Journalists under pressure E-Book

Marilyn Clark

• Herausgeber: Council of Europe
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 85

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017

Beschreibung

Freedom of expression is one of the basic conditions for the progress of society. Without safeguards for the safety of journalists there can be no free media. Journalists are under threat in Europe. Different forms of violence against journalists have increased significantly over the last decade: from physical attacks, to intimidation and harassment, targeted surveillance and cyberbullying, we now see a range of tactics deployed to silence critical voices and free speech. Together with impunity for the perpetrators of unwarranted interference on journalists, these are among the most serious challenges facing media freedom today. Self-censorship is hardly surprising in such circumstances. This study, conducted among almost 1 000 journalists and other news providers in the 47 Council of Europe member states and Belarus, sheds new light on how these issues impact on journalists’ behaviour. The results of the study provide quantitative evidence on such unwarranted interference, fear and how this relates to consequent self-censorship. These striking results confirm the urgent need for member states to fully implement Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors, and represent an essential and reliable tool for strategic planning in this field to guarantee freedom of expression.

Leseprobe

JOURNALISTS UNDER PRESSUREUnwarranted interference, fear and self-censorship in Europe

Authors

Marilyn CLARK

Anna GRECH

Working Group members

Anna BEVAN

Ricardo GUTIÉRREZ

William HORSLEY

Melody PATRY

Contributors

Liberato CAMILLERI

Jamie BONNICI

Council of Europe Secretariat

Onur ANDREOTTI

Urška UMEK

Shahin ABBASOV

List of figures

Figure 1: Age range of respondents

Figure 2: Length of journalistic career

Figure 3: Most commonly reported topics

Figure 4: Region reported from

Figure 5: Experiences of unwarranted interference in the last three years

Figure 6: Arrests, investigations, threatened with prosecution or prosecuted under laws

Figure 7: Perceived likelihood of victimisation

Figure 8: To what extent do you worry about your personal safety?

Figure 9: To what extent do you worry about your friends’ and family’s safety?

Figure 10: Psychological impact of unwarranted interference

Figure 11: Did the unwarranted interference affect any aspect of how you went about your work?

Figure 12: Unwarranted interference by region

Figure 13: Regional differences in self-censorship

Figure 14: Experiences of physical assault and self-censorship

Figure 15: Experiences of threats with force and self-censorship

Figure 16: Experiences of psychological violence and the chilling effect

List of tables

Table 1: Medium used for reporting

Table 2: Frequency of experiences of unwarranted interference

Table 3: Impact of fear of unwarranted interference on self-censorship

Table 4: Experience of physical assault by region

Table 5: Experience of threats of force by region

Table 6: Experience of sexual harassment or violence by region

Table 7: Experience of robbery and/or confiscation or destruction of property by region

Table 8: Experience of non-contact personal thefts by region

Table 9: Experience of psychological violence by region

Table 10: Subjected to targeted surveillance by region

Table 11: Experience of cyberbullying by region

Table 12: Experience of intimidation by the police by region

Table 13: Experience of intimidation by political groups by region

Table 14: Experience of intimidation by interest groups by region

Table 15: Fear of unwarranted interference by region

Table 16: Regional differences in judicial intimidation

Table 17: Experiences of unwarranted interference by gender

Table 18: Fear of unwarranted interference by gender

Table 19: Gender differences in self-censorship

Table 20: Differences in length of career with regard to experience of unwarranted interference

Foreword

The last decade has seen a significant increase in different forms of violence and abuse against journalists, as well as against whistle-blowers and public watchdogs. From physical attacks to intimidation and harassment, targeted surveillance and cyberbullying, across Europe we now see a range of tactics deployed to silence critical voices and stifle free speech.

This study sheds new light on the impact on journalists’ behaviour. Many in the profession are deeply committed to reporting in the public interest, in spite of constraints on their work. It is clear, however, that many equally feel fearful for their own welfare, including, in some cases, their personal safety and that of their families and friends. Out of almost 1 000 journalists and other news providers questioned for the survey, over a third believe that there are no effective means by which they can report threats or interference.

It should therefore come as no surprise that the survey found high levels of self-censorship among journalists. A high proportion of respondents say that they feel pressured to present their reports in ways which are more amenable to their employers, withholding information when necessary. Many are compelled to tone down controversial stories, or abandon them altogether. Such constraints clearly conflict with the desire to report fully and factually, a desire which motivates many in the profession.

Despite the negative trends uncovered by this report, however, a significant number of respondents told us of their determination to resist censorship, whether it be from outside forces or self-imposed. Their resolve is laudable. The ability of the media to scrutinise elites and hold power to account is essential for the healthy functioning of any democracy. Freedom of expression, as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, guarantees that everyone has the right “to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”.

The obligation to create an environment in which journalists can work free from fear of violence and intimidation rests primarily with national authorities. They alone have the power to enact journalist-friendly legislation, to establish the conditions for a pluralist media landscape and to investigate and prosecute instances of unwarranted interference.

This study therefore calls on Council of Europe member states to fully implement Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors, which proposes a range of concrete measures to protect them from attacks and to create a climate of open debate and free speech. Furthermore, it calls for a more regular and in-depth stocktaking of the state of freedom of expression across Europe, along with greater awareness raising of these vital issues. It is an important study with meaningful recommendations and I hope that all member states will give it their full support.

Thorbjørn JaglandSecretary General of the Council of Europe

Executive summary

Background

Freedom of expression is one of the basic conditions for the progress of society. Without safeguards for the safety of journalists there can be no free media. The safety of journalists and the issue of impunity are among the top priorities of the work of the Council of Europe. In the 2015 annual report by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention”) is discussed. Article 10 touches various aspects of freedom of expression and imposes upon member states an obligation to protect individuals’ rights to freely express themselves without interference, either from state actors or private individuals. The reality, however, is that journalism can be a dangerous profession and journalists may experience unwarranted interference from a number of sources. This report presents data on the prevalence of unwarranted interference, fear and self-censorship among a sample of 940 journalists reporting from 47 Council of Europe member states and Belarus.[1]

Working definitions

The following working definitions were adopted for the study.

Journalist – A person who is regularly engaged in collecting or disseminating information to the public with a journalistic (public interest) purpose.

Unwarranted interference – Acts and/or threats to a journalist’s physical and/or moral integrity that interfere with journalistic activities. These may take the form of actual violence or any form of undue pressure (physical, psychological, economic or legal) and may emanate from state or public officials, other powerful figures, advertisers, owners, editors or others.

Fear – The perception of likelihood or anticipation of unwarranted interference including the emotional response to possible unwarranted interference.

Self-censorship – The control of what one says or does in order to avoid annoying or offending others but without being told officially that such control is necessary.

Project purpose and design

The study had the following key objectives.

To measure the prevalence of unwarranted interference among a sample of active journalists in Council of Europe member states.

To document the perceptions of likelihood/fear of unwarranted interference among active journalists in Council of Europe member states.

To investigate the relationship between experiences of unwarranted interference, perceptions of likelihood/fear of unwarranted interference and self-censorship among journalists in Council of Europe member states.

To explore how unwarranted interference and perceptions of likelihood/fear of unwarranted interference are influenced by occupational contingencies (for example, the length of journalistic career), specific media platforms (for example, print, digital or broadcast media), the type of contract (if any), employment conditions, professional affiliations and/or several structural variables such as gender and the region where journalistic work is being carried out.

The study used an anonymous self-reporting questionnaire available in five languages: English, French, Russian, Serbian and Turkish.

The sample

The sample consisted of a non-probability sample (convenience sample) of journalists reporting from Council of Europe member states recruited mainly from members of the following five major journalists’ and freedom of expression organisations.

Association of European Journalists

European Federation of Journalists

Index on Censorship

International News Safety Institute

Reporters without Borders

Results

The results of the study show how the work of journalists may indeed be dangerous and that experiences and fear of unwarranted interference may affect freedom of expression.

Experiences of unwarranted interference

With reference to the last three years, a number of different experiences of unwarranted interference were reported, with 40% of respondents claiming that the interference was bad enough to affect their personal lives. The most common type of unwarranted interference was psychological violence – such as humiliation, belittlement, intimidation, various threats, slandering and smear campaigning – reported by 69% of the sample. The second most reported experience of unwarranted interference was cyberbullying – in the form of accusations of being partisan, personal attacks, public defamation and smear campaigns – reported by 53% of the sample. In order of the frequency in which they were experienced, other types of unwarranted interference reported included: intimidation by interest groups (50%); threats with force (46%); intimidation by political groups (43%); targeted surveillance (39%); intimidation by the police (35%); physical assault (31%); robbery, confiscation or destruction of property (21%); non-contact personal theft (19%); and sexual harassment or violence (13%). Twenty-three per cent of survey respondents claimed to have experienced arrest, investigation, threat of prosecution and actual prosecution under a number of laws.

Male journalists were more likely to be threatened with force, intimidated by police and experience physical assault, whereas female journalists were more likely to experience sexual harassment or violence.

In terms of regional differences, experiences of physical assault were highest in the South Caucasus region, closely followed by Turkey, but presented high prevalence in the other regions as well, including in EU and non-EU Western European countries (25.1%). The experience of threats with force was highest in Turkey (69.2%), very closely followed by South Caucasus (66%) and Eastern Europe (60%). The experience of sexual harassment was highest in Turkey (18.3%) and in EU and non-EU Western European countries (15.2%). The experience of robbery and/or confiscation or destruction of property was highest in the Eastern European countries and South-East European countries. Non-contact personal thefts were lowest in Turkey (12.6%) and highest in South-East European countries (26.6%).