Freedom of the Press 2010

• Continued declines in important emerging democracies demonstrate the fragility of press freedom in such environments. Over the past five years, steady declines have been recorded in countries such as Mexico in the Americas; Thailand, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka in Asia; and Senegal and Uganda in sub-Saharan Africa. Overall, declines of 10 or more points have outnumbered gains of a similar scale by a two-to-one margin. Mexico’s loss of 18 points over the past five years is unusual, as it has not been accompanied by political upheaval (as in Thailand) or civil war (as in Sri Lanka). Instead, violence associated with drug trafficking has led to a dramatic increase in attacks on journalists who try to cover drug-related corruption or gang activities, as well as rising levels of self-censorship and impunity. Senegal’s drop of 20 points is the world’s largest in the past five years, and also took place in the context of a fairly democratic political environment. Government support for media freedom and tolerance for critical or opposing viewpoints has declined considerably, and official rhetoric against members of the press has increased. More importantly, the incidence of both legal and extralegal forms of harassment—including physical attacks against journalists and the closure of media outlets—has risen sharply, leading to a much more restrictive environment for the press.
• Governments with an authoritarian bent have moved to consolidate control over traditional media while also encroaching on the comparatively free environment of the internet. The space for independent media in Russia has been steadily reduced as legal protections are routinely ignored, the judicial system grows more subservient to the executive branch, reporters face severe repercussions for reporting on sensitive issues, most attacks on journalists go unpunished, and media ownership is brought firmly under the control of the state. Russian authorities are also moving to restrict internet freedom through manipulation of online content and legal actions against bloggers. In Venezuela, the government has increased its control over the broadcast sector through the arbitrary application of licensing and other regulatory procedures, and it is increasingly threatening to extend such measures to new media. In both Ethiopia and The Gambia, independent outlets have faced growing pressure, journalists have been forced into exile, and internet-based news sites run by citizens living abroad have been censored.
• A positive attitude on the part of governments or ruling parties has proven critical for gains in media freedom. During 2009, this was primarily apparent in South Asia, the subregion that made the year’s greatest gains. Newly elected and reform-minded governments in Bangladesh, Bhutan, and the Maldives have enacted positive constitutional or other legal changes that have improved protections for press freedom, and there have been fewer cases of legal or physical harassment. These governments have also allowed the establishment of independent print and broadcast outlets, increasing the diversity of voices available and improving access to news and information. The trend is also apparent in the countries that have shown the greatest numerical improvement over the past five years, with changes in government representing a key factor behind gains in countries such as Haiti, Liberia, and Nepal.
• Threats to media freedom remain a concern even in stronger democracies. While Israel regained its Free status in 2009, some curbs on media freedom, primarily concerning travel restrictions and military censorship, remain in place. In Italy, a country with a Partly Free ranking, conditions worsened as Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi clashed with the press over coverage of his personal life, leading to lawsuits against both local and foreign news outlets as well as the censorship of critical content by the state-owned broadcaster. In a worrying development, two countries in southern Africa slipped into the Partly Free category. Namibia was tested during an election year, suffering from biased campaign coverage and an increase in negative official rhetoric and verbal threats against certain outlets. Official rhetoric against independent or critical voices has also increased in South Africa in recent years, as have legal threats to the print media and a lack of independence at the dominant state-run broadcaster, pushing the country into the Partly Free category.
  
  

The world’s 10 worst-rated countries are Belarus, Burma, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. In these states, which are scattered around the globe, independent media are either nonexistent or barely able to operate, the press acts as a mouthpiece for the regime, citizens’ access to unbiased information is severely limited, and dissent is crushed through imprisonment, torture, and other forms of repression. Despite hope in recent years that the impact of the internet and other new media would lead to improvements in these countries, most of their scores remained stagnant. In one notable development, however, Iran replaced Zimbabwe in the worst-performing group. Zimbabwe’s score improved slightly as the establishment of a new “government of national unity” led to small openings in media coverage and editorial bias, as well as less stringent application of harsh media laws, whereas Iran suffered a dramatic deterioration as both official and unofficial avenues for news and information sharing were severely curtailed following the flawed presidential election, and journalists were arrested, imprisoned, and tortured.