approved
• China Digital Times: Netizen Voices: New Agency Muffles Chinese Press
• Just how does China censor the Internet?

Sin Weibo cartoon about North Korea

Gotta give artist Johnny Won credit for capturing the spirit of North Korea’s actions:

Thanks to China Media Project for pointing this out.

In the cartoon, an impish Kim Jong-un, naked but for a childlike superhero cape, stands atop a pedestal and urinates on the United States, Japan and South Korea. Off to one side, China leans on its cane and says, “Stupid child, you’re asking for death.”