A Bit Better Than Before

Yuba Nath Lamsal
THE year 2000 has already bidden farewell to us and the Year 2001 has dawned among all of us. We should review the past—both successes and failures—and become hopeful for better and brighter future. Much has been written about the events that marked the Year 2000. The press that writes and informs the people about the global events sometimes remains silent about its own state of affairs and situation.
From the perspective of the safety of the journalists and freedom of press, the Year 2000 was not as gloomy as before. However, there is not enough room for jubilation, as well.
Let us review and analyse the Year 2000 from the media’s point of view. When reviewing the performance of the press, reports of some international organizations that monitor this sector need to be made the basis of the assessment. Reporters sans Frontiers (Reporters Without Frontiers), a French organization that works for and monitors press freedom in the world, conducted a worldwide survey and reviewed the condition of the press in the year 2000 and disclosed its finding recently. According to the report called " Press Freedom Violation in 2000", 26 journalists were killed worldwide, which is less than the figure of previous year (1999). In this way, this year appears to be little more encouraging from the point of view of media freedom. However, other indicators tell us that the situation of the press is as gloomy as before.
Statistics show that altogether 329 journalists were arrested worldwide, 510 threatened or harassed and 77 sent to jail for the 'crime' of reporting the events objectively and properly informing the people. Many media organizations in different countries, especially in the Third World countries, became victims of wrath of the government authorities, security personnel and sometimes individuals and political as well as tribal groups. The report states that a total of 295 cases of media censorship were recorded in 2000.
Let us also see the situation in the previous year (1999). There were 36 unfortunate journalists who were killed while on their job. The number of journalists arrested by police and security personnel in 1999 was 446 whereas 653 had been harassed or threatened. There were 357 cases of media censorship in the world in 1999. There were several other media that were barred from reporting and informing the people impartially and objectively.
Safety of journalists and other people working in the different media organizations has a direct bearing on the performance of media. Journalists cannot work objectively at the atmosphere of fear, intimidation and insecurity. If safety of media persons is any yardstick to judge the performance of media, the year was not very positive. Many journalists had to work under pressure, threat and intimidation in many countries.
Media freedom and democracy are like two sides of a coin. One cannot exists and flourish at the absence of others. Press functions freely, independently and objectively only in the open and democratic society. Similarly, democracy and open society sustain and prosper only when objective and vibrant press exists and function.
There had been no significant increase in the number of countries where democracy was established in 2000. Some countries including one in South Asia switched back to dictatorship by overthrowing the democratically elected government. However, in terms of freedom of press, it did not have any effect.
Statistics show that more and more people are having access to true and objective information, which is a positive change in terms of press freedom.
However, there is equally sad side of the story. The Reporters Sans Frontiers says that almost one-thirds of the world’s population is living in countries where press freedom is still a far-fetched idea. There are some countries in the world especially in Africa, Asia and South America that have been under dictatorial regimes even at 21st century. In those countries, press is controlled, gagged and suppressed by the state and politicians. Journalists are killed, imprisoned and intimidated when they try to report and write objectively especially about the corrupt and authoritative decision and behaviours of the rulers and their henchmen in some countries in the world. Such regimes run the media to disseminate propaganda in the name of journalism. These government-run or controlled media only eulogise the rulers and regime. Even after the establishment of democratic political system, there are some countries that have not only given continuity to the previous legacy but, in some cases, consolidated the dictatorial hangover of media gagging.
Conventional wisdom tells us that government generally does not run newspapers and media organizations in a democracy. But governments in some new democracies have not been able to discard this legacy and free media from the control of the state. This has been one of the impediments for the professional growth and development of media. This is one of the sad aspects of media freedom in the year 2000.
But situation is changing slowly. In many new democracies, media—both print as well as electronic—are in a transitional phase. Media is moving from government control to be driven by market force and dynamics. Media organizations have started giving the materials that suit the taste of readers. Objectivity has been a bulwark of free press and media professionalism. Different media and human rights related organizations have described this new trend as a positive period in terms of media freedom and objectivity.
Open and conducive atmosphere is, of course, a major prerequisite for objective, professional and free media in the country. However, it alone is not sufficient. Commitment and attitude of media persons themselves play even more crucial role for media objectivity.
Let us take an example of our own country. We have democracy, open society and constitutional guarantee for media freedom. Are our media totally objective, independent and professional? Different media organizations are either pro this or pro that political party or group. This is by no means a professional and objective media. Journalists and media persons themselves need to get rid of the past hangover of associating oneself to certain political group. It would provide moral courage and authority to journalists to work and fight for more media freedom, professionalism and objectivity.
(http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/englishdaily/trn/2001/jan/jan30/features.htm#1)

Comments