Freedom House report details violence against world's journalists (12/29/85)

Freedom House report details violence against world's journalists

NEW YORK - Freedom House's 1985 report on press freedom reveals that violence aimed at journalists was nearly twice the previous year's, and censorship and self-censorship continued to influence news reporting in three-quarters of the world's countries.

But, international debates on press controls, particularly at UNESCO, were muted. Some significant gains were made in reversing the trend toward licensing journalists, and new assistance was provided for newspersons in physical danger.

The findings, which will be published in the Freedom House bimonthly "Freedom at Issue," show:

Thirty journalists - half in the Philippines - were killed in 11 countries last year, 13 held hostage or disappeared in four countries, and 76 in 20 countries were beaten, bombed, wounded and otherwise harassed.

In the preceding year, 21 were killed, five held hostage and 31 beaten or harassed in other ways.

There were 109 known detentions of journalists in 1985 compared to 72 the year before. Nine correspondents were expelled from eight countries, a decrease from 22 in 1984.

Censorship significantly increased in Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, the Philippines, South Africa, Taiwan and Zimbabwe, but was reduced in Nigeria and South Korea.

Jailed journalist freed

Nigeria, in August, released journalists jailed by the previous military ruler, and the diverse and often questioning press breathed easier. Similarly, South Korea reinstated 28 editors and reporters who had been purged five years earlier, and permitted opposition demands for repeal of the restrictive basic press law. (At least three Korean journalists, nevertheless, were subjected to torture this year.)

Severe new restrictions were added, however, in South Africa and Nicaragua. Pretoria imposed the harshest censorship in 37 years. It forbade camera coverage in the black townships. It also prevented reporters from covering protests without police permission, thus severely restricting coverage. Penalties can be as high as 10 years' imprisonment for foreign or domestic journalists. Police immunity has also been extended.

The government claimed photographers had incited blacks to riot. Yet, according to a South African journalist, a 1976 commission which examined a "mini revolution" in which 600 people died found no evidence that the news media had created a climate of unrest, though the commission said that press and TV "influence young people to such an extent that they would listen to an agitator with receptive minds." The news ban, rather than addressing the causes of black anger, is likely to increase rumors and fear which fuel further unrest.

Nicaragua went far beyond regularized censorship in October. Managua suspended many civil liberties and clamped down particularly on the press. Nearly 80 percent of an issue of La Prensa was censored under the decree. The ruling also suspended rights to free expression and assembly, the right to strike and guarantees for defendants in legal proceedings. While these stringent measures were attributed to increasing pressure from Nicaraguan insurgents, the clamp-down on civil liberties was outlined by the Sandinistas before they came to power.

In three-quarters of the countries, however, governmental control or influence over the news media continued with little change. Overt acts of censorship appear to diminish, though, as violence and threats of violence increase. Physical assaults on journalists effectively generate caution - even self-censorship - in covering controversial events or personalities. Investigative reporting is notably diminished in a climate of violent attacks on the news media. As a consequence, the flow of information to the public is impeded. It was a mark of high courage, therefore, when journalists in the Philippines continued functioning though 15 of their number were murdered last year in the Philippines.

Rise in violence

Compared to the past five years, violence directed at journalists because of their profession rose sharply in 1985 after two years of fewer murders, hostage-taking, beatings and other harassment. Fewer journalists were attacked in 1983 and 1984 compared to 1981, 1982 or 1985.

Gains were cited in the landmark Inter-American Court decision of November 14, that declared the licensing of journalists a denial of an individual's access to the channels of expression. This, said the court, contravenes international covenants. The decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, though unanimous, is not binding. The case, said the Freedom House report, nevertheless "has implications for many countries, particularly the 13 in Latin America, and others in Asia and Africa which license journalists."

Another gain was seen in practical steps taken in April to protect journalists on dangerous assignments. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) convened 16 international media organizations in Switzerland. The Red Cross explained that existing international covenants provide some protection for journalists in dangerous places - if governments would respect the covenants they have already signed.

One practical measure - the Red Cross "hot line" - was established. In the event of a disappearance, capture or death, the family, editor or professional organization of the journalist may request Red Cross intervention by calling 22-34-60-01 in Geneva or using telex CICR 22-269. The Red Cross may then intervene with the government or insurgency, and employ as well the Central Tracing Agency which lists some 60 million missing or detained persons.

New "information order"

In the international debates over the news media, the two-year trend continued to mute the often-strident challenges to Western journalism. At the UNESCO general conference in November, efforts of the Soviet Union and its allies to reverse the reformist trend were defeated. The highly controversial "new world information and communication order" was formally declared an "evolving, continuous process" rather than some pre-ordained formula to be imposed at a fixed time. Other controversial aspects of the communications program were eliminated, reduced or given lower priority. All in all, the "reflective" or ideological part of the program was given secondary status to the practical, enlarged part dedicated to building communications facilities in developing countries.

At the General Assembly of the United Nations, however, the information committee in December reverted to a call for the older, fixed "information order." All Western delegates, voting in the minority, appealed vainly for use of the UNESCO formula which regards communications change as "an evolving, continuous process."

The Freedom House assessment of UNESCO action concluded that though "some code words not satisfactory to Western journalists remain," the process of reforming UNESCO communications programs continued.

The report chided press coverage of the five-week UNESCO conference calling it "scanty and ill-informed." Only the first and last days were reported, providing mainly negative speculation, said Freedom House. The organization said it received 130 published stories on the conference but not one covered the science, education or cultural programs under discussion in Sofia. Freedom House said that "only 24 papers bothered to print news reports, but 103 editorialized without providing a factual basis." The criticism added that "all the editorials were negative, most stridently so." They were said to have been "based mainly on year-old criticisms, some of which were inaccurate then and others negated by subsequent actions."

The report on press freedom in 1985 was written by Leonard R. Sussman, executive director of Freedom House, who had been a critic of UNESCO and also vice-chairman of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO.