Journalists covering the arrival of delegations to address the General Assembly’s seventy-second general debate. UN Photo/Rick Bajornas

By Sarah Lister and Emanuele Sapienza
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 1 2018 (IPS)

Safety of journalists has featured prominently in international news in recent weeks. And yet, while some cases grab the headlines, many more do not, and the scale of the issue often goes unremarked. On this International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists, it is worth pausing to reflect on some facts.

Over the period 2006-2017, UNESCO has recorded 1,010 killings of journalists. A total of 80 journalists and media workers were killed in 2018 as of 9 October. On average, every five days, a journalist is killed for bringing information to the public. Many people operating in the new media ecosystem – such as citizen journalists and bloggers – are experiencing growing harassment, in part due to their ambiguous status under national legislation.

Women journalists and media personnel have also been increasingly exposed to violence, with the number of women journalists killed worldwide rising steadily since 2010. But despite all of this, legal impunity for perpetrators of crimes against journalists remains the norm, as a staggering 90 percent of cases are unresolved.

Journalists are targeted for many reasons, and by many people. Some are investigating corruption and abuse of power. Some are expressing political or social views which others wish to silence. Some simply stand as a voice of peace in times of war. Irrespective of the motive, however, the systematic targeting of journalists is a telling reflection of how important – in fact, vital – their work is.

The intimidation, harassment and killing of journalists are – no doubt – extreme forms of censorship, and a violation of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, among other things, recognizes the freedom to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers”.

But they also erode the conditions for peaceful and inclusive societies. For this reason, Goal 16 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – agreed in 2015 by more than 150 world leaders – has an indicator that tracks cases of killing, kidnapping, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and torture of journalists and associated media personnel.

United Nations Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, has spoken out on many occasions about the importance of governments ensuring accountability for crimes against journalists and the UN, across its agencies, funds and programmes, has committed to a comprehensive Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) engages in work to strengthen free and independent media, including in places where the media and journalists face pressures and threats of all sorts. In fact, a stock-taking exercise currently underway shows that, in the past few years alone, UNDP has implemented over 100 interventions in 60 different countries to enhance the media’s role in peace and development.

This work has taken many forms: from facilitating a “Journalists’ Pact for Strengthening Peace” in Lebanon, to promoting a balanced media coverage of elections in Georgia; from supporting insightful reporting on the extractive sector in Kenya, to providing training to journalists on how to make the most of open data in Moldova – just to mention a few examples.

A free and independent media sector is the bedrock of informed societies. It can support accountable and plural governance, it can provide a space for healthy public debate and dialogue and, under appropriate circumstances, can also play a role in reducing violent conflict.

In recent years, technological developments, including the rise of social and digital media, and the liberalization of media markets have fuelled a significant change, with profound implications on how people are informed and ways they can participate in governance.

Growing manipulation of public opinion is distorting political incentives in ways that are contrary to the public interest. Divisions in society are likely to become more easily exploited for political gain and the prospects for social cohesion look less promising, as public spaces become more fragmented and echo chamber effects become more intense.

These trends are extremely worrying and must be addressed urgently. But how can we protect the quality of public debate, and ensure the broader benefits to societies, if we do not defend independent media and public service journalism?

Journalists and other media workers must be protected from threats, violence, arbitrary detention and death. And those who perpetrate crimes against them must be brought to justice. Because information and ideas should be shared freely, without fear of repercussion for the benefit of whole societies.

Excerpt:

Mobile technology and empowerment. Credit: UNDP

By Patrick Keuleers and Sarah Lister
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 1 2018 (IPS)

In recent years, technological developments and the liberalization of media markets have fueled an explosive change in media and communication, with profound implications for how people are informed, how they interact with each other, and how they participate in public life.

Access to the internet and mobile phones is rising rapidly. While only 13% of the population of Africa subscribe to Facebook, this figure grew 810% in the period 2010-2017. Similar patterns can be seen across other regions, suggesting a significant shift in the way that people are gaining information and engaging with others.

The effects of these developments are unprecedented: from facilitating political engagement beyond election day, to foreign meddling in domestic affairs, to the uncontrolled spreading of misinformation and disinformation that spurs political polarization, even to the corroding of established democratic systems.

A free and independent media plays a central role in a healthy society – providing access to information, holding power to account, and offering platforms for debate and dialogue. As the technology and platforms through which information flows change, we need to think about the effects of these changes and ask ourselves what are the implications of this for peace, inclusive governance and social cohesion?

In many countries, media markets have liberalized, rapid change in ICTs has occurred, and media outlets have proliferated. The potential for media to support hate-speech, inflame conflict and reduce political accountability has also increased.

And while social media has created positive opportunities to network and engage, it has also created a range of new forms of problems, from bullying children and adults in the virtual space, to violations of privacy, stalking and identity theft, and companies increasingly scanning employees’ and applicants’ activities (and opinions) on social media.

Social media executives are aware of the challenge. In 2018, Facebook will hire more than 10,000 people only to work on safety and security.

The proliferation of digital platforms has, in some places, made it more difficult for governments to control people’s access to information, curtail their right to freedom of expression and curb the freedom of the press.

Nonetheless, today two-thirds of the world’s internet users live under regimes of government censorship and internet freedom across the globe declined for a sixth consecutive year in 2016. Topics that are subject to on-line restriction are criticism of authorities, exposure of corruption, public mobilisation, discussion on religion and advocacy for LGBTI issues.

More states use their power to intimidate their critics and as a result, those not subjected to formal state-based censorship may self-censor if the risks seem too great. Even in contexts where there is no censorship, analysts are now noting the pernicious effects on our societies of our increased ability to personalize our media consumption, deliberately reducing the range of information and viewpoints we want to encounter.

Social media have facilitated the rallying of people for a cause, within and across national boundaries, and stimulating mass movements. The #MeToo movement of 2017 spread across countries and languages and sectors, galvanizing millions of women and men to speak out about their experiences of sexual harassment.

Other progressive advocacy campaigns have been more deliberate and organized – such as the “World We Want” social media campaign organized by the UN as part of the negotiations on the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.

Social media can mobilise thousands of people online, and facilitate organized protest, turning a spontaneous gathering rapidly into a large, organised movement. Social networks played a role in the rapid disintegration of regimes in Tunisia and Egypt and statistics show that during the Arab Spring, the number of users of social networks, especially Facebook, rose dramatically, particularly in those countries where political uprisings took place. As one protester mentioned, “we use Facebook to schedule the protests, Twitter to coordinate and YouTube to tell the world”.

Digital and social media are also transforming the conduct of formal politics. They allow politicians to reach millions of people at no cost; and allow political debates to happen in a virtual space without the threat of personal confrontation.

The use of social media, including Twitter, to deliver political messages and comment on domestic as well as global events in real time and without the benefit of editorial control, fact correction or balanced advice has changed the role and nature of political discourse.

New software applications (bots) enable highly repetitive operations (e.g. retweeting the messages of politicians to inflate the number of followers) to create an illusion of popularity and influence public opinion.

While some guidelines for parliamentarians have now been issued by the Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU), much more needs to be considered in terms of guidance and appropriate behavior in the political sphere.

In summary, the transformations in people’s access to media, information and communication will continue to bring positive and negative consequences for governance. While the speed of information exchange and new ways of communicating can bring democratic, economic and social benefits, they can also lead to or worsen political polarization and social conflict.

It is certainly not evident that in many contexts these changes have led to a more informed society, able to access trustworthy information, balanced views and a plurality of voices and debate.

Free, independent and plural media including social media remain essential for an open and informed society, but whether a more connected world is also becoming a more democratic world remains one of the governance challenges we urgently need to confront.

Excerpt: