EDITORIAL: With the right to freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment to its constitution once the US was considered as the citadel of media freedoms, but no longer. In its recently published report entitled “On Edge: What the US Election Could Mean for Journalists and Global Press Freedom”, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) notes that “members of the media face a slew of threats, including violence, online harassment, legal challenges, and attacks by police”, which could coalesce to undermine press freedom.
This has been compounded by a disturbing rise in online harassment, especially against women and journalists of colour and those who belong to religious or ethnic minorities – read Muslims. As of September 2024, points out the report, assaults on journalists in the country in relation to their work had increased by more than 50 percent compared to the year before – from 45 to 68 assaults – most likely linked to Israel’s war on Gaza.
The environment being as fraught as it is, at risk is not only media freedom but also the public’s right to be informed. Skeptics may argue that that right is routinely compromised when people consume biased information purveyed by various media outlet. The other side of the argument is that whether mainstream or social media all are known to favour liberal or conservative politics and aligned social issue; so do most of the consumers of news and view in making their choices about following one or the other publication or TV network. The problem arises when journalists face threats of violence or harassment from individuals as well as influential pressure groups. They can get into trouble even for expressing private views on social media, as seen in the case of CNN anchor Jim Clancy back in 2015. He was forced to resign after 34 years for getting involved in a Twitter debate with pro-Israeli activists – ‘Hasbara’ – over the attack on French magazine Charlie Hebdo for its mocking of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) of Islam. There may have been other such cases, though low profile, of reporters and commentators losing their jobs or taking unpleasant consequences for stepping on the wrong side of special interest groups that seek to influence print and electronic media.
The CJP rightly blames the Donald Trump’s presidency for creating a hostile media climate, which it says, has left a legacy that poses great risks to media inside and outside the country. Nonetheless, it makes no mention of the restrictions the Biden administration has placed on the public’s right to access alternative sources of information by banning Russian news outlets, including RT, Sputnik, Rossiya Segodnya and TV – Novosti, accusing them of marketing Moscow’s propaganda – its version of the war in Ukraine. Following suit Meta, the parent company of Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, has also barred Russian media from its platforms. This amounts to repression of other opinion in clear breach of the people’s right to know. Those who made the effort to tune into them surely could distinguish fact from fiction or spin. It should also be a matter of concern to media watchdogs in the US and other Western countries.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments