Media Freedom at Risk

By Graphic Designer Ester E. de Alcantara

In an era where information is power, media freedom stands as a pillar of democracy, ensuring that citizens are well-informed and capable of holding their leaders accountable. As the media’s role in our daily lives expands, political leaders worldwide have begun to realise the essential nature of media influence in shaping their image and policies. Consequently, media freedom is increasingly under threat, with politicians attempting to interfere. Governments worldwide are employing various tactics to control and manipulate the media, undermining the very foundation of democratic societies. According to the Global Report of the UNESCO World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development, 85 percent of the world’s population experienced a decline in press freedom in their country over the past five years.

Before delving deeper, let’s take a step back to understand what media freedom entails.

According to Britannica, “media freedom refers to the freedom of various kinds of mass media and sources of communication to operate in political and civil society”, and we could also define it as the possibility to freely report news and express opinions without undue interference or restriction from governments, political entities, or other powerful groups.

The concept of media freedom has evolved significantly over time. In the early days of print media, many governments exercised strict control over what could be published, often using censorship to suppress dissenting voices. The struggle for media freedom gained momentum during the Enlightenment period, as thinkers and activists began to advocate for the free exchange of ideas as a cornerstone of democratic governance. It was in 1766 that the world’s first law promoting press freedom and information access was created by the Swedish parliament, enacting the Freedom of the Press Act and setting a precedent for other democratic nations to follow. One might think that with human progress over the past few years, we increasingly understand the importance of media freedom and are protecting it more and more. However, this does not seem to be the case. We have so many modern examples of governments censoring content by banning certain topics or entire publications, going as far as restricting access to specific websites or social media platforms or even using legal mechanisms, such as defamation and anti-terrorism laws, that can be misused to intimidate or punish journalists and media organisations.

In Hungary, for example, media freedom has been significantly curtailed under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government. Since 2010, Orbán has systematically dismantled independent media through a combination of legal and financial pressures. The government has taken control of public broadcasters, and pro-government oligarchs have acquired numerous private media outlets. This consolidation has led to a media landscape where dissenting voices are marginalised. A former employee at M1 reported to Human Rights Watch that “reporters are told by their editors what to report on, which terms to use and to avoid, and, if they do not like it, to leave.”

Similarly, Turkey has used “anti-terrorism” laws to imprison journalists and shut down media outlets. In contrast, Ghana’s legal framework is more protective of media freedom, but the enforcement of these laws remains inconsistent. Violence and intimidation are common tactics used to silence journalists there. The imprisonment of journalists serves as a deterrent to critical reporting. In the Committee to Protect Journalists’ 2023 annual prison census, Turkey was the world’s 10th worst jailer of journalists—its most press-friendly ranking in almost a decade—with 13 behind bars, down from 40 the previous year.

And let’s not even mention North Korea, where the government bans freedom of thought, expression, information and every form of media is under strict control. It is illegal to use phones, computers, televisions, radios, or any media content that isn’t government-approved. Such actions are labeled as “anti-socialist behavior” and are severely punished, including through torture and forced labor.

However, these examples are likely familiar to most people, as the countries mentioned are not typically recognized for their democratic practices, despite their claims. Yes, when someone mentions “censorship,” countries like China, Russia, and North Korea might immediately come to mind. But the truth is that even some of the world’s most known developed democracies have experienced censorship scandals and while these incidents may not be as severe, they are often concealed from public awareness.

In Italy, Rai has been at the centre of controversy for years, with allegations of censorship in people’s speeches. The most recent incident involves Antonio Scurati, who was supposed to deliver a monologue on April 25th on Serena Bortone’s show “Che sarà.” However, his segment was cancelled by Rai after they read his monologue, which mentioned President Giorgia Meloni, criticising her for refusing to publicly speak about anti-fascism. His words were: “As I speak to you, we are once again on the eve of the anniversary of the Liberation from Nazi-fascism. The word that the Prime Minister refused to pronounce will still resonate on the grateful lips of all sincere democrats, whether they are left, centre, or right. Until that word – anti-fascism – is pronounced by those who govern us, the spectre of fascism will continue to haunt the house of Italian democracy.” Rai, of course, denied the story, stating that any accusations of censorship are completely unfounded. But is that really the case?

Just remember the Sanremo episode, where a singer was reprimanded for saying “Stop the Genocide” at the end of his performance, which offended the Israeli ambassador and automatically involved the Italian government. Rai had to issue a press release apologising to Israel and stating that they did not support the singer’s position. It is strange how Rai closely follows the current government’s stance and distances itself from anything that might go against government theories or criticise the Prime Minister’s mistakes. But, of course, they have no reason to make us believe they practise censorship; it would be absurd to even think about it.