SHARJAH
- Sharly Benchamin, editor in charge of Arabyayile Sultan (The Sultan
of Arabia), a Malayalam Weekly Newspaper from the UAE, is just back
from Kerala after interviewing Omman Chandy, the new state chief minister
who is also handling the NRK department. Sharly speaks to KM about
the magical formulae that attracted UAE Malayalis to spend their precious
time and money for a Friday Newspapaper. At a time prominent Kerala
newspapers like Deepika and Malayala Manorama are planning to launch
Dubai editions, Arabia magazine is well positioned in the market to
lure readers and advertisers. ""Currently
we are running a campaign to introduce people's representative for
overseas Indians in their parliaments on the basis of proportional
representation. Urdu Express, another newspaper published from the
same group is campaign for similar representation to Pakistani expatriates
in the UAE. Now the campaign has the blessing of Pakistan ambassador
in the UAE - Urdu Express readership includes North Indians and Pakistanis.
Full Repor
ENGAGE IN THE BATTLE OF IDEAS AND VALUES
: PM TELLS MEDIA
DR. MANMOHAN SINGH’S ADDRESS AT
RAM NATH GOENKA CENTENARY CELEBRATIONS
The Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, has urged the media to engage
in the battle of ideas and values with the passion and fervour of
a Ram Nath Goenka. Speaking at Ram Nath Goenka Birth Centenary Celebrations
here today, Dr. Manmohan Singh said that he was disturbed often by
the messages that were transmitted by the media. The media should
have a larger mission of nation building, of caring for the under-privileged,
of seeking better governance, of making a more humane, prosperous,
creative, free and liberal society. While saluting the courage of
journalism, he called upon the media to combine that courage with
commitment and compassion.
As the Prime Minister could not attend
the function, his speech was delivered in absentia by the Minister
of Human Resource Development, Shri Arjun Singh.
Following is the text of the Prime Minister’s
speech:
“We are gathered here to pay tribute
to the Late Shri Ram Nathji Goenka in the year of his birth centenary.
The diversity of the gathering here is a reflection of his personality.
A complex, mercurial, multi-faceted personality, Ram Nathji lived
life to the full. Ram Nathji was one of the pillars of the freedom
struggle and made his newspapers part of the armoury of the national
struggle. Like so many of his generation he joined that struggle in
response to Mahatma Gandhiji’s call. Starting out as a publisher
of a small newspaper, he saw his publication grow along with the growth
of the sentiment for national Independence. He made The Indian Express
a vehicle of patriotism and national fervour.
He was among the first to close down
his papers in 1942 at Gandhiji’s call and threw himself into
the Quit India movement in 1942, in support of legendary underground
leaders. He secretly brought out “India Ravaged”, a tract
that indicted British rule that was immediately proscribed. Ram Nathji
started out virtually penniless, ‘with a lota and a pair of dhotis’,
as he would recall. But he lived to build a vast multi-lingual newspaper
chain that for years claimed the largest combined circulation of any
newspaper in English, Marathi and Telugu and the largest of any group
in India.
He was, I believe, the first to conceptualise
an English language financial daily, as he recognized that if India
was to prosper it must develop commerce and industry on a strong rural
foundation. In this process of reaching out, he pioneered multiple
editions and a vast distributive network with so-called “van
editions” that would reach his papers to small town and mofussil
readers. He did this not merely to gain circulation and overtake the
older and better-established metropolitan papers and thereby win advertisements,
but also to cater to the information needs of the small man.
He was later one of the foremost builders
of the Press Trust of India. For him, the media was a mission, not
a business. A mission to fight the Raj and win Swaraj, to bind the
nation in unity and purpose, to campaign against high-handedness and
corruption, and ensure the rulers did not stray from their ‘raj
dharma’.
He was quick to see a cause and, making
it his own, would fight for it to the end, staking all. This complete
commitment to causes that he held dear, characterized his entire life.
Some times ends justified the means. Hence his incessant battles against
authority and his involvement in all manner of litigation, which strangely
invigorated him. My friend Shri Sharada Prasadji, who worked with
Ram Nathji for a decade from 1945 to 1955, and later interacted with
him as Media Advisor to Indiraji and Rajivji, says in a recent candidly
essayed column paying tribute to Ram Nathji’s qualities of head
and heart, and I quote:
‘He had proved that standing up
for probity and fairness in politics brought its own reward –
the power to change history. There would be some who might question
the claim that Goenka invariably stuck to truth and fairness, but
none will deny that he was a relentless, resourceful, ruthless and
even reckless fighter. He took risks others would not have dared to.
There is no doubt at all that he was the most feared as well as the
most fascinating press baron our country has produced.’
Of Marwari origin, brought up in Bihar
and settled in Madras, but with property in every part of India, Ram
Nathji was one of the country’s youngest legislators. He was
nominated by the British to the Madras Legislative Council when barely
24 and yet sat with the Opposition, championing the nationalist cause
while the Government frowned.
He was put in charge of the Dakshina
Hindi Prachar Sabha, which he nurtured, and made the print media his
mission, taking over the fledgling but struggling Indian Express in
1937. He committed his newspaper to the service of the nation and
the Congress, of which he became a member. Later, he was one of the
principal organizers of the Avadi Congress in 1955 that resolved in
favour of a socialistic pattern of society, an ideology to which he
did not really subscribe. He drifted away from the Congress after
the Party split in 1969 but in his heart remained a Congressman till
the end.
Ram Nath Goenka was a member of the Constituent
Assembly and later a Member of Parliament from 1971 to 1976, standing
as an independent from Vidisha. But his main work was outside Parliament.
He spurned office, preferring instead to maintain his watchdog role.
He saw himself as something of a national whistleblower, sounding
the trumpet whenever he felt anything had gone wrong. He was strongly
drawn to Jayaprakash Narayan, fought the Emergency, supported the
Janata Party and, subsequently, the National Front. But deep down,
he never forgot old friendships and old loyalties.
As we join here in celebrating the birth
centenary of this national and newspaper stalwart, warts and all,
I wonder what he would have thought of the media scene today? What
would he say about the current standards and ethics of journalism?
Would he have been pleased with the stories and pictures that fill
large chunks of some of our leading papers and channels today?
As India moves into the new millennium
we see all around us signs of restlessness and ferment at the grassroots
that heralds a new awakening in this vast, plural society of over
a billion people. We also see many signs of remarkable achievement.
At this time, we need to ask ourselves what kind of media does India
need and deserve? I do believe in the market and in globalisation,
but with strong safety nets and a clear understanding of our social
responsibilities and national interests. Should the market define
the media or the media define the larger market of ideas, values,
goals and information needs both for the classes and the masses. But
Gandhiji said that freedom would not be truly won till we are able
to wipe the tear from every eye. We are yet to reach that goal. What
then should be the role of the media in these new and increasingly
challenging times?
Speaking to the best and brightest of
the media assembled here proprietors, publishers, editors, newspersons
and television stars; I should like to know your answer to this important
question. The media to a great extent defines the daily national agenda.
What is your agenda for tomorrow? Indeed, what should our agenda be?
Does the media have a role in defining it? In reflecting the many
ideas that we necessarily have to grapple with? I often wonder whether
those who are in media realize the power of information dissemination
that is in their hand and see how much good they can do for society,
if they only so wish.
Modern technology has multiplied this
power in time and space. Grappling with the advent of a new technology,
the microphone, Mahatma Gandhiji is reported to have told a journalist
‘The microphone is an instrument of power; I saw God’s power
in it’! Sitting where I now do in Government I must confess I
do see the power of both God and Devil at work in the new technologies
of the media! The challenge for a democracy like ours is to strike
a balance between the possibilities of technology, the compulsions
of the market, the passions of the audience and the interests of society
and the Nation.
I urge you to reflect on this. We must
tap once again into the wellspring of nationalism and patriotism that
shaped the formation of this nation. Every day when I open the newspapers
or when I tune into a channel I am often disturbed the messages we
are transmitting. Have we no larger mission at hand? Of nation building,
of caring for the under-privileged, of seeking better governance,
of making ours a more humane, prosperous, creative, free and liberal
society? I urge the media to engage in the battle of ideas and values
with the passion and fervour of a Ram Nath Goenka.
The Indian Express Group that Ram Nathji
led with such panache and passion has as its motto the phrase ‘Journalism
of Courage’. I salute the courage of journalists. That courage,
however, must be combined with commitment and compassion. I would
like you all to strive for a ‘Journalism of Courage, Compassion
and Commitment’. Courage in the struggle for truth and against
wrongdoing; compassion for those whose voice often finds no expression;
commitment to decency, morality and the well-being of our nation.”
The Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, with the copy of the first
Delhi edition of Malayala Manorama in New Delhi on August 17, 2004 (Tuesday)
Iran, Burma most Dangerous Place
for Journalists, Major Democracies not behind in curtailing press freedom
Arrests of journalists (489, up 50 per cent), threats
and attacks (716, up 40 per cent) and incidents of censorship (378,
up 28 per cent). More and more journalists went to jail for denouncing
embezzlement, criticising officials or simply expressing concern of
any kind. Many governments, like the communist regimes, keep absolute control
of the flow of information. They include one-party regimes (Syria and
Iraq), military dictatorships (Burma) and monarchies such as Saudi Arabia.
Annual report 2002
Hard times for press freedom
Press freedom had a rough time in 2001, the first year
of the third millennium. On every continent, this basic right (a key
to democracy in any society) was harshly attacked, along with those
who exercised it. The attacks were either physical (threats, blows,
injuries and murders), done through repressive laws (censorship, bannings,
arrests and prison sentences) or else targeted media equipment itself
(broadcasting aerials, printing works and offices). The picture was
a sad one. Press freedom in the world sharply declined during the year.
Some "good" news
A few victories were notched up however. Some of those
persecuted - symbols of repression by regimes that tolerate only the
information they decree shall be known - were released. One was journalist
Nizar Nayyouf, who emerged from a Syrian prison in May after nine years.
Another was Burmese woman journalist and writer San San Nwe, released
in July after seven years in Rangoon's Insein prison. They are now free
but the physical effects of imprisonment during which everything was
done to break their bodies and minds - through total isolation, humiliation,
refusal of medical attention, ill-treatment and torture - will stay
with them for the rest of their lives. They are free, yet at the end
of 2001, the Burmese rulers still held the dubious honour of being,
along with Iran, the country in the world with the most journalists
in prison (18 each). There are no longer any journalists in Syria's
jails, but the authorities there have not relaxed their tight control
over information. A particularly harsh measure against the media came
into force in September and the family of the released Nizar Nayyouf
was subjected to constant pressure in a bid to make the journalist,
from his European exile, stop criticising the regime.
The situation for journalists improved in several countries,
though in too few of them. In Chile, the notorious Article 6b of the
1958 internal state security law, which called for up to five years
in jail for "insulting" or "defaming" top state
officials, was finally repealed. In Peru, the page seemed to have finally
turned on the "Fujimori era" and, free of pressure from secret
police and obedient judges, the media could resume its role of criticising
the authorities without fear of reprisals. In Serbia, freedom of information
naturally accompanied the arrival of democracy after the fall of the
Milosevic regime in October 2000. But hopes for speedy reform of the
media and press laws were disappointed. Will the same thing happen in
Afghanistan now the Taliban are gone ? The first statements of the new
rulers there were promising, but will these good intentions last ? In
Africa, quite a few journalists were released from jail. In Ethiopia,
four held since 1997 were freed for "lack of evidence" and
in Togo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, journalists in prison
for several months were pardoned by the president and released. Pressure
on the media by the authorities in these countries is still very strong
however and includes frequent arrests and indictments that can be taken
further at any time.
The fact that the number of journalists killed did
not rise (31 against 32 in 2000) and was far lower than the record reached
in the 1990s could, at a pinch, be counted as positive. We must also
distinguish between those killed in war zones who were not singled out
for being journalists and those who were deliberately murdered because
of their investigations and articles about sensitive matters and for
having denounced arbitrary behaviour, embezzlement, injustice, crime
and racketeering.
New kinds of wars, not between the regular armies of
old but between ethnic, ideological, religious or plain criminal interests,
have made reporting increasingly dangerous. But death or injury of journalists
in these conflicts is not always purely accidental. Sometimes the combatants,
even from regular armies, deliberately target inconvenient witnesses
to their deeds. In the Palestinian Occupied Territories, where several
dozen journalists have been wounded by gunfire since the start of the
Intifada, some have been deliberately shot at by Israeli soldiers. Reporters
Without Borders had well-documented cases that leave no doubt about
who was responsible, but the organisation's demand for their punishment
went unanswered. This is the eternal and harrowing problem of the impunity
enjoyed nearly all over the world by those who kill or attack journalists.
That is the extent of the meagre "good" news,
that we are well aware is very relative. We have dealt with it first
so as not to discourage readers of the report right away. Also to show
that even in the darkest times in a world scarred at all levels by fierce
fighting, bloody struggles for power and for control of people's activities,
minds and land, defenders of human rights, especially the right to free
information, can still make headway.
Repression spreads
There was plenty of cause for concern and alarm. Except
for the number of journalists killed during the year, all the figures
were sharply up on 2000. They included arrests of journalists (489,
up 50 per cent), threats and attacks (716, up 40 per cent) and incidents
of censorship (378, up 28 per cent). More and more journalists went
to jail for denouncing embezzlement, criticising officials or simply
expressing concern of any kind - in other words, for doing their job,
which was enough for even the most cautious journalist to be sued for
harming the reputation of a leader or even national morale. The number
of journalists in prison at the end of 2001 was 110, compared with 74
a year earlier, an increase of almost 50 per cent.
Nearly a third of the world's people still live in
countries where press freedom is simply not allowed, notably the last-remaining
communist countries where the only permitted political party, that supposedly
incarnates the aspirations of the entire population, dictates by itself
what is to be written, said and shown. China, with 1.3 billion inhabitants,
is far and away top of the list here. Economic liberalisation has led
to media proliferation and growth, but while the press has gained some
freedom, especially economically, it remains strictly under the ferrule
of the party leaders where political and social matters are concerned.
Buoyed by its new membership of the World Trade Organisation,
by winning its bid to hold the 2008 Olympic Games and by its support
for US President George W. Bush's crusade against terrorism in the wake
of the 11 September attacks in New York, the government in Beijing has
a freer hand than ever to continue its occupation of Tibet and clamp
down on religious groups, opposition movements and protesting ethnic
minorities. It has tightened its control of the media, especially in
the provinces, and closely monitors the Internet to try to ensure that
web-surfers in China only read "correct line" information.
Sixteen "cyber-dissidents" were jailed in 2001, joining 12
journalists in prison.
Other governments, like the communist regimes, also
keep absolute control of the flow of information. They include one-party
regimes (Syria and Iraq), military dictatorships (Burma) and monarchies
such as Saudi Arabia.
Cardboard imitations and repressive
laws
All other governments in the world solemnly proclaim
their belief in freedom of expression, especially freedom of the press.
But very few are as good as their word. Many countries in every continent
have all the appearances of democracy, but often that is just a cardboard
imitation to fool genuinely democratic countries and major international
institutions that politely take the pretence at face value. This is
the case in Tunisia, where President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali's police
state keeps an iron grip on private and state-owned media, imposes wholesale
repression and poses as a victim whenever it is accused.
To save face, political leaders "legalise"
their repression by getting tough laws passed that are implemented by
obedient police and judges. In Panama, the law allows imprisonment for
defamation or harming someone's reputation and state officials filed
more than 70 complaints in 2001. In Guatemala, a law to force journalists
to be members of an official institute came into effect in December,
decreeing that those who were "morally lacking" as journalists
be dismissed from the institute and thus banned from working. In Africa,
many governments armed themselves with press laws to punish with stiff
prison terms offences such as "putting out false news … harming
the morale of the army" or "insulting the head of State."
When criticised for this, such leaders say they have merely copied the
French press law of 1881, which is true, except that the prison terms
provided under this law have not been handed down by French courts for
many years. In 2001, Reporters Without Borders got the 1881 law amended
to remove the imprisonment clauses, thus destroying the excuse of the
African dictators, who did not follow suit.
Recourse to "legal" repression does not stop
recourse to violence. In Colombia, where three more journalists were
murdered, the guerrillas on one side and the paramilitary forces on
the other want to silence inconvenient voices. Many journalists, threatened
with death, chose exile. In Colombia too, the killers enjoy impunity.
Degrees of censorship, violence and media control vary
greatly from country to country and situations change. After several
years of real progress, repression has returned with a vengeance in
many countries such as Bangladesh, Eritrea, Haiti, Nepal and Zimbabwe.
Very few countries have moved in the opposite direction.
In the major democracies too…
Things are getting rocky also in major democratic countries
in North America, Asia and Europe. Even within the European Union, with
its good record on human rights and freedom of expression, threats to
pluralism and freedom of information arose or worsened in several large
countries. Among them was Italy, where prime minister Silvio Berlusconi
controls most of the country's private and public TV and radio stations
and where repression of anti-globalisation demonstrations during the
G8 summit in Genoa killed one person and injured many others, including
19 journalists. Murders by armed groups in Spain (the Basque conflict)
and the United Kingdom (in Northern Ireland), indictments and convictions
in France and Germany, narrowing of media ownership and political interference
in Austrian TV and radio all showed that the "Old Continent"
too was getting dragged down in a disquieting way.
Things are likely to get worse. The fallout from the
11 September attacks in New York is not over. Several of the laws passed
to fight terrorism have raised concern and undermine the basic principal
of a free flow of information. In Canada and the United States, steps
have been taken to strengthen monitoring of the Internet and weaken
a journalist's right not to reveal sources. In its war against what
it calls "the evil-doers," the Bush Administration is little
bothered by the means that are used. The news media are pressed to take
sides and propaganda takes precedence over the truth. The enemy must
be defeated and media that disagree must be crushed. Such black-and-white
attitudes are worrying.
Bahrain annual Report 2002
Like other Gulf countries, Bahrain enjoys some press
freedom. Yet self-censorship is still practised widely. A noteworthy
event during the year : a journalist lodged a complaint against the
information minister.
In February 2001 a "National Charter" providing
for democratic reforms was adopted by referendum. It specifies that
freedom of expression "should be guaranteed by the constitution".
Despite noteworthy improvements in human rights in recent years, a lot
still needs to be done as far as freedom of expression is concerned.
For the first time ever, late in the year a journalist lodged a complaint
against the information minister. The minister had previously banned
the journalist from practising his profession after he had been charged
for "betrayal of national unity".
Like other Gulf countries, the emirate enjoys some
press freedom, even if self-censorship is still widespread. This tiny
country has four dailies, two in Arabic, Al Ayyam and Akhbar al Khaleej,
and two in English, Gulf Daily News and Bahrain Tribune.
Pressure and obstruction
On 11 November 2001 charges were laid against Hafez
El Sheikh Saleh, journalist with the daily Akhbar al Khaleej and contributor
to the Arabic newspapers Ach Charq and Al Quds el Arabi. The journalist's
writings were "incompatible with the spirit of the National Charter
and the constitution", according to the justice minister who accused
him of "betrayal of national unity". The journalist believes
that the real reason was an article published in the Lebanese newspaper
The Daily Star in which he wrote that the emir's recent visit to the
United States "had cause much consternation" in Bahrain and
the Gulf countries. The journalist is known for his particularly critical
articles regarding the Shiite majority in the country.
On 4 December Hafez El Sheikh Saleh counter-attacked
by lodging a complaint against the information minister, Nabil al-Hamer,
for prohibiting him from practising his profession. The minister had
also banned the journalist from travelling abroad. In late November
the authorities prohibited the Arabic daily Azzaman, published in London,
from being printed in the country because it had violated the press
and publications law. The newspaper was accused of publishing a series
of articles criticising the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamed bin Khalifa
Al Thani.
"The crime of blasphemy, punished by the death
penalty, has become a sword of Damocles hanging above the media"
Indian Reporters banned in Pakistan.
Pakistan annual media freedom report 2002
Source: Reporters Without Fronters Annual Report on
Media Freedom.
Click the eagle for Gulf Medi reports
North Africa and the Middle East annual Report 2002
Censorship and self-censorship :
journalists still under dictators' heels
Television is by far the most popular medium in North
Africa and the Middle East, way above radio and the press. Tired of
the boring programmes on public-sector channels, viewers in these areas
have naturally been turning to European and especially Arabic satellite
channels. The most well-known Arabic channel, Al-Jazira, formerly criticised
by many Arab states for its freedom of tone, was called to order by
several Western states (including the United States and France) from
September, and its correspondents were victims of discrimination (in
the US and Switzerland). For the first time - like the US channel CNN
during the Gulf War - an Arabic channel monopolised information on Afghanistan
through its Kabul office and access to first-hand news on the Al-Qaida
network. Yet the Qatari channel withstood pressure from the US, reaffirming
that it would continue in the direction it had chosen as a medium "offering
a margin of freedom in the Arab world".
Another noteworthy fact in this respect was the development
of programmes for the youth, since the majority of the population in
North African and Middle Eastern countries are under the age of 30.
In 2001 the channel "Zen Television" was created in Beirut
with the intention of addressing topics hitherto treated with extreme
caution : love, sex and politics.
In 2001 the Internet continued its conquest of the
region. A survey by the United Arab Emirates site www.ajeeb.com showed
that over 3.5 million people in Arab countries used the Internet. The
highest penetration rate was in the United Arab Emirates, which had
660,000 users, that is, 24.4% of the population. Cybercafés are
proliferating in most Arab cities, including Khartoum, the capital of
Sudan, one of the poorest countries in the Arab world. Faced with this
formidable expansion, the region's rulers have a dilemma : while they
would like to show that their people are modern and have access to the
Internet, they also fear the free circulation of information on the
Web. Some, like Tunisia, have become masters in the art of censoring
the Internet. However, this type of control requires considerable technical
and financial resources and is not always reliable.
In mid-May during a meeting of Arab journalists, "The
Arab media forum" in Dubai, a few voices among these representatives
of essentially state-owned media were raised against the Arab media's
submission to the powers-that-be. As the managing editor of a Saudi
Arabian newspaper pointed out : "the only change [in recent years]
has been that governments have become better at gagging us and breaking
our pens". This statement, applied to Saudi Arabia, is true for
all Arab countries which, with time, have become more and more skilled
in subtle forms of censorship.
After Asia, North Africa and the Middle East is still
the second biggest jail in the world for journalists. On 1 January 2002,
28 journalists were behind bars, with almost half of them in Iran. Close
to 70 media professionals were arrested in 2001 (as opposed to about
40 in the previous year) and about 30 assaulted. The only positive news
is that seizures and banning were down from the previous year, with
sanctions taken against about 50 media.
Some countries have had the same stranglehold over
their media for years.
In Iraq, where they are controlled by Saddam Hussein's
iron fist, the media's only mission is to relay his propaganda. His
son Oudai Hussein, the chairman of many newspapers' editorial committees,
is also responsible for the broadcasting media. Both in the country
and abroad, the authorities seek to silence all dissident voices.
In Libya all the media are pledged to the regime of
Colonel Kadhafi, even if Libyans have free access to the Internet and
satellite television channels. This country has the sad record of the
oldest journalist jailed in the world : Abdullah Ali al-Sanussi al-Darrat
is believed to be detained without trial since 1973.
In Saudi Arabia the authorities of the kingdom still
have a tight grip on the media. Criticism of the government, the royal
family, heads of state of friendly countries or the religious hierarchy
is liable to a jail sentence.
In Tunisia opponents of Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, prevented
from expressing themselves at home, have found an unhoped-for mouthpiece
for their ideas in the London-based Arabic television channel Al Mustakillah.
Within the country pressure on opponents is being stepped up.
Despite the release of its last two jailed journalists,
one of whom was Nizar Nayyouf who spent nine years behind bars, Syria
has not relaxed its control over the media. Against a background of
arrests of major figures of the opposition, a new and particularly restrictive
press decree was promulgated in September.
In 2001 Iran remained the largest jail for journalists
in the Middle East, with 18 members of the profession behind bars. Some
of them were detained without trial for months. For those who were tried,
sentences ranged from three to eight years in jail. Within a year the
courts, dominated by the conservatives, closed about ten media. On several
occasions detainees' families complained about their conditions of detention.
Even though opposition media do exist in several countries,
their freedom is precarious.
In Sudan over 30 journalists have been arrested for
addressing sensitive subjects such as corruption or the policies of
the Khartoum regime in the south of the country. The only English-language
daily was censored several times.
In Mauritania the independent media were harassed by
censorship less than in 2000. Yet on several occasions the authorities
did use the famous Article 11 of the press code which stipulates that
"the interior minister can, by decree, ban the circulation, distribution
or sale of newspapers […] which undermine the principles of Islam
or the credibility of the state […]".
In Egypt basic freedom was flouted throughout the year
and press freedom was no exception. One journalist was jailed. Egyptian
newspapers, like those under foreign licence, are regularly censored,
seized or even closed.
In Morocco the year 2001 was punctuated by numerous
attacks on press freedom. Although the three weeklies suspended at the
end of 2000 were allowed to reappear under new titles early in 2001,
they soon found themselves under pressure from the authorities. During
the year no fewer than nine newspapers, seven of which were foreign,
were censored for addressing topics considered as taboo.
In Yemen, where press freedom is guaranteed by the
constitution, the authorities closed newspapers and arrested and prosecuted
journalists. Accusations of "libel" were used by the courts
to punish those who dared to discuss subjects such as sex, relations
with "brother" countries, Islam or the functioning of the
judiciary.
After the 11 September attacks in the United States,
the Palestinian Authority, for fear of seeing its image tarnished, stepped
up its pressure on journalists to prevent them from covering movements
in support of Osama bin Laden. During the year Israel was criticised
in connection with foreign journalists injured by bullets in the Occupied
Territories.
In December 2001 the Israeli defence ministry made
public the conclusions of its inquiries which, apart from being superficial
and partial, denied all responsibility of Tsahal in most cases. Palestinian
journalists, the majority of those injured, encountered more and more
problems moving about between the different territories.
Other countries give their journalists more latitude
but that freedom is often fragile.
In Algeria there was an outcry in the profession in
May 2001 when the national assembly passed a bill to amend the penal
code. The new law provides for heavier jail sentences and fines for
press offences. Since then several journalists have been sentenced to
jail.
In Jordan the year was marked by a setback for freedom
in the kingdom. Restrictive measures were taken against the press, triggering
a protest movement in the profession.
In Kuwait, the only country in the Arabic peninsula,
apart from Yemen, in which press freedom is guaranteed by the constitution,
a journalist was murdered. It is not known whether this murder was related
to his work. In Bahrain self-censorship is still widespread. A noteworthy
event in the year occurred when a journalist filed a complaint against
the information minister.
In the United Arab Emirates, despite the opening of
the only "free zone" for the media and informatics sector
in the Gulf countries, the authorities maintain some degree of pressure
on the press.
Qatar enjoys relative freedom of tone compared to neighbouring
countries - as reflected in the television channel Al-Jazira. In Lebanon
two well-known journalists were victims of harassment because of their
critical articles on the doings of the army.
Despite the opening of the only "free
zone" for the media and the informatics sector in the Gulf countries,
the authorities keep the media under constant pressure.
After being criticised by Arab governments, the television
channel Al Jazira was attacked by the US government for broadcasting
interviews with Osama bin Laden. The press in the emirate enjoys relative
freedom compared to other Arab countries.
The year 2001 was marked by the murder in March
of Hudaya Sultan al-Salem, Kuwait's first woman journalist. On the
whole the media have a relatively wide margin of freedom, even if
a repressive publications law still exists.
King Fahd ibn al-Seoud has been denounced as a predator
of press freedom by Reporters Without Borders.
India annual media freedom report 2002
Tehelka sets investigative reporting standards
in Indian media.
On 6 May, police in New Delhi arrested
six armed men suspected of plotting to assassinate Tarun Tejpal and
Aniruddha Behl, respectively editor-in-chief and investigative reporter
for the online news site tehelka.com.
With some forty thousand publications, a hundred
private television channels on cable, and hundreds of FM radio stations,
India is one of the world's leading countries in terms of pluralist
press and is a promising market.
SHARJAH
- Sharly Benchamin, editor in charge of Arabyayile Sultan (The Sultan
of Arabia), a Malayalam Weekly Newspaper from the UAE, is just back
from Kerala after interviewing Omman Chandy, the new state chief minister
who is also handling the NRK department. Sharly speaks to KM about
the magical formulae that attracted UAE Malayalis to spend their precious
time and money for a Friday Newspapaper. At a time prominent Kerala
newspapers like Deepika and Malayala Manorama are planning to launch
Dubai editions, Arabia magazine is well positioned in the market to
lure readers and advertisers. ""Currently
we are running a campaign to introduce people's representative for
overseas Indians in their parliaments on the basis of proportional
representation. Urdu Express, another newspaper published from the
same group is campaign for similar representation to Pakistani expatriates
in the UAE. Now the campaign has the blessing of Pakistan ambassador
in the UAE - Urdu Express readership includes North Indians and Pakistanis.
