America and Israel partners in denial of justice for journalists

 The decades-long struggle against impunity in the targeting and killing of media staff has made significant progress in recent years. High-flown rhetoric from political leaders has been converted into a United Nations Action Plan on the Safety of Journalists and the launch of an International Day To End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists (November 2).

But the world remains a hostile place for journalism. The latest UNESCO Report on the Safety of Journalists and the Danger of Impunity shows that reporters are still victims of a continuing spiral of targeted violence.

 According to the United Nations, of the 117 journalists killed for doing their job in 2020-2021, almost 80 per cent were killed while off duty in targeted attacks at home, in their vehicles or in the street. Some were killed in front of family members, including their children.

 That’s why justice for journalists who are the victim of violence is not just about creating a safe working environment, it is also about holding to account the powerful people and institutions who order these attacks and carry them out.

However, too often the strategic, political and commercial interests of governments – even the most democratic of them – still get in the way of delivering basic justice.

Over the past month, for example, the United States and Israel, have been at the centre of two diplomatic rows involving pivotal cases concerning the denial of justice in the killing of journalists.

On November 18 President Joe Biden ruled that Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman will be granted immunity in a US lawsuit over the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a distinguished Saudi dissident and writer for the Washington Post, who was brutally killed and dismembered in October 2018 by an assassination squad in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

At the time the US intelligence services suggested the operation was ordered by Prince Mohammed, and Joe Biden, then campaigning for election, publicly criticised him over the killing.

But times and political conditions change, to the extent that Washington is now willing to allow the Prince to dodge a court action brought by Khashoggi’s fiancé Cengiz and the rights group he founded, Democracy for the Arab World Now.

One reason, as set out by Justice Department attorneys in a document filed in US District Court for the District of Columbia, is that "the doctrine of head of state immunity is well established in customary international law."

Well up to a point. According to academic research in the 20 years since 1990 some 65 heads of state have been prosecuted, many of them for human rights abuse and breaches of international humanitarian law.[1]

In most cases the absence of robust international legal instruments means bringing government leaders to book is a challenge given the political climate and the overwhelming priority countries give to defence of their national self-interests

Although a US judge will ultimately rule on the question of immunity in the case of Prince Mohammed, journalism support groups and activists are rightly angry that the US has sacrificed justice for Khashoggi in order to maintain friendly relations with Saudi Arabia.

Biden had already indicated his political sympathies were shifting when he famously fist-bumped the Crown Prince in July on a visit to Saudi Arabia to discuss energy and security issues. It may have been inevitable, therefore, that his focus on maintaining America’s longstanding alliance with Saudi Arabia would take precedence over human rights and justice, even for a courageous and notable journalist based in the United States.

Meanwhile, a few days earlier another American ally, Israel, also trashed the notion of justice for journalism and press freedom when it dismissed plans for American investigators from the FBI to look into the controversial killing of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh who was shot dead by the Israeli army in May this year.

Shireen, one of the Arab world’s best-known journalists, who had covered the conflict for decades, was shot on May 11 while covering a military raid in the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank for Aljazeera.

She was wearing equipment and body armour that was clearly marked “press.” What followed were multiple investigations by leading media, rights groups and international organisations which concluded that the veteran reporter was killed by an Israel soldier. Eyewitness testimony suggested it was a targeted strike.

---

[1] See: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/prosecuting-heads-of-state/appendix-list-of-prosecutions-of-heads-of-state-or-government-since-1990/A064791EACA38343214D6D1587125F74

Afghanistan: Journalists in the firing line

When the US and their British friends took flight from Kabul they left the people fighting for democracy and press freedom in Afghanistan stranded and at risk of their lives. Women reporters in particular suddenly found themselves exposed to persecution from a regime that in the name of Muslim ideology will seek to impose intolerable restrictions on their right to work and to live freely.

Those who argue that the military intervention in 2001 was illegitimate may have a point under international law, but the fact that after 20 years a generation of young people who have grown up with the expectation of living in relative freedom without the tyranny of religious controls on their lives have been abandoned is unconscionable.

Women journalists have already been targeted by Taliban leaders. Dress codes have been imposed. Media critics are in hiding. The lack of political will to root out corruption and maintain the steady development of a country emerging from decades of tribal warfare and crushing religious persecution comes at a heavy price.

And not just for those left stranded at Kabul airport. Militant and terrorist forces that have ruthlessly distorted Islam in their political mission hav been relatively quiet in recent years. They will be energised by their success. In  Pakistan, Iran and other parts of the Middle East and Central Asia,  journalists and critical independent thinkers who have been working to promote human rights and inclusive communities face a nervous future.

In the coming months media support and media development will become even more important in these areas and in Afghanistan itself. As the politicians retreat, the media development community needs to step up to protect the journalists and media workers on the ground. 

The difference between journalism and free expression are the ethical values that constrain the work of journalists -- accuracy, independence, impartiality, humanity and accountability. Here they are. 

In Praise of Journalism: A Day to Celebrate the Value of Truth-Telling

Today is World Press Freedom Day (May 3^rd) and a good moment to reflect on how governments around the world are adopting an increasingly aggressive tone towards critical journalism.

The recent 2020 press freedom index from Reporters Without Borders ranks 180 countries and regions according to the level of freedom available to journalists.

It gives a snapshot of how news media are treated. It’s not an indicator of good journalism, but it gives a fair idea of how much freedom media have and the risks that journalists face.

Every year many journalists and media workers are killed, or are physically attacked or sent to jail for doing their job.

Reporters face many threats, from criminal groups or terrorists or others with something to hide. One such victim is freelance journalist Lyra Mckee, who was shot dead last year in a reckless act of political violence by gunmen in Derry.

But it is governments that are mostly to blame. Legal threats, and official pressure on legitimate investigative journalism is rampant and leads to self-censorship on a massive scale. More than 250 journalists are in jail around the world according to press freedom groups.

Some governments are even using the global health emergency as a pretext for repressive measures for purposes unrelated to the pandemic. Journalists are being locked up and media closed down for critical reporting and the internet is being suspended to avoid the spread of internal dissent.

A summary of attacks on press freedom and internal dissent arising from the pandemic can be found in a daily monitor of global media incidents also being compiled by Reporters Without Borders.

Hostility to public interest journalism is not new, but it is worryingly more visible in public life, even in in western countries. In the United States, for example, President Trump punctuates every press conference with hostile and often insulting attacks on news media and individual journalists.

In Britain, prior to the health emergency, the UK government was lining up to attack the BBC and Channel 4, although this approach appears to be on hold and not surprisingly given the public support for their coverage of coronavirus.

Nevertheless, the government is sensitive to criticism from broadcasters and national newspapers, which may explain the introduction of a question from the public at the daily Downing Street press conferences to undermine the domination of proceedings by the major media.

Although these are difficult times for journalists, particularly those trying to hold power to account, there is an unprecedented public appetite for pandemic news.

However, a growing number of people are suffering news fatigue. Research published this week by UK media regulator Ofcom shows that 30% of people are actively seeking to avoid news about the pandemic.

The quality of news is what counts. Reliable journalism is essential, not least to counter disinformation, rumour and conspiracy theories.

Ofcom says that around half the population in Britain has encountered fake news about the pandemic. Some of it links coronavirus to the rollout of 5G mobile phone technology, which has led to some people burning down telecoms equipment. Some are taken in by stories that this is a crisis cooked up in a Chinese laboratory. There has even been an official report from the European Union saying many people in Britain believe that vodka makes a good hand sanitiser!

These claims may be absurd, but they are potentially dangerous when they come from governments and people at the top – as shown by Donald Trump with his suggestion that injecting disinfectant might kill off coronavirus, or Brazilian President Jiar Bolsonaro’s reckless dismissal of concern over the pandemic while thousands of his people are dying.

It is irresponsible political leadership and deceptive handling of the facts that may explain why some people are struggling to know who or what to believe.

It’s in this context that we should pay tribute to good honest journalists and news media trying to tell the story with style and humanity.

Media could be doing more – they could, for example, provide resources to help readers navigate news and dodgy information – but journalists’ work is a vital part of strategies for public safety and holding power to account. That’s worth remembering today of all days.

Journalism in the Pandemic: Public Support, but not from Advertisers

If the pandemic has taught us anything it is that access to accurate, trustworthy and credible sources of news and information has never been more important.

This is good news for journalism and responsible news media which are witnessing an unprecedented surge of public support in the midst of lockdown. 

According to research from the University of Oxford's Reuters Institute, which has been monitoring the UK population’s attitudes to news during the pandemic, the BBC and the Guardian’s coverage of the coronavirus outbreak is considered to be substantially better than other British news outlets.

Mainstream news media have consistently reached record audiences over the last two months, but not all of them are trusted. The Sun and the Mail were the only national newspapers where more people felt they were doing a “bad job” of reporting on the pandemic.

The study shows that the BBC dominates online news, with 37% of the population turning to the corporation’s website for coronavirus news. In all, television broadcasters continue to outrank newspapers for trust ratings and audience levels.

But there’s still a trust problem. The population is more approving of how the government has handled the crisis than how the media has covered it. Around a quarter of the population feel news outlets exaggerate the severity of the crisis.

The fact that news websites have seen record audiences in recent months should be good news for cash-strapped media, but it isn’t.

For years commercial news outlets have faced a continuing collapse in the advertising market. Competition for advertising from big tech companies and a fall in print newspaper sales have destroyed their finances.

The situation is made worse by the fact that the big tech companies like Google appear to be filtering adverts alongside coronavirus-related content on news websites. 

Many brands are using content filters during the pandemic, which prevent their ads from running next to stories including specific terms such as “coronavirus” and “pandemic”. According to the Financial Times, even mentioning “Boris Johnson” will deter some advertisers!

With algorithms diverting advertising and much-needed revenue away from news media that provide useful and popular pandemic coverage there has been a predictable howl of protest from publishers.

Their complaint is, for once, entirely legitimate. At a time when people are yearning for access to useful and truthful information, news outlets should be encouraged to focus on news that will help people to keep safe.

The tech companies are interested, first and foremost, in keeping their advertisers happy and by allowing them to filter out Covid-19 -- effectively penalising journalists for giving the public the information they need – they open the door to more media sensationalism and click bait content.

So far Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others have been actively promoting public health messages during the crisis, but the tweaking of algorithms to downgrade public interest news is an example of how when it comes to the crunch they will choose to maintain their lucrative business model rather than serve the public interest.

Newham Voices: Plans for Independent News Service after Covid

The Covid-19 crisis has brought out the best in the Borough of Newham revealing a community with an abundance of resilience, solidarity and humanity.

The explosion of online support groups across the Borough in March and April created neighbourhood networks that saw hundreds of people and groups working together to support residents who need help during the lockdown.

But this once-in-a-lifetime health emergency has also revealed a gaping hole in the life of the community – the lack of a comprehensive Borough-wide news and public information service.

Now there’s a plan, when the crisis eases, to launch Newham Voices, an independent news service, to keep people connected and to provide everyone in the Borough with easy access to reliable and trustworthy information.

The new service will be available online with a monthly paper edition.  It will be editorially and politically independent and organised as a non-profit entity.

The organisers, a group of journalists, activists and community leaders, say Newham Voices will create a much-needed safe information space to debunk fake news and give people useful and comprehensive information about life in the Borough.

The detailed feasibility study now under preparation says “Newham Voices will be a platform that empowers local residents and enables their collective voice to be heard louder and clearer.”

The idea for this community-led journalism project has been inspired by the Mayor Rokhsana Fiaz who last year launched a Citizen Journalism project linked to the Council’s Newham Mag, which is under pressure because of government cuts.

As the recent emergency shows, reliable and trustworthy information is not a luxury. People need access to the truth and information they can rely on at all times, and not just during a period of humanitarian crisis and tragedy.

Anyone interested seeking further information on the Newham Voices project should contact on 07946291511 or aidanpatrickwhite@gmail.com .

A Test for Self-Regulation as Britain's PCC Faces Extinction

Baroness Buscombe, the head of Britain's Press Complaints Commission (PCC), has finally resigned in the wake of the phone hacking scandal at the News of The World. Her departure was inevitable following the avalanche of revelations of malpractice at News International, the country's largest media company.

Buscombe's departure opens the door to a new debate about the future of press and media regulation and one that will surely see an end to the reign of the deeply-flawed PCC, whose credibililty as a watchdog was shredded when it was forced to admit that Rupert Murdoch's editorial chiefs had told bare-faced lies about the extent of phone hacking.

Two years ago when I was at the International Federation of Journalists we commissioned a report on the PCC's performance on the phone hacking scandal. That report, by Belgian journalist Jean-Paul Marthoz, concluded that the PCC was negligent, that it's own inquiries into the scandal were wholly inadequate and that it had compromised its own independence by endorsing the implausible denials of News International and rebuking The Guardian for its persistence in breaking the story. At the time Guardian editior Alan Rusbridger resigned his position on the PCC.

It may be late in the day, but Buscombe's decision provides an important opportunity for a proper discusson on media acountability and the future of ethical journalism in the British media.

Some observers fear that the government's review of media by Lord Justice Leveson will emerge with calls for tough legal controls on newspapers, but this is unfounded. Attachment to self-regulation remains strong across the press and politics in Britain, despite the shocking stories about the sleazy and illegal culture of newsgathering at Murdoch papers and increasing evidence of the "dark arts" used in tabloid journalism elsewhere.

Nevertheless, much will change. The PCC, thank goodness, will not survive. Its arrogant refusal to accept growing evidence of editorial corruption has angered many, but a new body, even one founded on the principle of self-regulation, will need to be given powers to enforce its judgements and to hold recalcitrant editors and owners to account.