We could reasonably have expected the digital revolution to have ushered in the heyday of media freedom. The miniaturisation of technology and spread of mobile connectivity have massively increased our ability to share, interact with, and access information.
However, this has been matched by censorship in the name of national security and countering extremism, demands for protection against offensive speech and misinformation, as well as unprecedented surveillance and collection of our data. A new report by Article 19 maps this trend, showing that media freedom is at its lowest level since 2006, with a particular increase in the government censorship of those who expose corruption and abuse.
We at Article 19 document the relentless toll of assaults against journalists, media workers and social media commentators. And besides state agents, we have seen an increase in new perpetrators of violations on media freedom, including organised crime, religious militant groups, and even corporations and economics groups. In the worst cases, state censorship operates through one of these groups or they operate with state acquiescence.
Violence and censorship remain a threat in democratic and authoritarian states. But it is often those with nascent democratic or judicial structures where critical opinions are persecuted by illegitimate and often illegal means. Although the causes vary according to country, the combination of weak institutions and limited legal frameworks, as well as a lack of both political will and appreciation for diversity and pluralism, produce hostile environments for press freedom.
At the same time, the internet and the proliferation of related technologies present an opportunity to elude traditional threats to freedom of expression and information, but they also bring new and more sophisticated threats, such as the use of digital surveillance and attacks to monitor and even threaten journalists.
The safety situation is getting steadily worse worldwide. Journalists face not only censorship, but also physical danger, ranging from threats, attempted or actual assaults, abductions, disappearances and murder. Female journalists also face unique forms of gender-based threats. Impunity for aggressors helps create a threatening environment, which further restricts free speech and the free exchange of information. In 2016 alone, 79 journalists were killed for their work and a further 259 were imprisoned.
Violence and threats are not the only tools being deployed by states, which are becoming increasingly sophisticated in how they censor the media. Commercial avenues such as ownership, taxes and advertising revenue are being increasingly used to impede media independence and diversity of content. There is a growing trend of monopolistic ownership and state-sponsored advertising to control content. This threat is further reinforced by the collapse of the traditional revenue for media.
Even in countries with long-standing commitments to free speech, journalists are operating in an increasingly hostile environment. Tactics that are associated with authoritarian regimes are increasingly being used by democratically elected leaders with cries of “fake news”, the aggressive dismissal of critical expert voices, and the US president even asking whether a media organisation’s licence should be challenged. In the UK, the passing of the intrusive surveillance law, the Investigatory Powers Act, alongside proposals for a new Espionage Act, have been cited as a threat to investigative journalism.
The decline in media freedom coincides with the rise of social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. The control that a few internet companies now exert over how we search and find information is concerning. Given the hyperbole now attached to “fake news” and misinformation, it is vital that the there is greater transparency over the algorithms that are increasingly used to manage and curate information, so we can better understand what their impact is. Strong legal protection and respect for the independence of media and telecommunication regulatory authorities is essential. Especially pertinent now is media regulation that considers the new media landscapes as they are shaped by the evolution of digital technologies.
Many states lack the political will to ensure proper investigations and prosecute those responsible for physical, legal and digital attacks. As such, the media and civil society must also take the initiative. It is urgent that those facing an imminent risk have the necessary tools to protect themselves and to continue their work. In order to be effective, these self-protection tools must address the complexity of the risks faced. It is also essential to create a culture of prevention that addresses security issues before an incident occurs.
To this end, the media must have the necessary awareness of the threats faced and the willingness to address them. Finally, concerted advocacy is required on emblematic impunity cases that are either not under investigation by authorities, or show no progress with an investigation or prosecution.