FOTP 2013 Full Report

Freedom of the Press 2013Middle East VolatilityAmid Global Declineselected data from freedom house’sannual press freedom index

AcknowledgementsFreedom of the Press 2013 could not have been completed without the contributions ofnumerous Freedom House staff and consultants. The section entitled “Contributors” contains adetailed list of writers and advisers without whose efforts this project would not have beenpossible.Karin Deutsch Karlekar served as the project director of Freedom of the Press 2013. Extensiveresearch, editorial, analytical, and administrative assistance was provided by Jennifer Dunhamand Bret Nelson, as well as by Tyler Roylance, Morgan Huston, Zselyke Csaky, and AndrewRizzardi. Overall guidance for the project was provided by Arch Puddington, vice president forresearch, and Vanessa Tucker, vice president for analysis.We are grateful for the insights provided by those who served on this year’s expert review teams.In addition, the ratings and narratives were reviewed by a number of Freedom House staff basedin our Washington, D.C., and overseas offices, as well as by members of the InternationalFreedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX) network. This report also reflects the findings of theFreedom House study Freedom in the World 2013: The Annual Survey of Political Rights andCivil Liberties. Except where noted, statistics on internet usage were taken from the InternationalTelecommunications Union.The extensive work undertaken to produce Freedom of the Press 2013 was made possible by thegenerous support of the Leon Levy Foundation, the Jyllands-Posten Foundation, the HurfordFoundation and the Nicholas B. Ottaway Foundation. Freedom House also gratefullyacknowledges the contributions of Free Press Unlimited, Google, the Lilly Endowment, theLynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and Freedom Forum.

Freedom of the Press ContributorsAnalysts:Ben Akoh is an expert on media and technology policy. He conducts research and undertakescapacity-building initiatives on internet public policy in Africa and globally, and is involved invarious capacities in national and regional internet-governance processes. He is an instructor atthe University of Manitoba, where his research explores the nexus of education, culture, and theinternet. Akoh also has been involved in various media-development initiatives in Africa. He hasworked with the Soros Foundation’s Open Society Initiative for West Africa, the UN EconomicCommission for Africa, the International Institute for Sustainable Development, and in theprivate sector. He served as a West Africa analyst for Freedom of the Press.Tehilla Shwartz Altshuler is a research fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI), whereshe heads projects on media reform and open government. She holds an LLB and PhD from thelaw faculty at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and spent a postdoctoral year at the John F.Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. During 2011, Altshuler headed theresearch and development department of the Second Authority for Radio and Television, theIsraeli media regulator. Altshuler’s main academic interests are media and telecommunicationsregulation, and she has published and edited numerous articles, policy papers, and books onmatters of media and new media policy. She served as a Middle East and North Africa analystfor Freedom of the Press.Rozina Ali is a senior editor at the Cairo Review of Global Affairs, based in Egypt, and waspreviously an editor at the Economist Intelligence Unit. She received her master’s degree ininternational affairs from Columbia University, where she focused on Middle East studies, andher bachelor’s from Swarthmore College. She served as a Middle East and North Africa analystfor Freedom of the Press.Karen Attiah is a freelance journalist and has written for the Associated Press, the HuffingtonPost, and other outlets. She received her master’s degree in international affairs from ColumbiaUniversity’s School of International and Public Affairs, concentrating in human rights andinternational media. In 2008 Attiah was a Fulbright Scholar to Ghana, where she studied the roleof citizen participation in call-in radio shows during the Ghanaian elections, and has also studiedthe role of social media within African media organizations. She graduated from NorthwesternUniversity with a bachelor’s degree in communication studies and African studies. She served asa sub-Saharan Africa analyst for Freedom of the Press.Dawood Azami is a journalist who has worked for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)World Service in London for 14 years. He also worked as the BBC World Service bureau chiefand editor in Kabul, Afghanistan, in 2010 and 2011. Azami is a visiting lecturer at the Universityof Westminster, London, and specializes in international relations, conflict studies, and mediaand culture. He was selected as a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum in 2011,and in 2009 was the youngest person ever to win the BBC’s Global Reith Award for OutstandingContribution. He served as a South Asia analyst for Freedom of the Press.2

Anna Borshchevskaya is communications director at the American Islamic Congress and afellow at the European Foundation for Democracy, where she focuses on the former SovietUnion and the Middle East. Previously, she was assistant director at the Atlantic Council’sEurasia Center. She holds a master’s degree in international relations from the Johns HopkinsUniversity School of Advanced International Studies, and has published in the MediterraneanQuarterly, Turkish Policy Quarterly, and Middle East Quarterly, and at Washingtonpost.com,CNN.com, FoxNews.com, and Forbes.com. She regularly provides translation and analysis forthe Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth. She served as a Eurasia analyst forFreedom of the Press.Luis Manuel Botello is the senior director of special projects at the International Center forJournalists (ICFJ). He worked for 10 years as ICFJ’s Latin America program director andlaunched its International Journalism Network (IJNet), an online media-assistance news service.He has worked in more than 20 Latin American countries on issues related to digital mediainnovation, specialty reporting, press freedom, and ethics. He is a regular on-air media analyst atCNN Español, NTN24, and Al-Jazeera. He previously worked as a journalist for TelevisoraNacional in Panama. He was a Fulbright Scholar at Louisiana State University’s Manship Schoolof Mass Communication, where he received his master’s degree in mass communications. Heserved as a Central America analyst for Freedom of the Press.Lisa Brooten is an associate professor in the Department of Radio, Television and Digital Mediaat Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Her research focuses on media reform anddemocratization, local and global social-movement media, community media, indigenous media,human rights, gender and militarization, and interpretive, critical research methods, particularlyin Southeast Asia, where she has lived and conducted fieldwork for many years. Currently, she iscompleting a comparison of media reform efforts in Thailand, the Philippines, and Burma fundedin the initial stages by a 2008 Fulbright Research Fellowship. She is also a member of theFulbright Specialist Roster for Burma/Myanmar, Thailand, and the Philippines. She served as aSoutheast Asia analyst for Freedom in the Press.Sarah Cook is a senior research analyst for East Asia at Freedom House. She manages the teamthat produces the China Media Bulletin, a biweekly news digest of press freedom developmentsrelated to China. She previously served as assistant editor of Freedom House’s Freedom on theNet index, which assesses internet and digital media freedom around the world. She coedited theEnglish version of Chinese attorney Gao Zhisheng’s memoir, A China More Just, and was adelegate to the UN Human Rights Commission for an organization working on religious freedomin China. She received a master’s degree in politics and a master of laws degree in publicinternational law from the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, where she was aMarshall Scholar. She served as an East Asia analyst for Freedom of the Press.Zselyke Csaky is a research analyst for Nations in Transit, Freedom House’s annual report ondemocratic governance from Central Europe to Eurasia. She served previously as a researcher forFreedom of the Press. Prior to joining Freedom House, she worked for the Hungarian and U.S.offices of Amnesty International. She holds a master’s degree in international relations and3

European studies and a postgraduate degree in human rights from the Central EuropeanUniversity. She served as an Eastern and Western Europe analyst for Freedom of the Press.Melanie Dominski is a program manager at the Center for Peacebuilding in Sanski Most, Bosniaand Herzegovina, a local organization focused on reconciliation work, where she is responsiblefor fundraising efforts, as well as the monitoring and evaluation of all programs. Previously, sheserved as a program officer for the Global Freedom of Expression Campaign at Freedom House.She holds a master’s degree in international affairs, with a thematic concentration in humansecurity and development and a regional concentration in Europe and Eurasia, from the ElliottSchool of International Affairs at George Washington University. She served as an EasternEurope analyst for Freedom of the Press.Jennifer Dunham is a senior research analyst for Freedom in the World and Freedom of thePress at Freedom House. Previously, she was the managing editor and Africa writer for Facts OnFile World News Digest. She holds a bachelor’s degree in history-sociology from ColumbiaUniversity and a master’s degree in international relations from New York University, where shewrote her thesis on transitional justice in Rwanda and Sierra Leone. She served as a SouthernAfrica analyst for Freedom of the Press.Sarah Giaziri is the Middle East and North Africa program officer at the Rory Peck Trust. Thetrust supports freelance newsgatherers and their families worldwide in times of need, raises theirprofile, promotes their welfare and safety, and supports their right to report freely and withoutfear. Her areas of focus include Syria and Libya following the uprisings in both countries. Sheholds a degree in international relations, a master’s degree in human rights, and a postgraduatedegree in law. She practiced law for five years, focusing on human rights issues arising out ofextradition and international crime cases. She served as a Middle East and North Africa analystfor Freedom of the Press.Thomas W. Gold is the director of strategic initiatives and external affairs at the ResearchAlliance for New York City Schools at New York University. He is a former assistant professorof comparative politics at Sacred Heart University and the author of The Lega Nord andContemporary Politics in Italy. He received a PhD in political science from the New School forSocial Research and a Fulbright Fellowship to conduct research in Italy. He served as a WesternEurope analyst for Freedom of the Press.Sylvana Habdank-Kołaczkowska is the project director of Nations in Transit, FreedomHouse’s annual report on democratic governance from Central Europe to Eurasia. She also writesreports on Central Europe for the Freedom in the World report. Previously, she was themanaging editor of the Journal of Cold War Studies, a peer-reviewed quarterly. She holds amaster’s degree from Harvard University in regional studies of Eastern Europe and Eurasia, anda bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of California, Berkeley. She servedas a Central Europe analyst for Freedom of the Press.Summer Harlow is a PhD candidate in journalism at the University of Texas at Austin. AnInter-American Foundation Grassroots Development Fellow conducting her dissertation researchon the digital evolution of activist media in El Salvador, she is a journalist with more than 104

years of experience. She has reported and blogged from the United States and Latin America,covering immigration, city government, transportation, minority affairs, and press freedomissues. Her main research inquiries are related to the links between journalism and activism, withan emphasis on Latin America, digital media, alternative media, and internationalcommunication. She served as an Americas analyst for Freedom of the Press.Deborah Horan spent more than a decade covering the Middle East, including Iraq, Iran, Egypt,Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, as a correspondent for the Chicago Tribune and the HoustonChronicle. In 2002, she was a Knight Wallace Journalism Fellow at the University of Michigan,where she studied the rise of the satellite network Al-Jazeera. She joined the Tribune in 2002 andcovered the American Muslim immigrant community and the Iraq war in 2003 and 2004. She iscurrently based in Washington, DC, where she works as a freelance writer and consultant. Sheserved as a Middle East and North Africa analyst for Freedom of the Press.Sallie Hughes is an interdisciplinary communications scholar with a specialization in LatinAmerica, the Caribbean, and their diasporas. She is the coauthor of the book Making a Life inMulti-Ethnic Miami: Immigration and the Rise of a Global City and author of Newsrooms inConflict: Journalism and the Democratization of Mexico. She recently joined the editorial boardof the International Journal of Press/Politics and is the program track chair for mass media andpopular culture for the 2014 Congress of the Latin American Studies Association. She teachesgraduate and undergraduate courses in the Department of Journalism and Media Managementand the Latin American Studies Program at the University of Miami. She served as an Americasanalyst for Freedom of the Press.Michael Johnson holds a bachelor’s degree in political science–history from Rutgers Universityand a master’s degree in international affairs from the School of International Service atAmerican University. Prior to working at Freedom House, he had a one-year fellowship at theU.S. Department of Commerce in the Bureau of Industry and Security. His most recent researchhad examined China’s rise as a global power and its military modernization efforts. He served asan Asia-Pacific analyst for Freedom of the Press.Karin Deutsch Karlekar is project director of Freedom of the Press. She has conductedresearch and advocacy missions on press freedom, human rights, and governance issues to anumber of countries in Africa and South Asia, and has written reports for several Freedom Housepublications. In addition, she speaks and publishes widely on press freedom, new media, andmedia indicators, and developed the methodology for Freedom House’s Freedom on the Netindex. Currently, she also serves as a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global AgendaCouncil on Informed Societies. She holds a PhD in Indian history from Cambridge Universityand previously worked at the Economist Intelligence Unit and as a consultant for Human RightsWatch. She served as a South Asia and Africa analyst for Freedom of the Press.Mark A. Keller is deputy editor at the Latin Trade Group in Miami. His work focuses on thecompany’s market intelligence and research arm, providing insight into business, economic, andpolitical developments relevant to businesses operating in Latin America. Previously he workedas a research intern at Freedom House, and an editorial associate at Americas Society/Council ofthe Americas. He holds a master’s degree in Latin American studies from the University of5

Oxford, where his work focused on Brazil and the Southern Cone, and a bachelor’s degree inhistory from Columbia University. He served as an Americas analyst for Freedom of the Press.Alex Kendall is a manager at the international consultancy Global Health Strategies (GHS).Prior to joining GHS, she spent two years in Washington, DC, as the global health policy analystfor the Congressional Research Service, where she provided analysis on issues related to globalhealth, gender-based violence, and postconflict and disaster reconstruction efforts for membersof the House and Senate. She has also worked in the field on programs related to women’shealth, HIV/AIDS, sexual violence, human trafficking, and youth education in Haiti, Senegal,Rwanda, South Africa, and Cambodia. She holds a master’s degree in international relationsfrom Yale University. She served as a West Africa and Caribbean analyst for Freedom of thePress.Amy Killian is a master’s candidate at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced InternationalStudies. Previously, she worked with the Liberty Institute of New Delhi, expanding theirEmpowering India initiative to improve transparency in Indian elections. She is a former staffmember of Freedom House and has worked on its Southeast Asia, exchanges, and advocacyprograms. Prior to joining Freedom House, she was a fellow with Kiva Microfunds in Cambodia.She served as a Southeast Asia analyst for Freedom of the Press.Andrew Konove received his PhD in history from Yale University in 2013, with a concentrationin Latin American studies. His research focuses on politics, economics, and the development ofthe public sphere in Latin America. He conducted field research as a Fox Fellow at the Colegiode México in Mexico City from 2009 to 2010, and has studied in Brazil and Spain. His writinghas appeared in the National Interest and the blog Avenida América. Prior to pursuing his PhD,he worked at the Federal Trade Commission in Washington, DC, and Servicios FinancierosAlternativos, a microfinance institution in Oaxaca, Mexico. He served as an Americas analyst forFreedom of the Press.Holiday Dmitri Kumar is a researcher and journalist based in New York City. She previouslyserved as research director for Tony Snow at Fox News and as senior media manager at the CatoInstitute in Washington. She holds a bachelor’s degree in journalism from NorthwesternUniversity’s Medill School of Journalism, a master’s in political sociology from the Universityof Chicago, and a master’s in international affairs from the New School University in New YorkCity. She served as an Asia-Pacific and a Central and Eastern Europe analyst for Freedom of thePress.Astrid Larson is the Language Center administrative director at the French Institute AllianceFrançaise. She holds a master’s degree in international affairs from the New School Universityand a bachelor’s degree from Smith College. She served as a Western Europe analyst forFreedom of the Press.Alexander Lupis is a journalist and human rights researcher. During the 1990s, he worked forthe International Organization for Migration, the Open Society Institute, Human Rights Watch,and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, focusing on human rights issues inthe former Yugoslavia. More recently, he worked as the Europe and Central Asia program6

coordinator at the Committee to Protect Journalists, focusing on the former Soviet republics,followed by a one-year fellowship in Moscow at the Russian Union of Journalists. He served as aEurasia analyst for Freedom of the Press.Ekaterina Lysova is a human rights lawyer who holds a PhD in law from Far Eastern StateUniversity. She spent five years working as a media lawyer for the Press Development Instituteand for the IREX Media Program in Vladivostok and Moscow. She was a full-time researcher atthe University of Cologne’s Institute for East European Law and a research consultant for theMoscow Media Policy & Law Institute, and recently graduated from Georgetown University’sSchool of Foreign Service. She served as a Eurasia analyst for Freedom of the Press.Katherin Machalek is a freelance researcher and analyst specializing in the South Caucasus.She previously worked on Freedom House’s Nations in Transit report, and has publishednumerous articles on the region. When she is not working as an analyst, she helps civil societyorganizations in Russia and Ukraine with information and communication issues for the GenevabasedHuman Rights Information and Documentation Systems (HURIDOCS). She holds amaster’s degree in political science from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Sheserved as a Caucasus analyst for Freedom of the Press.Eleanor Marchant is a PhD student at the Annenberg School for Communications at theUniversity of Pennsylvania, specializing in political communications and new technology inAfrica. She is also a research associate at the Center for Global Communication Studies, whereshe advises on African and transnational media research projects. Previously, she worked at theProgramme in Comparative Media Law and Policy at Oxford University, the MediaDevelopment Investment Fund, and the Media Institute in Nairobi, and as assistant editor forFreedom of the Press. She received a master’s degree in international relations from New YorkUniversity. She served as a West Africa analyst for Freedom of the Press.Roozbeh Mirebrahimi is an Iranian journalist and writer, and has worked as a reporter, politicaleditor, or columnist for several Iranian newspapers. He is a founder and editor in chief of aPersian-language magazine, Iran in the World, and has also written several books about Iran. In2006, he received the Hellman/Hammett International prize from Human Rights Watch, whichacknowledged his work and perseverance. He was named the first International Journalist inResidence at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism in 2007, and in 2010–11 he was avisiting scholar at New York University’s Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute. He served as aMiddle East analyst for Freedom of the Press.Karina Mirochnik is a journalist and a researcher specializing in Latin American politics. Sheholds a master’s degree in international relations from New York University and a master’sdegree in communications from the University of Buenos Aires. She has worked as a producerand writer at VME Media, Dow Jones, and MTV News Latino, among other media outlets.Previously, she was a reporter and congressional correspondent in Argentina. She served as aSouth America analyst for Freedom of the Press.Peter G. Mwesige is executive director of the African Centre for Media Excellence (ACME) inKampala, Uganda. A holder of a PhD in mass communication from Indiana University and a7

master’s degree in journalism and mass communication from the American University in Cairo,he was until November 2007 the head of the Department of Mass Communication at Kampala’sMakerere University. He has previously worked as a reporter, news editor, political editor, andpolitical columnist, including positions as executive editor of the Daily Monitor and grouptraining editor of the Nation Media Group in Kampala. He served as an East Africa analyst forFreedom of the Press.Caroline Nellemann is an international consultant specializing in digital media anddemocratization. Previously she has worked for Freedom House, the Berkman Center for Internet& Society at Harvard University, the Danish Aid Agency, and the Danish Ministry for Science,Technology, and Innovation. She holds a master’s degree in international development fromRoskilde University, Denmark. She served as a Western Europe analyst for Freedom of thePress.Bret Nelson is a research analyst for Freedom in the World and Freedom of the Press atFreedom House. He holds a master’s degree in political science from Fordham University and amaster’s degree in Middle East studies from the Graduate Center, CUNY. He served as a MiddleEast and North Africa analyst for Freedom of the Press.Folu Ogundimu is a professor in the School of Journalism and the College of CommunicationArts and Sciences at Michigan State University (MSU), East Lansing. He is coeditor of Mediaand Democracy in Africa. He is a faculty excellence adviser for the College of CommunicationArts and Sciences and core faculty of the African Studies Center and the Center for AdvancedStudy of International Development. He has also served as a senior research associate forAfrobarometer and the Center for Democracy and Development, Ghana; a research associate forthe Globalization Research Center on Africa, UCLA; and a visiting professor at the University ofLagos, Nigeria. He served as a West Africa analyst for Freedom of the Press.Shannon O’Toole is an editor and writer at Facts On File World News Digest, where she coversEastern Europe, Russia, and the Balkans. She is also a contributor to Freedom House’s Freedomin the World report. She received a bachelor’s degree in history and anthropology from theUniversity of Missouri, Columbia. She served as a Central and Eastern Europe analyst forFreedom of the Press.Abha Parekh is a master’s candidate at Columbia University’s School of International andPublic Affairs. Previously, she was a research fellow at the Observer Research Foundation inMumbai, working on urban development and environmental protection issues. She has alsoworked with the UN Mission in Kosovo, the Clinton Foundation, the Centre for Civil Society inNew Delhi, and Freedom House, where she assisted in producing Freedom on the Net 2011. Sheserved as a South Asia analyst for Freedom of the Press.Arch Puddington is vice president for research at Freedom House and coeditor of Freedom inthe World. He has written widely on American foreign policy, race relations, organized labor,and the history of the Cold War. He is the author of Broadcasting Freedom: The Cold WarTriumph of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty and Lane Kirkland: Champion of AmericanLabor. He served as the United States analyst for Freedom of the Press.8

Mara Revkin is a JD candidate at Yale Law School and former Fulbright Fellow in Jordan andOman. She previously served as assistant director of the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Centerfor the Middle East and as a junior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Her current research projects focus on constitutional design, informal Sharia courts, and theIslamization of customary law in North Sinai, where she conducted field research in August2013. Her writing has appeared in the Washington Post, Foreign Affairs, the Atlantic, andForeign Policy. She served as a Middle East and North Africa analyst for Freedom of the Press.Tom Rhodes is a freelance journalist and East Africa representative for the Committee to ProtectJournalists. He is also the cofounder of South Sudan’s first independent newspaper, the JubaPost, and continues to support journalist training initiatives in the region. Holding a master’sdegree in African studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, he has residedand worked in the East Africa region for over seven years. He served as an East Africa analystfor Freedom of the Press.Andrew Rizzardi is a researcher with Freedom House working extensively on press freedomissues. He holds a master’s degree in international affairs from American University’s School ofInternational Studies. He served as an Americas, Asia-Pacific, and sub-Saharan Africa analystfor Freedom of the Press.David Robie is associate professor of journalism in the School of Communication Studies atNew Zealand’s Auckland University of Technology and director of the Pacific Media Centre. Heholds a master’s degree in journalism from the University of Technology, Sydney, and a PhD inhistory/politics from the University of the South Pacific, Fiji. He is founding editor of PacificJournalism Review and convener of Pacific Media Watch, and has written several books onPacific media, including Mekim Nius: South Pacific Media, Politics, and Education. He alsopublishes the media freedom blog Café Pacific. He served as an Asia-Pacific analyst forFreedom of the Press.Mark Y. Rosenberg is a senior Africa analyst at Eurasia Group, focusing on the SouthernAfrica region. Previously, he worked as a researcher at Freedom House and assistant editor ofFreedom in the World. His opinion articles have appeared in the New York Times, the JerusalemPost, and Business Day (South Africa), and his research has been cited by publications includingthe Economist and the Financial Times. He received a master’s degree and a PhD in politicalscience from the University of California, Berkeley, where he was a National ScienceFoundation Graduate Fellow. He served as a Southern Africa analyst for Freedom of the Press.Tyler Roylance is a staff editor at Freedom House and is involved in a number of itspublications. He holds a master’s degree in history from New York University. He served as aCentral and Eastern Europe analyst for Freedom of the Press.Laura Schneider is a PhD candidate at the Research Center for Media and Communication ofthe University of Hamburg, and a media freedom and social-media expert at the InternationalMedia Center Hamburg. She works as a freelance journalist for several German media outletsand has worked as a radio and newspaper reporter in Mexico. At the International Media Center9

Hamburg, she is the project coordinator of the Latin American Media Program. She also worksas a consultant for Deutsche Welle Academy and UNESCO. She completed her bachelor’s andmaster’s degrees in communication science, journalism, and Latin American studies at theUniversities of Hamburg, Guadalajara (Mexico), and Sydney. She served as a Western Europeanalyst for Freedom of the Press.Hyunjin Seo is assistant professor and Docking Young Faculty Scholar in the William AllenWhite School of Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of Kansas. She haspublished research studies in the areas of digital media, international journalism, and strategiccommunication. Prior to receiving her PhD from Syracuse University, she was a foreign affairscorrespondent for South Korean and international media outlets. During that time, she traveledextensively to cover major international events including six-party talks on North Korea’snuclear issues and UN and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit meetings. She served asan Asia-Pacific analyst for Freedom of the Press.Janet Steele is an associate professor of journalism in the School of Media and Public Affairs atGeorge Washington University. She received her PhD in history from Johns Hopkins Universityand has taught courses on the theory and practice of journalism in Southeast and South Asia as aFulbright senior scholar and lecturer. Her book, Wars Within: The Story of Tempo, anIndependent Magazine in Soeharto’s Indonesia, focuses on Tempo magazine and its relationshipwith the politics and culture of New Order–era Indonesia. She served as a Southeast Asia analystfor Freedom of the Press.Nicole Stremlau is coordinator of the program in comparative media law and policy at theUniversity of Oxford, where she is also a research fellow in the Centre of Socio-Legal Studies.She holds a PhD from the London School of Economics in development studies. Her researchfocuses on media policy during and in the aftermath of guerrilla struggles in the Horn of Africa.She served as an East Africa analyst for Freedom of the Press.Kai Thaler is a PhD student in the Department of Government at Harvard University with afocus on comparative politics and international relations in Africa, Latin America, and theLusophone countries. He is an affiliated researcher of the Portuguese Institute of InternationalRelations and Security (IPRIS) and has been a consultant for Handicap International, aresearcher at the Centre for Social Science Research at the University of Cape Town, and aDGARQ/FLAD Research Fellow at the Portuguese national archives. He holds a master’s degreein sociology from the University of Cape Town and a bachelor’s degree in political science fromYale University. He served as a sub-Saharan Africa analyst for Freedom of the Press.Leigh Tomppert is an independent researcher specializing in gender, human rights, anddevelopment issues. She currently works with the UN Entity for Gender Equality and theEmpowerment of Women (UN Women) as a policy consultant in the Women’s EconomicEmpowerment Section. She previously coedited Freedom House’s Women’s Rights in the MiddleEast and North Africa publication and has also written for Freedom in the World. She receivedmaster’s degrees in comparative and cross-cultural research methods from the University ofSussex and in the social sciences from the University of Chicago. She served as an Americasanalyst for Freedom of the Press.10

Mai Truong is a staff editor and research analyst for Freedom on the Net at Freedom House.Previously, she was the editor in chief of the Yale Journal of International Affairs and worked asa research assistant for a Yale-based project that studied women’s rights to land and otherproperty in East Africa. She holds a bachelor’s degree in international studies–sociology fromthe University of California, San Diego, and a master’s degree in international relations from theJackson Institute for Global Affairs at Yale University. She served as an East Africa analyst forFreedom of the Press.Vanessa Tucker is vice president for analysis at Freedom House. She was previously the projectdirector of Countries at the Crossroads, Freedom House’s annual report on democraticgovernance in 70 strategically important countries around the world. Prior to joining FreedomHouse, she managed the Program on Intrastate Conflict at Harvard Kennedy School, and has alsoworked at the Kennedy School’s Women and Public Policy Program. She holds a bachelor’sdegree in international development from McGill University and a master’s degree ininternational relations from Yale University. She served as a Middle East and North Africaanalyst for Freedom of the Press.Jason Warner is a PhD candidate in African studies and government at Harvard University. Hehas worked or consulted for the UN Development Programme, the Nigerian Mission to theUnited Nations, and the U.S. Army. He has published on African affairs in outlets includingCNN, the Council on Foreign Relations, and UN Dispatch, as well as in various academicjournals. He received master’s degrees in government from Harvard University and in Africanstudies from Yale University. He served as a sub-Saharan Africa analyst for Freedom of thePress.Eliza B. Young is the publications coordinator for Physicians for Human Rights. She previouslyserved as a political analyst for the Emergency Preparedness and Response Unit at theInternational Rescue Committee (IRC) in New York. Prior to joining the IRC, she worked as aresearch analyst at Freedom House. She holds a master’s degree in international relations fromKing’s College London and a bachelor’s degree in European history from Columbia University.She served as a Western Europe analyst for Freedom of the Press.Ratings Review Advisers:Rosental Calmon Alves holds the Knight Chair in International Journalism and the UNESCOChair in Communication in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin. He isalso the founding director of the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas. He began hisacademic career in the United States in 1996 after 27 years as a professional journalist, includingseven years as a journalism professor in Brazil. He holds a bachelor’s degree in journalism fromthe Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and was the first Brazilian to be awarded with a NiemanFellowship to study at Harvard University. A board member of several national and internationalorganizations, he has been a frequent speaker and trainer as well as a consultant. He served as anAmericas adviser for Freedom of the Press.11

Dan Caspi is a professor and former chair of the Department of Communications Studies, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (2004–09). He is the founding chair of the IsraelCommunication Association and has previously filled several public roles, including member ofthe Committee on Public Broadcasting of the Ministry of Science, Culture and Sports, and boardmember of the Israeli Broadcasting Authority. He has written, coauthored, and coedited severalbooks, including Media and Ethnic Minorities in the Holy Land; Beyond the Mirror: The MediaMap in Israel; and The Palestinian Arab In/Outsiders: Media and Conflict in Israel. Currently hepublishes a weekly blog in Hebrew for Haaretz. He served as a Middle East and North Africaadviser for Freedom of the Press.John Dinges is the Godfrey Lowell Cabot Professor of Journalism at Columbia University and aformer correspondent in Latin America. He was awarded the Maria Moors Cabot gold medal in1992. His books include The Condor Years: How Pinochet and His Allies Brought Terrorism toThree Continents; Assassination on Embassy Row (with Saul Landau); and Our Man in Panama:The Shrewd Rise and Brutal Fall of Manuel Noriega. He was an assistant editor on theWashington Post’s foreign desk; served as deputy foreign editor, managing editor, and editorialdirector of NPR News; and was founder/director of the Centro de Investigación e InformaciónPeriodística (CIPER) in Chile. He served as an Americas adviser for Freedom of the Press.Matt J. Duffy studies journalism in the Arab world with a focus on the government regulation ofboth traditional and digital media. His book on media laws of the United Arab Emirates will bepublished in early 2014. His other research has appeared in the Journal of Middle East Media,Middle East Media Educator, and the Journal of Mass Media Ethics. He teaches internationalcommunication law at Kennesaw State University and serves as a fellow with the Center forInternational Media Education at Georgia State University. He is also a member of the board ofdirectors for the Arab-U.S. Association for Communication Educators. He served as a MiddleEast and North Africa adviser for Freedom of the Press.Ashley Esarey received his PhD in political science from Columbia University and held the AnWang Postdoctoral Fellowship at Harvard’s Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies. He teachesEast Asian studies and political science at the University of Alberta and is an associate inresearch at the University of Alberta’s China Institute. His publications concern propaganda andinformation control in China and the impact of digital communication on Chinese politics. He iscoeditor of The Internet in China and coauthor of My Fight for a New Taiwan: One Woman’sJourney from Prison to Power. He is currently working on a book comparing regime change(and the lack thereof) in China, Taiwan, Libya, and Tunisia. He served as an Asia-Pacific adviserfor Freedom of the Press.Howard W. French is an associate professor at the Columbia University Graduate School ofJournalism, where he has taught since 2008. He previously was a senior writer for the New YorkTimes, where he spent most of his career as a foreign correspondent, including serving as chief ofthe Times’s Shanghai bureau and heading bureaus in Japan, West and Central Africa, CentralAmerica, and the Caribbean. His work for the newspaper in both Africa and China wasnominated for the Pulitzer Prize. He is the author of A Continent for the Taking: The Tragedyand Hope of Africa, which was named nonfiction book of the year by severalnewspapers. Disappearing Shanghai, French’s documentary photography of the last remnants of12

Shanghai’s historic neighborhoods, has been featured in numerous exhibitions and magazines, aswell as a book. He served as a sub-Saharan Africa adviser for Freedom of the Press.Jeffrey Ghannam is an attorney and media professional who has contributed widely to theanalysis and debate about the role of digital media leading up to and following the recent civilmovements in the Arab world, including a two-part report for the National Endowment forDemocracy’s Center for International Media Assistance. He has written separately on the subjectfor the Economist and the Washington Post. He received a Knight International JournalismFellowship to Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon to develop programs in the region,where he has also served as a media development trainer and adviser. He spent a decade at theDetroit Free Press, where he reported on the law and served as an editor. He was on staff at theNew York Times Washington bureau and contributed news and features. He served as a MiddleEast and North Africa adviser for Freedom of the Press.Peter Gross is director of the School of Journalism and Electronic Media at the University ofTennessee, Knoxville. His scholarly specialization is in international communication, with afocus on Central and Eastern Europe. He was instrumental in establishing a new journalismprogram in 1992 at the University of Timisoara, Romania, and in the last 24 years served as aconsultant for the International Media Fund, the Freedom Forum, and the Eurasia Foundation,and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, among other organizations. He is the author of EntangledEvolutions: Media and Democratization in Eastern Europe, as well as five other scholarly booksand three textbooks, and is the coeditor of two books, including Media Transformations in thePost-Communist World: Eastern Europe’s Tortured Path to Change. He served as a Central andEastern Europe/Eurasia adviser for Freedom of the Press.Daniel C. Hallin is a professor of communication at the University of California, San Diego. Hisbooks include The “Uncensored War”: The Media and Vietnam; We Keep America on Top ofthe World: Television Journalism and the Public Sphere; and, with Paolo Mancini, ComparingMedia Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics and Comparing Media Systems Beyond theWestern World. He has also written on media and politics in Mexico and on media and politicalclientelism in Latin America. He served as an Americas adviser for Freedom of the Press.Drew McDaniel is a professor and director of the School of Media Arts and Studies at OhioUniversity. He serves as honorary consultant at the Asia-Pacific Institute for BroadcastingDevelopment. He has authored a number of books, including Electronic Tigers of SoutheastAsia: The Politics of Media, Technology, and National Development and Broadcasting in theMalay World. He served as an Asia-Pacific adviser for Freedom of the Press.Kavita Menon is a senior program officer at the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). As CPJAsia program coordinator from 1999 to 2003, she led research and advocacy missions tocountries including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia. She left CPJ to take up thePew Fellowship in international reporting at Johns Hopkins University’s School of AdvancedInternational Studies, and then worked as a researcher and campaigner on South Asia forAmnesty International before returning to CPJ in 2008. She has written for publicationsincluding the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the International Herald Tribune, and Ms.magazine. She has produced radio features for NPR’s All Things Considered, Monitor Radio,13

WNYC, and WBAI, and previously worked as assistant producer of NPR’s On the Media. Sheearned a master’s degree from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism. Sheserved as an Asia-Pacific adviser for Freedom of the Press.Devra C. Moehler is assistant professor at the Annenberg School of Communication, Universityof Pennsylvania. She holds a PhD in political science from the University of Michigan. Herresearch focuses on comparative political communication, democratization, partisan informationsources, and political behavior, with a focus on Africa. She is the author of the book DistrustingDemocrats: Outcomes of Participatory Constitution Making. Previously, she was an assistantprofessor of government at Cornell University and a fellow at the Harvard Academy ofInternational and Area Studies. In addition, she served as a Democracy Fellow at the U.S.Agency for International Development, where she provided technical assistance in the design ofexperimental and quasi-experimental impact evaluations of democracy and governanceassistance programs. She served as a sub-Saharan Africa adviser for Freedom of the Press.Robert Orttung is assistant director of the Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studiesat George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, president of theResource Security Institute, and a visiting scholar at the Center for Security Studies at the SwissFederal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich. He is managing editor of Demokratizatsiya:The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization and a coeditor of the Russian Analytical Digest andthe Caucasus Analytical Digest. He received a PhD in political science from the University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles. He served as a Central and Eastern Europe/Eurasia adviser for Freedomof the Press.Bettina Peters is director of development at the Thomson Foundation, a leader in internationalmedia support, journalism, and management training since 1962. Before joining the ThomsonFoundation, she was the director of the Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD), anetwork of organizations involved in media assistance programs around the world. Until 2007,she worked as director of programs at the European Journalism Center (EJC), in charge of itsinternational journalism training program. Previously, she worked for 11 years at theInternational Federation of Journalists headquarters in Brussels. She holds degrees in politicalscience and journalism from the University of Hamburg, and has edited several publications onjournalism, such as the GFMD’s Media Matters II and the EJC’s handbook on civic journalism.She served as a Western Europe adviser for Freedom of the Press.Lawrence Pintak is the founding dean of the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication atWashington State University (WSU). An award-winning former CBS News Middle Eastcorrespondent, he is the author of The New Arab Journalist and several other books onAmerica’s relationship with the Muslim world and the role of the media in shaping globalperceptions and government policy. Prior to WSU, he served as director of the Kamal AdhamCenter for Journalism Training and Research at the American University in Cairo. His workregularly appears in outlets including the New York Times, ForeignPolicy.com, and CNN.com,and he is frequently interviewed by international media. Pintak holds a PhD in Islamic studiesfrom the University of Wales. He served as a Middle East and North Africa adviser for Freedomof the Press.14

Richard Shafer is a professor of journalism at the University of North Dakota. His researchfocuses on the press and social change in developing nations, with a concentration in recent yearson the development of the press in post-Soviet Central Asia and the Caucasus. His most recentbook, coauthored with Eric Freedman, is After the Czars and Commissars: Journalism inAuthoritarian Post-Soviet Central Asia. Other published work includes over 50 peer-reviewedjournal articles. Since the late 1980s he has had seven international postings supported by severalfoundations and government agencies. He received his PhD from the University of Missouri,Columbia, in rural sociology with a minor in journalism. He served as a Central and EasternEurope/Eurasia adviser for Freedom of the Press.Wisdom J. Tettey is a professor and dean of the Faculty of Creative and Critical Studies at theUniversity of British Columbia, Canada. His research expertise and interests are in the areas ofmass media and politics in Africa; information and communications technologies (ICTs), civicengagement, and transnational citizenship; and the political economy of globalization and ICTs.Among his numerous publications are Media and Information Literacy, Informed Citizenship,and Democratic Development in Africa: A Handbook for Information/Media Producers andUsers; The Public Sphere and the Politics of Survival: Voice, Sustainability, and Public Policy inGhana; and African Media and the Digital Public Sphere. He has served as a consultant tovarious international organizations and recently coordinated a workshop for the African CapacityBuilding Foundation on “Information/Media Literacy, Informed Citizenship, and Africa’sDevelopment Agenda.” He served as a sub-Saharan Africa adviser for Freedom of the Press.Tudor Vlad is associate director of the James M. Cox Jr. Center for International MassCommunication Training and Research at the University of Georgia. He holds a PhD from theBabes-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca, Romania, and a bachelor’s degree from the Universityof Bucharest. He has been a consultant for the New York Times, the Russian Journalists’ Union,and a Gallup World Poll senior research adviser. He has done research and written on mediasystems in emerging democracies, assessment of press freedom indicators, evaluation ofinternational media assistance programs, and journalism and mass communication curriculums.He served as Central and Eastern Europe/Eurasia adviser for Freedom of the Press.Peter VonDoepp is an associate professor of political science at the University of Vermont. Hisresearch focuses on African politics with specific attention to democratization issues. His mostrecent book, Judicial Politics in New Democracies: Cases from Southern Africa, examinesjudicial development in new Southern African democracies. His other published work appears ina variety of peer-reviewed journals and several edited volumes. His research has been supportedby the National Science Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Fulbright-Hays program. Hereceived his PhD from the University of Florida. He served as a sub-Saharan Africa adviser forFreedom of the Press.David Ndirangu Wachanga is a professor of journalism at the University of Wisconsin,Whitewater. He holds a PhD in information science from the University of North Texas. He haswritten on emerging technologies and message propagation, global information flow, and the useof communication technologies in restrictive information and economic environments. He hasappeared on Voice of America (VOA) and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) todiscuss media, technology, diasporas, and globalization. He is conducting research on the15

MethodologyThe 2013 index, which provides analytical reports and numerical ratings for 197 countries andterritories, continues a process conducted since 1980 by Freedom House. The findings are widelyused by governments, international organizations, academics, activists, and the news media inmany countries. Countries are given a total score from 0 (best) to 100 (worst) on the basis of a setof 23 methodology questions divided into three subcategories. Assigning numerical points allowsfor comparative analysis among the countries surveyed and facilitates an examination of trendsover time. The degree to which each country permits the free flow of news and informationdetermines the classification of its media as “Free,” “Partly Free,” or “Not Free.” Countriesscoring 0 to 30 are regarded as having “Free” media; 31 to 60, “Partly Free” media; and 61 to100, “Not Free” media. The criteria for such judgments and the arithmetic scheme for displayingthe judgments are described in the following section. The ratings and reports included in Freedomof the Press 2013 cover events that took place between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2012.CriteriaThis study is based on universal criteria. The starting point is the smallest, most universal unit ofconcern: the individual. We recognize cultural differences, diverse national interests, and varyinglevels of economic development. Yet Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rightsstates:Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includesfreedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impartinformation and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.The operative word for this index is “everyone.” All states, from the most democratic tothe most authoritarian, are committed to this doctrine through the UN system. To deny thatdoctrine is to deny the universality of information freedom—a basic human right. We recognizethat cultural distinctions or economic underdevelopment may limit the volume of news flowswithin a country, but these and other arguments are not acceptable explanations for outrightcentralized control of the content of news and information. Some poor countries allow for theexchange of diverse views, while some economically developed countries restrict contentdiversity. We seek to recognize press freedom wherever it exists, in poor and rich countries aswell as in countries of various ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds.Research and Ratings Review ProcessThe findings are reached after a multilayered process of analysis and evaluation by a team ofregional experts and scholars. Although there is an element of subjectivity inherent in the indexfindings, the ratings process emphasizes intellectual rigor and balanced and unbiased judgments.The research and ratings process involves several dozen analysts—including members ofthe core research team headquartered in New York, along with outside consultants—whoprepared the draft ratings and country reports. Their conclusions are reached after gatheringinformation from professional contacts in a variety of countries, staff and consultant travel,international visitors, the findings of human rights and press freedom organizations, specialists ingeographic and geopolitical areas, the reports of governments and multilateral bodies, and avariety of domestic and international news media. We would particularly like to thank the othermembers of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX) network for providing17

detailed and timely analyses of press freedom violations in a variety of countries worldwide onwhich we rely to make our judgments.The ratings are reviewed individually and on a comparative basis in a set of six regionalmeetings involving analysts, advisers, and Freedom House staff. The ratings are compared withthe previous year’s findings, and any major proposed numerical shifts or category changes aresubjected to more intensive scrutiny. These reviews are followed by cross-regional assessments inwhich efforts are made to ensure comparability and consistency in the findings.MethodologyThrough the years, we have refined and expanded our methodology. Recent changes are intendedto simplify the presentation of information without altering the comparability of data for a givencountry over the 32-year span or the comparative ratings of all countries over that period.Our examination of the level of press freedom in each country currently comprises 23methodology questions and 109 indicators divided into three broad categories: the legalenvironment, the political environment, and the economic environment. For each methodologyquestion, a lower number of points is allotted for a more free situation, while a higher number ofpoints is allotted for a less free environment. Each country is rated in these three categories, withthe higher numbers indicating less freedom. A country’s final score is based on the total of thethree categories: A score of 0 to 30 places the country in the Free press group; 31 to 60 in thePartly Free press group; and 61 to 100 in the Not Free press group.The diverse nature of the methodology questions seeks to encompass the varied ways inwhich pressure can be placed upon the flow of information and the ability of print, broadcast, andinternet-based media and journalists to operate freely and without fear of repercussions: In short,we seek to provide a picture of the entire “enabling environment” in which the media in eachcountry operate. We also seek to assess the degree of news and information diversity available tothe public in any given country, from either local or transnational sources.The legal environment category encompasses an examination of both the laws andregulations that could influence media content and the government’s inclination to use these lawsand legal institutions to restrict the media’s ability to operate. We assess the positive impact oflegal and constitutional guarantees for freedom of expression; the potentially negative aspects ofsecurity legislation, the penal code, and other criminal statutes; penalties for libel and defamation;the existence of and ability to use freedom of information legislation; the independence of thejudiciary and of official media regulatory bodies; registration requirements for both media outletsand journalists; and the ability of journalists’ groups to operate freely.Under the political environment category, we evaluate the degree of political controlover the content of news media. Issues examined include the editorial independence of both stateownedand privately owned media; access to information and sources; official censorship andself-censorship; the vibrancy of the media and the diversity of news available within eachcountry; the ability of both foreign and local reporters to cover the news freely and withoutharassment; and the intimidation of journalists by the state or other actors, including arbitrarydetention and imprisonment, violent assaults, and other threats.Our third category examines the economic environment for the media. This includes thestructure of media ownership; transparency and concentration of ownership; the costs ofestablishing media as well as any impediments to news production and distribution; the selectivewithholding of advertising or subsidies by the state or other actors; the impact of corruption andbribery on content; and the extent to which the economic situation in a country impacts thedevelopment and sustainability of the media.18

CHECKLIST OF METHODOLOGY QUESTIONS 2013-- Each country is ranked on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 being the best and 100 being the worst.-- A combined score of 0-30=Free, 31-60=Partly Free, 61-100=Not Free.-- Under each question, a lower number of points is allotted for a more free situation, while a higher number ofpoints is allotted for a less free environment.-- The sub-questions listed are meant to provide guidance as to what issues are meant to be addressed under eachmethodology question; it is not intended that the author necessarily answer each one.-- As a general guideline, the index is focused on ability to access news and information (which predominantlymeans print and broadcast media but can also including blogs, social media, and other forms of digital newsdissemination) and providers of news content, which predominantly means journalists but can also include citizenjournalists and bloggers, where applicable.A. LEGAL ENVIRONMENT (0-30 POINTS)1. Do the constitution or other basic laws contain provisions designed to protect freedom ofthe press and of expression, and are they enforced? (0-6 points)• Does the constitution contain language that provides for freedom of speech and of the press?• Do the Supreme Court, Attorney General, and other representatives of the higher judiciarysupport these rights?• Does the judiciary obstruct the implementation of laws designed to uphold these freedoms?• Do other high-ranking state or government representatives uphold protections for media freedom,or do they contribute to a hostile environment for the press?• Are crimes that threaten press freedom prosecuted vigorously by authorities?• Is there implicit impunity for those who commit crimes against journalists?2. Do the penal code, security laws, or any other laws restrict reporting and are journalistsor bloggers punished under these laws? (0-6 points)• Are there restrictive press laws?• Do laws restrict reporting on ethnic or religious issues, national security, or other sensitive topics?• Are penalties for ‘irresponsible journalism’ applied widely?• Are restrictions of media freedom closely defined, narrowly circumscribed, and proportional tothe legitimate aim?• Do the authorities restrict or otherwise impede legitimate press coverage in the name of nationalsecurity interests?• Are journalists regularly prosecuted or jailed as a result of what they write?• Are writers, commentators, or bloggers subject to imprisonment or other legal sanction as a resultof accessing or posting material on the internet?• Is there excessive pressure on journalists to reveal sources, resulting in punishments such as jailsentences, fines, or contempt of court charges?19

3. Are there penalties for libeling officials or the state and are they enforced? (0-3 points)• Are public officials especially protected under insult or defamation laws?• Are insult laws routinely used to shield officials’ conduct from public scrutiny?• Is truth a defense to libel?• Is there a legally mandated ‘right of reply’ that overrides independent editorial control?• Is libel made a criminal rather than a civil offense?• Are journalists or bloggers regularly prosecuted and jailed for libel or defamation?• Are fines routinely imposed on journalists or media outlets in civil libel cases in a partisan orprejudicial manner, with the intention of bankrupting the media outlet or deterring futurecriticism?4. Is the judiciary independent and do courts judge cases concerning the mediaimpartially? (0-3 points)• Are members of the judiciary subject to excessive pressure from the executive branch?• Are the rights to freedom of expression and information recognized as important among membersof the judiciary?• When judging cases concerning the media, do authorities act in a lawful and non-arbitrarymanner on the basis of objective criteria?• Is there improper use of legal action or summonses against journalists or media outlets (e.g. beingsubjected to false charges, arbitrary tax audits etc.)?5. Is Freedom of Information legislation in place and are journalists able to make use of it?(0-2 points)• Are there laws guaranteeing access to government records and information?• Are restrictions to the right of access to information expressly and narrowly defined?• Are journalists able to secure public records through clear administrative procedures in a timelymanner and at a reasonable cost?• Are public officials subject to prosecution if they illegally refuse to disclose state documents?6. Can individuals or business entities legally establish and operate private media outletswithout undue interference? (0-4 points)• Are registration requirements to publish a newspaper or periodical unduly onerous or are theyapproved/rejected on partisan or prejudicial grounds?• Is the process of licensing private broadcasters and assigning frequencies open, objective andfair?• Is there an independent regulatory body responsible for awarding licenses and distributingfrequencies or does the state control the allocations process?• Does the state place extensive legal controls over the establishment of internet web sites andISPs?• Do state or publicly-funded media receive preferential legal treatment?• Are non-profit community broadcasters given distinct legal status?• Is there substantial media cross ownership and is cross-ownership of media encouraged by theabsence of legal restrictions?• Are laws regulating media ownership impartially implemented?20

7. Are media regulatory bodies, such as a broadcasting authority or national press orcommunications council, able to operate freely and independently? (0-2 points)• Are there explicit legal guarantees protecting the independence and autonomy of any regulatorybody from either political or commercial interference?• Does the state or any other interest exercise undue influence over regulatory bodies throughappointments or financial pressure?• Is the appointments process to such bodies transparent and representative of different interests,and do representatives from the media have an adequate presence on such bodies?• Are decisions taken by the regulatory body seen to be fair and apolitical?• Are efforts by journalists and media outlets to establish self-regulatory mechanisms permitted andencouraged, and viewed as a preferable alternative to state-imposed regulation?8. Is there freedom to become a journalist and to practice journalism, and can professionalgroups freely support journalists’ rights and interests? (0-4 points)• Are journalists required by law to be licensed and if so, is the licensing process conducted fairlyand at reasonable cost?• Must a journalist become a member of a particular union or professional organization in order towork legally?• Must journalists have attended a particular school or have certain qualifications in order topractice journalism?• Are visas for journalists to travel abroad delayed or denied based on the individual’s reporting orprofessional affiliation?• May journalists and editors freely join associations to protect their interests and express theirprofessional views?• Are independent journalists’ organizations able to operate freely and comment on threats to orviolations of press freedom?B. POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT (0-40 POINTS)1. To what extent are media outlets’ news and information content determined by thegovernment or a particular partisan interest? (0-10 points)• To what degree are print and broadcast journalists subject to editorial direction or pressure fromthe authorities or from private owners?• Do media outlets—either print, broadcast, or internet–based—that express independent, balancedviews exist?• Is media coverage excessively partisan, with the majority of outlets consistently taking either apro- or anti-government line?• Is there government editorial control of state-run media outlets?• Does the government attempt to influence or manipulate online content?• Is there opposition access to state-owned media, particularly during elections campaigns? Dooutlets reflect the views of the entire political spectrum or do they provide only an official pointof view?• Is hiring, promotion, and firing of journalists in the state-owned media done in a non-partisanand impartial manner?• Is there provision for public-service broadcasting that enjoys editorial independence?21

2. Is access to official or unofficial sources generally controlled? (0-2 points)• Are the activities of government—courts, legislature, officials, records—open to the press?• Is there a ‘culture of secrecy’ among public officials that limits their willingness to provideinformation to media?• Do media outlets have a sufficient level of access to information and is this right equally enforcedfor all journalists regardless of their media outlet’s editorial line?• Does the regime influence access to unofficial sources (parties, unions, religious groups, etc.),particularly those that provide opposition viewpoints?3. Is there official or unofficial censorship? (0-4 points)• Is there an official censorship body?• Are print publications or broadcast programs subject to pre-or post-publication censorship?• Are local print and broadcast outlets forcibly closed or taken off the air as a result of what theypublish or broadcast?• Are there shutdowns or blocking of internet sites or blogs?• Is access to foreign newspapers, TV or radio broadcasts, websites, or blogs censored or otherwiserestricted?• Are certain contentious issues, such as official corruption, the role of the armed forces or thepolitical opposition, human rights, religion, officially off-limits to the media?• Do authorities issue official guidelines or directives on coverage to media outlets?4. Do journalists practice self-censorship? (0-4 points)• Is there widespread self-censorship in the state-owned media? In the privately owned media?• Are there unspoken ‘rules’ that prevent a journalist from pursuing certain stories?• Is there avoidance of subjects that can clearly lead to censorship or harm to the journalist or theinstitution?• Is there censorship or excessive interference of journalists’ stories by editors or managers?• Are there restrictions on coverage by ‘gentlemen’s agreement,’ club-like associations betweenjournalists and officials, or traditions in the culture that restrict certain kinds of reporting?5. Do people have access to media coverage and a range of news and information that isrobust and reflects a diversity of viewpoints? (0-4 points)• Does the public have access to a diverse selection of print, broadcast, and internet-based sourcesof information that represent a range of political and social viewpoints?• Are people able to access a range of local and international news sources despite efforts to restrictthe flow of information?• Do media outlets represent diverse interests within society, for example through community radioor other locally-focused news content?• Do providers of news content cover political developments and provide scrutiny of governmentpolicies or actions by other powerful societal actors?• Is there a tradition of vibrant coverage of potentially sensitive issues?• Do journalists or bloggers pursue investigative news stories on issues such as corruption by thegovernment or other powerful societal actors?6. Are both local and foreign journalists able to cover the news freely in terms ofharassment and physical access? (0-6 points)22

• Are journalists harassed while covering the news?• Are certain geographical areas of the country off-limits to journalists?• Does a war, insurgency, or similar situation in a country inhibit the operation of media?• Is there surveillance of foreign journalists working in the country?• Are foreign journalists inhibited or barred by the need to secure visas or permits to report or totravel within the country?• Are foreign journalists deported for reporting that challenges the regime or other powerfulinterests?7. Are journalists, bloggers, or media outlets subject to extralegal intimidation or physicalviolence by state authorities or any other actor? (0-10 points)• Are journalists or bloggers subject to murder, injury, harassment, threats, abduction, expulsion,arbitrary arrest and illegal detention, or torture?• Do armed militias, organized crime, insurgent groups, political or religious extremists, or otherorganizations regularly target journalists?• Have journalists fled the country or gone into hiding to avoid such action?• Have media companies been targeted for physical attack or for the confiscation or destruction ofproperty?• Are there technical attacks on news and information websites or key online outlets forinformation exchange?C. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT (0-30 POINTS)1. To what extent are media owned or controlled by the government and does thisinfluence their diversity of views? (0-6 points)• Does the state dominate the country’s information system?• Are there independent or opposition print media outlets?• Does a state monopoly of TV or radio exist?• Are there privately owned news radio stations that broadcast substantial, serious news reports?• Do independent news agencies provide news for print and broadcast media?• In the case of state-run or funded outlets, are they run with editorial independence and do theyprovide a range a diverse, non-partisan viewpoints?• NOTE: This question is usually scored to provide 0-2 points each for print, radio and TV forms ofnews media.2. Is media ownership transparent, thus allowing consumers to judge the impartiality ofthe news? (0-3 points)• Is it possible to ascertain the ownership structure of private media outlets?• Do media owners hold official positions in the government or in political parties, and are theselinks intentionally concealed from the public?• Are privately owned media seen to promote principles of public interest, diversity and plurality?3. Is media ownership highly concentrated and does it influence diversity of content? (0-3points)23

• Are publications or broadcast systems owned or controlled by industrial or commercialenterprises, or other powerful societal actors, whose influence and financial power lead toconcentration of ownership of the media and/or narrow control of the content of the media?• Is there an excessive concentration of media ownership in the hands of private interests who arelinked to state patronage or that of other powerful societal actors?• Are there media monopolies, significant vertical integration (control over all aspects of newsproduction and distribution), or substantial cross-ownership?• Does the state actively implement laws concerning concentration, monopolies, and crossownership?4. Are there restrictions on the means of news production and distribution? (0-4 points)• Is there a monopoly on the means of production, such as newsprint supplies, allocations of paper,film, or Internet service providers?• Are there private and non-state printing presses?• Are channels of news and information distribution (kiosks, transmitters, cable operators, Internet,mobile phones) able to operate freely?• Does the government exert pressure on independent media through the control of distributionfacilities?• Is there seizure or destruction of copies of newspapers, film, or production equipment?• Does geography or poor infrastructure (roads, electricity etc) limit dissemination of print,broadcast, or internet-based news sources throughout the country?5. Are there high costs associated with the establishment and operation of media outlets?(0-4 points)• Are there excessive fees associated with obtaining a radio frequency, registering a newspaper, orestablishing an ISP?• Are the costs of purchasing paper, newsprint, or broadcasting equipment subject to highadditional duties?• Are media outlets subject to excessive taxation or other levies compared to other industries?• Are there restrictions on foreign investment or non-investment foreign support/funding in themedia?6. Do the state or other actors try to control the media through allocation of advertising orsubsidies? (0-3 points)• Are subsidies for privately run newspapers or broadcasters allocated fairly?• Is government advertising allocated fairly and in an apolitical manner?• Is there use of withdrawal of advertising (i.e. government stops buying ad space in some papersor pressures private firms to boycott media outlets) as a way of influencing editorial decisions?7. Do journalists, bloggers, or media outlets receive payment from private or publicsources whose design is to influence their journalistic content? (0-3 points)• Do government officials or other actors pay journalists in order to cover or to avoid certainstories?• Are journalists often bribed?24

• Are pay levels for journalists and other media professionals sufficiently high to discouragebribery?• Do journalists or media outlets request bribes or other incentives in order to cover or hold certainstories?8. Does the overall economic situation negatively impact media outlets’ financialsustainability? (0-4 points)• Are media overly dependent on the state, political parties, big business, or other influentialpolitical actors for funding?• Is the economy so depressed or so dominated by the state that a private entrepreneur would find itdifficult to create a financially sustainable publication or broadcast outlet?• Is it possible for independent publications or broadcast outlets to remain financially viableprimarily by generating revenue from advertising or subscriptions?• Do foreign investors or donors play a large role in helping to sustain media outlets?• Are private owners subject to intense commercial pressures and competition, thus causing them totailor or cut news coverage in order for them to compete in the market or remain financiallyviable?25

PRESS FREEDOM IN 2012: MIDDLE EAST VOLATILITY AMID GLOBAL DECLINEby Karin Deutsch Karlekar and Jennifer DunhamOngoing political turmoil produced uneven conditions for press freedom in the Middle East in 2012, withTunisia and Libya largely retaining their gains from 2011 even as Egypt slid backward into the Not Freecategory. The region as a whole experienced a net decline for the year, in keeping with a broader globalpattern in which the percentage of people worldwide who enjoy a free media environment fell to itslowest point in more than a decade. Among the more disturbing developments in 2012 were dramaticdeclines for Mali, significant deterioration in Greece, and a further tightening of controls on pressfreedom in Latin America, punctuated by the decline of two countries, Ecuador and Paraguay, from PartlyFree to Not Free status.These were the most significant findings of Freedom of the Press 2013: A Global Survey of MediaIndependence, the latest edition of an annual index published by Freedom House since 1980. While therewere positive developments in Burma, the Caucasus, parts of West Africa, and elsewhere, the dominanttrends were reflected in setbacks in a range of political settings. Reasons for decline included thecontinued, increasingly sophisticated repression of independent journalism and new media byauthoritarian regimes; the ripple effects of the European economic crisis and longer-term challenges to thefinancial sustainability of print media; and ongoing threats from nonstate actors such as radical Islamistsand organized crime groups.The trend of overall decline occurred, paradoxically, in a context of increasingly diverse newssources and ever-expanding means of political communication. The growth of these new media hastriggered a repressive backlash by authoritarian regimes that have carefully controlled television and othermass media and are now alert to the dangers of unfettered political commentary online. Influentialpowers—such as China, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela—have long resorted to a variety of techniques tomaintain a tight grip on the media, detaining some press critics, closing down or otherwise censoringmedia outlets and blogs, and bringing libel or defamation suits against journalists. Russia, which adoptedadditional restrictions on internet content in 2012, set a negative tone for the rest of Eurasia, whereconditions remained largely grim. In China, the installation of a new Communist Party leadership did notproduce any immediate relaxation of constraints on either traditional media or the internet. In fact, theChinese regime, which boasts the world’s most intricate and elaborate system of media repression,stepped up its drive to limit both old and new sources of information through arrests and censorship.Authoritarian powers were joined in the Not Free camp by a total of five countries that hadpreviously ranked as Partly Free: Ecuador, Egypt, Guinea-Bissau, Paraguay, and Thailand. Thedisheartening reversal in Egypt was driven by a constellation of factors, including officially toleratedcampaigns to intimidate journalists, increased efforts to prosecute reporters and commentators forinsulting the political leadership or defaming religion, and intensified polarization of the pro– and anti–Muslim Brotherhood press, which reduced the availability of balanced coverage.Meanwhile, Ecuador’s slide into the Not Free range capped one of the largest cumulative declinesfor any country in the index over the past five years. The latest setbacks stem from President RafaelCorrea’s ongoing and multifaceted assault on the press, which has included attempts to hinder themonitoring roles of local and regional freedom of expression watchdogs. Other notable declines occurredin the Maldives, which remained Partly Free, and Cambodia and Kazakhstan, which were already NotFree.The past year also brought a series of declines in both established and young democracies. Mali,which had been Africa’s freest media environment for a number of years, suffered the year’s largestnumerical slide, and a status change to Partly Free, due to media restrictions associated with a militarycoup and the capture of the northern half of the country by Islamist militants. Meanwhile, political unrestand financial pressures brought on by the European economic crisis took a toll on media freedom inGreece, which fell into the Partly Free category as well. A more modest deterioration was noted in Israel,26

now rated Partly Free due to instances of political interference with content and financial pressure onindependent print outlets.As a result of declines in both authoritarian and democratic settings over the past several years, theproportion of the global population that enjoys a Free press has fallen to its lowest level in over a decade.The report found that less than 14 percent of the world’s people—or roughly one in six—live in countrieswhere coverage of political news is robust, the safety of journalists is guaranteed, state intrusion in mediaaffairs is minimal, and the press is not subject to onerous legal or economic pressures. Moreover, in themost recent five-year period, significant country declines have far outnumbered gains, suggesting thatattempts to restrict press freedom are widespread and challenges to expanding media diversity and accessto information remain considerable.There were some promising developments during the year to partially offset these worrisome trends.Positive movement occurred in a number of key countries in Asia (Afghanistan and Burma), Eurasia(Armenia and Georgia), and sub-Saharan Africa (Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Senegal,and Zimbabwe), as well as in Yemen. Many advances occurred in the context of new governments thateither rolled back restrictive legal and regulatory provisions or allowed greater space for vibrant andcritical media to operate. Particularly noteworthy was the continued dramatic opening in Burma, whichregistered the survey’s largest numerical improvement of the year due to people’s increased ability toaccess information and the release of imprisoned bloggers and video journalists, among other factors.Key Trends in 2012Heightened contestation over new media: Citizen journalists and their use of new media tools—including microblogs, online social networks, mobile telephones, and other information andcommunication technologies (ICTs)—have made major contributions to revolutions in the MiddleEast and prevented authoritarian regimes in China, Russia, and elsewhere from gaining totaldomination of the information landscape. However, a range of governments intensified efforts torestrict new media. Repressive measures included the passage or heightened use of new cybercrimelaws (Thailand, Russia); jailing of bloggers (Egypt, Gulf Arab states, Vietnam); and blocks on webbasedcontent and text-messaging services during periods of political upheaval (India, Tajikistan). Fair elections impossible without free press: Political contests in a number of key countries in 2012demonstrated that a level electoral playing field is impossible when the government, as inauthoritarian settings like Russia or Venezuela, is able to use its control over broadcast media to skewcoverage, and ultimately votes, in its favor. Among countries on an authoritarian trajectory, restrictivelaws on coverage of candidates in Ecuador and biased coverage by state media in Ukraine were alsoused to the ruling party’s advantage. By contrast, more balanced and open media coverage prior toelectoral contests in Armenia and Georgia helped lead to gains for opposition parties and, in Georgia,a peaceful transfer of power.Gains in West Africa: Despite the notable declines in Mali and Guinea-Bissau, West Africa as awhole continued to secure improved environments for media in 2012. A number of the gains tookplace in countries—such as Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal—where new governments demonstratedgreater respect for press freedom and engaged in less legal and physical harassment of journalists thantheir predecessors. Increased media diversity, including an array of private broadcasters that are ableto express critical opinions, was apparent in Liberia and Mauritania. Coming in the wake of recentimprovements in other countries, such as Niger and Sierra Leone, these changes made the subregion arelative bright spot during the year.Declines due to Europe’s economic crisis: The European economic crisis weakened press freedomin several countries. Notable declines were seen in Southern Europe, including in Greece, which fell27

into the Partly Free category, and Spain. Greek media suffered widespread staff cutbacks and someclosures of press outlets, as well as heightened legal and physical harassment of journalists. This inturn led to a sense that the mainstream press was no longer able to perform its watchdog role and keepcitizens adequately informed about election campaigns, austerity measures, corruption, and othercritical issues. The problems that have emerged in Southern Europe come on top of financialpressures that are plaguing press outlets in the Baltic states and elsewhere in Europe.The Global Picture in 2012Of the 197 countries and territories assessed during 2012, a total of 63 (32 percent) were rated Free, 70(36 percent) were rated Partly Free, and 64 (32 percent) were rated Not Free. This balance marks a shifttoward the Not Free category compared with the edition covering 2011, which featured 66 Free, 72 PartlyFree, and 59 Not Free countries and territories.The analysis found that less than 14 percent of the world’s inhabitants lived in countries with a Freepress, while 43 percent had a Partly Free press and 43 percent lived in Not Free environments. Thepopulation figures are significantly affected by two countries—China, with a Not Free status, and India,with a Partly Free status—that together account for over a third of the world’s nearly seven billion people.The percentage of those enjoying Free media in 2012 declined by another half point to the lowest levelsince 1996, when Freedom House began incorporating population data into the findings of the survey.Meanwhile, the share living in Not Free countries jumped by 2.5 percentage points, reflecting the moveby populous states such as Egypt and Thailand back into that category.After years of decline in the global average score that was interrupted by an improvement in 2011,there was a decline of 0.23 points for 2012, bringing the figure to its lowest level since 2004. All regionsexcept Asia-Pacific experienced declines of varying degrees. In terms of thematic categories, the drop inthe global average score was almost equally driven by declines the legal, political, and economic scores.There were a total of eight status changes, with most representing deterioration from Partly Free toNot Free. For the first time in the survey’s history, all the year’s status changes were in a negativedirection. In terms of significant numerical shifts of three or more points, the ratio was identical to that for2010 and 2011, with declines (12 countries) only slightly outnumbering gains (11 countries).Worst of the WorstThe world’s eight worst-rated countries, with scores of between 90 and 100 points, are Belarus, Cuba,Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. In these states, independentmedia are either nonexistent or barely able to operate, the press acts as a mouthpiece for the regime,citizens’ access to unbiased information is severely limited, and dissent is crushed through imprisonment,torture, and other forms of repression. In 2012, conditions worsened in Cuba, which fell from 91 to 92points, due to an increase in the number of arbitrary detentions, sometimes violent, of independentjournalists. Meanwhile, North Korea saw a slight improvement, from 97 to 96 points, as a result ofincreased attempts to circumvent stringent censorship and the use of technologies such as smuggledDVDs to spread news and information.Regional FindingsAmericas: In the Americas, 15 countries (43 percent) were rated Free, 14 (40 percent) were rated PartlyFree, and 6 (17 percent) were rated Not Free for 2012. In terms of the region’s population, 38 percentlived in Free countries, and 42 could be found in Partly Free media environments, with the remaining 20percent living in Not Free countries. These figures are significantly influenced by the open mediaenvironments of North America and much of the Caribbean, which tend to offset the less rosy picture inCentral and South America. In Latin America, meaning the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking parts of theregion, only 15 percent of the countries were rated Free, and just 1 percent of the population lived in Free28

media environments. The regional average score worsened, with gains in the political categoryovershadowed by declines in the legal and economic categories.Press freedom remained extremely restricted in Cuba, which has one of the most repressive mediaenvironments worldwide, and to a somewhat lesser extent in Venezuela, where the government ofPresident Hugo Chávez continued its efforts to control the press. Conditions in two other Not Freecountries—Honduras and Mexico—also remained challenging due to high levels of violence andintimidation against the media. However, Mexico passed two positive measures during the year: a law toprotect journalists and human rights defenders, and a constitutional amendment giving federal officialsthe authority to investigate and prosecute crimes against the press.The number of Not Free countries in the region swelled to its highest level since 1989, as Ecuadorand Paraguay fell out of the Partly Free camp. Paraguay’s status change required the loss of only onepoint, with the score shifting from 60 to 61 as an indirect result of the “parliamentary coup” that removedFernando Lugo as president in June. The new administration of President Federico Franco oversaw animmediate purge in the state media; 27 journalists lost their jobs at TV Pública, and there were overtattempts to influence editorial content at the channel. After several years of sustained threats to freedomof expression, fresh setbacks pushed Ecuador into the Not Free category as its score declined from 58 to61. A 2011 law that placed limitations on media coverage of electoral campaigns and candidates severelyrestricted the press’s ability to report on politics ahead of the February 2013 presidential election, and thelevel of investigative reporting more generally also declined. In addition, an order by President Correa towithdraw official advertising from privately owned media that are critical of the government threatened toplace financial pressure on these outlets. Because of a pattern of negative official rhetoric against thepress, legal and regulatory harassment, and physical intimidation of journalists, Ecuador’s score hasslipped by 17 points over the past five years, one of the most dramatic declines in the world.Moderate erosion was noted in Argentina due to executive pressure on judges regardingimplementation of a 2009 law that aims to diversify media ownership, as well as increased physicalattacks and verbal threats directed against journalists who are seen as critical of the government,particularly those affiliated with the Clarín media group. Brazil also suffered a two-point decline toreflect an increase in the number of journalists who were murdered during the year, coupled with theinfluence of political and business interests on media content. Legal action against bloggers and internetcompanies and proposed cybercrime laws also posed threats to freedom of expression.The United States remains one of the stronger performers in the index, but it faces severalchallenges, including a threat to media diversity stemming from poor economic conditions for the newsindustry, and a lack of protection-of-sources legislation at the federal level. During 2012, the limitedwillingness of high-level government officials to provide access and information to members of the presswas noted as a concern.Asia-Pacific: The Asia-Pacific region as a whole exhibited a relatively high level of press freedom in2012, with 15 countries and territories (37.5 percent) rated Free, 12 (30 percent) rated Partly Free, and 13(32.5 percent) rated Not Free. Yet the regionwide figures disguise considerable subregional diversity. Forexample, the Pacific Islands, Australasia, and parts of East Asia have some of the best-ranked mediaenvironments in the world, while conditions in South Asia, Southeast Asia, and other parts of East Asiaare significantly worse. The country breakdown also obscures the fact that only 5 percent of the region’spopulation had access to Free media in 2012, while 47 percent lived in Partly Free and 48 percent in NotFree media environments. The regional average score improved slightly for the year, as negativemovement in the legal category was outweighed by positive change in both the political and economiccategories.Asia includes one of the world’s worst-rated countries, North Korea, as well as several otherrestrictive media environments, such as China, Laos, and Vietnam. All of these settings feature extensivestate and party control of the press.China, although still home to the world’s most sophisticated censorship apparatus, registered amodest improvement as microblogs and other online tools enhanced Chinese citizens’ ability to share and29

access uncensored information, particularly regarding breaking news stories. Fewer cases of violenceagainst professional journalists and high-profile social media activists were reported than in 2011. Andseveral public outcries and online campaigns in 2012 were credited with driving the news agenda orforcing government concessions. The authorities responded to the challenges of controlling the news withinformation vacuums, heavy-handed propaganda pushes, and new restrictions on entertainmentprogramming, social-media platforms, and online videos. Constraints on print media were especially tightduring the year in advance of the sensitive Communist Party leadership transition in November.Journalists and internet users who disseminated information deemed undesirable by the party continued toface punishment, with dozens of cases of interrogation, dismissal, or imprisonment documented duringthe year. Conditions in Tibetan areas and for foreign journalists deteriorated. The promotion of a hard-lineveteran of the censorship system to the Politburo Standing Committee and subsequent measures toreinforce internet censorship and surveillance indicated the Communist Party’s commitment to retainingtight information controls even under the new leadership.Only one country in the region experienced a status change in 2012. Thailand, whose designationhas shifted several times over the past few years, moved from 60 to 62 points and back into the Not Freerange due to a trend of aggressive enforcement of lèse-majesté laws that was already apparent in late2011. Court decisions in 2012 found that the existing laws, which restrict speech deemed offensive to themonarchy, do not contradict the constitution’s provisions for freedom of expression, and that third-partyhosts may be held liable for online lèse-majesté violations. Harsh penalties continued to be handed downduring the year, and even convictions coupled with relatively lenient sentences threatened to encourageself-censorship. In one case, Chiranuch Premchaiporn, the webmaster of the news site Prachatai, receivedprobation and a suspended eight-month jail term for allowing 20 days to pass before she removed acomment deemed critical of the monarchy from the site’s message board.Negative trends were also apparent in Cambodia, whose score worsened from 63 to 66 due to anincrease in the number of journalists behind bars—including the notable case of independent radio stationowner Mam Sonando, who was convicted of sedition and sentenced to 20 years in prison for the outlet’scoverage of land disputes—and a significant rise in threats and physical violence against the press,including the first murder of a reporter since 2008. Meanwhile, in the Maldives, general political turmoilin which the president was removed from office led to pressures on media freedom and a score declinefrom 51 to 55. Issues of concern included the passage of a Freedom of Peaceful Assembly Act thatimposed new government accreditation requirements and other constraints on journalists; a significantincrease in government pressure on the Maldives Broadcasting Commission (MBC) after it assumedcontrol of all state-owned media; and an escalation in the intimidation, harassment, and violence directedtoward journalists and media outlets.Also in South Asia, Nepal’s score fell from 55 to 58 due to increased partisan influence on the mediain the period surrounding the May expiration of the Constituent Assembly’s mandate to write a newconstitution; increased violence and threats against journalists across the country during the year,including the murder of a journalist and a media owner; and the failure of the courts to punish perpetratorsof such violence. A smaller deterioration was noted in Sri Lanka, whose score moved from 72 to 74 toreflect an increase in verbal threats and intimidation against journalists by government officials, as well asthe sale of the Sunday Leader, formerly one of the island’s most independent newspapers, to an ownerwith close affiliation to the ruling party.In East Asia, Hong Kong’s score declined by two points, to 35, to reflect growing governmentrestrictions on journalists’ access to information and several violent and technical attacks againstreporters, websites, and media entities. In addition, Beijing’s efforts to influence media production in theterritory intensified and touched on internal Hong Kong politics, marking a departure from past trends inwhich the targets of Chinese pressure were primarily voices and topics regarded as politically sensitive onthe mainland. Meanwhile, Taiwan’s score declined slightly as regulatory delays in approving a licensefor a new television station compelled the owner to declare that the project was no longer financiallysustainable.30

Other countries in the region experienced significant improvements in 2012. In Afghanistan, acontinuing decrease in violence against journalists, the opening of a number of new private media outletsthat are free to criticize the government, and a decline in official censorship and prosecutions ofjournalists caused the score to improve from 74 to 67. Even more impressive gains were recorded inBurma, which earned the year’s largest numerical improvement worldwide, moving from 85 to 72 points.Building on openings in 2011, the country benefited from positive developments including the release ofimprisoned bloggers and video journalists, an end to official prepublication censorship and dissolution ofthe censorship body, the establishment of several independent journalists’ and publishers’ associations,fewer cases of harassment and attacks against journalists, improved access for the foreign media, greateraccess to foreign radio broadcasts and the internet, and some progress toward a new media law. However,restrictions remained on ethnic minority journalists and coverage of ethnic violence in Rakhine Stateduring the year. Among other issues of concern, efforts to repeal restrictive legislation and reconcile thenew media law with international press freedom standards encountered official resistance.Central and Eastern Europe/Eurasia: In the CEE/Eurasia region, 7 countries (24 percent) remainedclassified as Free, 13 (45 percent) were rated Partly Free, and 9 (31 percent) were rated Not Free.However, a majority of the people in this region (56 percent) lived in Not Free media environments, while29 percent lived in Partly Free countries and only 15 percent had access to Free media—the smallestshare in a decade. The regional average score underwent a modest decline, led by negative movement inthe economic category. The average for the Eurasia subregion remained the worst in the world, at 75;meanwhile, deterioration in the typically better-performing subregion of Central and Eastern Europecontinued in 2012, again especially in the economic category.It is notable that three of the eight worst press freedom abusers in the entire survey—Belarus,Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan—are found in Eurasia, with Turkmenistan now tied with North Korea forlast place in the index at 96 points. Other countries of special concern include Russia, Azerbaijan, andKazakhstan. The media environment in Russia, whose score declined by one point to 81, is characterizedby the use of a pliant judiciary to prosecute independent journalists, impunity for the physical harassmentand murder of journalists, and continued state control or influence over almost all traditional mediaoutlets. Following Vladimir Putin’s return to the presidency in May 2012, which was aided by anoverwhelming media advantage ahead of the March election, the regime enacted a series of laws thatcould be used to further restrict media freedom, included a broadly worded measure allowing for thecensorship of internet-based content that took effect in November. The situation in Russia is mitigatedsomewhat by a recent increase in use of the internet, social media, and satellite television to disseminateand access news and information. However, new media users have yet to achieve a real breakthrough inreaching the general public in Russia, and face an uphill battle against a range of political, economic,legal, and extralegal tools at the disposal of the authorities.In Kazakhstan, which suffered a three-point decline from 81 to 84, the authorities narrowed thespace for independent voices even further in 2012 by banning around 40 opposition media outlets andstepping up violence and legal persecution of the remaining independent and critical journalists.Azerbaijan’s score declined by two points, to 82, due to an increase in violence against journalists andlegal amendments that limited access to information.Ukraine followed its three-point drop in 2011 with a decline from 59 to 60—just short of the NotFree range—due to the politicized nature of the digital licensing process, which resulted in a number ofindependent stations losing their licenses. The year 2012 also featured the abuse of state media to favor ofthe ruling Party of Regions during parliamentary elections, as well as an escalation in threats and attackson journalists in the preelection period.Conditions in Hungary, which was downgraded to Partly Free in 2011, remained steady in 2012,though there were persistent concerns regarding extensive legislative and regulatory changes that havetightened government control of the media. A series of rulings by Hungary’s Constitutional Court andlegal amendments adopted to meet objections from the European Commission in 2011 and 2012 havedone little to curb the power of a new media authority controlled by the ruling Fidesz party. Meanwhile,the critical radio station Klubradio had yet to regain control of its main frequency at year’s end.31

The most significant numerical improvements in the region occurred in the Caucasus. Georgia,whose score moved from 52 to 49, benefited from increased political diversity in the television market,including through the return of Imedi TV to its previous private owners. Armenia improved from 65 to61 points because media coverage of the parliamentary elections was generally more balanced than inprevious election periods, opposition parties made greater use of online media, harassment and violenceagainst journalists declined compared with the last election year, and there was a dramatic reduction indefamation or slander complaints against journalists.Middle East and North Africa: The Middle East and North Africa region continued to have the world’spoorest ratings in 2012, with no countries ranked in the Free category, 5 (26 percent) designated PartlyFree, and 14 (74 percent) assessed as Not Free. Similarly, in terms of the breakdown by population, noneof the region’s people lived in Free media environments, 8 percent lived in Partly Free countries, and thevast majority, 92 percent, lived in countries or territories that were designated Not Free. Although newinformation platforms—including blogs, social media such as Twitter and Facebook, and smartphones—have had a positive impact, traditional media in much of the region were still constrained by emergencyrule, state ownership and editorial directives, harsh blasphemy legislation, and laws against insultingmonarchs and public figures. Moreover, ruling authorities have stepped up efforts to control new mediausing similar measures as well as censorship and surveillance. Following significant positive movementin the regional average score in 2011, particularly in the legal and political categories, there was somebacksliding in 2012, with improvements in the legal and economic categories outweighed by declines inthe political category.In 2011, the Arab Spring uprisings led to extraordinary openings in Libya and Tunisia, and moremodest improvements in Egypt. However, these gains were not yet supported by a broad array ofinstitutional, legal, and regulatory structures in 2012, remaining tenuous in the first two countries andquickly eroding in the third. Libya saw positive developments in the legal sphere, with the transitionalcharter providing a measure of respect for freedom of expression and the constitutional court overrulinggovernment proposals that would have restricted media freedom. In addition, access to officialinformation and government ministries has improved in practice. Nevertheless, the poor security situationin the country hindered the work of journalists, with unclear accreditation rules imposed by variousmilitias and a number of reporters detained as they attempted to cover sensitive stories. Overall, Libya’sscore improved by one point, to 59, for 2012. Tunisia also presented a mixed picture. Access toinformation and official sources improved in practice. However, a new constitution had yet to be passed,and language added to the draft would allow restrictions on freedom of expression in the name ofmorality and decency. Increased polarization of the media landscape, in which both the government andthe opposition influenced editorial content, coupled with intimidation and attacks against independentreporters by government supporters and hard-line Islamist groups, led to an overall score decline of onepoint, to 52.Egypt underwent significant backsliding in 2012, with its score dropping from 57 to 62 points andits status reverting to Not Free. The new constitution, passed in December, enshrined the right to freedomof the press, but it allows for limitations based on social, cultural, and political grounds, and prescribeslegal punishments for overstepping these limits. In addition, in a number of cases brought against thepress during the year, the judiciary came under pressure from Islamist groups and issued rulings againstthe journalists involved. The level of violence and intimidation against journalists and media outletsremained high, with the death of a journalist covering a protest in December and numerous instances ofphysical harassment at the hands of police, political party supporters, and hard-line Islamist groups.Media polarization increased in the wake of the June election of the Muslim Brotherhood’s MohamedMorsi as president, with outlets aligned into pro- or anti-Islamist factions, government favoritism towardpro-Islamist outlets, and official pressure placed on state-owned media. Moreover, the explosion of new,independent outlets in 2011 proved difficult to sustain economically; a number of outlets were forced toclose or cut back, contributing to the continued prominence of state-controlled media.32

Across the Arabian Peninsula, governments systematically cracked down on the media to stiflegrowing political dissent. After its precipitous drop in 2011, the score for Bahrain continued todeteriorate in 2012, falling an additional two points to 86 as the government’s censorship and intimidationof journalists intensified. Kuwait, long considered one of the freer media environments in the area, alsodeclined by two points, to 59, as its ongoing political crisis led to the shutdown of multiple media outletsand widespread arrests of journalists who used Twitter to spread information on demonstrations. Theauthorities in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) also escalated their efforts to silence critics of theregime, arresting bloggers, blocking access to dissidents’ Facebook and Twitter accounts, and passing ahighly restrictive yet vaguely worded law to criminalize the online dissemination of news that could“endanger national security” or “harm the reputation of the regime.” The UAE’s score consequentlydeclined by two points to 74.The only country on the peninsula with a net improvement was Yemen, whose score rose from 83 to79 because the government allowed private radio stations for the first time; this, combined with the risingnumber of television outlets, led to an increase in media diversity. In addition, the government passed afreedom of information act, and the level of violence against journalists decreased relative to the previousyear. Yemen’s improvement is the first in five years among the countries on the Arabian Peninsula.In Syria, the worsening civil war has transformed the media landscape. The government continues toforcibly restrict coverage of the conflict and misreport events via state-run television stations, andjournalists and bloggers operate in an environment of considerable fear and insecurity. However, the lossof centralized control in large swathes of the country has allowed a rise in citizen journalism, the openingof new media outlets, and a decline in self-censorship. This has been crucial for the dissemination ofinformation about the conflict, including reports of atrocities, to an international audience, and led to aone-point improvement in Syria’s score in 2012, to 88. At the same time, the new outlets are generallyaligned with the opposition, leading to a highly polarized news environment.Israel, an outlier in the region due to its traditionally free and diverse press, nevertheless experiencedseveral challenges during 2012, resulting in an overall one-point decline for a score of 31 and a statusdowngrade to Partly Free. Although several Supreme Court rulings during the year were supportive ofjournalists’ rights, reporter Uri Blau was indicted for possession of state secrets, marking the first timethis law had been used against a journalist in several decades. Blau ultimately pleaded guilty and avoidedprison time. Instances of interference with the content of Israeli Broadcasting Authority radio programsraised concern over political influence at the public broadcaster, as did the direct involvement of theprime minister’s office in protracted negotiations over a license renewal for the private television stationChannel 10. Finally, the newspaper industry suffered from the cumulative, multiyear impact of IsraelHayom, a free paper owned and subsidized by American businessman Sheldon Adelson that is openlyaligned with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and has grown to become the largest-circulation daily.With advertising prices falling under pressure from Israel Hayom, the daily Maariv went bankrupt andwas bought out by a rival newspaper owner toward the end of 2012; the handover was accompanied bysignificant layoffs.Sub-Saharan Africa: Four (8 percent) of the 49 countries in sub-Saharan Africa were rated Free, 23 (47percent) were rated Partly Free, and 22 (45 percent) were rated Not Free. In terms of population, 3percent lived in Free media environments, while a majority (56 percent) lived with Partly Free media and41 percent lived in Not Free settings. The regional average score underwent a modest decline, causedpredominantly by a deterioration in the political category. Press freedom conditions remained dire inEquatorial Guinea and Eritrea, two of the world’s eight worst performers. Their authoritariangovernments continued to use legal pressure, imprisonment, and other forms of harassment to suppressindependent reporting.Mali, traditionally one of Africa’s top performers, suffered the index’s largest single-year decline ina decade, falling from 24 to 46 points and from Free to Partly Free due to repression of the media in thesouth as a result of the March military coup, and the near-complete suppression of press freedom in thenorth, which was seized by Islamist militants. Violations in the south included a temporary suspension of33

the constitution, arbitrary arrests of journalists, the takeover of the state broadcaster, and restrictions onreporting on the coup. In the north, militants closed or took over nearly all outlets and imposed a crudeimitation of Islamic law. Harassment and attacks on journalists were prevalent in both sections of thecountry. In Guinea-Bissau, the score dropped from 57 to 65 and the status fell from Partly Free to NotFree due to restrictions on coverage of an April 2012 coup and subsequent protests, as well as increasedabuse and intimidation of journalists by the military.Several gains in West Africa offset the two major declines in the subregion. Côte d’Ivoire jumpedfrom 70 to 61 points—the largest numerical improvement of the year other than Burma’s—due to thegenerally less restrictive legal and political environment for the press under the government of PresidentAlassane Ouattara, including a decrease in harassment and attacks on foreign and local journalists, morespace for critical reporting, and the opening up of radio and television airwaves to private broadcasters. InSenegal, the score improved from 55 to 52 due to an improved climate for the press under new presidentMacky Sall, including a reduction in the use of restrictive laws against the media and a decrease inharassment and attacks against journalists. Liberia’s score improved from 60 to 56, a result of reducedpressure from libel and slander laws, an increased diversity of opinion in the media, and a reduction inviolence against journalists. Mauritania moved from 52 to 47 points due to a decline in extralegalintimidation and libel suits against journalists, the licensing and launch of new radio stations, increasedinclusion of women in the media sector, and moves toward a greater role for media professionals in theregulatory body.In southern Africa, Malawi reversed its decline of 2011, registering a seven-point improvement,from 60 to 53, due to the repeal of a restrictive media law and a reduction in official censorship,intimidation, harassment, and violence against journalists after Joyce Banda took over as president inApril. Zimbabwe’s score improved from 80 to 77 due to a decline in serious cases of attacks onjournalists as well as the increased influence of private and exile media, which led to a greater diversity ofviews. Meanwhile, in Madagascar, the ongoing political crisis sparked by a 2009 coup contributed to athree-point decline, from 63 to 66. The media sector suffered from an increase in defamation charges andconvictions against high-profile journalists, the closure of a prominent opposition radio station as a resultof prolonged intimidation and harassment by the de facto government, and the continued highconcentration of media ownership in the hands of political elites.South Africa’s performance has steadily eroded in recent years due to state interference in the publicbroadcaster, an increasingly hostile climate for government critics, and progression through the legislatureof the Protection of State Information Bill, which would allow government officials and state agencies towithhold a wide range of information in the national interest or on national security grounds. Thecountry’s score dropped another point, to 35, for 2012 due to de facto restrictions on media coverage ofwildcat mining strikes in August and September.Western Europe: Western Europe has consistently boasted the highest level of press freedom worldwide.In 2012, 22 countries (88 percent) were rated Free and 3 (12 percent) were rated Partly Free. In terms ofpopulation, 70 percent of the region’s residents enjoyed a Free press, while 30 percent lived in Partly Freemedia environments. However, the regional average score declined considerably in 2012, led by erosionin the political and especially the economic categories. Norway and Sweden remained the world’s topperformingcountries, with overall scores of 10.The region’s largest numerical changes in 2012 were driven by the ongoing European economiccrisis. Greece dropped from 30 to 41 points due to closures of, or cutbacks at, numerous print andbroadcast outlets, and a related reduction in media diversity and effective reporting about the country’spolitical and economic situation. Other side effects of the crisis included the case of journalist KostasVaxevanis, who was arrested and charged with violation of privacy for publishing a list of alleged taxevaders; politically motivated firings and suspensions at both state and private media; and physical attacksagainst journalists by the far-right Golden Dawn party.Spain’s media environment also suffered as a result of the economic crisis and a related series ofausterity measures, with its score declining from 24 to 27 points. Media diversity was affected as the34

advertising market contracted and a number of outlets closed, cut staff, or reduced salaries. Severaljournalists at RTVE, the state-owned broadcaster, were removed after voicing criticism of thegovernment’s controversial fiscal policies. Due in part to economic pressures, Italy’s score remained at33, with a Partly Free status, despite a decrease in political influence over media content since SilvioBerlusconi’s departure from the premiership in late 2011. Cyprus showed a three-point decline, from 22to 25, owing to the closure of several television stations that were unable to afford the cost of new digitallicenses, and the resulting decrease in local media diversity.Turkey remained a regional outlier with a score of 56, deep inside the Partly Free range, as thegovernment continued to crack down on journalists in 2012. Constitutional guarantees of freedom of thepress and expression are only partially upheld in practice, undermined by restrictive provisions in thecriminal code and the Anti-Terrorism Act. Thanks to detentions stemming from investigations into thealleged Ergenekon coup conspiracy and a crackdown on suspected Kurdish militants, Turkey remainsamong the nations with the most journalists behind bars in the world.Improvements were seen in France due to laws and court rulings that enhanced protection ofsources, and in the Netherlands because of the repeal of a blasphemy law, although certain restrictionsare still in place. In the United Kingdom, a pending bill to reform the country’s libel laws, which heavilyfavor the plaintiff, was seen as a positive step. However, media freedom advocates as well as PrimeMinister David Cameron criticized a November 2012 report by Lord Justice Leveson—launched in thewake of the 2011 News of the World phone-hacking scandal—that recommended the establishment ofstatutory regulation for the British press.35

Rank 2013 Country Rating StatusMalta 22 FreeSlovakia 22 Free39 Grenada 23 Free40 Dominica 24 FreeJapan 24 FreeLithuania 24 FreeSlovenia 24 FreeSuriname 24 Free45 Cyprus 25 FreeVanuatu 25 Free47 Poland 26 FreeTaiwan 26 FreeTrinidad and Tobago 26 FreeTuvalu 26 FreeUruguay 26 Free52 Cape Verde 27 FreeKiribati 27 FreeSpain 27 Free55 Ghana 28 FreeLatvia 28 FreeNauru 28 FreePapua New Guinea 28 FreeSão Tomé and Príncipe 28 FreeSolomon Islands 28 Free61 Samoa 29 FreeTonga 29 Free63 Mauritius 30 Free64 Chile 31 Partly FreeIsrael 31 Partly FreeNamibia 31 Partly FreeSouth Korea 31 Partly Free68 Guyana 33 Partly FreeItaly 33 Partly Free70 Benin 34 Partly Free71 East Timor 35 Partly FreeHong Kong 35 Partly FreeSouth Africa 35 Partly Free74 Hungary 36 Partly FreeMontenegro 36 Partly Free37

Rank 2013 Country Rating StatusSerbia 36 Partly Free77 Bulgaria 37 Partly FreeMongolia 37 Partly Free79 Antigua and Barbuda 38 Partly FreeIndia 38 Partly Free81 Croatia 40 Partly FreeDominican Republic 40 Partly Free83 Botswana 41 Partly FreeEl Salvador 41 Partly FreeGreece 41 Partly Free86 Burkina Faso 42 Partly FreeMozambique 42 Partly FreeRomania 42 Partly Free89 Peru 43 Partly FreePhilippines 43 Partly Free91 Brazil 46 Partly FreeMali 46 Partly Free93 Mauritania 47 Partly Free94 Bolivia 48 Partly FreePanama 48 Partly Free96 Albania 49 Partly FreeBosnia and Herzegovina 49 Partly FreeComoros 49 Partly FreeGeorgia 49 Partly FreeHaiti 49 Partly FreeIndonesia 49 Partly FreeKosovo 49 Partly FreeLesotho 49 Partly FreeSierra Leone 49 Partly Free105 Niger 50 Partly Free106 Nicaragua 51 Partly FreeNigeria 51 Partly FreeTanzania 51 Partly Free109 Argentina 52 Partly FreeSenegal 52 Partly FreeTunisia 52 Partly Free112 Bangladesh 53 Partly FreeColombia 53 Partly FreeKenya 53 Partly Free38

Rank 2013 Country Rating StatusLebanon 53 Partly FreeMalawi 53 Partly FreeMoldova 53 Partly Free118 Maldives 55 Partly FreeUganda 55 Partly Free120 Congo (Brazzaville) 56 Partly FreeFiji 56 Partly FreeLiberia 56 Partly FreeMacedonia 56 Partly FreeSeychelles 56 Partly FreeTurkey 56 Partly Free126 Bhutan 58 Partly FreeNepal 58 Partly Free128 Guatemala 59 Partly FreeKuwait 59 Partly FreeLibya 59 Partly Free131 South Sudan 60 Partly FreeUkraine 60 Partly FreeZambia 60 Partly Free134 Algeria 61 Not FreeArmenia 61 Not FreeCôte d’Ivoire 61 Not FreeEcuador 61 Not FreeMexico 61 Not FreeParaguay 61 Not Free140 Central African Republic 62 Not FreeEgypt 62 Not FreeGuinea 62 Not FreeHonduras 62 Not FreeThailand 62 Not Free145 Jordan 63 Not Free146 Malaysia 64 Not FreePakistan 64 Not Free148 Guinea-Bissau 65 Not Free149 Cambodia 66 Not FreeCameroon 66 Not FreeMadagascar 66 Not FreeMorocco 66 Not Free153 Afghanistan 67 Not Free39

Rank 2013 Country Rating StatusIraq 67 Not FreeQatar 67 Not FreeSingapore 67 Not Free157 Angola 68 Not Free158 Kyrgyzstan 69 Not Free159 Togo 70 Not Free160 Gabon 71 Not FreeOman 71 Not Free162 Burma 72 Not FreeBurundi 72 Not Free164 Djibouti 74 Not FreeSri Lanka 74 Not FreeUnited Arab Emirates 74 Not Free167 Brunei 75 Not Free168 Chad 76 Not FreeVenezuela 76 Not Free170 Swaziland 77 Not FreeZimbabwe 77 Not Free172 Tajikistan 79 Not FreeYemen 79 Not Free174 Rwanda 80 Not FreeSudan 80 Not Free176 Russia 81 Not Free177 Azerbaijan 82 Not FreeEthiopia 82 Not Free179 China 83 Not FreeCongo (Kinshasa) 83 Not FreeThe Gambia 83 Not Free182 Kazakhstan 84 Not FreeLaos 84 Not FreeSaudi Arabia 84 Not FreeSomalia 84 Not FreeVietnam 84 Not FreeWest Bank and Gaza Strip 84 Not Free188 Bahrain 86 Not Free189 Syria 88 Not Free190 Equatorial Guinea 91 Not Free191 Cuba 92 Not FreeIran 92 Not Free40

Rank 2013 Country Rating Status193 Belarus 93 Not Free194 Eritrea 94 Not Free195 Uzbekistan 95 Not Free196 North Korea 96 Not FreeTurkmenistan 96 Not FreeStatus Number of Countries Percentage of TotalFree 63 32Partly Free 70 36Not Free 64 32TOTAL 197 10041

AMERICASRank 2013 Country Rating Status1 St. Lucia 15 Free2 St. Vincent and Grenadines 17 Free3 Barbados 18 FreeCosta Rica 18 FreeJamaica 18 FreeUnited States of America 18 Free7 Bahamas 19 Free8 Canada 20 FreeSt. Kitts and Nevis 20 Free10 Belize 22 Free11 Grenada 23 Free12 Dominica 24 FreeSuriname 24 Free14 Trinidad and Tobago 26 FreeUruguay 26 Free16 Chile 31 Partly Free17 Guyana 33 Partly Free18 Antigua and Barbuda 38 Partly Free19 Dominican Republic 40 Partly Free20 El Salvador 41 Partly Free21 Peru 43 Partly Free22 Brazil 46 Partly Free23 Bolivia 48 Partly FreePanama 48 Partly Free25 Haiti 49 Partly Free26 Nicaragua 51 Partly Free27 Argentina 52 Partly Free28 Colombia 53 Partly Free29 Guatemala 59 Partly Free30 Ecuador 61 Not FreeMexico 61 Not FreeParaguay 61 Not Free33 Honduras 62 Not Free34 Venezuela 76 Not Free35 Cuba 92 Not Free42

ASIA-PACIFICRank 2013 Country Rating Status1 New Zealand 16 FreePalau 16 Free3 Marshall Islands 17 Free4 Australia 21 FreeMicronesia 21 Free6 Japan 24 Free7 Vanuatu 25 Free8 Taiwan (ROC) 26 FreeTuvalu 26 Free10 Kiribati 27 Free11 Nauru 28 FreePapua New Guinea 28 FreeSolomon Islands 28 Free14 Samoa 29 FreeTonga 29 Free16 South Korea 31 Partly Free17 East Timor 35 Partly FreeHong Kong 35 Partly Free19 Mongolia 37 Partly Free20 India 38 Partly Free21 Philippines 43 Partly Free22 Indonesia 49 Partly Free23 Bangladesh 53 Partly Free24 Maldives 55 Partly Free25 Fiji 56 Partly Free26 Bhutan 58 Partly FreeNepal 58 Partly Free28 Thailand 62 Not Free29 Malaysia 64 Not FreePakistan 64 Not Free31 Cambodia 66 Not Free32 Afghanistan 67 Not FreeSingapore 67 Not Free34 Burma 72 Not Free35 Sri Lanka 74 Not Free36 Brunei 75 Not Free44

Rank 2013 Country Rating Status37 China (PRC) 83 Not Free38 Laos 84 Not FreeVietnam 84 Not Free40 North Korea 96 Not FreeStatus Number of Countries Percentage of TotalFree 15 37.5Partly Free 13 30Not Free 12 32.5TOTAL 40 100Subregion ComparisonAsia-PacificStatus Number of CountriesAverage PressFreedom ScoreAsia-Pacific 40 47Asia Proper 26 58Pacific Islands 14 2645

Subregion ComparisonCentral and Eastern Europe/EurasiaStatus Number of CountriesAverage PressFreedom ScoreCEE/Eurasia 29 51Central andEastern Europe17 35Eurasia 12 7547

MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICARank 2013 Country Rating Status1 Israel 31 Partly Free2 Tunisia 52 Partly Free3 Lebanon 53 Partly Free4 Kuwait 59 Partly FreeLibya 59 Partly Free6 Algeria 61 Not Free7 Egypt 62 Not Free8 Jordan 63 Not Free9 Morocco 66 Not Free10 Iraq 67 Not FreeQatar 67 Not Free12 Oman 71 Not Free13 United Arab Emirates 74 Not Free14 Yemen 79 Not Free15 Saudi Arabia 84 Not FreeWest Bank and Gaza Strip 84 Not Free17 Bahrain 86 Not Free18 Syria 88 Not Free19 Iran 92 Not FreeStatus Number of Countries Percentage of TotalFree 0 0Partly Free 5 26Not Free 14 74TOTAL 19 10048

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICARank 2013 Country Rating Status1 Cape Verde 27 Free2 Ghana 28 FreeSão Tomé and Príncipe 28 Free4 Mauritius 30 Free5 Namibia 31 Partly Free6 Benin 34 Partly Free7 South Africa 35 Partly Free8 Botswana 41 Partly Free9 Burkina Faso 42 Partly FreeMozambique 42 Partly Free11 Mali 46 Partly Free12 Mauritania 47 Partly Free13 Comoros 49 Partly FreeLesotho 49 Partly FreeSierra Leone 49 Partly Free16 Niger 50 Partly Free17 Nigeria 51 Partly FreeTanzania 51 Partly Free19 Senegal 52 Partly Free20 Kenya 53 Partly FreeMalawi 53 Partly Free22 Uganda 55 Partly Free23 Congo (Brazzaville) 56 Partly FreeLiberia 56 Partly FreeSeychelles 56 Partly Free26 South Sudan 60 Partly FreeZambia 60 Partly Free28 Côte d’Ivoire 61 Not Free29 Central African Republic 62 Not FreeGuinea 62 Not Free31 Guinea-Bissau 65 Not Free32 Cameroon 66 Not FreeMadagascar 66 Not Free34 Angola 68 Not Free35 Togo 70 Not Free36 Gabon 71 Not Free49

Global DataYear UnderReviewGlobal Trends in Press FreedomFree Countries Partly Free Countries Not Free CountriesNumber Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage2012 63 32 70 36 64 322002 75 40 50 27 61 331992 67 38 50 28 60 341982 36 23 31 20 89 5752

Regional Data53

Countries with a Net Annual Change of 3 or More Points57

Freedom of the Press 2013Country ReportsAfghanistanStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 20Political Environment: 28Economic Environment: 19Total Score: 67Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 71,NF 74,NF 76,NF 75,NF 74,NFMedia freedom improved markedly due to a decline in attacks against journalists in 2012,coupled with an increasingly vibrant and diverse media landscape and a decrease in cases oflegal harassment and censorship against journalists and media outlets. However, a number ofchallenges and potential risks, including some instances of censorship; violence, insecurity, and alack of physical protection for journalists; and a proposed media law that could further restrictpress freedom.Article 34 of the constitution allows for freedom of the press and of expression, and thecurrent Mass Media Law, which came into effect in 2009, guarantees the right of citizens toobtain information and prohibits censorship. However, there are broad restrictions on any contentthat is seen as “contrary to the principles of Islam or offensive to other religions and sects.” Fourmedia laws have been approved since 2002, and many journalists are unsure as to which appliesin different circumstances, resulting in self-censorship to avoid violating cultural norms oroffending local sensitivities. Article 130 of the constitution stipulates that courts and Islamicjurists can rule on cases “in a way that attains justice in the best manner,” allowing for ambiguityand discriminatory rulings. Under Afghan law, cases involving journalists should be handled bythe Media Commission, but this rule is not always observed in practice. In May 2012, authoritiesarrested and detained journalist Nasto Naderi for seven days for “false accusations” againstgovernment officials after broadcasting a program critical of the mayor of Kabul. In June, theattorney general launched a libel investigation against Pajhwok News Agency for an articlealleging that legislators accepted bribes.In 2012, the Afghan government drafted a new Mass Media Law, which would give thestate increased control over the press. In addition, the proposed law would create civil sanctionsfor a long list of vaguely defined media violations, from changing bylaws to illegallybroadcasting foreign programs. Media activists and rights groups complained that thegovernment had not allowed time for their input before putting the bill in front of thelegislature. The media community also voiced concern that the draft would undermine freeexpression, restricting the ability of the media to debate or report on areas such as nationalsecurity and religion. The draft remained under debate during the year and had not been passedby year’s end.59

Afghanistan has yet to pass a freedom of information bill. In 2012, local media and civilsociety organizations urged the government to consider such a law, which would ensure the rightto access public information and provide a functional mechanism for obtaining it. However, thecall was largely ignored by the government.All proprietors of mass media must be registered by the government through the Ministryof Information and Culture and the licensing process, though potentially lengthy, is open withminimal regulations. In recent years, an oversaturated media market caused the AfghanTelecommunications Regulatory Authority (ATRA), the body responsible for frequencyassignments, to run out of radio licenses for Kabul due to a lack of available frequencies.In 2012, media were generally given more freedom to cover a number of cases of humanrights abuses and corruption scandals, as well as taboo topics (such as rape), which in some casesinvolved officials. New and social media have been relatively open in Afghanistan, though thegovernment still imposes online censorship. On September 12, the Ministry of Communicationsblocked the YouTube and Google websites to prevent people from watching a controversialU.S.-made video about the prophet Muhammad that had sparked demonstrations in the Muslimworld. Google’s website was unblocked later in September, but YouTube was blocked untilDecember. The Afghan government also blacklists websites deemed to promote vices such asalcohol, gambling, pornography, and improper social relationships, and has at times put pressureon news sites as well.The ongoing military conflict has entailed serious threats against journalists from variousstate and nonstate actors, and physical security remains an issue of great concern. However,according to Nai, an Afghan organization supporting free media, there was a 14 percent declinein violence against journalists compared to 2011, with 69 cases of violence against journalistsreported in 2012, including two deaths. In February, unknown assailants stabbed and decapitatedthe manager of Radio Melma, a private radio station in Paktika province. Then in July, AbdulHadi Hamdard, a presenter and producer for the state-owned Radio and Television ofAfghanistan, was killed in a roadside bomb blast in the southern province of Helmand.Journalists in Afghanistan routinely face violence, threats, and intimidation by security forces,civilian officials, and the local elite, including some members of parliament. In May, journalistMohamad Agaha Ghane was injured when a bomb destroyed the office of Dunya Radio. Thestation director had received prior threats. The Taliban appeared to be somewhat more hesitant inconfronting the media, lessening their direct threats against media organizations and journalists,though at least one foreign journalist was kidnapped and the group did destroy a number ofmobile telephone towers during the year. In 2012, the insurgent group also engaged moreactively in the media sphere, regularly updating its website and issuing a number of “correctingstatements” and “explanations” to deny or clarify reports that appeared about it in the media.The media landscape is saturated, with more than 400 print media outlets (publishing inall of the languages in the country), around 150 radio stations, and more than 75 televisionstations operating in 2012. Radio is still the main source of news and information for mostAfghans, especially in the rural areas, though television is making significant inroads asownership of sets has risen. Newspaper readership is low, mainly due to the nation’s poorliteracy rate of around 30 percent. Other factors affecting readership of newspapers includedistribution problems, competition from numerous broadcast choices and shrinking revenue.International radio broadcasts in Dari or Pashto—such as those from the British BroadcastingCorporation (BBC), Voice of America, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty—remain keysources of news for many Afghans. The government owns some media outlets, but most are in60

private hands. However, private ownership and funding of media reflects the disparate politicaland cultural forces present in Afghanistan, leading to a highly partisan media environment.Major sources of support for media outlets include political parties, ethnic groups, the military,international donors, and foreign governments such as those in Iran and Pakistan, all of whichare seeking influence in the country. Private broadcasters, particularly those that arecommercially viable, such as Tolo TV, are able to exercise the greatest amount of independencein their reporting.International and local media organizations have for the past decade been promotingtraining programs aimed at developing a genuinely independent media sector, and have beenfairly successful in this regard. However, a number of analysts have raised concern about thepossible negative impact on media freedom with the gradual withdrawal of foreign forces fromAfghanistan, due to be completed by the end of 2014, noting that the country’s vibrant press willface a crisis of survival if it does not continue to receive international funding, which launchedand has kept alive many of the country’s media organizations. In 2012, some smaller outlets hadalready begun cutting staffing and programming to make up for the expected financial shortfall,with an estimated 700 journalists losing their jobs by mid-year. However, financial constraintsdo not seem to pose as severe a threat to the successful commercial channels, as they have morediverse sources of income.Illiteracy and infrastructural obstacles have hampered internet penetration, with 5 percentof the population regularly accessing the medium in 2012. There are thousands of blogs in thecountry, and social media use is growing, especially among young people in urban areas. Mobilephones are Afghanistan’s principal means of communication, with more than approximately 45percent of Afghans owning mobile phones. People are increasingly receiving news headlines ontheir mobile phones, and also participate in call-in radio and television shows via this medium.The recent launch of 3G mobile phone services and relatively cheaper and faster internet accesshas further empowered citizen journalism.AlbaniaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 15Political Environment: 17Economic Environment: 17Total Score: 49Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 50,PF 50,PF 50,PF 50,PF 51,PFThe constitution guarantees freedom of the press, and the media are vigorous and fairly diverse.However, outlets often display a strong political bias, and their reporting is influenced by theeconomic or political interests of their owners. Libel remains a criminal offense, though legalreforms enacted in March 2012 eliminated prison terms as a punishment, leaving only fines. Thefirst criminal libel case against a reporter in several years, brought by a cabinet official againstjournalist Lindita Çela of the daily Shekulli in February, was quickly dismissed. Civil defamationsuits, including among politicians, remain common. Changes to the civil code enacted in61

February set limits on financial penalties for defamation in order to protect the survival of mediaoutlets. The government of Prime Minister Sali Berisha has in the past used administrativemechanisms, including tax investigations and arbitrary evictions from state-owned buildings, todisrupt the operations of media outlets it perceives as hostile. Freedom of information legislationis poorly implemented, and regulatory bodies are seen as highly politicized.The media have played an important role in exposing political corruption, though theimplicated officials are rarely punished by the courts. In January 2011, an investigative programon Top Channel aired a video recording—acquired from former economy minister DritanPrifti—that appeared to show Deputy Prime Minister Ilir Meta discussing corrupt activities.Meta resigned after the video was aired, but the broadcast nevertheless touched off violentopposition protests and a major political crisis that included government pressure on keyjournalists. However, in January 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the case against Meta, citinga lack of evidence. Prosecutors in September dropped a related case against Prifti for similarreasons. Separately, in July 2012, a high-ranking army officer resigned after the media reported aconflict of interest involving his wife’s business activities.Journalists are sometimes physically obstructed from covering specific events orassaulted in the course of their work. In June 2012, the bodyguards of a cement factory executivebeat journalist Dashamir Biçaku of Shekulli, who was photographing the man as he left a policestation after being questioned in a murder case. In October, police in Tirana restricted journalists’access to an encampment of former political prisoners who were on hunger strike to demandreparations from the government.There is a variety of daily and weekly newspapers, but circulation is low, and ruraldistribution is limited. The public broadcaster, RTSh, is financially dependent on the state andtypically shows a strong progovernment bias. Three private television stations have nationalreach, and dozens of smaller television and radio outlets also operate in a poorly regulatedenvironment. Media outlets typically rely on financial support from owners and a few majoradvertisers, and self-censorship to suit their interests is common. Most media are considered tobe aligned with a political faction, leaving few genuinely independent domestic outlets. InSeptember 2012, an opposition lawmaker criticized the government for directing the bulk ofgovernment advertising purchases to politically friendly outlets, including the newspaper of theruling Democratic Party. Few foreign media companies have invested in the Albanian market.Germany’s WAZ group sold its majority stake in the Vizion Plus television station in August2012 as part of a broader withdrawal from the region. Journalists often work without contracts,increasing their dependence on managers and owners. Albania’s Union of Journalists reported inNovember 2012 that employees at most print and broadcast outlets routinely experience delaysin their pay for weeks or months at a time. Albanians have access to satellite television, foreignradio content, and television broadcasts from neighboring Greece and Italy.There are no government restrictions on the internet, which was accessed by 55 percentof the population in 2012. Penetration has been increasing in recent years, but access in ruralareas remains limited. Leaders of the opposition Socialist Party have reportedly turned to onlinesocial media with increasing frequency to communicate with the public at low cost and helpmitigate the government’s growing advantage in traditional media.Algeria62

Status: Not FreeLegal Environment: 21Political Environment: 23Economic Environment: 17Total Score: 61Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 62,NF 62,NF 64,NF 62,NF 62,NFThe Algerian constitution guarantees freedom of expression. However, a legal state ofemergency was in effect from 1992 until February 2011, allowing the government to penalizeany speech deemed threatening to the state or public order. Even after the state of emergencywas lifted, there remained substantial restrictions on press freedom. The constant threat ofcriminal defamation and other legal charges hinder the press’s ability to cover the news.A 2001 amendment to the information code criminalizes writing, speech, and cartoonsthat insult or offend the president, the parliament, the judiciary, or the armed forces. In 2009,Algeria adopted a cybercrime law that gives the authorities the right to block websites deemed“contrary to the public order or decency.” The country does not have a law providing for theright of access to official information.A media law that went into effect in January 2012 was hailed by its proponents as animportant reform that would enhance media freedom by nominally abolishing prison sentencesfor press offenses and opening up key media sectors to private ownership, but little improvementwas evident over the course of 2012. For example, at least two journalists were sentenced toprison for libel during the year, though one sentence was overturned on appeal. The lawestablishes limitations on media coverage of a variety of subjects—including criminalinvestigations and state security—and steep fines of up to $6,700 for press-related offenses.Journalists who fail to pay the fines are subject to jail time. Furthermore, the law contains strictnew eligibility requirements for media ownership, including a minimum of 10 years of mediarelatedexperience.Bloggers, like traditional journalists, are subject to defamation suits, and several havebeen fined for posting “defamatory material.” In June 2012, blogger Tarek Mameri was given asuspended sentence of eight months in jail and fined roughly $1,200 after he called for a boycottof legislative elections.State agencies regularly engage in both direct and indirect censorship. Self-censorshipalso remains widespread, motivated largely by a fear of defamation accusations or other forms ofgovernment retaliation. Reporters occasionally suffer physical attacks or harassment in thecourse of their work. In March 2012, police assaulted photographer Mohamed Kadri as heattempted to cover an unauthorized protest. In the same month, a police officer attackedjournalist Hanane Driss as she reported on a similar protest. In June, supporters of a localgovernor threatened journalist Illiés Benabdeslam after he reported on allegations that thegovernor and his sons had attacked a local businessman. Zouheir Ait Mouhoub, an investigativejournalist for El-Watan, was subjected to harassment by internal security personnel during theyear, having conducted research on organized crime in the country.Algeria has a vibrant but vulnerable independent press. There are currently more than 80newspapers available in the capital, though many are owned by private business interests closelyaffiliated with the government or the intelligence services. Domestic television and radio, both of63

which are entirely state owned, broadcast biased information, display favoritism toward thepresident, and generally refrain from covering dissenting views. The new media law potentiallyopens these sectors to private ownership, but the regulatory body required to implement suchliberalization has not been created. More than 60 percent of households have satellite dishes thatprovide access to alternate sources of information. The government has tremendous economicinfluence over print media, as most papers are printed on state-owned presses. In 2008, thegovernment placed six state-owned printing presses under the direct control of theCommunications Ministry, threatening the editorial autonomy of half of Algeria’s privatelyowned newspapers. The state-owned advertising agency favors content with a progovernmentbias by controlling the placement of ads for state entities and companies, which form the largestsource of income for most papers.Foreign media outlets continue to face barriers to free reporting. Officials blockdistribution of foreign papers when they carry content deemed subversive. In particular, foreignmedia coverage of issues related to national security and terrorism is restricted. The Algeriaoffice of Qatar’s Al-Jazeera satellite television network remained closed in 2012.About 15 percent of the population accessed the internet in 2012. The governmentmonitors e-mail and online chat rooms, and internet service providers are legally liable for thecontent they host.AndorraStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 1Political Environment: 4Economic Environment: 8Total Score: 13Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 13,F 13,F 13,F 13,F 13,FAngolaStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 19Political Environment: 28Economic Environment: 21Total Score: 68Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 63,NF 61,NF 62,NF 64,NF 67,NFDespite constitutional guarantees that protect freedom of expression and the press, media inAngola operate in a restrictive environment, and conditions deteriorated during 2012. State-runmedia continued to be the principal source of information, as the government maintained tight64

Antigua and BarbudaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 9Political Environment: 16Economic Environment: 13Total Score: 38Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 39,PF 38,PF 38,PF 38,PF 38,PFThe constitution provides for freedoms of speech and of the press, but the government enforcesthose rights somewhat selectively. Defamation remains a criminal offense, punishable by up tothree years in prison. Cases are occasionally brought against journalists, and politicians often filelibel suits against opposing party members. In February 2012, a court ruled in favor ofopposition Antigua Labour Party (ALP) leader Lester Bird in a defamation case against PrimeMinister Baldwin Spencer and Crusader Radio, owned by the ruling United Progressive Party(UPP), for statements Spencer made during a 2008 campaign rally that were aired by the station.The judge awarded EC$75,000 (US$28,000) in damages to Bird, and declared that radio stationswould be held responsible for defamatory comments made during live broadcasts without a timedelay. In August, a controversial song to be played during the annual Carnival, which someclaimed celebrated violence against women, led to calls for the establishment of a broadcastcommission to monitor the country’s airwaves. The proposal received government support, but acommission had yet to be created by year’s end.The 2004 Freedom of Information Act grants citizens the right to access officialgovernment documents and established a commissioner to oversee compliance, thoughAntiguans have complained of difficulties in obtaining information. In November 2012, localand regional media associations, along with Bird and a group of prominent attorneys in thecountry, condemned a clause in legislation governing the Citizens by Investment program thatprohibits the media from publishing or disseminating information on the initiative, with potentialfines of up to EC$10,000 (US$3,700). The program allows Antiguan passports to be issued toforeign investors.The islands have one daily newspaper, one biweekly paper, and more than 10 radiostations. These include the state-owned Antigua and Barbuda Network (ABN), the UPP’sCrusader Radio, the pro-ALP ZDK Liberty Radio, and the independent Observer Radio. TheALP has complained that the government-run media do not offer equal access to the opposition.In October 2012, radio journalist Percival Simon was banned from ZDK, which is owned by theBird family, for openly supporting Bird’s opponent in an ALP leadership contest, GastonBrowne. ABN runs the islands’ only freely available television service, and there is one cabletelevision company. Most private media outlets are owned by firms affiliated with either thecurrent government or its predecessor. Antigua and Barbuda also receives broadcasts from a pan-Caribbean radio network, the Caribbean SuperStation (CSS), based in Trinidad.The global financial crisis has negatively affected the country’s media. Due to an increasein the price of paper, the Observer daily raised its advertising rates in December 2010, but didnot change its newsstand price. A number of businesses have since been unwilling to advertise67

with the Observer, and the company has suffered. Also in 2010, Antigua and Barbuda’s onlyother daily newspaper, Antigua Sun, was forced to close down because of financial constraints.There are no government restrictions on the internet, which was accessed by 84 percentof the population in 2012.ArgentinaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 13Political Environment: 23Economic Environment: 16Total Score: 52Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 47,PF 49,PF 49,PF 51,PF 50,PFIn 2012, tensions increased between the government of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchnerand critical media outlets, particularly those belonging to Clarín Group, Argentina’s main mediaconglomerate. This hostility has increased media polarization and hampered the public’s abilityto access unbiased information.The constitution provides for freedom of the media and of expression. In a positive step,libel and slander offenses for journalists were decriminalized in 2009 and are no longerpunishable by imprisonment. Fines can still be issued in civil cases. In December 2012, the headof the Federal Revenue Administration (AFIP), Ricardo Echegaray, sued journalists MatíasLongoni and Luis Majul for almost $275,000 each in separate cases, claiming that they hadsullied his reputation. Longoni’s reporting on irregularities in the awarding of subsidies by astate office Echegaray previously headed had formed the subject of a 2011 book, while Majulhad accused the AFIP of exerting financial pressure on his production company. The pressfreedom group Argentine Journalism Forum (FOPEA) denounced Echegaray’s suits as abuses ofthe judicial system.In 2009, the legislature passed the Law on Audiovisual Communication Services, alsoknown as the Ley de Medios (Media Law), which aimed to diversify ownership in the heavilyconcentrated broadcast sector. Many press analysts agree with its basic goals, but allegations thatthe law would be used against the government’s media opponents spurred lawsuits that initiallyhindered its implementation. The overall legislation took effect in September 2010, but Article161, which would force certain media companies—most notably Clarín Group—to relinquishlicenses and sell off assets, remained suspended pending a Supreme Court ruling on a challengefiled by Clarín that year. In December 2012, the company won a last-minute ruling that againdelayed application of the article. Critics have also raised concerns over the law’s provisionswith regard to appointments to the broadcast regulatory body, which are heavily weighted in thepresident’s favor.In December 2011, Congress passed two contentious pieces of legislation affecting themedia. The first, an amendment to the antiterrorism law, increased penalties for terrorist acts. Aninterpretation of the law by the head of Argentina’s Financial Investigations Unit stated thatnews outlets could be held accountable under the expanded clauses if they published material68

official advertising to limit free speech, a practice termed “soft censorship” that had beeninstitutionalized under the administration of former president Néstor Kirchner, the currentpresident’s late husband. For example, Clarín and La Nación, the two newspapers with thelargest circulation in the capital, account for 60 percent of the readership but receive just 2.5percent of government advertising, while other newspapers with a small fraction of thecirculation receive significantly more official advertising. The problem has persisted despite a2007 Supreme Court ruling that “the government may not manipulate advertising by giving it toor taking it away from media outlets on the basis of discriminatory criteria.” According to theInter American Press Association (IAPA), in the first eight months of 2012, the governmentspent 70 percent more in advertising than during the same period of the previous year.Meanwhile, the state’s purchase of the broadcast rights to top-league soccer matches has cost thegovernment $800 million over three years and given it a large audience for its advertisements. Asin 2011, the distribution of Clarín and La Nación was blocked twice in 2012 by members of thenewspaper vendors’ union in Buenos Aires. The IAPA denounced the moves as an attack onfreedom of the press and criticized the “passive conduct” of the government toward theseactions.ArmeniaStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 19Political Environment: 22Economic Environment: 20Total Score: 61Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 66,NF 68,NF 66,NF 65,NF 65,NFDespite constitutional and legal protections, press freedom is restricted, and the mediaenvironment remains dominated by political influence. However, improvements since the flawed2008 presidential election were apparent in 2012, with media coverage of the May parliamentaryelections proving more balanced than in previous election years.Although the government decriminalized libel in May 2010, eliminating imprisonment asa punishment, the move was followed by a rise in civil libel cases. The plaintiffs in most caseswere politicians, and the compensation sought was out of proportion to the damage allegedlyinflicted. However, the Constitutional Court ruled in November 2011 that media outlets cannotbe held liable for “critical assessment of facts” and “evaluation judgments,” and that courtsshould avoid imposing hefty fines on media outlets, suggesting an apology or other nonmaterialcompensation as an alternative. The ruling stemmed from a case filed by Armenia’s humanrights ombudsman, who argued that Article 1087.1 of the civil code, establishing monetary finesin libel cases, was unconstitutional. The court stopped short of such an absolute finding.In accordance with the Constitutional Court ruling, the number of defamation casesdropped in 2012, with 16 complaints submitted to the courts, compared with 36 in 2011.Monetary fines were also reduced significantly, and pending cases that were initiated in 2011were resolved. In March 2012, a Yerevan court rejected a lawsuit filed against the newspaper70

Hraparak, whose property had been seized in November 2011 pending a decision regardingallegedly libelous readers’ comments posted on its website. The court found that the newspaperwas not responsible for the comments, and that the individuals who had written them could notbe identified. The decision was upheld after several subsequent appeals by the plaintiff. In July,in a separate civil suit against Hraparak, the plaintiff—an employee of the localnongovernmental organization (NGO) Zinvor—accepted a public apology from the newspaperand reduced the compensation claim from 2 million drams ($4,900) to 14,000 drams ($35).After freedom of information legislation was enacted in 2003, the government stalled inthe adoption of a number of regulations needed to implement the law. However, authorities weremore responsive to freedom of information requests in 2012. On numerous occasions, courtsupheld the right of access to information, even in cases against major political parties during anelection campaign. In October, after an NGO asked a court to rule on the unresponsiveness of theProsperous Armenia party—the country’s second-largest political party and a former member ofthe ruling coalition—to its request for information on its preelection finances, the party suppliedthe information before the first court hearing. In another case, the Democratic Party was fined100,000 drams ($250) by a court in December for refusing to supply similar information on itspreelection campaign finances. Several NGOs have played an active role in educating the publicon the law. By 2012, the Freedom of Information Center in Armenia had placed 246 bulletinboards in 53 urban and rural communities to inform the public on which information theauthorities are obliged to disclose.The licensing and regulatory framework has been used to limit media freedom anddiversity. Armenia officially began its transition to digital broadcasting with 2010 amendmentsto the Law on Television and Radio that were criticized by local and international groups forfurther restricting media pluralism. However, in 2012 the government announced that analoguefrequencies would continue to operate until 95 percent of Armenian households had switchedover to digital broadcasting. The license of broadcaster A1+ remains suspended, despite a 2008ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that the government had improperly revoked thelicense in 2002. In September 2012, A1+ returned to the airwaves after reaching an agreementwith Armnews to broadcast a 20-minute news program five days a week on the latter’sfrequency. The contract with Armnews is for one year with the possibility of renewal.Meanwhile, A1+ continues the legal battle for its own license. Separately, the local televisionstation Gala, based in Gyumri, has been under government pressure since it broadcast speechesby an opposition presidential candidate in 2007. In July 2011, the Court of Cassation upheld alower court’s decision ordering Gala to stop using the Gyumri television tower and to dismantleits transmitter. The station had to relocate its transmitter to another site. Gala has so far beendenied a digital license and could be forced off the air when analogue broadcasting ends.During the May 2012 parliamentary elections, substantial coverage was given to the sixmajor parties, including via interviews and televised debates. The public broadcaster offered themost neutral coverage, while private stations exhibited some political divisions. Campaignmaterial was at times improperly broadcast as news content, particularly favoring the rulingRepublican Party and Prosperous Armenia. Political parties—especially from the opposition—and election monitoring groups actively used the internet and new media to disseminatecampaign materials and record electoral violations, respectively. Media watchdogs played animportant role in demanding that the Central Electoral Commission adhere to human rightsstandards, successfully blocking a regulation that would have barred journalists who had beenconvicted of a premeditated criminal offense, including libel, from covering the elections. The71

voting took place under a new electoral code that included improved regulations on campaigncoverage, free airtime, and paid advertisements, resulting in lower advertising rates.Armenia’s perceived lack of judicial independence, climate of impunity, and violenceand harassment against the media all contribute to widespread self-censorship, particularly in thebroadcast sector. The Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression (CPFE) observed a decline inviolence against journalists, with only four incidents in 2012, as well as a drop in pressure onmedia workers. There were a total of seven incidents of interference in journalistic activitiesduring the election period, compared with 18 in 2008. However, in contrast to 2011, there was anincrease in violations of the right to receive and impart information. Many of these incidentsinvolved authorities seizing or destroying cameras and other equipment, and in some casesphysically attacking journalists while they were attempting to cover events on election day.Journalist Naira Nalbandyan and her cameraman, Tigran Gasabyan, were reportedly beaten bythe chairman of the electoral commission after being denied entry to the commission’s office onelection day. Nalbandyan reported the incident to police, who refused to pursue a criminal casedue to the “absence of evidence of crime.” CPFE noted that authorities had made no effort toidentify or charge the perpetrators of any of the reported crimes against journalists by year’s end.Most of the dominant media are controlled by the government or government-friendlyindividuals. Print media are available mostly in Yerevan and larger cities. Although most printoutlets are privately owned, they tend to reflect the political and ideological leanings of theirowners and do not provide balanced views. Television is the country’s leading medium, and oneof the only stations with a national reach—Public TV of Armenia—is state owned, thoughalmost 100 other private stations operate. Russian and minority-language media are widelyavailable. State and public media receive preferential treatment, with primary access to officialnews and the lion’s share of government advertising. Small state subsidies are available forprivate print media, but due to high distribution and licensing costs, the vast majority ofnewspapers are not profitable. Most media are dependent on narrow advertising resources andhave little guarantee of editorial independence.The internet penetration rate was 39 percent in 2012. Online news media and bloggershave played an important role in recent years in providing diverse and alternative politicalinformation. The government does not require registration to access the internet or satellitetelevision, and these are freely available.AustraliaStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 4Political Environment: 10Economic Environment: 7Total Score: 21Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 21,F 22,F 22,F 21,F 21,FPress freedom in Australia is upheld by convention rather than by constitutional guarantees,except in the state of Victoria, where it is protected under the Charter of Human Rights and72

Responsibilities. In 2006, Australia consolidated varying state-level defamation regulationsunder the Uniform Defamation Laws Reform Act, which allows only individuals, nonprofits, andcorporations with fewer than 10 employees to sue over defamation. Although rarely invoked,criminal defamation laws are still on the books in Australia. Civil cases, which are morecommon, can result in heavy fines. In May 2012, the News Corporation media group wasordered to pay A$325,000 (US$339,000) for an article in the Sunday Telegraph that labeled aformer police detective as “corrupt.”The 2011 Evidence Amendment Act protects the identity of journalists’ sources andextends this protection to include bloggers, citizen journalists, independent media organizations,and anyone “active in the publication of news in any medium.” Journalists are only compelled toreveal sources when it is proven that the public interest outweighs any potential harm to thesource or the public caused by divulging the source’s identity. While the Evidence AmendmentAct can only be applied in federal cases, states such as Victoria and Western Australia enactedsimilar legislation in 2012.The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act of 1982 provides for access to governmentdocuments. Reforms passed in 2010 revised the fees charged for FOI requests, making themmore accessible; allowed for fewer FOI exemptions; and created a new, single public-interest testweighted in favor of disclosure. In October 2012, the government announced that the 1982 FOIAct would be reviewed to determine whether it and related laws still provide an adequateframework for accessing official information.Following the 2011 News of the World telephone-hacking scandal in Britain, theAustralian government commissioned an inquiry to evaluate the regulatory environmentsurrounding the media. In February 2012, the Independent Media Inquiry (IMI) found that selfregulationcould no longer ensure media accountability and transparency, and recommended thecreation of a government-funded, statutory News Media Council to set and enforce certainstandards for all Australian media outlets. This council would have the power to compelretractions, apologies, and corrections, as well as the ability to make binding judgments onjournalistic ethics. The IMI’s recommendations remained under consideration by the Australiangovernment at year’s end, but consensus in favor of accepting them seemed increasinglyunlikely.The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has the power to censorinternet content hosted within Australia and maintains a “blacklist” of overseas websites. Since2008, the federal government had proposed a mandatory filtering system that would requireinternet service providers to block access to banned material and other objectionable contenthosted on overseas servers. In November 2012, however, the government abandoned its plan tomake the filtering of foreign websites compulsory and narrowed the focus to child pornographywebsites, specifically. Internet service providers will now voluntarily block only childpornography websites that are listed on an Interpol database.Attempts to exert control over media content occur occasionally. In November 2012, thegovernment continued to defend its extensive restrictions on media coverage at immigrationdetention centers. According to these restrictions, journalists must sign a “deed of agreement”that requires them to be accompanied by an immigration official and comply with all rules set bythe immigration department throughout the duration of their visit. Communication with detaineesremains considerably limited, and any photographs, video footage, or audio recordings aresubject to review by department officials for possible censorship or deletion. In August 2012, theAustralian Press Council issued a letter to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship73

equesting that journalists be granted greater access to detainees. The department had notresponded to the council’s request by year’s end. Attacks and physical harassment targetingjournalists are rare, and no cases were reported in 2012.While most media are privately owned, ownership is highly concentrated, with the printmedia dominated by the Fairfax Group and News Corporation. In 2012, the BroadcastingServices Amendment (Public Interest Test) Bill was proposed as a means of limiting futureownership concentration. If passed, the legislation would allow ACMA to assess mergers ofmedia companies to ensure that they would not diminish the “diversity of unique ownersproviding general content services.” Australia also has a strong tradition of public broadcasting.The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), although state owned and entirely funded bythe government, remains editorially independent.In 2012, the internet was accessed by almost 82 percent of the population. Internet accessis affordable for most Australians, and the government subsidizes satellite telephones andinternet connections in rural areas.AustriaStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 8Political Environment: 8Economic Environment: 5Total Score: 21Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 21,F 21,F 21,F 21,F 21,FThe federal constitution and the Media Law of 1981 provide the basis for free media in Austria.Many press freedom advocates urge the Austrian government to revise its stringent civil andcriminal libel laws, which serve to protect politicians and government officials. In 2010, thegovernment passed a Terrorism Prevention Law that penalized the preparation and organizationof terrorist acts as well as training for terrorist purposes. Critics argued that the law impinges onfreedom of expression by stipulating that individuals who incite hatred or contempt against anygroup will face up to two years in prison.A contentious amendment to the Security Police Act, which enables state authorities tomonitor, wiretap, film, and locate individuals, was passed by the upper house of parliament inFebruary 2012. Press freedom advocates argued that the new law could deter journalistic workand intimidate investigative reporters. An amendment to the code of criminal procedure thatwould have undermined the protection of journalistic sources was blocked in March. However, amuch-debated data retention law took effect in April. Based on a European Union directive, thelaw requires telecommunications companies and internet service providers to store user data forup to six months. Due to numerous constitutional complaints at the end of the year, the AustrianConstitutional Court decided to ask for the opinion of the European Court of Justice.There is no official censorship, although any form of Nazi propaganda or anti-Semitismis prohibited by law. The controversial case of Ed Moschitz, a journalist working for theAustrian Public Broadcasting Corporation (ORF), continued throughout the year. Moschitz was74

accused by Heinz-Christian Strache, leader of the right-wing Austrian Freedom Party, ofencouraging two men to give a Nazi salute during the filming of a documentary in 2010. Aregional court, seeking evidence of such incitement, ordered ORF to release all recordings for thedocumentary in 2010, but this decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in early 2011. As thelegal proceedings against Moschitz wore on, he filed a complaint with the European Court ofHuman Rights in April 2012, alleging a violation of his right to a fair trial.Freedom of information legislation is in place. However, the constitution includes aprovision on official secrecy, and the country’s legal framework on access to information hasbeen rated the worst among 93 countries evaluated in a study by Access Info Europe and theCentre for Law and Democracy. In 2012, an online campaign started by journalist andtransparency activist Josef Barth was collecting signatures to support passage of a new law onthe issue.The Austrian Communications Authority (KommAustria) regulates broadcast licensesand manages frequencies. Since 2010 it has also been responsible for the legal supervision ofaudiovisual services and the public broadcaster. Its five members are appointed for six years bythe head of state on the recommendation of the federal government. After its breakup in 2002,the self-regulatory Austrian Press Council was reestablished in 2010 and resumed work in 2011.Its responsibilities include handling complaints regarding content in newspapers, magazines, andtheir websites. However, membership in the council is not obligatory for such outlets.Political influence at the ORF remained an important topic in 2012. At the end of theyear, a controversy arose about staff decisions at ORF Radio that critics said were influenced bythe ruling Social Democratic Party (SPÖ). Physical attacks against or harassment of journalistsare rare.While daily national newspapers are fiercely competitive, the print sector is characterizedby single regional newspapers that dominate up to 90 percent of their respective markets.Following amendments to the Broadcasting Law in 2004, Austria’s public broadcasting networkhas faced growing competition from private outlets. Cable and satellite services are widelyavailable and offer content from both Austrian and German stations, with some of the lattertailoring programming for the Austrian audience. Media ownership is highly concentrated. Thelargest newspaper also owns the only private radio station available in many regions of Austria,despite the fact that the Cartel Court has the authority to monitor the media environment toensure media diversity.A new Media Transparency Law, which took effect in July 2012, forces public offices,like governmental departments, to disclose their media advertisements for the first time. In Junethe upper house of parliament approved a new law on corruption that will take effect in January2013. It defines ORF journalists as public-service employees and sets strict rules regarding theacceptance of benefits.The government has provided all daily and weekly newspapers with annual directpayments since 1974, with larger amounts of money going to newspapers that are consideredespecially important contributors to the diversity of opinion. A 2003 law reformed this presssubsidy scheme in order to promote regional diversity, professional development of journalists,and special projects. In recent times, the economic subsidies have helped newspapers to surviveand to contribute to media pluralism. Receiving these subsidies does not entail any obligationregarding content.Internet access is unrestricted, and 81 percent of the population accessed the internet in2012.75

AzerbaijanStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 27Political Environment: 33Economic Environment: 22Total Score: 82Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 77,NF 78,NF 79,NF 79,NF 80,NFConditions for freedom of expression in Azerbaijan deteriorated further in 2012, as authoritiescontinued to imprison journalists and bloggers and placed additional limits on access toinformation. Violence against journalists has not abated, and the media are harassed withimpunity.Although the 2000 Law on Mass Media guarantees freedom of speech and access toinformation, these rights are not protected in practice. The government’s 2011 National Programfor Action to Raise Effectiveness of the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms in theRepublic of Azerbaijan called for the decriminalization of libel in 2012. Hoping to influence theprocess, several nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) prepared draft laws, and thegovernment opened a public discussion on the topic in October. However, no legal changes wereenacted during the year, leaving defamation as a criminal offense punishable by up to three yearsin prison and hefty fines. The number of defamation suits—and the amount of compensationdemanded—significantly increased in 2012; the nonprofit Media Rights Institute (MRI)registered at least 35 cases during the year. In June, the independent newspaper Azdaliq wasordered to pay $38,000 for allegedly defaming the head of Baku’s rapid transit system, TagiAhmadov, who had originally sought $255,000 in damages. In July, the opposition newspaperYeni Musavat was ordered to pay $64,000 in damages for allegedly insulting a cannery company,Gilan Gabala. The decision was subsequently upheld on appeal.Various other criminal laws, including those pertaining to terrorism, hooliganism,narcotics possession, inciting hatred, and tax evasion, are used by the authorities to suppress andpunish critical reporting. At year’s end there were several applications pending at the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights from imprisoned Azerbaijani journalists who claimed violations offreedom of expression. During 2012, a total of 11 journalists were sentenced to imprisonment onpolitically motivated charges such as treason, hooliganism, or violation of public order.Executive director Vugar Gonagov and editor in chief Zaur Guliyev of Khayal TV were chargedwith abuse of office and organizing mass disorder for uploading a video in March that sparkedmass protests. The video depicted the mayor of Quba insulting his constituents. Gonagov andGuliyev remained in pretrial detention through the end of the year; they faced 10 years in prisonif convicted. In August, journalist Faramaz Novruzoglu was sentenced to four and a half years inprison for allegedly using an alias in 2011 to organize an event on the social-networking siteFacebook that called for riots, and for crossing the border with Turkey illegally in 2010.Novruzoglu denied the charges and claimed he was prosecuted because he had written articlesthat were critical of the government. The case of Avaz Zeynalli, editor in chief of the weeklyKhural, continued throughout 2012. He was arrested in late 2011, not long after court officersraided Khural’s newsroom and confiscated all of its equipment, alleging that Zeynalli had failed76

to pay court-ordered damages in a 2010 defamation case. He was charged with bribery andextortion stemming from a separate complaint filed by parliament member Gular Ahmadova andplaced in pretrial detention. The trial was ongoing at the end of 2012, and Zeynalli remained indetention in restrictive conditions, even though Ahmadova had been discredited and chargedwith embezzlement. Khural’s website remained accessible, but the print edition stoppedpublishing after the 2011 raid. The paper had been critical of President Ilham Aliyev’s policiestoward journalists and the political opposition.The government has failed to appoint a special information ombudsman as required by2005 freedom of information legislation, instead transferring the role to an existingombudsman’s office. Authorities at all levels systematically refuse to respond to informationrequests. Lawsuits filed by media outlets and civil society representatives over state agencies’failure to act on information inquiries generally do not yield any results. After Radio FreeEurope/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) published a series of investigative reports implicating PresidentAliyev and his family in corruption, the parliament in June 2012 passed several amendments tothe Law on the Right to Obtain Information, the Law on the State Registration of Legal Entities,and the Law on Commercial Secrets. The changes, which took effect in October, allowcommercial enterprises to withhold information about their registration, ownership, andstructure, severely limiting the ability of investigative journalists to uncover corruption in thecorporate sector and identify the private assets of public figures.The government nominates all nine members of the National Television and RadioCouncil (NTRC), the country’s media regulator. According to a report by the InternationalPartnership Group for Azerbaijan (IGPA), the council is fully financed by the state and shows aclear bias toward state-owned broadcasters in licensing procedures. The process of broadcastlicensing is opaque; the NTRC has not published the list of available television and radiofrequencies in the past 10 years, contrary to its obligation to do so annually. The BritishBroadcasting Corporation, RFE/RL, and Voice of America have been off the air since January2009, when NTRC regulations banned foreign broadcasters from accessing national frequencies.The council also interferes with the editorial policies of domestic media outlets. In May 2012, itbanned all foreign television shows from Azerbaijani channels, supposedly to limit excessiveforeign influence. The authorities use various other methods to censor the media, even thoughofficial censorship has been banned since 1998. For example, legal amendments adopted in 2009restrict the ability of journalists to film or photograph individuals without their consent, even atpublic events.The political environment is dominated by the president and the ruling party. In spring2012, demonstrations broke out in Baku before and during the Eurovision Song Contest, whichthe country hosted in May. Journalists and activists launched the Sing for Democracy Campaign,using the contest as an opportunity to bring international attention to rights abuses in Azerbaijan.Authorities attempted to prevent media workers from documenting the protests, and severaljournalists were detained and charged with serious offenses as a result of their efforts. In April,Idrak Abbasov, a journalist for the independent newspapers Ayna and Zerkalo, was severelybeaten by employees of the state oil company SOCAR while filming the demolition ofresidential buildings on the outskirts of Baku. Human rights groups had warned that propertyrights were being violated in connection with the massive preparations for Eurovision and otherconstruction projects. Police began an investigation into the beating, but failed to identifysuspects by year’s end. In another case, multimedia journalist Mehman Huseynov was chargedwith hooliganism, which carries up to five years in prison, for getting into an argument with a77

police officer who was blocking him from photographing a protest in Baku in May. Aneyewitness reported that police officers destroyed Huseynov’s camera after he swore at them.Prison conditions remained dire for journalists, with routine ill-treatment and denial of medicalcare, leading the Council of Europe to adopt a resolution calling for the release of politicalprisoners in June. Editor in chief Hilal Mammadov of the minority-language newspaper TolishiSedo, who was arrested in June on charges of high treason and inciting hatred, reported inhumantreatment and torture in custody, but his complaint was rejected. While no journalists weremurdered in Azerbaijan in 2012, impunity for past cases of murder or serious physical attacksremained the norm.In recent years, the government has significantly increased its monitoring of internetactivity and its harassment of social-media activists and online journalists and bloggers. Socialmediaplatforms such as Facebook and Twitter are often used to air critical opinions of thegovernment, and Azerbaijan’s vibrant blogosphere has become a forum for government critics tovoice their opposition and illuminate subjects that are often ignored in the mainstream media. Asthe country prepared to host the 7th Internet Governance Forum in November 2012, PresidentAliyev claimed publicly that the internet in Azerbaijan is “free” because the government does notengage in censorship of content, as in some other countries. While content blocking is relativelyrare in Azerbaijan, authorities frequently use other methods to intimidate activists and journalistswho express criticism online. In March 2012, Khadija Ismayilova, an independent journalist andcontributor to RFE/RL’s Azeri service, became a victim of attempted blackmail when shereceived an anonymous letter threatening the release of a video of her having sex with herboyfriend if she did not stop her investigative reporting on the president’s family. Ismayilovaexposed the blackmail attempt on her social media accounts, and one week later the video wasposted to a fake news site whose web address falsely indicated a connection to the oppositionMusavat party. The police launched an investigation that—according to the journalist—focusedmore on her private life than a genuine search for the perpetrators. In April, the prosecutor’soffice issued a statement that revealed little progress on the case, but provided the names andpersonal information of those who were interviewed during the investigation, mostlyIsmayilova’s close friends and family. Through her own investigation, Ismayilova discoveredthat the video had been filmed with hidden cameras that were installed inside her apartment withthe help of a telephone company.Journalists are regularly harassed in the autonomous exclave of Nakhchivan, which isseparated from the rest of the country by Armenia. The media have also suffered as a result ofAzerbaijan’s conflict with Armenia over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. In August2012, former military officer Ramil Safarov, who had been convicted of murdering an Armenianofficer at an international training camp in Hungary in 2004, was allowed to return toAzerbaijan, where Aliyev granted him a pardon. State media initially celebrated the hero’swelcome he received with extensive coverage of his appearances at official events. However, thecoverage halted abruptly due to international and domestic criticism of the fanfare, and Safarovdisappeared from the public spotlight. Foreign reporters have faced abuses in the country. InMay 2012, a group of Norwegian journalists were held at the airport in Baku and harassed inconnection with a series they recorded during the Eurovision Song Contest that the Azerbaijaniauthorities found offensive.State dominance of the media continues to harm diversity and pluralism. Ownership ofprint outlets is reserved mainly for government officials or the ruling party, although severalopposition parties operate newspapers as well. The broadcast media are almost entirely in the78

hands of the government and its allies, sometimes through nominal intermediaries; no verifiableinformation is available on the real owners. The authorities use economic pressure ondistribution, printing, and advertising to control the print, broadcast, and online media industries.In early 2012, newspaper kiosks owned by the Qasid and Qaya distribution companies weresuddenly removed from the center of Baku and replaced with booths that offered other types ofconsumer goods and only small stands for newspapers. The owners of the new booths areunknown. Restrictions on distribution have negatively affected some independent publicationswith high circulation, such as Yeni Musavat and Azdaliq. There is no effective method ofdistribution outside major cities. Opposition outlets are also subject to economic pressure relatedto the enforcement of libel judgments. In November 2012, a court decision linked to one ofseveral libel cases against Azdaliq froze the paper’s bank accounts despite its filing of an appeal,which usually suspends implementation of such actions. The owners of Azdaliq claimed that thepayment of hefty fines and damages in defamation cases had left it in a precarious financialsituation. State advertising and state subsidies are not allocated transparently. Most journalistswork without employment security or contracts, and receive irregular salaries.Online media, including internet-based television, have grown in recent years, as hasinternet penetration, which reached 54 percent of the population in 2012, according togovernment statistics. However, internet access is mostly limited to Baku and several othermajor cities.BahamasStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 3Political Environment: 9Economic Environment: 7Total Score: 19Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 20,F 20,F 20,F 20,F 20,FBahrainStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 28Political Environment: 37Economic Environment: 21Total Score: 86Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 71,NF 71,NF 71,NF 72,NF 84,NF79

The media in Bahrain continued to face violent repression during 2012, as journalists,photographers, and bloggers covering ongoing antigovernment demonstrations faced beatings,arrest, and torture. Widespread, peaceful prodemocracy protests, led mainly by members of theeconomically and politically disadvantaged Shiite Muslim majority, had begun in February 2011,but the government cracked down brutally on the protesters and journalists, and Bahrain becameone of the harshest media environments in the Middle East. Despite the government’s pledge torespect human rights in response to a November 2011 report by the Bahrain IndependentCommission of Inquiry on the abuses earlier that year, authorities in 2012 continued to repressthe media. The domestic press suffered ongoing censorship and persecution, and many foreignjournalists were denied access to the kingdom to cover the first anniversary of the protests andthe annual Formula One Grand Prix competition in April.Despite constitutional protections guaranteeing freedom of expression and of the press,the government continued to use the 2002 Press Law to restrict the rights of the media in 2012.The Press Law allows up to five years’ imprisonment for publishing criticism of Islam or theking, inciting actions that undermine state security, or advocating a change in government.Journalists may be fined up to 2,000 dinars ($5,300) for a list of 14 other offenses. Libel, slander,and “divulging secrets” are criminal offenses punishable by terms of no more than two years inprison or a fine of no more than 200 dinars ($530). In 2008, the appointed upper chamber of theNational Assembly proposed amendments to reform the harshest provisions of the Press Law,but conservatives in the elected lower chamber have thus far refused to consider the changes. Inaddition to press and defamation laws, the government frequently uses counterterrorismlegislation to curtail the activities of opposition groups and restrict freedom of expression.In July 2012, writer Nabil Rajab—head of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights(BCHR), the main domestic human rights group—was sentenced to three months in prison forlibel after he posted comments on a Twitter microblog accusing the prime minister of corruptionand calling for his resignation. In August, Rajab was sentenced to three years in prison forparticipating in demonstrations against the government. Abduljalil al-Singace, a blogger andonline journalist, was sentenced to life in prison in 2011 for plotting to overthrow the regimeafter he wrote about the prodemocracy demonstrations. His sentence was upheld in September2012 after an appeal. In November, Sayed Yousif al-Muhafdhah, vice president of the BCHR,was arrested while investigating an injury sustained by a bystander when security forces attackeda protest in Duraz. One month earlier, al-Muhafdhah had provided information to the UN HumanRights Council on alleged rights violations by the Bahraini government.There is no law guaranteeing freedom of information. The Information Affairs Authority(IAA) has the power to censor and prevent the distribution of local and foreign publications,close newspapers through court proceedings, ban books and films, block websites, and prosecuteindividuals. Under the 2002 Telecommunications Law, the government has considerableauthority to regulate internet activity. All websites are required to register with the IAA, andreligious and political content is heavily censored. Website administrators are responsible for allcontent posted on their sites and are subject to the same libel laws as print journalists.After inviting a group of nongovernmental organizations to assess the state of freedom ofexpression in Bahrain in April 2012, the government reneged and denied access to these groupslater in the month. The government attributed the denial to a shift in policy that would only grantone group per week entry into the country.Prior to the protests of 2011, the Bahraini media’s coverage of news and politics wasmore critical and independent than reporting in most other Gulf countries. Nonetheless,80

newspapers tended to avoid covering “sensitive” issues such as sectarian tensions, relations withsurrounding countries, government corruption, demonstrations, and human rights violations. Asthe protests erupted in early 2011, media outlets and individual journalists came under increasedpressure from the government. Media workers have reported being contacted directly bygovernment representatives and warned not to report on subjects related to the prodemocracydemonstrations or other sensitive issues. Most domestic opposition publications have been shutdown, and while some, such as Al-Wasat, were eventually reopened, they remain the targets oflegal harassment and public intimidation.The only alternative space for public expression in Bahrain is online. However, theinternet is heavily monitored, with the government spending tens of millions of dollars onsurveillance and cybersecurity. Various opposition publications have survived on the web but areforced to operate clandestinely from outside the country. The government is a major shareholderin Batelco, the country’s principal telecommunications company, which monitors e-mail andfilters internet content by routing traffic through proxy or cache servers. The government blocksthousands of websites under the pretense of protecting citizens from pornography and otheroffensive material, though many of the filtered sites were reportedly targeted for their politicallysensitive content. Internet platforms used for video streaming or for holding online seminars areblocked, as are the sites of human rights groups operating within Bahrain.In 2012, the authorities continued efforts to control the country’s image by severelyrestricting international media. Ahead of the one-year anniversary of the February 14, 2011,demonstrations, several foreign journalists were denied entry visas, including reporters from theNew York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor, the BritishBroadcasting Corporation (BBC), and Al-Jazeera. Others, including journalists from Japan andAustralia, were turned back at Bahrain International Airport. Furthermore, foreign journalistswishing to cover April’s Formula One Grand Prix—Bahrain’s most prestigious internationalevent—were vetted before admission and denied entry if they had any background in coveringpolitical topics. When demonstrations coincided with the race, foreign journalists who reportedon them were detained, had their permissions to report from within Bahrain revoked, and wereexpelled from the country.Throughout 2011, the government of Bahrain had used killings, targeted attacks, andharassment to silence the local press. These tactics continued to be employed in 2012, but wererarely necessary, as many journalists practiced self-censorship. In March 2012, Ahmed IsmaelHassan al-Samadi, a citizen journalist, was fatally shot by plainclothes security forces whilefilming the violent crackdown on a peaceful protest in Salmabad. In May, Ahmed Radhi, afreelance journalist who had worked for the progovernment newspaper Al-Ayyam, was arrestedand detained for four months after making comments during an interview with the Arabic serviceof the BBC that were critical of a hypothetical union between Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. He hadalso posted his comments on social media. In October, a Manama court acquitted a police officerof the torture and mistreatment of Nazeeha Saeed, a Bahraini journalist with France 24 andRadio Monte Carlo Doualiya, in May 2011 as she was questioned by authorities after reportingon the demonstrations. She was accused of being a spy for foreign governments.There are six privately owned daily newspapers, four in Arabic and two in English. Whilesome of these papers are critical of the government, only Al-Wasat is considered trulyindependent of government influence. Although the government does not own any newspapers,the IAA maintains significant control over private publications. Newspapers rely heavily onadvertising revenue to sustain their operations and often practice self-censorship to avoid81

offending advertisers that do not want their businesses associated with critical reporting. Thegovernment maintains a monopoly on broadcast media, allowing the regime to shape publicperceptions of the prodemocracy movement and characterize it as sectarian extremism. Privateoperating licenses are not awarded despite continued interest from media owners. However, thereis some room for free expression on television call-in shows. Foreign radio and televisionbroadcasts are generally received without interference, and the majority of households haveaccess to satellite stations; Qatar’s Al-Jazeera and Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya, based in the UnitedArab Emirates, remain Bahraini citizens’ main sources of news. In addition, around 88 percent ofBahrain’s population accessed the internet in 2012.BangladeshStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 15Political Environment: 22Economic Environment: 16Total Score: 53Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 68,NF 63,NF 56,PF 54,PF 52,PFBangladesh’s media environment remained relatively open in 2012, despite some worrying signsof intolerance by the government and an increase in physical harassment against the press.Although the constitution provides for freedom of expression subject to “reasonable restrictions,”the press can be constrained by national security legislation as well as by sedition and criminallibel laws. The punishment for sedition ranges from three years to life in prison. The 15thamendment to the constitution, passed in July 2011, includes language that equates criticism ofthe constitution with sedition. Journalists can also be arrested under the 1974 Special PowersAct—which allows detentions of up to 90 days without trial—for stories that are critical ofgovernment officials or policies, or they can be charged with contempt of court. Arrestsstemming from defamation charges continued to occur in 2012. In January, a university lecturerwas given a six-month jail sentence for comments made in 2011 on Facebook about PrimeMinister Sheikh Hasina. The opposition-oriented daily Amar Desh has faced a barrage of legaland regulatory threats over the past several years. Acting editor and majority owner MahmudurRahman, who spent 10 months in jail in 2010–11 on charges of harming the country’s reputation,was charged with sedition in December 2012, following the publication of a story regardingleaked conversations between a judge and a lawyer/activist based in Brussels.Since its passage, the 2009 Right to Information Act has improved transparency andaccountability. It applies to all information held by public bodies, simplifies the fees required toaccess information, overrides existing secrecy legislation, and grants greater independence to theInformation Commission (IC) tasked with overseeing and promoting the law, according to thepress freedom group Article 19. The law has been used primarily for investigative journalism. InFebruary 2012, the high court upheld a fine levied by the IC on an official who refused toprovide information under the law.82

The Ministry of Information controls broadcast licensing and issues licenses for bothcommercial and community outlets. Television stations have occasionally been closed ostensiblyfor being in breach of broadcasting regulations. A comprehensive broadcast policy, intended tosimplify the existing patchwork of laws and regulations, has been under discussion for severalyears by government and industry representatives and other stakeholders. In November 2012, thegovernment formed a committee comprising a range of official and industry stakeholders to drafta National Broadcasting Policy. In September 2012, concern was raised over a proposedregulation calling for the registration of online news portals, including the imposition of steepregistration fees (an initial fee of around $6,100, plus annual renewal fees of around $610), limitson eligibility of applicants, and broad restrictions on content.The print media are generally allowed more leeway than broadcasters and new media,with private television channels that provide 24-hour news coverage facing particular scrutiny.Authorities reportedly drafted unofficial guidelines for media houses regarding television talkshows in 2009, noting that “provocative statements” could lead to the banning of a show. InMarch 2012, the transmissions of several television stations were suspended shortly before aplanned opposition rally. Attempts to censor internet-based content occasionally occur; inSeptember the government blocked access to YouTube following a global uproar over a videoproduced in the U.S. of the prophet Muhammad. Some journalists practice self-censorship whenreporting on sensitive topics like the military and judiciary. Sensitivity regarding reporting on theproceedings of the International War Crimes Tribunal heightened during the year. Coverage oflabor disputes has also become more slanted as garment factory owners have moved into themedia sector, buying up both print and broadcast outlets; as a result, stories often highlightviolence or work disruptions initiated by workers rather than labor rights issues.Journalists continue to be threatened and attacked with impunity by organized crimegroups, party activists, and Islamist groups. Three journalists were killed in 2012, according tothe Committee to Protect Journalists—the first journalist deaths in the country in seven years. InFebruary, Sagar Sarwar, editor with the private channel Maasranga TV, and his wife MeherunRuni, reporter from the ATN Bangla channel, were murdered in their home in Dhaka. No arrestswere made and the motive is unknown. In June, reporter Jamal Uddin of the daily Gramer Kagojwas stabbed to death, possibly as a result of his reporting on a local drug-smuggling syndicate.Three arrests were made in the case. Physical harassment of the press also increased. In May2012, nine journalists were injured when armed men attacked the newsroom of thebdnews24.com news website, and several other violent attacks on individual journalists occurredthat same month. The local rights group Odhikar reported that dozens of cases of threats andphysical harassment leading to injury had taken place during the year. Impunity is the norm forthose who perpetrate crimes against journalists, with at least 24 murders since 1998 remainingunpunished, according to the International Press Institute. Investigations of such crimes generallyproceed slowly, if at all.A primary threat to journalists’ physical safety comes from security forces, including thepolice and military intelligence. Police brutality toward reporters and photographers attemptingto document political protests or other sensitive events remains a concern, as do occasional casesof arrest, detention, or custodial torture of journalists. In May 2012, three photojournalists fromthe daily Prothom Alo were beaten badly by police while attempting to cover a story. InDecember, two more photojournalists endured similar police abuse while photographing arson atan opposition rally. Some journalists continued to receive threatening telephone calls from83

intelligence agencies seeking to prevent negative coverage. Criminal gangs and business ownersalso attempt to influence coverage through coercion or threats.With hundreds of daily and weekly publications, the privately owned print mediacontinue to present an array of views, although political coverage at many newspapers is highlypartisan. Private broadcasting has expanded in recent years, with more than 20 satellite and cabletelevision stations and a number of private radio stations now operating, including 3 private FMstations and a dozen community stations. A number of private broadcast outlets are owned byindividuals with close political or official affiliations. The state owns or influences severalbroadcast outlets, including the public BTV, which remains the sole national terrestrial channel.Private outlets are required to air selected government-produced news segments and officialspeeches. Political considerations influence the distribution of government advertising revenueand subsidized newsprint, on which many publications depend. Private media owners andcorporate interests are also able to influence content through allocation of advertising. Adirective issued in 2012 to government institutions limited their list of newspaper subscriptionsto a small range of dailies that supported the governing Awami League.Access to the internet is generally unrestricted, but the penetration rate was just 6 percentof the population in 2012. During the last few years, the number of online news outlets,including news websites and internet-based radio stations, has increased dramatically, as has useof major social-networking sites such as Facebook. The government continues to monitorinternet activity. Some journalists’ e-mail correspondence is reportedly watched by police, andthose brought in for questioning have been asked to supply personal internet passwords tointelligence officers.BarbadosStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 3Political Environment: 9Economic Environment: 6Total Score: 18Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 19,F 19,F 19,F 19,F 19,FBelarusStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 29Political Environment: 36Economic Environment: 28Total Score: 93Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 91,NF 91,NF 92,NF 93,NF 93,NF84

Belarus’s media environment remained extremely restrictive in 2012, as the governmentcontinued to aggressively suppress independent voices ahead of deeply flawed Septemberparliamentary elections in which progovernment parties won all of the seats. The authoritiessustained their crackdown on opposition activists, protesters, and journalists while attempting tostave off economic deterioration, the influence of the Arab Spring uprisings, pressure to movetoward European integration, political meddling by the Kremlin, and the growing influence ofsocial media among younger Belarusians.Despite constitutional provisions for freedom of the press, criticism of the president andthe government is considered a criminal offense, and libel convictions can result in prisonsentences or high fines. Judges, prosecutors, police officers, tax officials, and bureaucrats fromthe Information Ministry regularly used politicized court rulings and obscure regulations toharass independent newspapers and websites during the year, especially those reporting onpostelection demonstrations. In February, the independent newspaper Nasha Niva, charged withdefamation by a state television journalist, was ordered by a court in Minsk to pay 5 millionrubles ($600) for causing “moral damage.” In June, Andrzej Poczobut, a correspondent for theWarsaw daily Gazeta Wyborcza based in the western city of Hrodna, was arrested, held for ninedays, and charged with libeling the president in a series of articles he published in theindependent media. The charges carry a sentence of up to five years’ imprisonment. As acondition of his bail, Poczobut was required to remain in Hrodna pending trial.A draconian new media law took effect in 2009, forcing all outlets to register with theInformation Ministry, including domestic and international websites, which face blockage forfailure to comply. The stipulation has forced many independent publications to switch to domainnames based in neighboring countries. It has also made it easier for the government to denyrequired accreditation and shutter outlets for coverage that does not “correspond to reality” orthat “threatens the interests of the state.” The law even allows penalties against outlets forreporting statements by others—for example, by political parties or nongovernmentalorganizations (NGOs)—that “discredit the Republic of Belarus.”Over the course of 2012, the police detained at least 60 journalists, newspaperdistributors, and social-media activists in retaliation for their work. In June, European Radio forBelarus correspondent Pavel Sverdlov was arrested in Minsk and sentenced to 15 days in prisonon hooliganism charges after he exposed security lapses in the city’s mass transit system. InNovember, Valery Bulhakau, editor of the Hrodna-based monthly cultural magazine ARCHE,fled Belarus after months of harassment that included charges of engaging in “illegal businessactivities” for selling books at a book fair without receipts and an audit by the Department ofFinancial Investigations that resulted in the freezing of the magazine’s bank accounts. Statetelevision reported that Bulhakau had been charged with “distributing extremist literature.”Internet penetration has increased in recent years, reaching 47 percent of the populationin 2012, and the government has responded by restricting and monitoring use of the medium.The state-owned telecommunications company Beltelekom, the sole internet service provider(ISP), already controls all international data transfers and blocks some critical websites, whilethe State Security Committee (KGB) reportedly monitors internet communications and isbelieved to be behind the use of Trojan viruses to steal passwords from critical website editors.During the parliamentary elections, journalists accused Beltelekom of increasing internetrestrictions as the government sought to rein in the country’s few remaining independentbloggers and news websites. Government attempts to reduce the readership of independent news85

websites like Charter97.org and BelarusPartizan.org resulted in a 2011 resolution requiring ISPsto block access to these two and dozens of other sites from all state, cultural, and educationalinstitutions. During politically sensitive events throughout the year, such as antigovernmentprotests, independent news websites and social-networking platforms were subject tocyberattacks from unknown sources. Authorities continued to censor criticism of PresidentAlyaksandr Lukashenka in news programs on Russian television stations.The government and its supporters subjected both independent and foreign media, as wellas press freedom activists, to systematic intimidation for reporting on human rights abuses andunauthorized demonstrations in 2012, especially in the months ahead of the parliamentaryelections. Officials harassed the Belarusian Association of Journalists (BAJ) in retaliation for itswork defending media personnel, and state television aired several programs at the start of theyear that used anonymous letters and surveillance footage to smear the organization and itsleaders. In March, border guards prevented BAJ chairperson Zhanna Litvina and two otherjournalists from boarding a flight to neighboring Poland. Another reporter had been preventedfrom traveling to Lithuania a few days earlier. In June, Iryna Khalip, a correspondent for theMoscow newspaper Novaya Gazeta who had been under partial house arrest in Belarus sinceMay 2011, found a chicken head in her mailbox. She interpreted it as a death threat in retaliationfor her criticism of the government. In September, plainclothes officers assaulted and detained atleast seven journalists—including members of the foreign press—as they covered a protest inMinsk by opposition groups calling for a boycott of the parliamentary elections. Associated Pressphotographer Sergei Grits was punched in the face and had his pictures deleted during thedetention.At least 12 independent journalists received warnings during 2012 for working for aforeign outlet without a permit. Foreign correspondents were regularly harassed and deported inreprisal for reporting on opposition activities or human rights and election abuses. In September,during the parliamentary election campaign, customs officials at the airport in Minsk confiscatedtechnical equipment from reporter Amos Roberts of Australia’s SBS television as he was leavingthe country.Authorities responded to the growing influence of internet news sources by escalatingharassment of online journalists. In July, Anton Suryapin, a blogger in the city of Slutsk, wasdetained for a month after being the first to post photographs of teddy bears dropped from anairplane into Belarus. The airdrop, prepared by the Swedish advertising company Studio Total,was aimed at promoting freedom of expression. The hundreds of teddy bears held placards withslogans such as “We support the Belarusian struggle for free speech.” Following his release,Suryapin was placed under house arrest for the remainder of the year, facing up to seven years inprison for alleged complicity in an illegal border crossing. In August, Komsomolskaya Pravdajournalist Iryna Kozlik and photojournalist Yuliya Darashkevich held a protest in support ofSuryapin; they were arrested by Minsk police and fined 3 million rubles ($360) each for“carrying out an unsanctioned protest.”The government maintains a virtual monopoly on domestic broadcast media, whichconsistently glorify Lukashenka and the benefits of a “stronger state” while vilifying theopposition. In a December 2012 report on the parliamentary elections, monitors from theOrganization for Security and Cooperation in Europe stated, “Media coverage of the campaigndid not provide a wide range of views, focusing overwhelmingly on the President andgovernment activities with minimal attention given to candidates.” State television channelscensored candidate speeches that called for a boycott of the elections. Only state media broadcast86

nationwide, and the content of smaller television and radio stations is tightly restricted, partlythrough highly secretive and politicized licensing procedures. Three independent broadcasterstransmit their programming from neighboring Poland—BelSat television, Radio Racyja, andEuropean Radio for Belarus—but authorities actively obstruct the work of their journalists. Mostlocal independent outlets regularly practice self-censorship, especially when reporting on thefamily and business interests of Lukashenka and his closest allies. In January 2012, the Minskbasedtelevision channel MTIS stopped rebroadcasting news from the pan-European televisionchannel Euronews, citing an increase in fees charged by the latter’s owners. Lukashenka hadbeen highly critical of Euronews coverage in the past, leading some experts to question whetherthe move was due to political rather than financial pressure.Tax exemptions for state media give them a considerable advantage over private outlets. In theprint sector, the government has barred most independent and opposition newspapers from beingdistributed by the state-owned postal and kiosk systems, from being printed by the state printer,and from any access to state advertising contracts or media subsidies. Independent papers areforced to sell directly from their newsrooms and use volunteers to deliver copies, but regionalauthorities sometimes harass and arrest the private distributors. Due to the country’s deepeningeconomic crisis, independent media have struggled with rising costs and declining advertisingrevenue, and even the state media faced a 20 percent budget decrease in 2012.BelgiumStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 2Political Environment: 4Economic Environment: 5Total Score: 11Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 11,F 12,F 12,F 12,F 11,FFreedom of the press is safeguarded under Articles 19 and 25 of the Belgian constitution, and therights of the media are generally respected in practice. The law prohibits hate speech, includingHolocaust denial, which carries a maximum sentence of one year in prison. Journalistic sourcesare protected under a 2005 law, which also protects journalists from search and seizure. A 1994law allows individuals to obtain access to official documents held by executive and judicialauthorities, and stipulates that public authorities must offer an explanation of the document ifrequested. The print media are self-regulated by the Federation of Editors, an industry body inwhich all major newspapers are represented.There are no government restrictions on use of the internet, though the authoritiescontinue to block The Pirate Bay and other file-sharing websites on the grounds that theypromote copyright violations. In 2011, the Belgian courts had ruled that the U.S. technology firmGoogle had breached Belgian copyright and database laws by posting articles withoutauthorization on its Google News service. In reaction, Google blocked several BelgianFrancophone newspapers from its web search results for a few days in July 2011. The six-yearlongdispute ended in December 2012, when Google and Belgium’s French-language publishers87

finally reached a deal regarding use of their content. Cases of harassment and physical attacks onjournalists are rare.Media ownership is highly concentrated, and a small number of media groups own themain newspapers. Ownership and distribution are distinct in Belgium’s two linguistic regions,Flanders and Wallonia. Three major companies dominate newspaper distribution in Flanders,and two in Wallonia. The two regions have completely autonomous public broadcasters, withone broadcasting in French and the other in Flemish over both radio and television channels;each also has its own private broadcasting networks. Access to cable-based and foreigntelevision channels is widespread. The Belgian media industry has suffered severely from theeconomic downturn that began in 2008, as outlets are largely dependent on advertising revenues.Most media companies have sought to reduce staff, by up to a third in some cases. In 2012, 82percent of the population had access to the internet.BelizeStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 8Political Environment: 9Economic Environment: 5Total Score: 22Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 22,F 21,F 21,F 23,F 21,FThe constitution protects freedom of expression, and that right is generally respected in practice.However, it is subject to several legal limitations. Individuals who question the financialdisclosures of public officials risk a fine of up to BZ$5,000 (US$2,500) and a prison term of upto three years. Newspapers are subject to criminal defamation laws, but the laws have not beeninvoked in recent years.A Freedom of Information Act was adopted in 1994, but it exempts documents related tonational security, defense, and cabinet proceedings. The Belize Broadcasting Authority (BBA) isempowered to preview broadcasts with political content and remove material it deems libelous.The rising incidence of violent crime in Belize, stemming from the international drug trade, ledto calls in 2012 for the BBA to begin regulating the portrayal of violence in the media. Theauthority was considering new restrictions on media content at year’s end.There have been some reports of intimidation of journalists from media outlets alignedwith the opposition. In October 2012, the cars of two journalists who were critical of thegovernment were vandalized in what opposition media deemed attacks on media freedom. In onecase, the nuts securing the tires to a journalist’s car were removed. Nevertheless, the motives forthe incidents remained unclear.While there are no daily newspapers in Belize, there is a vibrant market for weeklies,which are privately owned. In general, reporting covers a wide range of opinions. Governmentoperatedradio was privatized in 1998, and today there are eight television stations and 33licensed radio stations. The ruling United Democratic Party (UDP) and the opposition People’sUnited Party (PUP) are both affiliated with specific newspapers and radio stations, and many88

other media outlets display a partisan bent. There are concerns about increasing governmentintervention in the media, particularly with regard to ownership of distribution channels. In 2009,the government renationalized Belize Telemedia, the country’s leading privatetelecommunications provider, and its owners, the Ashcroft Group, were allegedly offered nocompensation. The PUP branded the action an expropriation. In June 2011, Belize’s Court ofAppeal ruled that the nationalization of Telemedia was unconstitutional and returned thecompany to its original owners. However, the government amended the country’s constitution inorder to renationalize Telemedia a second time in July 2011. In June 2012, the Supreme Courtnullified that amendment and declared the second renationalization unconstitutional, but stoppedshort of returning control of the company to its former owners. At year’s end the case wasawaiting a judgment from the Court of Appeal.While the government does not restrict internet access or use, lack of infrastructure andhigh costs limited penetration to 25 percent of the population in 2012. A 2012 survey showedthat Belize had the slowest and most expensive internet in the Caribbean region.BeninStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 11Political Environment: 12Economic Environment: 11Total Score: 34Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 31,PF 31,PF 33,PF 33,PF 34,PFBenin has traditionally been ranked among the best-performing African countries for pressfreedom, with freedom of speech protected by the constitution and largely respected by thegovernment in practice. However, a number of disturbing trends have persisted since the 2006election of current president Thomas Boni Yayi, including the use of legal and regulatorystructures to restrict media freedom.The 1997 Press Law criminalizes libel and defamation, and although some judges arehesitant to pursue prosecution, journalists continue to face charges. Berthe Cakpossa, director ofthe private television station Canal 3, was charged with criminal defamation in September 2012for authorizing the broadcast of comments considered defamatory toward the president; the casewas ongoing at the end of the year. The trend of state interference in media content has beenparticularly evident in the behavior of the official regulatory body, the High Authority for Audio-Visual Media and Communications (HAAC). The HAAC requires all broadcasters to submitweekly lists of their planned programming, and publishers to submit copies of all theirpublications, though most outlets did not comply with this regulation during the year. The dailyLe Potentiel was suspended for three months in March 2012 for a column alleging wrongdoingby a former public prosecutor. The HAAC also suspended two shows on Canal 3 in Novemberon the recommendation of the president, who accused the station of undermining national unityby covering a corruption scandal involving the president’s aides. One program was suspendedfor three months, a debate segment on a daily news show was suspended for two weeks, and as89

noted above, the station’s director was charged with defamation by the officials implicated in thecoverage. The station appealed the action in court, but no decision had been taken by the end ofthe year. An independent media ethics commission also censured some journalists during theyear for unethical conduct.Journalists typically have difficulty accessing information from the government. Theconstitution and other laws provide for freedom of information, but no specific procedures havebeen created for releasing or obtaining public documents. The penal code prohibits civil servantsfrom divulging professional secrets.The private press carries a wide variety of opinions and criticism of the government, andthe government does not censor content on the internet. However, several types of potentialrestrictions on coverage are in place. For example, the law bars both citizens and the press fromdeclaring or predicting election results. Political influence over media content is also an issue,particularly at state-controlled broadcast outlets. Opposition political parties continue to havelittle or no access to the state-run media, and the government is known to engage in editorialoversight at the state broadcaster.While physical harassment of journalists is unusual in Benin, a number of such incidentshave occurred in recent years, particularly in 2011 ahead of the presidential election. However,no overt harassment was reported in 2012.Print media outlets are predominantly private, while the broadcast sector has a mixture ofstate-run and private radio and television stations. The many radio stations, roughly 78 of whichare privately owned, remain the primary source of news and information, though the statebroadcaster, which lacks independence in its coverage, is the only one with national reach. Thegovernment controls broadcast ranges, and the HAAC awards limited ranges to private stations.Benin’s numerous, well-established print outlets have a history of providing aggressive reportingand robust scrutiny of both government and opposition leaders. However, the media marketbecame especially saturated in 2006 due to the large number of politicized publications thatemerged in the month preceding that year’s highly contentious presidential election. Thesenewspapers, many of which have continued to publish, are little more than propaganda vehiclesfor political parties or particular politicians, and they frequently rely on direct funding from theirbackers. Indeed, most media outlets are dependent on their owners or other financial supporters,as they lack sufficient revenue from subscriptions and advertising. The lack of transparency inthe system of media ownership is an area of concern. Many journalists are also susceptible tobribes from politicians and other influential actors. Subsidies and advertising contracts from thegovernment are both used to influence media content. The government gave approximately 350million CFA francs ($700,000) in financial assistance to private media outlets during the year.With a penetration rate of 3.8 percent in 2012, the internet cannot yet be considered aprimary way for citizens of Benin to access news and information. The internet is mainlyavailable via slow dial-up connections at cybercafés, but a new undersea fiber-optic cablelanding in Ghana is expected to improve connectivity.BhutanStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 18Political Environment: 2090

Economic Environment: 20Total Score: 58Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 61,NF 61,NF 57,PF 57,PF 58,PFThe media environment in Bhutan remained somewhat restricted in 2012, and the governmentcontinued to influence content published by private media. The constitution of the Kingdom ofBhutan, adopted in July 2008, guarantees the right to free speech, opinion, and expression.However, the 1992 National Security Act prohibits criticism of the king and has strict provisionson “words either spoken or written that undermine or attempt to undermine the security andsovereignty of Bhutan by creating or attempting to create hatred and disaffection among thepeople.” Defamation can be treated as either a civil or criminal offense. There were no reportedlegal cases brought against journalists in 2012.The constitution guarantees the right to information, but a Right to Information Billdiscussed by Parliament during 2012 was shelved indefinitely. Government officials citedcaution against “acting in haste,” given the importance of the bill, but media workers expressedconcern that the government was not committed to passing the legislation.The Bhutan InfoCom and Media Authority, the national regulator, sometimes restricts thepublication of or otherwise censures media outlets. The Journalists’ Association of Bhutan (JAB)was revived in February 2012, having been dissolved in 2006 due to a lack of funding and poorcoordination. The organization’s mission is to uphold the interests of journalists across thecountry and protect free expression in the media. However, the JAB is not independent, as itrelies on the government-run Bhutan Media Foundation for funding and support.There were no reports of threats or intimidation directed at journalists in 2012, but thereis a high level of self-censorship. Criticism of the royal family and the Buddhist clergy is notpublished, and topics that are considered sensitive, such as the expulsion of Nepali-speakingresidents in the 1990s, are not covered. The government occasionally restricts certain websitesthat are deemed offensive to the state or pornographic.Bhutan currently has 12 newspapers, six radio stations, and two television channels, bothof which are hosted by Bhutan Broadcasting Service (BBS), the state broadcaster. Internetpenetration remained at 25 percent of the population in 2012. Bhutan’s main print outlet, thestate-owned, biweekly Kuensel, generally portrays the kingdom in a favorable light, but it hasincreasingly been addressing societal problems and carrying stories that are critical of thegovernment. There are four Dzongkha-language newspapers; the remaining print media areEnglish-language publications that carry mandatory Dzongkha-language supplementary inserts.Bhutan’s first broadsheet, The Bhutanese, was launched in February 2012 with a stated intent tofocus on investigative journalism and providing independent views. There are no privatetelevision broadcasters. While the BBS was permitted to start an additional channel in 2012, atleast four applications to launch private television stations remain pending. Cable televisionservices carry foreign programming, albeit with bans on channels that provide “controversialcontent” as well as high sales taxes and regulatory obstacles that render access costs prohibitivefor many citizens. In January 2012, the government decided to streamline the licensing processfor media outlets by requiring them to pay only one license fee rather than two.Almost all media outlets are based in Thimpu, the capital. The weak economic climate inBhutan remains a major challenge for media companies, and most are dependent on advertising91

evenue distributed by state bodies, which accounts for an estimated 80 percent of the market.Most outlets have cut staff in recent years, and some have even had to suspend or cut back onpublication because of financial concerns. The situation grew even worse when the governmentannounced in June 2012 that all election-related advertising would be withdrawn from privatemedia and exclusively published through state-owned media. Journalists speculated that the newpolicy was the government’s way of retaliating against The Bhutanese for articles that allegedabuse of power and corruption by public officials.BoliviaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 14Political Environment: 22Economic Environment: 12Total Score: 48Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 39,PF 42,PF 43,PF 46,PF 47,PFPress freedom in Bolivia deteriorated in 2012 as the government of President Evo Morales usedthe 2010 Law against Racism and All Forms of Discrimination to intimidate and stifle the media.In addition, the number of threats and physical attacks against journalists and media outlets roseduring the year.Bolivia’s 2009 constitution protects freedom of speech and of the press, but also allowsfor some limitations. While Article 21 lays out an expansive right to communicate freely, Article107 imposes a duty to communicate with “truth and responsibility.” Article 107 also clears theway for content-based restrictions by stipulating that the media must contribute to the promotionof the ethical, moral, and civic values of the nation’s multiple cultures. Defamation remains acriminal offense. In March 2012, Rogelio Peláez of the monthly news journal Larga Vista wassentenced by a criminal court in La Paz to 30 months in prison for defaming lawyer WaldoMolina in a 2010 article that accused him of improper receipt of government funds linked to acorruption case. In October 2012, the Constitutional Tribunal struck down Article 162 of thepenal code, which criminalized libel of public officials, though the scope and overall effect of theruling remained unclear at year’s end. An electoral law enacted in 2010 also curtails pressfreedom. Article 82 of the law restricts coverage of judicial elections, forbidding the publicationor broadcasting of any information about the candidates that is not released by the electoralauthorities. In February 2012, the government announced that it would not move forward with acontroversial new press bill proposed by the Morales administration in 2011. The country’s threemain journalist organizations had opposed the legislation, which would have replaced Bolivia’sexisting press law, enacted in 1925. Under that law, media organizations are supposed to practiceself-regulation and enforce their own code of ethics.The Law against Racism and All Forms of Discrimination, which falls under the penalcode, attempts to address degrading portrayals of indigenous people in the media and theirlimited access to media outlets. The law grants authorities the power to fine or shut down newsoutlets and arrest journalists for published material that is deemed to be racist. Media92

organizations can face sanctions even if a supposedly racist remark is uttered by a source orinterviewee and is not the position of the media organization. By applying the penal code tojournalists, the law also seeks to do away with journalists’ right to appeal to self-regulating pressbodies, as called for in the country’s press law. In August 2012, Morales’s government used thelaw against the media for the first time, filing charges against three outlets: the news agencyFides (ANF) and the newspapers El Diario and Página Siete. The government alleged that theyhad distorted the president’s words in a speech blaming hunger in eastern Bolivia on lazy people.The case remained under investigation at year’s end.Bolivia has no specific law on access to public information, and a draft bill released in2011 fell short of international standards, according to the press freedom group Article 19. TheMinistry of Institutional Transparency and the Fight against Corruption is responsible for theimplementation and execution of the National Policy on Transparency for all nationalgovernment entities. However, officials of the National Press Association (ANP) has noted thatthe ministry “does not fulfill its role” and instead complicates access to information forjournalists. Exacerbating the problem is the lack of a requirement for the government to archiveofficial documents.The country’s regulatory framework is increasingly being used to limit media freedom. InAugust 2011, a new telecommunications law went into effect, establishing rules for thedistribution of television and radio frequencies, the broadcasting of presidential messages, andwiretapping in certain extreme cases. The measure allots 33 percent of the frequencies to thegovernment, 33 percent to the private sector, 17 percent to social and community-based groups,and 17 percent to “peasant and indigenous groups.” The law also stipulates that presidentialaddresses must be broadcast free of charge, twice a year, on national television. Local journalistadvocacy organizations and press groups denounced the new rules, claiming that they wouldcripple Bolivians’ freedom of expression and information. In December 2012, some journalistunions and the ANP criticized the newly enacted Life and Disability Insurance Law for PressWorkers because the insurance would be funded by a tax on media companies’ revenue, and thefund would be managed by a government-controlled board.Journalists work in a polarized political environment, with strong rivalries between proandantigovernment outlets and sporadic threats against government critics by elected officials.Government officials regularly use negative rhetoric against the news media, particularly againstcommentators who are critical of the president’s policies. In October 2012, Vice PresidentÁlvaro García Linera declared that the government keeps track of the names of people whoinsult the president via social media. Opposition journalists often engage in self-censorship toavoid being persecuted or harassed by the authorities or government supporters. In February,almost 47 percent of the journalists surveyed in an ANP poll admitted practicing some form ofself-censorship.Bolivian journalists continued to experience threats and physical attacks in 2012. TheANP counted 10 physical and 27 verbal attacks during the year, most of which remainedunsolved at year’s end. The most serious attack, in October, was directed at local station RadioPopular in Yacuiba, near the border with Argentina. Four intruders poured gasoline on the stationmanager, Fernando Vidal, and then set him on fire. Vidal had recently reported on allegedcorruption among local customs agents. Vidal and a technician, Karen Arce, were hospitalizedwith serious burns. Among other incidents, two community radio stations in the mining town ofColquiri were attacked with explosives in June and forced to suspend broadcasts during laborviolence that shook the region. In September, Percy Fernández, the politically independent93

mayor of the eastern city of Santa Cruz, engaged in repeated verbal attacks against journalistsand threatened the lives of the editor and staff of the daily El Deber. In October, two executivesof a local newspaper briefly fled to Brazil because they feared arrest after reporting ongovernment corruption in the northern department of Pando. In November, journalists’ advocateand El Diario editor Ghilka Sanabria was severely beaten in La Paz. The circumstances of thebeating led to suspicions that it was related to her work as a journalist.Newspaper readership is limited due to low literacy rates, and radio is often the principalnews medium, with community radio stations playing a major role. In addition to the stateownedtelevision station, the government operates a news agency, a weekly newspaper, and agrowing network of community radio stations. Civil society groups have expressed concern overthe significant expansion of state-run channels and the conversion of all public media intovehicles for government influence. The government news agency, the Bolivian InformationAgency, provides a free news service via the internet to both public and private channelsnationwide. Bolivia’s television stations and eight national and numerous local newspapers arefor the most part privately owned, but many owners are tied to political parties or linked to thegovernment. Private media ownership is highly concentrated. Internet penetration is limited butexpanding, with 34 percent of Bolivians accessing the medium in 2012.Bosnia and HerzegovinaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 9Political Environment: 23Economic Environment: 17Total Score: 49Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 45,PF 47,PF 48,PF 48,PF 48,PFThe constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) guarantees freedom of the press, butpoliticians exert considerable pressure on journalists, and media outlets tend to be aligned withpolitical parties. Since the signing of the 1995 Dayton Accords, which ended the country’s civilwar, BiH has been split into two semi-independent constituent entities: the Federation of BiH,populated mostly by Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) and Croats, and the Republika Srpska, whosepopulation consists mostly of Serbs. Each entity has its own public broadcaster, private media,and political parties. Intimidation of the press is especially common in the Republika Srpska.Libel was decriminalized in 2003, but journalists can face civil penalties over libelcomplaints, and the burden of proof in such cases is placed on defendants. Municipal courts areoften biased, and suits can drag on for years. The process for obtaining information through thecountry’s freedom of information law can be cumbersome, and the law is not always heeded bygovernment bodies. These complications discourage journalists from requesting officialinformation.Under the 2003 Law on Communications, broadcast media are licensed and monitored bythe Communications Regulatory Agency (CRA), which has executive powers to enforceregulations. Although it is often exposed to political pressure, the agency is financially94

independent, and its licensing decisions are generally seen as fair and impartial. However, sincethe government is ultimately responsible for approving the appointment of the CRA’s directorgeneral and council members, political interference in this process is not uncommon. The printmedia and internet media outlets are self-regulated by the Press Council of BiH, which handlescomplaints about the press from the public, but has no power to fine, suspend, or close downmedia outlets. Instead, it mediates between the complainant and the outlet, often resulting in aretraction or the publication of a response or denial from the complainant. The Press Council isone of only a few centralized institutions in BiH that serve both the Federation and the RepublikaSrpska.Journalists and media outlets frequently face pressure from political parties in bothconstituent entities. Their respective public broadcasters, Federation Television and Radio-Television of Republika Srpska, the largest public broadcasters in the country, tend to behave asrivals and are generally organized along ethnic lines. In June 2012, in a clear display of politicalinterference, the House of Representatives of the Federation appointed three individuals to a“provisional steering board” at Federation Television, despite the fact that no provisional boardis established by law and only one member of the public broadcaster’s steering board is supposedto be appointed annually. The countrywide public broadcasting service, Radio-Television ofBosnia and Herzegovina (BHRT), also faces considerable pressure from political parties andleaders across BiH, and recent internal changes have greatly undermined its editorialindependence. In 2011, its statute was amended to give its steering committee, comprising fourappointed members, full editorial and managerial control, including the authority to appointeditors and approve programming.The Free Media Helpline, a program run by the Bosnia and Herzegovina Journalists’Association, recorded 39 violations of journalists’ rights between January 1 and September 10,2012, and noted an increase since 2011 in threats and pressure by politicians against journalists.In June, Republika Srpska president Milorad Dodik demanded that Ljiljana Kovačević, acorrespondent for Serbia’s Beta News Agency, leave a press conference, calling her a liar andusing other disrespectful language. Two days later, Dodik publicly asserted that press freedomwas guaranteed in the Republika Srpska. Journalists in BiH also remain susceptible to physicalattacks. In July, Štefica Galić, a filmmaker and editor of the web portal Tacno.net, was beaten bya group of people in the southwestern town of Ljubuški. The attack took place two days after thedebut of her documentary film, Neđo of Ljubuški, about her late husband’s efforts to helpBosnian Muslims escape Ljubuški during the civil war. Despite appeals from the Organizationfor Security and Cooperation in Europe’s representative on freedom of the media, the UnitedStates, and the European Union to thoroughly investigate the beating, local police deemed theincident a minor offense against peace and order, and said the media had exaggerated itsseverity.According to IREX’s Media Sustainability Index, BiH has 9 daily newspapers (most ofwhich are privately owned), 101 weekly and monthly newspapers and periodical magazines, 147radio stations, 48 television stations, and 6 news agencies, of which 2 are state owned and 4 areprivately owned. The public television and radio stations in the two constituent entities are themost influential broadcasters in the country, although there are also several private televisionstations with near-national reach. BiH’s media outlets are strongly divided along ethnic lines andmany are openly affiliated with political parties. The difficult economic situation faced by thesector, made worse by recent withdrawals of international funding for media outlets, has resultedin diminished independence of the media from political and commercial influences. Due to95

shrinking advertising revenue and major advertisers’ affiliations with political parties, manymedia outlets practice self-censorship to protect the commercial and political interests of theiradvertisers, upon whom they are financially dependent.Corruption and the use of subsidies also influence media content. In March 2012, theCenter for Humane Politics, a Bosnian watchdog group, reported the Republika Srpska primeminister and several members of his cabinet to the public prosecutor’s office, claiming that theyhad approved the payment of several million convertible marks, BiH’s currency, from the statebudget to media outlets in return for favorable coverage. In November, Croatian journalistDomagoj Margetić, who authored a series of articles on a Croatian corruption case involvingAustria’s Hypo Alpe-Adria-Bank, claimed that Dodik had threatened him and offered himmoney not to link him and his son to controversies at the bank.The internet is unrestricted, and 65 percent of the population had access in 2012.BotswanaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 11Political Environment: 17Economic Environment: 13Total Score: 41Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 36,PF 37,PF 39,PF 40,PF 40,PFWhile press freedom is not explicitly guaranteed in the constitution, clauses safeguardingfreedoms of speech and expression undergird extensive legal protections for media outlets, andthe government generally respects these freedoms in practice. However, the constitution containsa number of provisions concerning national security, public order, and public morality that canbe used to limit press freedom. In August 2012, the ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP)stifled a vote on a proposed freedom of information bill, and access to public informationremains a major problem for journalists.The 2008 Media Practitioners Act called for the establishment of a statutory regulatorybody and mandated the registration of all media workers and outlets—including websites andblogs—with violations punishable by either a fine or prison time. The minister of communicationwould be able to exert significant influence over the new Media Council envisioned by the lawthrough control of key committees. Although passed by the legislature, the act has not enteredinto force due to legal challenges by opponents, including a 2010 lawsuit by a group of 32individuals and groups representing media outlets, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), andtrade unions. A final ruling on the law’s constitutionality was still pending at the end of 2012.Journalists increasingly face defamation charges from public officials. In March 2012,BDP legislator Phillip Makgalemele won a defamation case against the private Yarona FM radiostation over a 2008 report alleging that he was willing to take bribes to orchestrate losses by thenational soccer team while serving as head of the Botswana Football Association. Yarona FMwas ordered to pay over $31,500 in damages. In July, Dikgang Publishing Company won an96

appeal that reversed a prior defamation judgment for an article regarding the divorce of a localofficial.In 2012, lawmakers passed the Communications Regulatory Authority Act, which mergesregulation and licensing under the Botswana Communications Regulatory Authority (BOCRA).Critics expressed fear that the legislation favors state-owned media and may be used to monitorcommunications and social networks.The government occasionally censors or otherwise restricts news sources or stories that itfinds undesirable. In 2010, coverage of a split in the BDP and the resulting formation of theBotswana Movement for Democracy (BMD) party was conspicuously absent from state-runradio and television broadcasts, and journalists were discouraged from interviewing BMDleaders. Under President Ian Khama, government relations with the press relations haveworsened significantly, and Khama has not held a domestic press conference since taking officein 2008. Fear of reprisals for coverage that is critical of the government has reportedly led toincreased self-censorship in recent years.Journalists can generally cover the news freely and are seldom the targets of attacks,though instances of harassment have increased in recent years. In September 2012, journalistswere assaulted by defendants at a local courthouse as the police looked on.State-owned outlets dominate the broadcast media, which reach far more residents thanthe print media, and provide inadequate access to the opposition and government critics. Theprivate Gaborone Broadcasting Corporation television system and two private radio stations havelimited reach, though Botswana easily receives broadcasts from neighboring South Africa. Thecountry does not have licensed independent community radio. A free and vigorous print sectorthrives in cities and towns, with several independent newspapers and magazines published in thecapital. The widest-circulation newspaper, the state-owned Daily News, is free to readers and isgenerally the only newspaper available in rural areas. There are currently 13 private newspapers,but they are mainly limited to Gaborone. High printing costs and limited distribution networksmean that independent papers usually have modest press runs. As of 2012, there was only onebroadsheet printer in the country, Printing and Publishing Company Botswana, which isreportedly owned in part by senior BDP officials. The media rely heavily on advertising, andeditorial accommodations are made for major buyers. The government has restricted stateadvertising in private newspapers that are deemed too critical of the government, and has evenmade unsuccessful efforts to ban private advertising in the daily Mmegi and the SundayStandard.The government does not restrict internet access, though such access is rare outside cities,with 11.5 percent of the population using the medium in 2012. Penetration is limited mostly bythe high cost of connections and equipment. According to the 2012 World Economic Forum’sGlobal Information Technology Report, only 4.9 percent of people in Botswana live in ahousehold with a computer.BrazilStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 13Political Environment: 22Economic Environment: 1197

Total Score: 46Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 42,PF 42,PF 43,PF 44,PF 44,PFBrazil has a vibrant democracy with strong constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression.In a positive step, a public information access law went into effect in 2012. However, journalistsalso experienced frequent violence, harassment, and censorship during the year. Incidents ofjudicial censorship were particularly troubling.Various forms of libel and defamation remain criminalized in Brazil, although most ofthe numerous lawsuits that arise each year are filed under civil statutes. Bloggers frequently areforced to pay fines following defamation suits over their online reporting, and a 2012 report bythe freedom of expression group Article 19 noted that the threat of lawsuits and court ordersleads many bloggers and online journalists—who lack the resources of journalists backed bytraditional media companies—to practice self-censorship. In November, a judge rejected theappeal of award-winning journalist Lúcio Flávio Pinto and ordered him to pay about $205,000 inlibel damages to businessman Romulo Maiorana Júnior and his family’s company, DeltaPublicidade. Pinto, who runs the blog Jornal Pessoal, has faced more than 30 criminal and civillawsuits for his work since 1990.Judicial censorship and harassment of journalists and media outlets remained common in2012, with many episodes linked to municipal elections held in October. Courts issued fines andprison sentences, and on several occasions blocked publication of certain names and images. Forexample, numerous newspapers, radio and television stations, and websites were ordered not tomention the name of the mayor-elect of the city of Campo Mourão in Paraná State whendiscussing an investigation of alleged vote buying. In another case, an electoral judge ordered anembargo on an edition of the newspaper Correio do Estado in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul inAugust because it was going to release the results of a voter poll.The internet, including both small news sites and blogs and web giants such as Google,has been particularly hard-hit by judicial censorship. Google was forced to remove or modifymore than 300 online items related to the municipal elections in 2012, and the website JornalOeste was prohibited by an electoral court from publishing information regarding the elections inCáceres, Mato Grosso State, because its coverage allegedly favored a specific mayoral candidate.In September, a video that appeared on Google’s YouTube video-sharing site and supposedlymocked a mayoral candidate in Paraíba State led a judge to order the arrest of the director ofGoogle Brazil, Edmundo Luiz Pinto Balthazar. Although he was temporarily detained, the orderwas overturned two days later. The daily newspaper O Estado de São Paulo has faced more than1,000 days of censorship stemming from a 2009 court order that banned the newspaper fromreporting on the business dealings of former president José Sarney’s son, Fernando Sarney. Theproblem of judicial censorship seemingly came to a head in November with the creation of agovernment commission, the National Forum of Judicial Authority and Freedom, tasked withmonitoring court cases involving press freedom.Brazil’s new freedom of information law, signed by President Dilma Rousseff inNovember 2011, went into effect in May 2012. The law guarantees public access to documentsfrom the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government at the federal, state, andmunicipal levels. It also provides for access to information about private entities that receivepublic funding. Furthermore, the law stipulates that information about human rights violations is98

not exempt from disclosure. However, the statute lacks an independent body to monitorenforcement. By the end of 2012, the federal government had received more than 50,000information requests, of which roughly 95 percent were approved. Implementation of the lawproceeded more slowly at the state and municipal levels. At year’s end, only 11 of Brazil’s 26states conformed to the law’s requirements.In August, a controversial constitutional amendment that would require a degree topractice journalism moved forward following approval in the Senate. If it also passes theChamber of Deputies, the measure will go into effect, overturning a 2009 Supreme Federal Courtruling that declared such degree requirements unconstitutional. Critics contend that the rulewould limit constitutional guarantees of free expression and free speech.While the government does not restrict access to the internet, press freedom groupsexpressed concern over two proposed cybercrime laws—approved by the legislature inNovember and awaiting the president’s signature at year’s end—that could limit user privacy andrestrict freedom of expression online. In addition, at the end of 2012 Congress was consideringan Internet Bill of Rights, known as the “Marco Civil.” While initially aimed at protectingfreedom of expression, the bill was changed to include language that advocacy groups contendwould make internet service providers act as judge and jury in cases of copyright infringement.Four journalists were killed in Brazil in 2012, according to the Committee to ProtectJournalists (CPJ)—the highest number in a decade. In February, Mario Randolfo Marques Lopesof the news website Vassouras na Net was abducted and murdered. He frequently accused localauthorities of corruption, including the police and judiciary. In April, Décio Sá of O Estado doMaranhão and Blog do Décio was murdered by contract killers. He had extensively coveredpolitics and corruption on his blog. In July, Radio Jornal sports reporter Valério Luiz deOliveira—a critic of the local soccer team—was shot and killed. In November, a gunman killedEduardo Carvalho of news website Última Hora News outside his home. He regularly reportedon corruption and had survived a previous assassination attempt. According to CPJ, three of thefour murders in 2012 remained unsolved; seven individuals, including one suspect whoconfessed to the shooting, were arrested in connection with Sá’s murder. In a potentially positivestep toward combating impunity, the National Journalists’ Federation in November announcedthe creation of a commission, to be launched in 2013, aimed at investigating crimes against thepress during the 1964–85 military dictatorship.Beyond the killings, journalists in 2012 remained exposed to threats and physicalviolence, much of it linked to the municipal elections. In September, at the height of campaignseason, a bomb attack at Radio Farol in União dos Palmares, Alagoas State, forced the station,known for its criticism of the outgoing mayor, off the air. In October, a reporting team from theGazeta television network in Espírito Santo State was attacked by supporters of a defeatedmayoral candidate in Vila Velha. In another case in October, journalist Oscar Filho of theBandeirantes television network program CQC was beaten by militants from the ruling Workers’Party. In December, Mauri König, director of the Brazilian Association of InvestigativeJournalism and a reporter for the newspaper Gazeta do Povo, was forced to flee his home andtake refuge in a secure location after receiving death threats for denouncing police corruption.Similarly, reporter André Caramante of the newspaper Folha de São Paulo spent several monthsin exile after writing articles about the police and a city councilman in São Paulo. In recognitionof the alarming levels of violence against journalists, the government—after initially helping toblock a UN initiative on journalists’ safety—changed course in September and cosponsored aresolution that was adopted at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva.99

Brazil is South America’s largest media market, with thousands of radio stations,hundreds of television channels, and a variety of major newspapers. In addition, about 50 percentof the population had access to the internet in 2012. Ownership of mass media continues to behighly concentrated among a few large companies. An estimated 10 business groups controlmost of the country’s outlets. The Globo Organizations conglomerate enjoys a dominantposition, with Brazil’s principal television, cable, and satellite networks as well as several radiostations and print outlets. Another company, Editora Abril, leads Brazil’s magazine market.Hundreds of politicians nationwide are either directors or partners in roughly 300 mediacompanies, most of them radio and television stations, according to the independent mediamonitoring group Media Owners (Donos da Midia). A Reporters Without Borders report citedthe cozy relationship between media companies and politicians as one of the greatest obstacles tomedia diversity in Brazil. It also warned that high levels of government advertising createdependency and “financial servitude” on the part of the media.Media diversity is hampered in part by the difficulty of obtaining community radiolicenses. It can take up to 10 years in some cases to get a license, and only those stationstransmitting at less than 25 watts qualify as “community” stations, meaning stations transmittingat 25 to 100 watts are often forced to operate illegally. In a 2012 submission to the UNHRC,Article 19 documented 326 legal cases—roughly half of them criminal—against communityradio stations. For example, José Eduardo Rocha Santos, owner of a station in Sergipe State,faced a 30-month prison sentence for operating without a license until the verdict was overturnedon appeal in July.BruneiStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 28Political Environment: 25Economic Environment: 22Total Score: 75Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 75,NF 75,NF 75,NF 75,NF 75,NFThe absolute monarchy of Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, as well as emergency laws that have been inplace for nearly half a century, continue to restrict journalists and limit the diversity of mediacontent in Brunei. Journalists face up to three years of imprisonment if found guilty of reporting“false and malicious” news. Passage of the 2005 Sedition Act worsened the state of pressfreedom in Brunei by expanding the list of punishable offenses to include criticism of the sultan,the royal family, and the national Malay Islamic Monarchy ideology, which promotes Islam asthe state religion and the idea that monarchical rule is the only acceptable form of governance.Under the amended law, persons found in violation of these offenses, or any publishers, editors,or proprietors of a newspaper publishing items with seditious intent, face fines of up toBN$5,000 (US$4,000). There is no legislation establishing the right to access officialinformation.100

Under current press legislation, newspapers are required to apply for annual publishingpermits, and foreign journalists must obtain government approval prior to working in thecountry. The government retains the authority to arbitrarily shut down any media outlet and bardistribution of foreign publications, with no possibility of appeal by the affected outlet. AnInternet Code of Practice, included in a 2001 press law, makes individuals as well as content andservice providers liable for publishing anything that is “against the public interest or nationalharmony or which offends against good taste or decency.” It also requires all sites that carrycontent or discuss issues of a religious or political nature to register with the BroadcastingAuthority. Failure to register is punishable by up to three years of imprisonment and a fine of upto US$200,000.While no incidents of attacks on or harassment of journalists have been reported in recentyears, authorities have previously warned the media to exercise caution when reporting on thesultanate. Consequently, media are generally not able to convey a diversity of viewpoints andopinions, and criticism of the government is exceedingly rare.The private press, including the country’s main English-language daily, the BorneoBulletin, is mostly owned or controlled by the sultan’s family and practices self-censorship onpolitical and religious issues to avoid confrontation with the government. In 2006, after receivingpermission from the sultan, an independent media company run by a group of prominentbusinessmen launched a second English-language daily, the Brunei Times. The paper’s globalfocus is intended to help foster international investment, thus promoting government priorities. Italso offers a wider range of international, finance, and opinion pieces, as well as online polls ongovernment policies. A smaller Malay-language newspaper and several Chinese-languagenewspapers are also published in Brunei. Foreign newspapers are available but requiregovernment approval before distribution. The only local broadcast outlets, including thecountry’s one television station, are operated by the government-controlled Radio TelevisionBrunei, and programming typically focuses on religion and government activities. Residents areable to receive Malaysian broadcasts, and international news is also available via satelliteservices.In 2012, roughly 60 percent of the population accessed the internet. The primary internetservice provider is state owned, giving the government a considerable amount of control overcontent. In 2006, the government called on internet cafés to install firewalls to prevent usersfrom viewing immoral content. According to the U.S. State Department, the governmentcontinues to monitor the private e-mail and internet chat-room exchanges of citizens who aresuspected of subversive behavior. It is believed that fear of government retribution has reducedthe number of chat-room visitors.BulgariaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 11Political Environment: 15Economic Environment: 11Total Score: 37Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012101

Total Score, Status 33,PF 36,PF 34,PF 35,PF 36,PFThe constitution protects freedom of speech and of the press, and the government generallyrespects these rights in practice. Defamation is punishable by large fines, and governmentofficials have filed suits against journalists, but the courts tend to favor press freedom in suchcases. In an unusual incident, after the news site Bivol.bg reported on suspected corrupt bankingpractices in June 2012, a group of banks filed a complaint under a statute that allows theBulgarian National Bank to impose fines for disseminating false or harmful information aboutbanking institutions. However, at the end of the year, the national bank had not pursued thecomplaint further. A 2011 law prescribes up to four years in prison for the instigation of hatred,discrimination, or violence based on race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation,marital or social status, or disability. It was criticized by press freedom advocates for failing todefine terms like “discrimination,” and for criminalizing speech that does not intentionally inciteviolence.The law on freedom of information is considered fairly robust, though state institutionssometimes improperly deny information requests. Legislation passed in 2011 reducedjournalists’ access to an important official registry of private companies’ contracts and activities.The broadcasting regulatory body is subject to pressure from the government, politicians, andlarge corporate interests.Media outlets convey a range of political views, in most cases without governmentinterference. However, political leaders sometimes display an intolerance for media criticism,and a number of outlets show a strong progovernment bias. In July 2012, Prime Minister BoykoBorisov declared that media scrutiny of the Interior Ministry’s work served the interests oforganized crime. Reporters continue to face pressure and intimidation aimed at protectingeconomic, political, and criminal interests. Impunity for crimes against journalists remains thenorm, encouraging self-censorship. In May, the vehicle of investigative journalist Lidia Pavlovaof the Blagoevgrad daily Struma was set on fire. She and her family had received multiplethreats in the past, and her car had been repeatedly attacked. In July, Varna-based journalist SpasSpasov received a threatening message at his home address, apparently in connection with hisreporting on a construction project.A number of private newspapers publish daily, and most are owned by two rivalcompanies. Two of the three leading national television stations, bTV and Nova TV, are ownedby foreign companies. The third is state-owned Bulgarian National Television (BNT). LikeBulgarian National Radio, BNT generally provides news coverage without a clear political bias,but the legal structure leaves public media vulnerable to potential government interference.Foreign firms have also played an important role in the print and radio sectors. Key outletscontinued to change hands in 2012 as a result of difficult economic conditions and the shiftingbusiness or political interests of the owners. The New Bulgarian Media Group, which takes astaunchly progovernment line, continued to acquire outlets during the year, raising concernsabout concentration. The government has been accused of indirectly subsidizing theconglomerate through deposits by state entities in an affiliated bank. Commercial mediafrequently tailor their coverage to suit the interests of key financial backers, includingcorporations and national or local government bodies. The shrinking private advertising markethas increased the importance of state advertising and other subsidies, especially for local outlets.Individual journalists continue to suffer from decreasing salaries and job insecurity, leading tounethical practices and acquiescence to editorial pressure.102

Many traditional media outlets have established a presence on the internet, which is notrestricted by the government and was accessed by about 55 percent of the population in 2012.Some newspapers have switched to an online-only format for economic reasons.Burkina FasoStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 13Political Environment: 16Economic Environment: 13Total Score: 42Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 41,PF 41,PF 41,PF 41,PF 42,PFArticle 8 of the constitution and the 1993 Information Code guarantee the freedoms ofexpression, information, and the press. However, media outlets are prohibited from insulting thehead of state and publishing or broadcasting graphic images. Libel is a criminal offense, and theburden of proof is on the defendant. Although few journalists have been charged in recent years,in October 2012 two journalists for the private weekly L’Ouragan were sentenced to 12 monthsin prison, a fine of 1.5 million CFA francs ($2,900), to pay total damages of 4 million CFAfrancs ($7,800), and a six-month newspaper suspension for criminal defamation of the stateprosecutor.Article 49 of the Information Code grants every journalist free access to sources ofinformation, with exceptions for information pertaining to the internal or external security of thestate, military secrets, strategic economic interests, ongoing investigations or legal proceedings,and anything that threatens the dignity and privacy of Burkinabés. In practice, these exceptionsare used frequently by officials, and accessing government information remains difficult.Burkina Faso’s media regulatory body, the High Council of Communication (CSC),consists of 12 members appointed by the government and has been criticized for inconsistent andmismanaged licensing procedures. A constitutional amendment in June 2012 institutionalized theCSC. The body has the power to summon journalists to hearings about their work and monitorsmedia content for compliance with ethical standards and the law. The publication of graphicimages of victims of ethnic clashes by Le Quotidien in December led the CSC to impose a oneweekban on the paper. There are no specific government restrictions on internet access orcontent, though the CSC does monitor websites along with other media. In May, the councilissued a warning to a website on which criticism of the president had appeared.To avoid aggravating public authorities, state-run outlets generally refrain from coveringcontroversial subjects, though programming allows for coverage of the opposition. Conversely,the private media are generally free of overt censorship, do criticize the government, andinvestigate more sensitive topics. Indigenous programming that broadcasts in local languagesand addresses issues such as gender equality, reproductive health, and domestic violence hascontributed to diversity of content. Journalists occasionally face harassment by public authoritiesfor coverage that is deemed unfavourable, leading some to practice self-censorship. However, nocases of serious physical attacks were reported in 2012.103

More than 200 radio and television stations operate in the country, and there are at leastfive national dailies. Government-owned media demonstrate a progovernment bias, but theopposition has significant access to state-run media such as the official daily, Sidwaya. Althoughthe private print media are growing, including through newsmagazines, ownership still lackstransparency. The print sector’s struggles with interrupted production, low literacy rates, andpoor economic conditions make the broadcast media the preferred choice for news andentertainment. Radiodiffusion Télévision du Burkina (RTB) was established as the nationalbroadcaster in 1963 and remained the only television channel for many years. A handful ofprivate television stations now compete with RTB. Radio is still the country’s most popularmedium and source of information. Community radio stations are prevalent throughout thecountry and play a significant role in local development and community building. Foreign radiostations are able to broadcast freely. While the CSC has approved a growing number of privateradio stations, newspapers, and television channels, as well as requests for radio frequencyspectrum, critics argue that it should focus additional efforts on addressing the economicsustainability of media outlets. Low levels of training and expertise, as well as low salaries,affect the integrity of journalism as a profession. Infrastructural deficiencies and poverty limitedinternet penetration to 3.7 percent of the population in 2012.Burma (Myanmar)Status: Not FreeLegal Environment: 23Political Environment: 24Economic Environment: 25Total Score: 72Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 97,NF 96,NF 95,NF 94,NF 85,NFSignificant changes in Burma’s media landscape in 2012 were driven in part by continuedopenings in the general political environment, most notably increased space for political partiesto operate and parliamentary by-elections in April that led to the opposition National League forDemocracy (NLD) rejoining the political process and winning 43 of the 44 seats it competed for.Positive developments for press freedom during the year included the release of a number ofimprisoned bloggers and journalists, an end to official prepublication censorship, the lifting ofbans on coverage of certain topics, the establishment of several independent journalists’ andpublishers’ associations, fewer reports of harassment and attacks against journalists, the removalof several foreign journalists from the government’s blacklist, and despite a rocky start, progresstoward a new media law. In addition, exile media groups continued to return to the country, withseveral opening offices and a few obtaining publishing licenses. But even after these rapidchanges, Burma remained one of the more repressive countries in Asia, featuring significant statecontrol over the domestic media sector, low penetration rates for electronic media, and a numberof restrictive laws still on the books.104

The 2008 constitution provides for freedom of expression and of the press, but it alsocontains restrictive language that contravenes international standards. Moreover, these rights arenot respected in practice, as the court system lacks the independence to try cases impartially, andmany draconian laws still stand. For example, the 1950 Emergency Provisions Act bans contentthat would “affect the morality or conduct of the public or a group of people in a way that wouldundermine the security of the Union or the restoration of law and order.” The 2004 ElectronicsTransactions Law prohibits any individual or group from electronically sending informationregarding government issues or national security, or messages of a cultural or economic nature.The criminal code, the Official Secrets Act, and other laws can also be used to restrict mediafreedom. The parliament continues to resist efforts to repeal such statutes. Several lawsuits werebrought against privately owned weeklies in 2012, primarily by government officials, raising theprospect that defamation cases could become an important new means of curbing the media inthe absence of direct censorship.In early 2012, the government began drafting a new media law that would replace the1962 Printers and Publishers Registration Act. Local media associations such as the MyanmarJournalists Network (MJN), the Myanmar Journalists Association (MJA), and the MyanmarJournalists Union (MJU) were not consulted in the drafting process, and passage of the bill wasdelayed after a leaked version showed that it would not guarantee press freedoms. An interimpress council staffed by government officials, the Myanmar Core Press Council (MCPC), wasformed in August to monitor journalists until a new media law could be enacted. Followingprotests by domestic journalists calling for more influence in the council, the MCPC wasreplaced with the more inclusive Myanmar Press Council (MPC) in September. In November,the MPC drafted a code of ethics for journalists. A revised media law was expected to beintroduced in the parliament in 2013.Foreign embassies, international media development organizations, and the newly formedjournalists’ associations hosted many training sessions, seminars, and forums to discuss thedevelopment of the media during the year. In addition, the government enlisted the assistance ofsome of the newly returned exile media in assessing state-run outlets, training personnel, andproviding advice on the changing media landscape. The formerly banned exile stationDemocratic Voice of Burma (DVB) jointly organized a conference on public-servicebroadcasting with the Information Ministry in September, and in October the governmentannounced its intention to transform the country’s state-run newspapers into public-servicemedia. Also that month, President Thein Sein began holding official press conferences; othergovernment officials and departments continued to make themselves more accessible than in thepast.Official censorship significantly decreased in 2012, and prepublication censorship waseliminated, though the resulting uncertainty about what constituted grounds for postpublicationsuspension of licenses led to an increase in self-censorship by journalists and editors. Priorrestraint was lifted for those publications still subject to such restrictions, specifically foreducational publications in March, for literary publications in May, and for all other publicationsin August, ending a 48-year-old practice. In July, publications were granted permission for thefirst time to place images of NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi on their front pages. In December, itwas announced that privately owned daily newspapers would be able to resume production in thecountry starting in April 2013. While government control and legal restrictions remain in placefor domestic internet service providers, the government has recently begun to open up access topreviously censored online content. Formerly blocked websites have recently become accessible,105

such as those with content relating to human rights and political reform, as well as independentand foreign news sites.Burmese journalists in many instances took action to assert their rights in 2012, includingby organizing protests against license suspensions imposed on the private press. In August, priorto the lifting of prepublication censorship, journalists from MJN took to the streets to protest theJuly suspension of The Voice Weekly and The Envoy, after the journals failed to submit theirarticles for prepublication scrutiny. The MJN, MJA, and MJU formed a Press FreedomCommittee to seek a reversal of the suspensions by the government’s censorship board. Inaddition, despite rising concerns about self-censorship, media outlets continued to expand theircoverage of political news, addressing topics that had in the past been considered off limits andengaging in more scrutiny of the activities of the government and legislature. Yangon-basedjournalists were able for the first time in 2012 to cover events in some ethnic minority areas,such as the fighting between government forces and minority guerrillas in Kachin State.However, interethnic tension remained a sensitive topic, especially in Rakhine State, whereviolence between Buddhists and ethnic Rohingya Muslims broke out in June and again inOctober. The government issued directives against coverage of the situation and maintained aclose watch on journalists traveling to the region.Exile media organizations continued to explore options for returning to the country.Several set up offices in Burma either officially or unofficially, but many retained their officesabroad given the potential for backsliding in the reform process. Media organizations whoseaffiliation with an ethnic minority was apparent in their names faced obstacles in their attemptsto register or obtain licenses. In addition, minority journalists remained marginalized at mediaconferences and in the newly established press council. Although several prominent foreignjournalists were removed from the government’s blacklist, most foreign reporters still found itdifficult to obtain visas to cover events within the country.No attacks on journalists were reported in 2012, and harassment dropped significantly,with only a few reports of threats in restive Rakhine State. According to the Committee toProtect Journalists, by the end of 2012, no journalists were being held in any of the country’sprisons. Nine journalists had been released in January as part of a mass amnesty for politicalprisoners, including five from DVB. Additional journalists were released over the course of theyear.Media concentration remains high, even though a number of formerly exiled mediaorganizations have begun opening outlets in the country. The government owns or controls alldomestic broadcast media and the main daily newspapers, but that is expected to change startingin 2013. Authorities no longer restrict the importation of foreign news periodicals, yet due tohigh levels of poverty and illiteracy, as well as poor infrastructure and distribution networks,print media are accessible mainly in urban areas, and broadcast outlets are the main source ofnews for most citizens. Six public television stations are available, of which five are controlledby the Information Ministry and one by the armed forces. The eight domestic FM radio channelsare controlled by the government or its allies. However, radio programs transmitted from abroadby Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, and DVB are accessible and remain very popular.Because of high monthly subscription fees to access satellite television, most Burmese viewersinstall the receivers illegally.Internet connections are expensive, and in 2012 only 1 percent of the population accessedthe medium. The government owns all internet service providers. Nevertheless, for those withaccess, a range of e-mail, blog, and social-media platforms—including Gmail, Facebook, and106

YouTube—have grown in popularity. In some cases the services have been used to disseminatemisinformation and hate speech, as exemplified by vitriolic responses to the Rohingya issue.Starting in mid-2012, fabricated news and falsified photographs associated with the violence inRakhine State were posted on several Facebook accounts anonymously. Also in 2012, thegovernment reduced the price of SIM cards for mobile telephones, though they remained amongthe most expensive in Asia. Complicated payment schemes for short-message service (SMS)make it either too costly or politically risky for Burmese seeking to use text messages as anotherplatform for news, information, or civic mobilization.BurundiStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 23Political Environment: 28Economic Environment: 21Total Score: 72Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 74,NF 75,NF 73,NF 74,NF 72,NFThere was no easing of the existing clampdown on the media in Burundi during 2012, asjournalists who reported critically on President Pierre Nkurunziza’s government were generallytreated as part of the political opposition and harassed by the security forces and ruling partyfunctionaries. Meanwhile, judicial authorities continued to face criticism for serving the rulingparty’s interests, to the detriment of independent media and civil society.The constitution guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, but the country’s lawsimpose criminal penalties on journalists for defamation, discrediting the state, insulting the headof state, and “threatening state security.” The 1997 Press Law forbids dissemination of“information inciting civil disobedience or serving as propaganda for enemies of the Burundiannation during a time of war.” The 2003 Media Law allows harsh fines and prison terms of up tofive years for the dissemination of information that insults the president or is defamatory towardother individuals. In June 2012, journalist Hassan Ruvakuki, a correspondent for Bonesha FMand Radio France Internationale, was sentenced to life in prison for “participating in acts ofterrorism,” amid claims that the government had pressured the court to convict. He had beenarrested in November 2011 over an interview he conducted with the alleged leader of a rebelgroup that carried out deadly attacks near the Burundi-Tanzania border. An appeal was pendingat year’s end.During 2012, the government introduced a bill to decriminalize media offenses, butjournalists said it would also compel them to reveal their sources in cases deemed to threatenstate security or public order. Another provision requires journalists to broadcast or publish only“balanced information from sources that have been rigorously verified.” Offenses would not bepunishable by imprisonment, but heavy fines are prescribed for certain violations, which couldplace a serious financial burden on media organizations. The bill had yet to be passed at the endof 2012.107

The National Communications Council (CNC), a state agency that oversees theenforcement of media laws, in June 2012 suspended Radio Rema for airing allegedly libelouscriticism of civil society figures. Also in June, the CNC referred the case of Radio PubliqueAfricaine to the public prosecutor after the independent station allegedly accused the president ofcorruption. Neither case was resolved during the year.Journalists continued to face harassment and attacks during 2012, and the threateningclimate fostered a high degree of self-censorship. In June, Eloge Niyonzima, a reporter for RadioPublique Africaine, was attacked overnight by members of the ruling party’s youth wing, whichreportedly had been carrying out nightly patrols. The government had accused the station ofhaving links with the opposition.Independent media worked together to demonstrate against state harassment in 2012.Four independent radio stations in June asked the public to honk their car horns simultaneouslyat a designated time to protest the harassment of journalists. During another campaign in August,six private and two public radio stations produced a shared broadcast denouncing the press billunder consideration by a parliamentary committee.The government dominates Burundi’s media industry. It runs Radio Télévision Nationaledu Burundi (RTNB), the sole television and radio stations with national reach, and LeRenouveau, the only newspaper that publishes regularly. There are approximately 20 privatelyowned radio stations, as well as telecommunications and internet service providers. The lawprohibits political parties, labor unions, or foreign nongovernmental organizations from owningmedia outlets in the country. Internet penetration remains very low, at 1.2 percent, due to thehigh cost of service. However, the number of mobile-telephone subscribers increased by 17percent in 2012, to 2.24 million of the nation’s 8 million people, according to thetelecommunications regulator. Online publishing remains minimal, mainly due to low literacyrates and poor internet access. There are no government restrictions on internet access or content.CambodiaStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 23Political Environment: 24Economic Environment: 19Total Score: 66Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 60,PF 61,NF 61,NF 63,NF 63,NFCambodia’s government tightened its grip on press freedom in 2012 as the authorities stepped upthe use of legal pressure and physical violence to silence journalists. In particular, the 20-yearprison sentence imposed on 71-year-old radio station owner Mam Sonando in connection withthe station’s coverage of land disputes signaled a downturn in media freedom. International radiobroadcasters also faced increasing challenges during the year.Laws regulating the media are vaguely written and unevenly applied. The 1993constitution guarantees the right to free expression and a free press. However, media personnelare often prosecuted under provisions of the 1995 press law that prohibit reports deemed108

threatening to political stability. The 2010 penal code, which replaced an older versionestablished by the UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC), criminalizes defamationand bars written criticism of public officials or institutions. Those convicted of defamation face apotential fine of 10 million riel ($2,500). The government uses defamation and other criminalcharges to intimidate journalists, and the courts lack independence, as most judges are closelytied to the ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP). Cases sometimes linger for years, andindividuals are often charged arbitrarily or through the retroactive application of new laws. InJuly 2012, police arrested Mam Sonando, owner of the independent Beehive Radio, for hisoutlet’s coverage of politically sensitive topics. The station had reported extensively on themilitary’s fatal shooting of a 14-year-old girl during a crackdown on land disputes in KratieProvince. Prime Minister Hun Sen publicly called for Mam Sonando’s arrest after the stationreported that the U.S.-based Khmer People Power Movement had filed a case against thegovernment at the International Criminal Court (ICC) over the attack. On October 1, aCambodian court found the station owner guilty of “insurrection” against the state under thepenal code and sentenced him to 20 years in prison.In late 2011, the government delayed passage of the highly criticized Law onAssociations and Nongovernmental Organizations (LANGO), which was expected to fetter thework of grassroots organizations and media outlets. Officials said they would complete thelegislation after parliamentary elections that were expected in 2013. Progress on a proposedAccess to Information Act remained stalled in 2012. Meanwhile, the National InformationCommunications Technology Development Authority (NiDA) was drafting a law that, accordingto activists, could limit internet freedom under the pretense of national security concerns.Licenses are required for broadcast media, and opposition outlets are often denied radioand television frequencies. Access to international broadcasts like Radio Free Asia (RFA) andVoice of America (VOA), and local independent radio services such as Voice of Democracy, isgenerally unrestricted. However, on June 1 the Ministry of Information (MOI) ordered RFA- andVOA-affiliated stations to stop broadcasting the evening before and on the day of the June 3communal elections. In October, government officials summoned representatives of RFA andVOA to a closed-door meeting and reprimanded them for a lack of “professionalism” andcultural sensitivity in their reporting. The meeting was allegedly held in response to the stations’coverage of politically sensitive topics, and RFA declared the reprimand an intimidation tactic.Censorship of online content is also a growing concern. Despite low internet penetration rates,the government has become concerned with the internet’s potential as a medium for oppositionvoices. The Ministry of Post and Telecommunications (MPTC) has on occasion blocked accessto opposition websites.Physical attacks on journalists increased in 2012. On April 26, a military officer shot andkilled Chut Wutty, an environmentalist who was guiding two Cambodia Daily journalists as theyinvestigated illegal logging in Koh Kong Province. Hang Serei Odom, a journalist withVirakchun Khmer Daily, was found murdered on September 11 in Ratanakiri Province, in thefirst such case in several years. He had published a story the previous week in which he accusedthe son of a military commander of timber smuggling. Impunity for past attacks is a concern: thecases of the other 10 journalists murdered since 1993 all remain unsolved.In Cambodia’s highly politicized media environment, most outlets are openly alignedwith a political faction, leaving little space for balanced views and journalism conducted in thepublic interest. The majority of the approximately 20 Khmer-language newspapers in operationare owned by individuals associated with or sympathetic to the ruling party. Editors and owners109

of opposition-aligned outlets are often pressured financially or legally to close their publications.Only two active opposition newspapers remain. A few English-language publications such as thePhnom Penh Post exist, but the French-language Cambodge Soir shut down in 2010 due tofinancial difficulties.Most television and radio stations—the main sources of information for the two-thirds ofthe population who are functionally illiterate—are owned or controlled by either the CPP or HunSen’s family and associates. Cambodia’s poor economy presents further financial challenges toopening and operating independent media institutions. Due to the low literacy rate, print mediaare often unable to attract enough advertising to be financially sustainable. Journalists’ pay isvery low, and accepting bribes to run or withhold particular stories is not uncommon.Owing to infrastructural and economic constraints, only 5 percent of the populationaccessed the internet in 2012. In February 2012 the government issued a circular requiringinternet cafés to register users and maintain surveillance on internet activity. The MPTC issued asecond circular in November that restricted the permissible locations for internet cafés and theactivities of café patrons.CameroonStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 21Political Environment: 24Economic Environment: 21Total Score: 66Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 65,NF 65,NF 66,NF 67,NF 68,NFPress freedom in 2012 remained constrained by the use of both laws and extralegal detention toharass journalists. The 1996 constitution guarantees the freedoms of expression and the press,though libel and defamation are criminalized. The burden of proof rests with the defendant inlibel cases, and a guilty verdict can carry prison terms and heavy fines. The 1990 “Liberty Laws”include nominal safeguards for independent print and audiovisual media, and the protection ofsources is guaranteed by the Social Communication Law, though judges can compel journaliststo reveal their sources in closed sessions. The 2010 Cybersecurity and Cybercriminality Law,which allows criminal investigators to access user data without any constraints on time orjustification, does not include sufficient protections against the abuse of power and invasion ofprivacy.State authorities were active in attempting to silence critical journalists through legalmeans in 2012. In October, Nigerian national Baature Edua Mvochou, editor of a Nigerianmagazine, and Martin Yembe Fon, editor of the local Frontier Telegraph, were arrested andcharged with unlawful assembly while reporting on a secessionist gathering. They remained freeon bail pending trial at year’s end, and faced a fine of up to 100,000 CFA francs ($200) and sixmonths in jail if convicted. In December, three journalists were convicted of forgery for theirinvestigation into alleged corruption in the management of a state oil company. Two of thejournalists were fined and given suspended prison terms, while a third was sentenced in absentia110

to 15 years in prison. These journalists had originally been arrested and detained for 10 monthsin 2010 along with another editor, Germain Cyrille Ngota Ngota, who died in April 2010 due toinadequate medical care while in detention. No arrests have been made in that case. Also inDecember, a state prosecutor threatened to charge Aaron Kah, editor of the bimonthly Kilum 24,with defamation if he continued to refuse to reveal his sources for a series of articles.There is no law granting citizens access to government information, and the governmentdoes not generally make documents or statistics available to the public or the media.Representatives of privately owned media are not accredited with the president or the primeminister and do not accompany the president on official trips. The communications minister is apolitical appointee and issues directives that regulate the activities of the press. In January 2012,the National Communication Council (NCC) was reorganized and given sanction powers bypresidential decree. These sanctions can range from warnings to bans of media outlets. In June,the prosecutor general issued a reminder to the NCC that under a 1990 law, all newspapers arerequired to submit editions to the prosecutor for review two hours before they are published.Print media licensing ended in 1990, but new publications must submit a declaration toauthorities and have it approved in order to begin publishing. Radio and television stations mustbe licensed, and both the application process and annual fees can be burdensome. Rural nonprofitradio stations are exempt from licensing fees but barred from discussing politics. The firstprivate broadcast licenses were granted in 2007. However, the government is largely tolerant ofmedia operating without licenses. The media environment demonstrates a widespread lack ofprofessionalism and ethical standards, and there is no independent body to provide selfregulationfor the media or to encourage the use of codes of conduct. Numerous journalistassociations exist, but they are often redundant and disorganized.Although much of the independent press reports critically about the government, thethreat of prosecution leads many journalists, particularly within the broadcast media, to selfcensor.Radio call-in shows and television debate programs in particular carry strong criticismsof the government and individual officials, but they operate under the threat of repercussions forexceeding the limits of “administrative tolerance,” as public officials are empowered to shutdown a publication or broadcaster and arrest citizens for comments judged to be threats to publicorder.There were fewer reported attacks on journalists in 2012 than in previous years, though apublishing house in the capital was attacked with explosive devices in November. Reporters arealso occasionally harassed or detained by security forces while attempting to cover sensitivestories, and some have faced ill-treatment in detention.Cameroon has only one national newspaper, which is state owned, and over 50 privatelyowned regional newspapers. The state-owned broadcaster, Cameroon Radio and Television(CRTV), is widely considered to be biased in favor of the government in its news and currentaffairsreporting, and the owners of mainstream private media have also been reported toinfluence content. Radio is the most important medium for most of the population, though about75 percent of the country’s 375 privately owned stations are in large urban areas. The statemonopoly on television ended in 2001, and there are currently 19 independent television stations.Television has a high level of influence in cities and towns, while more remote parts of thecountry can go weeks or months without a television or radio signal due to malfunctioning andoutdated infrastructure. Foreign broadcasters are permitted to operate within Cameroon and arewidely accessible to those who can afford the necessary equipment. However, such services arerequired to partner with a Cameroonian station in order to broadcast. A single private newspaper111

distribution company has a near-monopoly in the industry, which has kept prices high andcirculation limited largely to urban areas. The government is the largest advertiser, and it hasbeen accused of using this financial heft to influence content. Official funding to support privatemedia outlets is also disbursed selectively. Corruption is pervasive, due in large part to lowwages for journalists.Internet usage was limited to less than 6 percent of the population in 2012. There aregenerally no official restrictions on access to the internet, though there are reports that somecontent has been censored or blocked by officials. Structural barriers, brought about in part bythe government’s control of infrastructure and its strict regulations, present significant obstaclesto affordable and reliable access to the internet. Nevertheless, new media are experiencing rapidgrowth in the country, particularly among the increasing number of people who access theinternet from their mobile telephones. Users continue to endure slow connections and high feesat internet cafés. Cameroon is burdened with some of the highest bandwidth charges in West andCentral Africa, despite its access to a submarine cable, SAT3, that links the region to Europe.Connection to the West Africa Cable System (WACS) was completed in May 2012, which couldenhance the speed and quality of internet service in the future.CanadaStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 5Political Environment: 9Economic Environment: 6Total Score: 20Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 18,F 19,F 19,F 19,F 19,FCanada’s 1982 constitution guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Thegovernment may legally restrict free speech with the aim of ending discrimination, ensuringsocial harmony, or promoting gender equality, but the definition of hate speech, which ispunishable by law, remains vague. In November 2010, the Supreme Court began hearing thecase Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. William Whatcott, in which a local humanrights tribunal found Christian activist William Whatcott’s flyers and messages againsthomosexuality to be in violation of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code. Whatcott’s lawyerhas argued that defining “hate” is extremely difficult. The Supreme Court continued to reviewthe issue in 2012, and the case was ongoing at year’s end. In previous cases, the Supreme Courthas ruled that inciting hatred is a criminal offense, but the threshold for guilt is high: It must beproven that the person engaged in hate speech willfully and publicly.In 2009, the Supreme Court attempted to strike a balance between freedom of expressionand protection of reputation, allowing journalists to avoid liability for alleged defamation if theyare able to show that they acted responsibly in reporting a matter of public interest, even if thestatements were untrue. Despite this rule, in April 2011 a criminal libel complaint was filedagainst three Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) journalists over an allegedly defamatorydocumentary about fashion mogul Peter Nygard that aired in April 2010. If found guilty, the112

journalists could face prison sentences. In April 2012, Nygard filed a civil defamation suitagainst CBC employees related to the documentary. These cases, along with a string ofadditional civil suits by Nygard against the CBC, were ongoing at year’s end.The right of journalists to protect the confidentiality of their sources continued to betested in 2012. There are no specific laws that protect confidential sources, and the courts oftendecide whether or not to respect source confidentiality on a case-by-case basis. In February,Maurice Giroux, a journalist with the online newspaper MediaSud, was ordered by a judge toreveal his sources for a story on the leak of a confidential report by the president of MaxAviation and Cargair. In March, Éric-Yvan Lemay, a journalist with Le Journal de Montréal,had his home raided by police, who took forensic samples and confiscated his computer inresponse to claims by Honoré-Mercier Hospital that he had stolen medical documents whileconducting an investigation into medical confidentiality in Montreal-area hospitals. That casewas dropped in April.In February 2012, the government introduced Bill C-30, which would permit lawenforcement agencies to monitor the digital activity of internet users via their service providerswithout a warrant. In response to heavy backlash, the bill was sent to the Committee on Justiceand Human Rights for revision and appeared to be permanently shelved at year’s end.Canada’s 1983 Access to Information (ATI) Act is in serious need of reform and falls farshort of international standards. Efforts to obtain information from the federal governmenttypically involve long waits, and requests are hampered by the federal bureaucracy as well as thegoverning party. In September 2012, the Centre for Law and Democracy ranked Canada’s ATIlaw 56th among access to information laws in 93 countries, based on criteria such as right ofaccess, scope, request procedures, refusals, appeals, and sanctions and protections. The CanadianJournalists for Free Expression (CJFE) reported in 2012 that only half of the requests for officialinformation were being fulfilled within the statutory 30-day deadline. Canada’s informationcommissioner initiated a consultation in September to solicit national input on how to update theATI Act, and this process was ongoing at year’s end. In a separate hindrance on access to officialinformation, the Supreme Court in 2011 upheld Quebec court rules that prohibit media outletsfrom broadcasting the audio recordings of court proceedings or using cameras and recordingequipment beyond designated areas of courthouses.Journalists in Canada are generally free from violence or harassment. However, TorontoStar reporter Daniel Dale accused the mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, of physically threatening himand taking his telephone and video recorder as he photographed a piece of land next to themayor’s home in May 2012. In response, the mayor requested that the police bring chargesagainst Dale and that he be removed from the city hall beat. However, no charges were filedagainst the reporter. Also in May, the Office of the Independent Police Review Director releaseda report that heavily criticized police conduct during protests surrounding the Group of 20summit meeting in Toronto in 2010, including police treatment of the media. Journalists hadreported having their possessions searched and equipment damaged, and being detained,arrested, and physically assaulted. There were also instances of police abuse during studentprotests against proposed tuition hikes in Quebec in the spring of 2012. Journalists reportedbeing arrested, subjected to excessive force, or hit with rubber bullets. Some were told to stopfilming or had their equipment confiscated or damaged.Both print and broadcast media, including the public broadcaster CBC, are free to expressdiverse views. The CBC broadcasts in French and English. Broadcasting rules stipulate that 30 to35 percent of programming must be Canadian. Concentration of media ownership remains an113

issue, with around half of the network media market owned by four corporations: Bell, Shaw,Rogers, and Quebecor Media Inc. Bell Canada, the country’s largest telecommunicationscompany, has important stakes in many sectors, including television and radio broadcasting,wireless internet, and mobile service. In March 2012, Astral Media agreed to a C$3.38 billion(US$3.38 billion) takeover offer by Bell, which would have thereby acquired control over 42percent of the English-language television market and 33 percent of the French. However, theCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) rejected the proposeddeal in October based on concerns related to competition, ownership concentration, and verticalintegration. Bell and Astral Media submitted a revised proposal in November that would giveBell control of 35 percent of the English-language television viewership and 23 percent of theFrench. The proposal was still being considered at year’s end.Internet use is widespread and unrestricted in general, with 87 percent of the populationaccessing the internet in 2012.Cape VerdeStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 6Political Environment: 9Economic Environment: 12Total Score: 27Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 28,F 28,F 28,F 27,F 27,FCape Verde has historically been among the freest media environments in both Africa and thebroader Lusophone world, and it maintained this status in 2012. The constitution directlyprovides for freedom of the press as well as confidentiality of sources, access to information, andfreedom from arbitrary arrest. A 1999 constitutional amendment excludes the use of freedom ofexpression as a defense in defamation cases, but no such cases have been brought againstjournalists since 2002. The law requires broadcasters to obtain operating licenses, andgovernment approval is needed to establish new newspapers and other publications. In October2011, the parliament approved the creation of a Regulatory Authority for the Media, whose goalis to protect press freedom and ensure that a diversity of opinions can be expressed.The government consistently demonstrates its commitment to respect and protect mediafreedom. Prime Minister José Maria Neves proclaimed in 2011, with no visible dissent, thatwhen it comes to freedom of the press, “Cape Verde is a first-world country.” The governmentdoes not generally restrict access to or content on the media that it controls. Intimidation ofjournalists in Cape Verde is rare. In 2012 there were no attacks on journalists nor any reports ofintimidation. Self-censorship, a somewhat underdeveloped journalistic cadre, and an incompleteincorporation of local Creole dialects into the country’s media prevent Cape Verde from furtherimproving the freedom and diversity of its media environment.Many media outlets are state operated, although there are a growing number of privatepublications and broadcast outlets. The state runs the primary television channel, TCV, and aradio station, Radio Nacional de Cabo Verde. About a dozen independent and community-run114

FM radio stations broadcast regularly, and there are two private television channels. Print mediainclude a government publication that appears twice weekly and a handful of independentweeklies—including A Semana, the largest paper, as well as Expresso das Ilhas and A Nação—and monthlies, such as Artiletra. Portuguese and Brazilian newspapers are also readily available.Geographic barriers in the country, which is made up of several islands, constitute impedimentsto the distribution of newspapers and other media products. This has contributed to theimportance of the community radio sector. Difficulties raising funds and a lack of specificregulations governing community radio have been identified as major issues for the sustainabilityof this sector, and community radio advocates have called for government help with operatingcosts and new legislation.Internet usage has risen dramatically over the last few years, from 8 percent of thepopulation in 2007 to 35 percent in 2012. The cities have numerous cybercafés, giving residentsregular access to the medium. There were no reports that the government restricted internetaccess or monitored e-mail messages.Central African RepublicStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 20Political Environment: 23Economic Environment: 19Total Score: 62Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 61,NF 61,NF 61,NF 61,NF 62,NFIn late 2012, the Séléka rebel coalition began its march on the capital in an attempt to overthrowthe government of President François Bozizé. The media freedom situation had not beendramatically affected by year’s end, though there were reports of pressure being placed oncommunity radio stations and their staff as the rebels advanced.The 2005 constitution of the Central African Republic (CAR) provides for freedom of thepress, though authorities have used intimidation, the suspension of media outlets, and legalharassment to limit reporting, particularly on sensitive topics such as official corruption and rebelactivity. A press law that went into effect in 2005 abolished imprisonment for many pressoffenses, such as libel and slander, but criminal penalties remain for some defamation charges,incitement of ethnic or religious hatred, and the publication or broadcast of false information thatcould “disturb the peace.” In January 2012, Ferdinand Samba, an editor of the weekly LeDémocrate, was sentenced to 10 months in prison on charges of incitement to hatred,defamation, and insult to Finance Minister Sylvain Ndoutingaï, who is President Bozizé’snephew. Samba was also fined one million CFA francs ($2,000) and ordered to pay 10 millionCFA francs ($20,000) in damages, and his publication was suspended for a year. Many CARjournalists and international groups called for Samba’s release, as the sentence contravened thepress law. Private newspapers organized a news blackout on January 19 and 20 to protest thesentence. Bozizé ultimately pardoned Samba on World Press Freedom Day in May. Also in115

January, the editor of the progovernment newspaper La Plume was convicted in absentia oncharges similar to Samba’s after fleeing the country.In the absence of a legal framework, access to official information remains challengingfor journalists. The High Council for Communications, tasked with granting licenses andpromoting press freedom, is nominally independent, but in practice it seems to be controlled bythe government.Many newspapers published articles that were critical of the government during the yearwithout reprisal, but journalists continue to face harassment and threats from the authorities, andsome, particularly those who work for state-owned media outlets, practice self-censorship toavoid retaliation. Complaints filed against authorities regarding press freedom violations areoften ignored. In October 2012, a reporter was arrested and briefly detained after photographingan altercation between the police and a taxi driver; his camera and photographs were confiscatedupon his release. Journalists cannot always operate safely outside the capital due in part toincreased activity by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a Ugandan rebel group. The LRA,which does not have popular support, is primarily active in the southeast, near the borders ofUganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.Several private newspapers offer competing views, including five dailies published inFrench. However, even papers that provide political coverage have limited influence as a resultof low literacy levels, high poverty rates, and the lack of a functioning postal service to deliverperiodicals outside the capital. Radio continues to be the most important medium for thedissemination of information. The state owns Radio Centrafrique and a television broadcaster,and both outlets reflect predominantly progovernment views. However, there are alternatives toRadio Centrafrique, including Radio Ndeke Luka (funded by the United Nations), internationalbroadcasters such as Radio France Internationale and Voice of America, and a number ofcommunity radio stations. Due to technical deterioration, the reach and broadcast capacity ofeven state-owned outlets have decreased dramatically. Financial problems and the lack of anorganized advertising market plague many newspapers, and some journalists are motivated bypoverty to accept bribes to cover certain stories, as many are not paid regularly for their work.Most journalists are poorly trained, although a journalism department was established at theUniversity of Bangui in 2009.Due to infrastructural constraints, only 3 percent of the population was able to access theinternet in 2012. Access is otherwise unrestricted, and there are no reports that the governmentmonitors e-mail.ChadStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 23Political Environment: 31Economic Environment: 22Total Score: 76Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 74,NF 76,NF 77,NF 75,NF 75,NF116

Chad’s constitution allows for freedom of expression and of the press, but authorities routinelyuse threats and legal provisions to censor critical reporting. A 2008 press law, Decree No. 5,increased the maximum penalty for false news and defamation to three years in prison, and themaximum penalty for insulting the president to five years. Also in 2008, the High Council ofCommunication (HCC), Chad’s media regulatory body, banned reporting on the activities ofrebels and any other information that could harm national unity. Law No. 17 of 2010 removedDecree No. 5’s prison sentences for defamation, but introduced sentences of six months to a yearin prison and fines for inciting racial or ethnic hatred and “condoning violence.” A proposedrevision to existing media laws that was introduced in 2012 contained more draconianrestrictions, including requirements that journalists possess certain educational credentials andthat newspaper printers be headquartered inside Chad, placing a financial burden on papers thatprint at lower rates in neighboring countries. The draft law would also require copies of eachnewspaper edition to be submitted to the HCC and other authorities, raising concerns aboutprepublication censorship, and would broaden the definitions and increase the penalties for avariety of press offenses, including “insult.” The proposed legislation had not been passed byyear’s end.Defendants bear the burden of proof in defamation cases and face a biased judicialprocess. In September 2012, Jean-Claude Nékim, editor of the opposition-oriented newspaperN’Djamena Bi-Hebdo, was convicted of defamation and inciting racial hatred for publishing apetition that was critical of the president’s ethnic group. He was given a one-year suspended jailsentence and fined 1 million CFA francs ($2,000), and his newspaper was suspended for threemonths. Nékim published a caricature of the judge who sentenced him a week later, and wascharged with contempt of court. At the end of 2012, Nékim was awaiting trial for the contemptcharge as well as the outcome of his appeal of the first conviction.Chad has no law establishing the right to access official information, and access remainsdifficult in practice.Permission from the prosecutor’s office, the HCC, and the Ministry of Commerce isrequired to establish a newspaper. Radio licenses are granted by the HCC, which is considered tobe greatly influenced by the government and is also said to monitor and control radio content.The licensing fee for commercial radio stations remains prohibitively high at 5 million CFAfrancs ($9,800) per year. Officials periodically threaten to shut down media outlets or finejournalists for “irresponsible” reporting. In July 2012, the authorities denied reports that theywere considering measures to shut down Le blog de Makaïla, which is run by a Chadian livingabroad and carries criticism of the government. In October, the community radio station La Voixdu Paysan in the town of Doba was served with a formal warning for allegedly incitinginsurrection by broadcasting the sermon of a bishop who criticized the government’s use of oilwealth.There were several incidents of threats and violence against critical journalists in 2012.Some reporters and editors practiced self-censorship to avoid reprisals, and impunity remainedthe norm for perpetrators of harassment against journalists. Eloi Miandadji and Déli SainzoumiNestor, both former employees of the newspaper La Voix, allegedly received threats in the firsthalf of 2012 from Land Affairs Minister Jean-Bernard Padaré, who is part owner of La Voix, forworking at a rival publication. Another former La Voix employee, Ahmadou Bouba Bondaba,was attacked and beaten and had his phone and motorcycle stolen in July, shortly after he wasallegedly threatened by Padaré in a telephone call. In September, La Voix du Paysan broadcast aseries of reports that were critical of Doba’s mayor, and three journalists from the station were117

subsequently threatened by the mayor and his family; one reporter was assaulted, with noresulting arrests.The state-run Chad Press Agency is country’s only news agency, and the governmentsubsidizes the only daily newspaper, Le Progès, in exchange for its support. While privatenewspapers circulate freely in the capital, they have little impact on the largely rural and illiteratepopulation. Some newspapers use printing facilities outside the country for financial reasons, anddistribution is difficult due to poor infrastructure. The only television station is state owned, butthe government does not interfere with the reception of foreign channels. Radio is the primarymeans of mass communication, and there are over a dozen private and community-run stationson the air, many of which are owned by religious organizations. Internews recently built threecommunity radio stations in the east of the country, which has been flooded by refugees fromSudan’s Darfur region and displaced Chadians, in order to address topics such as gender-basedviolence, security, water distribution, and food rations. Ownership of community radio outletswas under threat in 2012. In March, presidential decree No. 410 ordered the transfer of threecommunity stations to the state-owned broadcaster ONRTV. Advertising is scarce, but it is themain source of revenue for media outlets, as government subsidies and other alternatives areeven less reliable. In 2012, just 2 percent of Chadians accessed the internet. There are no reportsthat the government restricts access, but the internet infrastructure remains government owned.ChileStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 8Political Environment: 14Economic Environment: 9Total Score: 31Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 30,F 29,F 30,F 29,F 31,PFFreedoms of speech and of the press are guaranteed in Chile’s constitution. However, criminaldefamation and desacato (insult) laws have been used to silence journalists sporadically since thecountry’s return to democracy, often leading to public outcry and, in some cases, the abrogationof laws. In addition, Chile has a number of latent structural, legal, and public security policyweaknesses that can result in press restrictions. These conditions result from incomplete medialaw reforms after the Pinochet dictatorship (1973–90). In January 2012, a legal provisionproposed by Interior Minister Rodrigo Hinzpeter that would have empowered the police todemand video and other electronic media from journalists was withdrawn following publicobjections and protests in Santiago. Chile enacted a freedom of information law in 2008, andadvocates consider its implementation generally satisfactory.Amendments in 2010 to a 1994 community radio law allowed community broadcasters toincrease their minimal signal strength and carry advertising from companies not physicallypresent in the areas they cover. The law also created a path to licensing for noncommercialstations linked to community organizations. However, President Sebastián Piñera, a conservativebusinessman and former television network owner, has not promulgated the law, generating legal118

and financial uncertainty. Further, the new law does not abrogate Article 36B of the GeneralTelecommunications Law, which calls for criminal penalties and high fines for outlets thatbroadcast without a license.Journalists continued to face harassment by police in 2012, even as the previous year’smass political protests against the Piñera government’s educational and environmental policiessubsided somewhat. As in 2011, photojournalists were especially targeted, with incidents spikingin late February and early March. In February, the militarized carabinero police force assaulted aphotographer and arrested Jason Suder, an American photojournalist for the English-languageSantiago Times, while they covered protests in Santiago. Police also attempted to confiscate theSuder’s footage of the protests. In Aysén, an isolated region of Patagonia where a hydroelectricproject has spurred widespread protests, a cameraman for television station Canal 3 was arrestedduring a police crackdown on demonstrators in March. In April, a provincial court refused toissue an order protecting Canal 40 TV Aysén’s video of the protest from police confiscation. Thestation’s director, Samuel Chong Rivera, asked for the order after police came to his homedemanding the recordings. During the March protests in Aysén, the website of Radio SantaMaría, an affiliate of Canal 3, was repeatedly disrupted and one of its reporters, RodrigoLabarca, was roughed up during coverage of a protest.Journalists covering marginalized communities for community radio stations andindigenous Mapuche media outlets continued to be harassed in 2012. In August, police in theAraucanía region used Section 36B of the General Law on Telecommunications to confiscatebroadcasting equipment from community radio station Radio Vecina and temporarily detainemployee Victor Díaz. Reporters Without Borders reported that indigenous stations KimcheMapu in Araucania, Radio Lógica in greater Santiago, and Radio Galáctika near Valparaíso havefaced similar threats under Section 36B.In November, police detained Pedro Cayuqueo Millaqueo, editor of the periodicalsAzkintuwe and the Mapuche Times, soon after he published a book on clashes between theMapuches and the government over land disputes. Cayuqueo was stopped by carabineros on thehighway and detained on an arrest warrant from 1999. The warrant stemmed from a case that hadbeen decided years earlier, and for which Cayuqueo had already served time in prison. Cayuqueowas released several hours after being stopped, but Reporters Without Borders alleged that hisdetention was political and intended to serve as a warning to others reporting on the landdisputes.Journalists were also harassed as a result of their reporting on the Pinochet dictatorship.In December 2012, unidentified thieves stole recordings and other files from four investigativereporters who had written or were writing books on abuses during the dictatorship. Thosetargeted were Mauricio Weibel, Javier Rebolledo, Juan Cristóbal Peña, and Pascale Bonnefoy,each of whom had computer equipment stolen. All are high-profile journalists, and Weibel is thecorrespondent for the German agency DPA and a leader of the South American Union ofCorrespondent Associations.There had been no arrests in the November 2011 homemade bomb attack on theinstallations of offices of media company Copesa.Copesa, one of Chile’s two main media companies, publishes mainstream daily LaTercera. The other main media conglomerate is El Mercurio; together the two companies ownover 90 percent of the country’s newspapers. These organizations consolidated their positionsduring the Pinochet dictatorship and continue to receive government subsidies estimated at $5million annually. Media groups are tied to financial and advertising interests, and control119

distribution channels throughout the country, creating high barriers to entry for new publications.The editorial positions of outlets owned by both El Mercurio and Copesa are considered centerrightto right-wing in orientation. Advocates of media pluralism worried that the government’sdecision in September 2012 to close the online publication La Nación, in which the state held a70 percent share, would further concentrate media ownership. Its print edition had already beenclosed in 2010. Chile’s broadcast television landscape is more diversified, with seven nationwidefree-to-air channels, though rumors that the state television network Televisión Nacional wouldsoon be privatized sparked concern about increased concentration in that sector as well. In Chile,state-owned media have a higher degree of editorial independence than elsewhere in LatinAmerica, and offer a contrast to commercial news media output.In radio, implementation of a 2010 law facilitating the reallocation of frequencies tocommunity radio broadcasters has been hindered by Spanish-owned market giant IberoamericanaRadio Chile, which in August 2012 resisted signing an agreement with the state to rationalizefrequencies, thereby leaving the matter to the courts.There are no government restrictions on the internet, which was accessed by more than61 percent of the population in 2012, and there were no verified reports of the governmentmonitoring journalists’ electronic communications without judicial oversight.ChinaStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 29Political Environment: 32Economic Environment: 22Total Score: 83Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 84,NF 85,NF 84,NF 85,NF 85,NFChina’s media environment remained one of the world’s most restrictive in 2012. Constraints onprint media were especially tight in advance of a sensitive leadership transition in November,and several journalists were dismissed or demoted for violating censorship discipline. Internetusers who disseminated information deemed undesirable by the ruling Chinese Communist Party(CCP) continued to face punishment, with dozens of cases of harassment, detention, orimprisonment documented during the year. Meanwhile, conditions in Tibetan areas and forforeign journalists deteriorated. The promotion of a hard-liner formerly responsible for theregime’s system of information controls to the top party leadership body, combined withmeasures to reinforce internet censorship and surveillance toward the end of the year, indicatedthe new CCP hierarchy’s commitment to retaining a tight grip on the information landscape.Nevertheless, with more people gaining access to microblogs and other online tools,Chinese citizens’ ability to share and access uncensored information, particularly about breakingnews, continued to grow. Several public outcries and online campaigns in 2012 were creditedwith driving the news agenda—including on the sensitive topic of elite politics—or forcingisolated government concessions. In addition, fewer cases of violence against professionaljournalists and high-profile online activists were reported compared with 2011, and no120

journalists were killed. The authorities responded to the increasing challenge of controllinginformation with prolonged silence about important news events, intrusive propaganda drives,and new regulatory restrictions on entertainment programming, social media, and online videos.Article 35 of the constitution guarantees freedoms of speech, assembly, association, andpublication, but such rights are subordinated to the discretion of the CCP and its status as theruling power. Moreover, the constitution cannot, in most cases, be invoked in court as a legalbasis for asserting individual rights. Judges are appointed by the CCP and generally follow itsdirectives, particularly in politically sensitive cases. There is no press law that governs theprotection of journalists or the punishment of their attackers. Instead, vague provisions in thepenal code and state secrets legislation are routinely used to imprison Chinese citizens for thepeaceful expression of views that the CCP considers objectionable. Criminal defamationprovisions are also occasionally used to similar effect. Amendments to the Criminal ProcedureLaw passed in March 2012 permit suspects accused of “endangering state security”—a chargethat is often employed to punish nonviolent activism and political expression—to be detained forup to six months in an unofficial location, prompting concerns that the rule effectively legalizesenforced disappearances. Since open-government regulations took effect in 2008, many agencieshave become more forthcoming in publishing official documents, but courts have largelyhesitated to enforce information requests, and government bodies routinely withholdinformation, even regarding matters of vital public concern. Journalists and other media workersare required to hold government-issued press cards in order to be considered legitimate. Thosewho violate content restrictions risk having their press-card renewals delayed or rejected, beingblacklisted outright, or facing criminal charges.The CCP maintains direct control over news media coverage through its CentralPropaganda Department (CPD) and corresponding branches at lower administrative levels thatdetermine the boundaries of permissible reporting. A number of additional government agenciesare involved in overall regulation of the media sector. Routinely forbidden topics include callsfor greater autonomy in Tibet and Xinjiang, relations with Taiwan, the persecution and activismof the Falun Gong spiritual group, the writings of prominent dissidents, and unfavorablecoverage of CCP leaders. In addition to these standing taboos, the CPD and provincial censorsissue secret directives on other subjects that are communicated almost daily to websiteadministrators and periodically to traditional media editors. Forbidden or restricted topics during2012 included reporting on blind activist Chen Guangcheng’s escape from extralegal housearrest, the anniversary of a fatal 2011 train crash, and foreign media reports on the extraordinarywealth of members of Premier Wen Jiabao’s family. Many directives also limited coverage andexpression on topics whose political sensitivity was less immediately evident, or resulted inseemingly absurd online censorship of everyday words like “tomato,” which users had begun toemploy as a coded reference to purged Chongqing CCP secretary Bo Xilai. This spurred growingresentment of censorship practices and contributed to an atmosphere of uncertainty regarding theboundaries of permissible reporting. In an illustration of the breadth of topics that can be subjectto restrictions, a series of leaked media directives from the CPD dated November 2012 includedbans on independent reporting about allegations of sexual assault against a delegate to theNational People’s Congress, a mine explosion in Guizhou Province, newly appointed CPD chiefLiu Qibao, Vietnam’s passage of an anticorruption bill, and a Hong Kong professor’s criticalanalysis of the Chinese economy.Censorship patterns earlier in 2012 were somewhat erratic, revealing internal CCP powerstruggles and uncertainty about how to handle emerging scandals. There were information121

vacuums on major events, fleeting openings on sensitive topics, and heavy-handed propagandacampaigns surrounding the political downfall of Bo Xilai. The CCP infighting fueledspeculation, online rumors, and increased use of circumvention tools by internet users seekingindependent reporting from foreign media. In addition, following Bo’s ouster in the spring, neo-Maoist programming initiatives piloted under his leadership in Chongqing were reversed, aprominent website that vocally supported him was shut down, and three men who had been sentto labor camps for mocking Bo or criticizing his policies online secured early releases or judicialacknowledgement of their mistreatment—rare occurrences in China’s politicized legal system.CCP leaders use control of the media to propagate positive views of the party andgovernment, while vilifying those deemed to be their enemies. During 2012, the authoritiescontinued to employ more subtle means to “guide” news coverage. These included proactivelysetting the agenda by allowing key state-run outlets to cover potentially damaging news in atimely but selective manner, then requiring other media to restrict their reporting to theestablished narrative. The aim is to preempt less favorable coverage by bloggers, foreignjournalists, and the more aggressive commercial news outlets. This strategy was evident in thetightly scripted coverage of the trials of Bo Xilai’s wife, Gu Kailai, and former Chongqing policechief Wang Lijun in connection with the murder of a British businessman. Only journalists fromstate-run outlets like Xinhua News Agency or China Central Television (CCTV) were permittedinside the courtroom, leaving foreign media to rely on their accounts and forcing domestic mediato relay the official version of events. Online comments questioning the credibility of the officialnarrative, including one by a forensic scientist, were quickly deleted.Restrictions on print media were especially tight during the year, with journalistsreporting progressively more intrusive interventions by propaganda officials in newsroomdecisions. In April, propaganda authorities instructed daily newspapers across China to publishan editorial on the Bo Xilai scandal by the party mouthpiece People’s Daily on their front pages,a highly unusual request. In May, authorities announced that a former provincial propagandaofficial would take over as CCP representative at the Guangzhou-based Southern Daily MediaGroup, which owns some of China’s most influential and outspoken news publications. Theappointment was widely interpreted as a bid to tighten party control over the mediaconglomerate. Journalists at one of the group’s publications, Southern Weekly, later reported thatstory ideas increasingly had to receive approval in advance and that over 1,000 news stories werecensored during 2012, including a special feature on deadly floods in Beijing in July that was cutat the last minute.The government has developed the world’s most sophisticated and multilayeredapparatus for censoring, monitoring, and manipulating online content. Nationwide technicalfiltering restricts users’ access to uncensored information hosted outside of China. One of themost important functions of the filtering system has been to permanently block internationalsocial-media applications like the video-sharing site YouTube, the social-networking siteFacebook, and the microblogging platform Twitter. With such services out of reach, domesticequivalents have gained popularity, but they are legally liable for content posted by users andrisk losing their business licenses if politically sensitive information is circulated widely. Thefirms consequently employ automated programs and thousands of human censors to screen usergeneratedcontent and delete relevant posts per CCP directives. One academic study ofcensorship across nearly 1,400 blog-hosting and bulletin-board platforms estimated that 13percent of posts were deleted. Some foreign internet companies whose websites are accessible inChina have also cooperated with the Chinese government on censorship enforcement.122

However, this robust censorship system was unable to completely stop the circulation ofunfavorable news in 2012, as technological advancements and the dedication of domestic andoverseas activists have made the suppression of information more difficult. Chinese internetusers routinely employ homonyms, homophones, and other creative tactics to defy censorship ondomestic microblogging sites, and information sometimes spreads among users before censorsare able to deem it “sensitive” and intervene. On multiple occasions in 2012, cumulative pressurefrom microblog users prompted mainstream media to address sensitive stories or compelled thegovernment to offer concessions, such as the release of a petitioner from a labor camp, thedismissal of corrupt officials, and upgrades to air-quality monitoring.Throughout the year, authorities responded to this challenge by stepping up pressure onmicroblogging services to tighten existing controls. At the beginning of 2012, the CPDreportedly ordered the establishment of CCP branches in leading microblogging firms. For threedays in late March and early April, amid official silence and unofficial online discussion of partyinfighting following the March 15 ouster of Bo Xilai as Chongqing party secretary, the twoleading services—Sina Weibo and Tencent—were forced to shut down their popularcommenting functions, which enable users to post comments responding to previously postedmessages, thereby creating a discussion thread. In May, Sina launched a new points-basedsystem of demerits and rewards to encourage users to self-censor. Throughout the year, thegovernment also pressured microblogging firms to implement real-name registration for theirusers. Directives on the matter were initially issued in five major cities, with a March 16deadline. After enforcement of the rules proved inadequate, the National People’s CongressStanding Committee passed national regulations in December that required microblog platformsand other service providers to implement real-name registration and strengthen “the managementof information.” The authorities have also taken steps to actively guide online discussion. Since2004, CCP and government officials at all levels have recruited and trained an army of paid webcommentators, known informally as the Fifty Cent Party. Their tasks include postingprogovernment remarks, tracking public opinion, disrupting or diverting criticism, andparticipating in public online chats with officials to provide the appearance of state-citizeninteraction.Journalists who attempt to investigate or report on controversial issues, question CCPrule, or present a perspective that conflicts with state propaganda directives face harassment,dismissal, and abuse. During 2012, several media personnel were dismissed, demoted,suspended, or forced to resign from publications across China. Other prominent reporters—including Jian Guangzhou of the Oriental Daily, who became widely known for his 2008 reporton tainted milk powder—voluntarily left their positions while voicing concerns that the space forinvestigative journalism was shrinking. In several instances, journalists and outlets werepunished by local authorities for actions that would normally be considered acceptable at thenational level, such as exposing the use of luxury cigarettes among local officials, republishingprofiles of Chinese leaders from an official party publication, or reporting the results of a publicsurvey in which residents expressed dissatisfaction with local officials. This strengthened thesense of arbitrary and ever-changing “red lines,” a feature of official restrictions that encouragesself-censorship.In order to circumvent the more rigid restrictions on their formal outlets, journalists haveincreasingly turned to microblogs to share sensitive information that might otherwise gounreported. At least three journalists were suspended or dismissed in 2012 for comments madeon microblogs, the first such cases to be documented. In one high-profile example, CCTV anchor123

Zhao Pu was suspended for six months after he posted a message on his microblog warningreaders that yogurt in China contained ingredients that were not safe to eat; CCTV would notconfirm that his suspension was related to the message.The tightened institutional controls over print and broadcast media mean that fewerjournalists at established news outlets have been jailed in recent years. However, freelancejournalists, writers, online activists, and a range of other Chinese citizens continue to besentenced to prison or labor camps, particularly for disseminating information online or sendingit to contacts outside China. According to international media freedom watchdogs, no less than32 journalists were in jail in China in 2012, including many Uighurs and Tibetans. At least 69online activists remained behind bars at year’s end for disseminating proscribed information.That estimate is likely to be low, given the difficulty of collecting accurate and comprehensivedata on each reported case of arrest. In 2012, three men—Li Tie from Hubei Province, CaoHaibo from Yunnan Province, and Zhu Yufu from Zhejiang Province—were sentenced tobetween seven and 10 years in prison for online writings that advocated democratic reforms. Anincomplete list of over 20 other incidents compiled by Freedom House during 2012 includedseveral cases of microblog users who were arrested or sentenced to labor camps for spreading“rumors” about public health, political infighting, or a reported coup attempt; grassroots activistswho were detained and facing potential prosecution for distributing leaflets and DVDs that werecritical of CCP rule or related to Falun Gong; and a microblogger who was given a two-yearterm in labor camp after issuing calls online for official asset declarations and a transparentinvestigation into the suspicious death of a labor rights activist. The final outcomes of the caseswere not all known at year’s end.Security agents also use a range of measures short of formal incarceration to punishdissemination of independent news and intimidate those voicing dissenting opinions. Authoritiescontinued to harass prominent artist and blogger Ai Weiwei, who was abducted and detained for81 days in 2011. During 2012, Ai was barred from traveling abroad, his appeal in a politicallyfraught tax case was rejected, and the license of his art company was revoked. His severalattempts to register a new microblog account were quickly suppressed. In other examples,Beijing businessman Zhai Xiaobing was detained in November over a microblog posting thatmocked the 18th Party Congress, freelance journalist Li Yuanlong was forcibly taken inNovember to an unidentified location after his posting about the death of five boys in Guizhousparked an outcry, and former official Liu Futang received a three-year suspended sentence inDecember for “illegal business activities” after he published a series of microblog posts andother writings about environmental issues in Hainan. In the latter half of the year, human rightsgroups recorded dozens of other cases of bloggers, petitioners, and free expression activistsbeing displaced or briefly detained in the run-up to the 18th Party Congress in November.However, this use of extralegal tactics to silence dissenting voices was not as severe as in 2011amid the Arab Spring uprisings, and key commentators were more vocal in 2012 than in theprevious year.Members of religious and ethnic minorities are subject to particularly harsh treatment fortheir online activities, writings, or efforts to disseminate information that departs from the CCPline. Several of the journalists serving the longest prison terms in China are Uighurs andTibetans. Hada, the founder of the pro-Mongol newspaper Voice of Southern Mongolia,remained in extralegal detention at year’s end; authorities have harassed his family andcontinued to hold him in custody since December 2010, when he completed a 15-year prisonsentence related to his work. In addition to journalists, ordinary Tibetans, Uighurs, and Falun124

Gong practitioners have been imprisoned for accessing, possessing, or transmitting bannedinformation. On several occasions during the year, local authorities completely shut downcommunications networks in Tibetan areas of Sichuan and Gansu Provinces, where selfimmolationsto protest CCP repression had occurred. As the number of self-immolationscontinued to grow, authorities resorted to more draconian measures to curb the protests andrestrict the transmission of information about them, including to foreign media. In March, presswatchdogs and Tibetan rights groups reported that authorities had posted public notices in eightcounties in Gansu Province that threatened “violent beating/torture” for those found distributingwritten documents, online messages, or audio files containing “ideas of splitting the nation.” Thenotice offered a reward of at least 5,000 yuan ($730) to members of the public who reportinstances of the proscribed actions to the Public Security Bureau. Similar monetary rewards of5,000 to 10,000 yuan were recorded in Shandong Province for those reporting undergroundFalun Gong printing sites.Conditions for foreign media in the country remained highly restrictive, and harassmentand violent assaults against foreign reporters escalated during the year. The websites of bothBloomberg News and the New York Times were blocked indefinitely after they publisheddetailed investigative reports on the family wealth of incoming CCP general secretary Xi Jinpingand Premier Wen Jiabao, respectively. Two foreign correspondents—Melissa Chan of Al-JazeeraEnglish and Chris Buckley of the New York Times—were forced to leave the country after thegovernment refused to renew their visas, the first such de facto expulsions in 14 years.According to the Foreign Correspondents Club of China, over the past two years, 27 foreignjournalists reported unusual delays in the processing of visas, and six said they had beenexplicitly told by the Foreign Ministry that their applications had been rejected or put on holdbecause of the content of their reporting. Also in 2012, police or security agents assaulted at least11 foreign correspondents who were trying to cover newsworthy events, with some beatingsproving unusually violent. Since 2007, foreign journalists have been free of internal travelrestrictions in most areas and allowed to conduct interviews with private individuals withoutprior government consent. However, the looser rules do not apply to correspondents from HongKong, Macau, or Taiwan. In addition, travel to Tibet and other politically sensitive regions stillrequires prior approval and close supervision by authorities. During the year, access for foreignjournalists to Tibet and Tibetan-populated regions of neighboring provinces was especiallyrestricted.Media outlets are abundant in China and included approximately 2,000 newspapers andhundreds of radio and television stations in 2012. Reforms in recent decades have allowed thecommercialization of outlets without the privatization of ownership. Some publications haveprivate investors, but the government is required by law to retain a majority stake. The state-runCCTV remains the only licensed national broadcaster, and all local stations are required to air itsevening news programs. Most cities feature at least one official newspaper published by the localgovernment or CCP branch, as well as more commercialized subsidiaries. Although the Chineseauthorities continue to jam radio broadcasts by U.S. government–funded services such as RadioFree Asia and Voice of America, dedicated listeners access them online with the use ofcircumvention tools. Meanwhile, the Hong Kong–based independent station iSun TV and theNew York–based New Tang Dynasty Television, which is run by Falun Gong practitioners,broadcast uncensored news into China via satellite.Most media revenue comes from advertising and subscriptions rather than governmentsubsidies, even for many party papers. Some observers argue that commercialization has shifted125

the media’s loyalty from the party to the consumer, leading to tabloid-style and sometimes moredaring reporting. Others note that the reforms have opened the door for economic incentives thatserve to reinforce political pressure and self-censorship, as publications fear the financial costs ofbeing shut down by the authorities or losing advertising should they run afoul of powerfulsocietal actors. During 2012, the regime remained alert to technological, economic, and socialchanges that are weakening CCTV’s influence. As internet use spreads and provincial televisionstations gain viewers, fewer young people in particular turn to CCTV as their primary newssource. Regulators have responded with a string of new rules in recent years that restrictedentertainment programming during prime time and extended controls to online video platforms.In February 2012, the State Administration of Radio, Film, and Television (SARFT) announcedthat foreign television series—including popular Korean and Japanese dramas—would bebanned during prime time. In July, regulators reportedly issued a joint notice to strengthen rulesfor online videos, which have emerged as a vehicle for short documentaries about breaking newsevents and other topics. The notice instructed official agencies to reward or demerit online videoproviders based on their implementation of the controls. Separately, the market distortionsstemming from the unusual combination of political control and partial commercialization at theCCP’s flagship outlets gained attention in April 2012, when the website of the party’smouthpiece, the People’s Daily Online, was listed on the Shanghai stock exchange in an initialpublic offering (IPO). The authorities were quickly forced to suspend trading on the website’sshares after soaring prices valued the company at over $800 million, a sum that was inconsistentwith its actual popularity among readers. Some analysts said the jump partly reflectedspeculation by investors, who were betting that the company’s direct ties to the CCP wouldessentially guarantee profits and growth in China’s state-controlled media environment.The prevailing salary arrangements generally pay journalists only after their stories arepublished or broadcast. When a journalist writes an article that is considered too controversial,payment is withheld, and in some cases the journalist must pay for the reporting costs out ofpocket. A small number of elite media outlets combat such deterrents to aggressive reporting bypaying journalists even for reports that are subjected to censorship. Corruption among Chinesejournalists persisted in 2012, and it remained common for public relations firms to pay reportersfor attending press conferences. As the internet’s influence grows, such bribery has spread to theonline sphere, reportedly producing a multimillion-dollar industry of web-deletion services thatcater to private firms and government officials. In September 2012, authorities arrested twopeople, including an employee of the search-engine giant Baidu, for accepting payment toillegally delete posts on the company’s Tieba online forum.China is home to the largest number of internet users in the world, with the figuresurpassing 560 million, or approximately 42 percent of the population, in 2012. Over 400 millionaccounts had been opened on domestic microblogging services by the end of the year, though thenumber of regularly active users is smaller, estimated to range in the tens of millions. Theprevalence of microblogs, online circumvention tools, and overseas Chinese news outlets hasgrown in recent years, dramatically expanding Chinese citizens’ ability to access and shareinformation about events occurring in different parts of the country and even within the topechelons of the CCP. A growing number of Chinese use proxy servers to evade internetrestrictions and receive illegal satellite transmissions. Although Twitter remains blocked inChina and domestic microblogging services engage in government-directed censorship, the latterhave rapidly grown in influence as a source of news and an outlet for public opinion, in partbecause the rapid sharing of information among microblog users sometimes outpaces censors’126

deletions. The role of online sources in the media landscape has become especially importantwith regard to breaking news. A 2012 study of Chinese public opinion and crisis managementreported that online sources accounted for nearly 65 percent of breaking news reports in 2011,versus just over 30 percent for traditional media.ColombiaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 11Political Environment: 26Economic Environment: 16Total Score: 53Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 59,PF 59,PF 60,PF 56,PF 55,PFColombia’s 1991 constitution guarantees the rights to freedom of expression and freedom ofinformation. However, attacks and threats against reporters persisted in 2012, and thegovernment continues to restrict the independence of journalists through criminal defamationcharges and legislation.Defamation remains a criminal offense, and there were two major cases in 2012. InFebruary, an appeals court in the department of Cundinamarca upheld a lower court’s libelconviction of Luis Agustín González, editor of the newspaper Cundinamarca Democrática,while annulling a defamation charge. González had written an editorial in 2008 that criticized aformer governor of Cundinamarca. His punishment was slightly reduced, to 18 months of jailtime and a financial penalty of 17 months’ wages. Colombia’s Supreme Court heard appeals inthe case in October but had not rendered a decision by year’s end. Separately, in August theSupreme Court’s Criminal Tribunal announced that it would file defamation charges againstCecilia Orozco of the Bogotá daily El Espectador for an opinion piece in which she criticized thecourt. Several days later, after an outcry from Colombian and international press organizations,the Supreme Court announced that it would drop the charges.Several laws or pending legislation in 2012 attracted concern from press freedomadvocates due to their potential to restrict the media. A consumer statute that took effect in Aprilassigns the media partial liability in cases of grossly misleading advertising. A decree passed inAugust forces telecommunications companies, including internet service providers, to createback doors that will facilitate government monitoring of citizens’ online activity. Throughout theyear, Congress continued to debate changes to the electoral code that many media expertsbelieved would place unconstitutional limits on political communication during campaignperiods.In June 2012, Congress passed a new Access to Public Information Law intended tobuttress existing rights guaranteed by the constitution and the 1985 Law Ordering the Publicityof Official Acts and Documents. The new law requires government agencies to make documentsrelated to public contracts, budgets, and personnel available to the public. It reduces themaximum period that such information can be kept confidential from 30 to 15 years, though thegovernment may extend that period for an additional 15 years under certain conditions. The law127

states that the government may not withhold an entire document if only portions of it have beenclassified, and mandates the creation of an index of reserved or classified documents. Thoughgenerally seen as an improvement on existing laws, the new legislation has generated criticismfrom media groups in Colombia, particularly for the broad power it grants the government towithhold information from the public and for its failure to designate a single agency toimplement the law. The Constitutional Court must ratify the measure before it takes effect.Two official bodies are responsible for regulating and licensing the broadcast media. TheMinistry of Information Technologies and Communications regulates the licensing of radiooutlets. In 2012, the nominally independent National Television Authority (ANTV) replaced theNational Commission on Television (CNTV) as the television regulator. The CNTV wasregarded as highly politicized in practice, with the process of licensing a third private televisionstation drawing particular criticism in recent years. No licensing is necessary for print media.Death threats, kidnappings, and physical attacks against journalists remain a seriousconcern in Colombia. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reported 92 threats againstjournalists as of early December 2012, the same number as in 2011. Consequently, selfcensorshipis a problem, particularly in rural settings and during election periods. In April 2012,CPJ reported on three radio journalists who were forced to flee their home regions because ofintimidation. Topics considered sensitive include corruption, organized crime, drug trafficking,and extrajudicial executions.There were two kidnappings of journalists in 2012. In April, Romeo Langlois of France24 television was kidnapped by the rebel Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)during a battle between the leftist guerrillas and government troops. The FARC held Langlois formore than a month, claiming he was a prisoner of war, before releasing him on May 30. In July,a reporter for the radio station Sarare Estéreo was kidnapped and held for three weeks by theNational Liberation Army (ELN), another rebel group, and the station was hit by a grenadeattack in early August.One journalist was killed in 2012 for reasons related to his work, while the motive behindanother murder remained unconfirmed. Freelance journalist Guillermo Quiroz Delgado died inNovember from injuries he suffered at the hands of the police. He was covering a protest in thedepartment of Sucre when he was detained and allegedly beaten and thrown off the back of apolice truck. Quiroz had previously angered local officials with his reports on police brutalityand corruption in local government. Three police officers were suspended pending aninvestigation. In March, Argemiro Cárdenas Agudelo, a radio journalist and former politician,was shot dead in the western department of Risaralda, though the motive remained unclear atyear’s end. In May, Fernando Londoño, a radio talk-show host, newspaper columnist, and formerinterior minister, was injured in a bombing in Bogotá that was believed to have been carried outby the FARC.There was some progress in combating impunity in 2012, though it continues to be amajor problem. A 2010 reform extended the statute of limitations for violent crimes againstjournalists and human rights defenders committed after 2000 from 20 to 30 years, though theprevious limit still applies to older crimes. No statute of limitations applies to acts that aredesignated as crimes against humanity. In 2012, the Senate was considering a law that wouldeliminate the statute of limitations in cases of homicide, torture, or forced disappearance whenthe victim is a journalist, human rights defender, or member of a labor union. In another positivedevelopment, in February, Edgar Ariel Córdoba Trujillo was sentenced to 24 years in prison forthe 2001 murder of journalist Álvaro Alonso Escobar. There were further delays, however, in the128

trial of Ferney Tabasco, a former congressman accused of masterminding the 2002 murder of themanaging editor of the newspaper La Patria, Orlando Sierra. The government operates anextensive program that provided protection to scores of journalists in 2012, although reportershave criticized the program’s effectiveness and occasionally accused the bodyguards of spying.Media ownership is highly concentrated among a few groups of private investors, andtelevision is the dominant news medium. Independent and privately owned print and broadcastmedia are generally free to express a variety of opinions and cover sensitive issues withoutofficial restrictions. All print media in Colombia are privately owned. The government operatesthree public television stations, but the two private free-to-air networks dominate the ratings. Thepattern in radio is similar, with the two public national radio stations attracting a small audienceshare. There are hundreds of community radio stations, which sometimes face pressure from thegovernment and armed groups. Local media depend heavily on advertising by regional andmunicipal government agencies to stay in business, encouraging collusion among media owners,journalists, and officials. A 2012 bill mandating a 30 percent reduction in official advertising,intended to combat corruption, could affect the economic viability of some local media outlets.There are few government restrictions on access to the internet, and 49 percent of thepopulation had regular access in 2012. An increasing share of the public is using socialnetworkingwebsites such as Facebook, and digital communication is proving an effective toolagainst censorship, corruption, and organized crime for many journalists.ComorosStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 14Political Environment: 20Economic Environment: 15Total Score: 49Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 54,PF 50,PF 50,PF 48,PF 48,PFThe 2001 constitution protects freedom of speech and of the press, but the Comoran governmentpartially restricts these freedoms in practice. Journalists are subject to harsh defamation laws,and self-censorship is reportedly widespread. In April 2012, police detained journalist MmadiMoindjie for 24 hours on libel charges, after the newspaper he worked for, the private daily Al-Balad, published a picture of presidential adviser Issa Soule without his consent.The authorities in past years had arrested journalists, seized newspapers, and silencedbroadcast outlets for reports that were found to be objectionable, although these practices havebecome less common in recent years. However, in April 2012, Interior Minister HamadaAbdallah withdrew the monthly supplement from the state daily Al-Watwan and suspendedmanaging editor Pétan Mouignihazi. The supplement included a special report on governmentcorruption and waste. In March 2011, two journalists had been charged with “publishing falsenews” by a public prosecutor in the capital Moroni, located on Grand Comore. The chargesstemmed from reports that then vice president Ikililou Dhoinine’s inauguration as PresidentAhmed Abdallah Sambi’s successor might be delayed. The prosecutor alleged that these reports,129

which were politically sensitive due to allegations by the opposition that the presidentialtransition was being dragged out in order to extend Sambi’s term in office, were “of a nature totrouble public order.”Comoros has six independent newspapers and one state-owned weekly, Al-Watwan. Inaddition to the state-owned Radio Comoros and Television Nationale Comorienne, several otherregional and private stations have proliferated in recent years and are funded predominantly bydonations from locals as well as from citizens living abroad. The Anjouan regional governmentoperates its own stations under Radio-Television Anjouanaise. Public radio from the Frenchisland of Mayotte, as well as metropolitan France’s Radio France Internationale, are alsoavailable in some areas. In February 2012, economic restructuring forced Al-Balad to eliminateits Arabic language editorial department.The internet is available and unrestricted by the government. However, poverty, illiteracy, and apoor telecommunications infrastructure limited access to just 6 percent of the population in 2012.Congo, Republic of (Brazzaville)Status: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 16Political Environment: 23Economic Environment: 17Total Score: 56Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 51,PF 53,PF 54,PF 54,PF 55,PFThe Republic of Congo’s constitution and laws recognize freedom of the press, but certain typesof speech, such as incitement of violence or ethnic hatred, are criminalized and carry monetarypenalties. The law allows the accreditation of journalists at government and foreign-ownedmedia outlets to be revoked if their reporting reflects adversely on the government’s image,although there have been no reports of such revocations in recent years. Since May 2010, whenthe High Council on Freedom of Communication (CSLC) issued new censorship orders, severalnewspapers and broadcasters have run afoul of the regulatory body. In September 2012, theCSLC banned the newspaper La Voix du Peuple from publishing for nine months, ruling that ithad violated an existing six-month ban imposed for inciting hatred and ethnic division. Also inSeptember, the CSLC banned Le Glaive for six months after the paper allegedly printed“seditious articles that included lies and defamation of private citizens.” A new CSLC president,Philippe Mwouo, began his term in June and continued the regulatory body’s record of workingagainst the interests of a free and vibrant press by issuing threats of sanctions against criticalprint media.Independent print publications are critical of the government, occasionally publishingletters from opposition leaders and covering corruption allegations, though their readership islow. Self-censorship has been reported at the state print media and in the broadcast media, whichhave a broader reach. Political pressures, as well as a lack of professional training and reliablefunding, play a significant role in limiting the scope of the media’s reporting and access toinformation. On March 4, 2012, an arms depot in a densely populated Brazzaville neighborhood130

exploded, killing at least 150 people. The media encountered difficulties in fully investigatingthe incident and assessing responsibility in its aftermath, due in part to a lack of transparencyfrom the government about the causes and ramifications of the explosion.Physical attacks against journalists are rare, but reporters often face threats andintimidation. In September 2012, security agents allegedly assaulted a video journalist andbriefly detained a reporter for the private broadcaster MNTV while dispersing a crowd gatheredin front of an office in the National Assembly building. The 2009 death of journalist and activistBruno Jacquet Ossébi, who had reported on corruption in the management of Congo’s oil wealth,remains unsolved.Most Congolese get their news from television and radio. There are 23 television stationsin Congo, of which 15 are privately owned. State-run Télé-Congo generally expresses thegovernment’s views, and a number of private channels are controlled by government officialsand their relatives. However, some of the other private channels have reportedly been morecritical of the government in recent years. Of the country’s 39 radio stations, 35 are privatelyowned. Congo’s first community radio station, Radio Biso na Biso, began operating in 2009,serving predominantly rural communities in the Congo Basin with content in 12 indigenouslanguages. While print media are more independent and critical than broadcast outlets, they areheavily concentrated in Brazzaville and do not reach far into rural parts of the country.The internet and satellite television are unrestricted but not widely used, with only 6percent of the population having access to the internet in 2012. Prospects for increased internetpenetration improved in 2012 with the introduction of broadband in May as part of thesubmarine fiber-optic West Africa Cable System project.Congo, Democratic Republic of (Kinshasa)Status: Not FreeLegal Environment: 26Political Environment: 33Economic Environment: 24Total Score: 83Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 81,NF 81,NF 81,NF 81,NF 83,NFPress freedom conditions in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) remained deplorable in2012, with unrest related to the rebel insurgency in eastern Congo posing continued threats to thegeneral media environment. The 2005 constitution and the country’s laws provide for freedom ofspeech, information, and the press, but these rights are limited in practice by President JosephKabila’s government and various nonstate actors. Criminal defamation and libel laws areregularly used to detain and intimidate journalists and to shut down media outlets. In April, twojournalists with Kisangani News were detained after publishing an article critical of a nationaldeputy. The publisher of the Kinshasa-based newspaper Le Fax was held for three days inNovember for alleging that the minister of youth, sports, and recreation had embezzled funds.Also in November, Dadou Etiom of Nzondo TV and Guy Ngiaba of Télé 50 were jailed for ninedays in the southwestern province of Bandundu after criticizing the president of the provincial131

assembly. The DRC does not have an access to information law.Local media outlets are subject to regulation by the High Authority on Media (HAM).The agency’s mandate is to ensure freedom of expression, but it has the power to temporarilysuspend outlets for hate speech and other serious ethical transgressions, and its decisions have attimes been criticized as politically biased. In 2009, the National Assembly passed a billestablishing the High Council for Broadcasting and Communication (CSAC), another regulatoryagency mandated to guarantee the freedom and protection of the press. Kabila appointed theCSAC’s 15 members in 2011, but the body’s work was paralyzed in March 2012 when itsmembers expressed deep concerns about the leadership of its president, who they accused ofembezzlement, incompetence, tribalism, and corruption. Journalists’ rights groups have longcriticized the CSAC for its vulnerability to political manipulation and apathy toward theprosecution of crimes against journalists. In March, two local journalists’ rights organizations,Journaliste en Danger (JED) and Freedom for Journalists (FFJ), demanded that yet another stateagency, the Ministry for Media and Communication, be shut down, calling it a “mediatormenter,” not an impartial body.Journalists and media outlets face censorship and harassment from multiple sources,including national and local government officials, members of the security forces, and nonstateactors. Reporters and outlets perceived as sympathetic to opposition parties faced the worsttreatment. The suspension of broadcasts and closure of outlets by government officials was alsocommon. In September, Radio Lisanga Télévision (RLTV), which is owned by prominentopposition politician Roger Lumbala, had its service suspended without explanation. Authoritiesclosed down Radio Télévision Autonome du Sud Kasaï (RTAS), in the south central town ofMiabi, in August on suspicions that its owner was conspiring to overthrow the Kabilagovernment, and in November a local mayor shut down Radio Ngoma FM, in the volatile east,after the station aired comments by the leader of a local armed group. Censorship also affectsinternational media outlets. The government banned transmission of Radio France Internationale(RFI) in January for its coverage of the controversial November 2011 presidential elections, andin July refused entry to Belgian journalist Thierry Michel, who had produced a documentaryprofiling the murder of a prominent Congolese human rights activist.No journalists were killed or disappeared during the year, but reporters were particularlysusceptible to intimidation and censorship amid the conflict in eastern Congo between the March23 (M23) rebel group and the Congolese army. In May, the governor of eastern North Kivuprovince threatened a journalist from United Nations–sponsored Radio Okapi, accusing her ofbiased reporting on clashes between Congolese soldiers and army defectors taking place in thearea. The private daily Le Journal was banned in June by the communications minister followingthe publication of an editorial accusing Congolese of Rwandan ancestry of colluding withRwanda in its military involvement in the conflict, an accusation the minister said incited racismand tribalism. In August, the CSAC made it illegal for radio programs and television talk showsto discuss the conflict in the east, and shut down numerous stations for failure to comply. RadioLiberté was ordered off the air for three months in May, before the CSAC ban, for airinginterviews with a militia leader and a mutineer, and a presenter for the station was imprisonedwithout charge for 13 days. In August, Radio Soleil was taken off the air for three months forairing an interview with an M23 spokesman, and Ngoma FM was suspended indefinitely inOctober for its interview with a spokesman for a group of mutineers. In December, authoritiesfrom the CSAC shut down Radio Okapi, which was highly popular in the region, for four days,citing administrative noncompliance. Observers believed the closure was due to the station’s132

interview with Jean-Marie Runiga, an M23 leader. In addition to governmental restrictions onpress freedom, the emergence of the M23 rebel group has accelerated the deterioration of themedia environment in the region. At least three journalists went into hiding between August andSeptember after being threatened for their critical reporting by the M23. The M23 also claimedresponsibility for attacks on Radio Solidarité in December.Among other violent incidents, in March masked arsonists set fire to the antenna of RadioTélévision Kindu Maniema (RTKM) in east central Maniema province. The station was knownto be critical of the provincial governor, who had previously demanded that it cease its call-inbroadcasts. One of the RTKM’s hosts went into hiding for fear that he would be arrested. In theeastern city of Goma, radio host Tuver Wundi reported receiving multiple death threats inMarch; his home had been attacked by armed men in January.Given low literacy rates and deep poverty, the population of the DRC relies largely onradio broadcasts to receive news reports. Many private newspapers are nevertheless published,particularly in Kinshasa, and although they are not always objective, they are often highly criticalof the government. There are several hundred privately owned radio and television stations, inaddition to three state-owned radio stations and a state-owned television station. The statebroadcasters reportedly favor Kabila’s party, though other political parties represented in thegovernment are occasionally given airtime. The only nationwide independent radio network,Radio Okapi, has set new standards for reporting and media objectivity in a volatile politicalenvironment. Most media outlets are reportedly owned by public figures and businessmen, andare used for political propaganda rather than objective reporting. Journalists at major outlets areusually poorly paid and lack sufficient training, leaving them vulnerable to bribery and politicalmanipulation.While internet access has spread in urban areas thanks to the proliferation of private, affordableinternet cafés, only about 1.7 percent of the population accessed the internet in 2012. Thegovernment does not restrict access to the internet or monitor its content.Costa RicaStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 5Political Environment: 7Economic Environment: 6Total Score: 18Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 19,F 19,F 19,F 18,F 19,FCosta Rica continues to enjoy a vibrant free press backed by strong legal and politicalinstitutions. However, an information crimes law promulgated in November 2012 sparkedwidespread concern by imposing jail terms on any person convicted of publishing “secretpolitical information.” The Supreme Court subsequently suspended the relevant article of the lawpending constitutional review.The constitution guarantees press freedom, and this right is generally upheld. However,punitive press laws, particularly concerning defamation, are occasionally used to restrict the133

operations of the media. Provisions from the country’s 1902 printing press law that imposedprison sentences for defamation were in effect until the Supreme Court struck them down in2010. And in December 2011, the Costa Rican courts created an appeals process for overturningcriminal libel sentences. However, despite these advances and calls for further reform, journalistsremain vulnerable to criminal charges for defamation, with punishments including excessivefines and the placing of one’s name on a national list of convicted criminals. The constitutionreserves for readers the right of reply to newspapers in response to information that the readersdeem incorrect or egregious. In 2012, the parliament continued to postpone discussion of a billthat would expand the scope of the right of reply from information to opinions. The InterAmerican Press Association (IAPA) has warned that the bill could reduce press freedom andfreedom of expression.Accessing government information continues to be difficult. The Freedom of Expressionand Press Freedom Bill, originally introduced in 2002, has been repeatedly postponed, leavingCosta Rica as a regional laggard on implementing comprehensive access to informationlegislation. President Laura Chinchilla’s administration has failed to prioritize passage of the bill.In July 2012, the Legislative Assembly passed an information crimes bill, known informally asthe gag law, which would lengthen jail terms for acts of “political espionage.” Article 288 of thenew law calls for jail terms ranging from four to eight years for journalists and other citizensconvicted of “improperly obtaining secret political information or information related to publicsecurity,” according to the IAPA. Journalists and press freedom organizations denounced thebill’s passage and warned that the law would seriously impede the public’s ability to scrutinizetheir government. In November, the government announced that the legislation would not applyto journalists, but Reporters Without Borders pressed for the entire article to be scrapped so itcould not be used against alternative information providers such as bloggers and other citizenjournalists. In late November the Supreme Court temporarily suspended implementation ofArticle 288 pending a broader examination of the law’s constitutionality.Although fear of legal reprisals promotes some self-censorship, media outlets aregenerally free to cover a range of sensitive political and social issues and to openly criticize thegovernment. Some news organizations have developed strong investigative reporting teams. Anin-depth investigation of tax evasion by the daily La Nación prompted the resignation of FinanceMinister Fernando Herrero in April 2012 after it came to light that he had consistentlyunderreported property values in order to minimize his family’s tax burden. Journalists are rarelyvictims of physical threats or violence in Costa Rica. In 2012, there were no reports of suchattacks.Costa Rica has a vibrant media scene, with numerous public and privately ownednewspapers, television outlets, and radio stations. There are nine major newspapers, and cabletelevision is widely available. Radio is the most popular outlet for news dissemination. Privatemedia ownership is highly concentrated, however, and tends to be politically conservative. Theinternet served as an additional source of unrestricted information and was accessed by morethan 48 percent of the population in 2012.Côte d’IvoireStatus: Not Free134

Legal Environment: 17Political Environment: 25Economic Environment: 19Total Score: 61Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 66,NF 67,NF 66,NF 68,NF 70,NFThe media environment in Côte d’Ivoire showed marked improvements in 2012 as the countrycontinued to recover from the previous year’s violence in the wake of a disputed presidentialelection. During new president Alassane Ouattara’s first full year in office, the press enjoyed agenerally less restrictive legal and political environment, including a decrease in harassment andattacks on foreign and local journalists, more space for critical reporting, and the opening up ofradio and television airwaves to private broadcasters.Freedoms of speech and of the press are protected in the constitution and the country’slaws, although there are prohibitions on speech that incites violence, ethnic hatred, or rebellion.Imprisonment for defamation was abolished in 2004, but the offense carries a fine of up to 15million CFA francs ($30,000), and libel of the head of state or other state institutions ispunishable by fines of up to 20 million CFA francs ($40,000). Côte d’Ivoire does not have afreedom of information law.While the number of journalists arrested and imprisoned decreased markedly in 2012,two journalists with the progovernment daily Le Patriote, including the managing editor, weredetained by security forces in February on the grounds that they had published confidentialinformation and refused to reveal their sources for a story about the Constitutional Council’sdecision to annul the results of the December 2011 parliamentary elections in 11 districts.However, the detention lasted less than a day, and the journalists were released without charge.Separately, the chief executive of Cyclone Media Group—the parent company of manynewspapers that supported former president Laurent Gbagbo, including Le Temps—was arrestedupon his return to Côte d’Ivoire in March on accusations of endangering state security. Heremained in prison awaiting trial at year’s end.Under Gbagbo, media regulatory bodies such as the National Press Council (CNP) werefrequently used to control critical journalism. The pattern persisted under Ouattara in 2011, withthe CNP largely working on behalf of the government and targeting Le Temps in particular forinciting hatred. Pro-Gbagbo papers continued to face regulatory pressure in 2012, though it wassomewhat less aggressive. In August, the CNP suspended Le Temps for 20 editions due to anarticle published in July that allegedly defamed Ouattara. The paper’s editor in chief, SimpliceAllard, was suspended for one month. Also that month, the CNP suspended a satirical paper,Bôl’ Kotch, for eight editions after it published cartoons and articles that allegedly defamedOuattara and promoted tribalism. In September, the CNP suspended Notre Voie, a pro-Gbagbopaper, for publishing articles and photo captions that continued to refer to former members ofGbagbo’s government as “minister.” When five other pro-Gbagbo papers reprinted the articlesfollowing Notre Voie’s suspension, the CNP suspended them as well, for at least six editionseach. Less than two weeks later, however, the CNP lifted all six suspensions after the papersthreatened to take their case to the Supreme Court. While the authorities continued to monitor thepro-Gbagbo press and other critical outlets, the retraction suggested that the government wasbecoming more tolerant of unfavorable reporting.135

One particularly important legal improvement in 2012 was the government’s decision toopen up the television and radio sectors to private broadcasters after more than two decades ofunfulfilled promises to liberalize the airwaves. On February 29, two decrees formally allowingapplications for private audiovisual licenses were signed by Ouattara, approved by theparliament, and presented to the public. The licenses will permit private radio and televisionbroadcasters to air political news content for the first time. Under the previous 2004 law, the fewprivate radio stations that existed were limited to entertainment and cultural programming, andno private television stations were permitted. A nine-member panel to review applications forthese new licenses was formed in July under the auspices of the High Commission forAudiovisual Communication (HACA), the broadcast regulator, and it soon began reviewingapplications. However, the fees remained high—up to about $2 million for commercial televisionstations—and the number of private television licenses to be issued was capped at five. Thecommission had not released a list of new licensees by year’s end.There were indications during the year that press freedom organizations and journalists’unions were increasingly able to operate effectively and without intimidation. Ivoirianjournalists, in collaboration with the regional press freedom group Media Foundation for WestAfrica (MFWA), adopted a new code of ethics in February. This step was not taken underpressure from the government, but was instead a journalist-led endeavor intended to supportethical standards and encourage reporting that would bolster the fragile peace in the country.The severe restrictions on access to news seen during the postelection crisis were largelylifted in 2012. International media—including Radio France Internationale and the UN radiostation Onuci FM, both of which were banned by Gbagbo—operated freely during the year, andthe local press resumed its critical vibrancy amid a reduction in acts of intimidation. InDecember, the Senegal-based African Press Agency opened its first office in Côte d’Ivoire, withvocal support from the Ouattara administration. Also that month, the government announced thatit would give approximately $740,000 to press organizations to support the development ofindependent newspapers. However, while conditions improved in the south, particularly inAbidjan, reports from the north indicated that access to news and information remained verylimited in districts now largely controlled by local warlords.In a departure from the widespread and sometimes deadly violence against journalists inearly 2011, there were only a few reports of physical attacks on journalists in 2012, none ofwhich were fatal. In the most grievous of these incidents, armed men attacked and set fire to theheadquarters of Cyclone Media Group in August, stealing or destroying much of the equipment.The police immediately began an investigation, but no perpetrators had been brought to trial byyear’s end. Separately, reporter Anderson Diédri of the private daily Le Nouveau Courrier wasassaulted by a government security detail in September while he was covering the eviction of awoman and her children from their home in Abidjan; the woman was reportedly the estrangedwife of a government minister. In November, the Abidjan head office of progovernment mediagroup Nord Sud, which published the daily Nord-Sud, was raided by armed men. The attackerstook a hard drive that belonged to a journalist specializing in security and defense issues.The state controls the largest radio stations—including the only one with national reachand political content—as well as Fraternité Matin, the largest-circulation daily newspaper; anews agency; and the national television broadcaster, Radiodiffusion Télévision Ivoirienne(RTI). During the 2011 crisis, the United Nations and other international organizations hadheavily criticized the Gbagbo government for its use of RTI and Fraternité Matin in a calculatedcampaign of disinformation about the opposition and the UN-led peacekeeping force. Pro-136

Ouattara forces’ eventual success in blocking the dissemination of pro-Gbagbo mediarepresented a significant turning point in the conflict. However, since Ouattara took office, thestate media have continued to show a largely progovernment slant. Most private media outletsare openly aligned with the government or the opposition.Approximately 2.4 percent of Ivoirians accessed the internet in 2012. Blogs and theonline versions of major newspapers are increasingly popular.CroatiaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 9Political Environment: 16Economic Environment: 15Total Score: 40Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 36,PF 38,PF 40,PF 41,PF 40,PFAfter six years of accession negotiations with the European Union (EU), Croatia was expected tobecome the 28th EU member state on July 1, 2013. The accession process was successful inexerting some pressure on the Croatian government to fight corruption and create the conditionsnecessary for independent media to flourish. As amended in June 2010, the constitutionrecognizes freedom of the press as well as the right to information. Nevertheless, the state hasoften tolerated harassment of journalists and taken legal action against critical media outlets.There was improvement in this area in March 2012, when a judge in Zagreb, the capital, ruledagainst former Croatian president Stjepan Mesić, who in 2009 had sued political analyst andpublicist Darko Petričić for defamation. Mesić claimed that Petričić had defamed him by statingthat the Albanian mafia funded his first presidential campaign. The court found that Petričić hadmade a serious critique of a politician, which did not amount to defamation. Libel remains acriminal offense, but is punishable only with fines. Hate speech, however, carries a maximumprison sentence of five years.Due to inadequate implementation and understanding of Croatia’s Act on the Right ofAccess to Information, journalists continue to find it difficult to request and obtain informationfrom the government. Amendments that expanded the definition of classified information in late2010 raised further concerns about the law’s efficacy.Media analysts have criticized the Council for Electronic Media, an independentregulator that licenses broadcast outlets, for its lack of transparency and its licensing criteria.There is particular concern regarding the allocation of frequencies and the use of funds meant forthe promotion of commercial television and radio productions. There is no licensing requirementfor media that do not use the broadcast frequency spectrum. Outlets launched on other electroniccommunication platforms are only required to register with the media council and pay a nominalfee. Print media must register with the Chamber of Commerce.The Croatian Journalists’ Association (CJA), representing more than 90 percent of thecountry’s active journalists, is considered a model for the region. The majority of Croatianjournalists adhere to the CJA’s code of ethics, and its Council of Honor is responsible for137

eviewing complaints from individuals, institutions, and companies. Membership in the CJA iscurrently declining, however, reflecting dissatisfaction with the association’s responses to theworsening conditions faced by journalists. Nearly 400 journalists have been fired in the past twoyears, and hundreds more are working on a part-time basis without benefits. Furthermore,journalists, especially those covering corruption and organized crime, continue to faceharassment and attacks as a result of their work.The state-owned public broadcaster, Croatia Radio-Television (HRT), is funded throughadvertising revenue and licensing fees. HRT is often seen as representing political interests andhas been criticized for censoring and suspending programs without explanation, politicizingpersonnel decisions, lacking transparency, and failing to respect professional standards. InJanuary 2012, the CJA and 26 other nongovernmental organizations and associations signed anappeal demanding that HRT address these issues. Amendments to the Croatian Radio-TelevisionLaw, adopted by the parliament in July, allow the parliament to appoint HRT’s director general,its 11-member Program Council, and the members of its Monitoring Committee, effectivelyinstitutionalizing political control over the broadcaster. In October, the parliament appointedGoran Radman as HRT’s director general for a term of five years.In addition to serious concerns regarding political interference with HRT’s management,the public broadcaster came under fire in 2012 for numerous attempts to censor journalists. OnApril 22, Maja Server, editor of the show Croatia Life, was warned that she could lose her jobover her allegedly unbalanced selection of guests for the show. On May 4, journalist ElizabetaGojan was also warned that she could be dismissed from her job for criticizing HRT ininterviews with Deutsche Welle, in the Croatian daily Slobodna Dalmacija, and in a speech shegave on World Press Freedom Day. On December 30, journalist Karolina Vidović-Krišto waspublicly sanctioned by HRT and suspended from her job after running a television program thatwas critical of the government’s new policy on sex education. Her show, Pictures of Croatia,was taken off the air.There are dozens of private television and radio stations, both local and national, andcable and satellite television access is common. While private media owners must be registered,this information is not easily accessible to the public and often does not clearly indicate who orwhat entity is behind the registered company names. Many private media owners allegedly holdinterests in nonmedia businesses, creating commercial and political pressure that can reducecritical news coverage of the government and influential companies. German-owned EuropaPress Holdings and Austria’s Styria control most of the print media market, raising concernsabout ownership concentration. A decline in advertising revenue due to the global economiccrisis, as well as rapidly dwindling newspaper circulations, have left many media outletsfinancially weak, leading to a blurring of the lines between journalism, advertising, and publicrelations. Not only are media outlets unable to publish articles that criticize their advertisers, butnow it is possible to find advertising pieces disguised as news articles. The government does notrestrict access to the internet, which was used by 63 percent of the population during 2012.Given the growth of online news media and the 24-hour news cycle, journalists are pressured toproduce more articles in a shorter time frame, hurting the overall quality of reporting. Journalistsoften publish unchecked data and copy articles found online.Cuba138

Status: Not FreeLegal Environment: 29Political Environment: 35Economic Environment: 28Total Score: 92Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 94,NF 94,NF 93,NF 92,NF 91,NFCuba has the most restrictive laws on free speech and press freedom in the Americas. Theconstitution prohibits private ownership of media outlets and allows free speech and journalismonly if they “conform to the aims of a socialist society.” Article 91 of the penal code prescribeslengthy prison sentences or death for those who act against “the independence or the territorialintegrity of the state,” and Law 88 for the Protection of Cuba’s National Independence andEconomy imposes up to 20 years in prison for acts “aimed at subverting the internal order of thenation and destroying its political, economic, and social system.” Cuba’s legal and institutionalstructures are firmly under the control of the executive branch. Laws criminalizing “enemypropaganda” and the dissemination of “unauthorized news” are used to restrict freedom ofspeech under the guise of protecting state security. Insult laws carry penalties of three months toone year in prison, with sentences of up to three years if the president or members of the Councilof State or National Assembly are the objects of criticism. The 1997 Law of National Dignity,which provides for prison sentences of three to ten years for “anyone who, in a direct or indirectform, collaborates with the enemy’s media,” is aimed at independent news agencies that sendtheir material abroad.State measures to control the press were especially harsh during the March 2012 visit ofPope Benedict XVI to Cuba. A number of independent journalists and bloggers were temporarilydetained and prevented from attending the pope’s open masses in the cities of Santiago de Cubaand Havana. Such tactics were also used during the October trial of Ángel Carromero, a Spanishpolitical activist charged with manslaughter after a car he was driving crashed in July, causingthe death of prominent Cuban dissident Oswaldo Payá. Well-known dissident blogger YoaniSánchez was temporarily detained along with her husband, also a blogger, en route to cover theCarromero trial in the city of Bayamo. In February, the Cuban government had denied Sánchezpermission to travel to Brazil—the 19th time the government had rejected her efforts to obtain anexit visa.The government controls coverage by foreign media through the selective granting ofvisas to correspondents. Foreign journalists or news outlets that present a consistently negativeview of Cuba to the outside world have been denied visas. In 2012, Spanish-language mediaoutlets from the U.S. state of Florida, which cater to the largely anti-Castro Cuban Americancommunity there, were universally denied visas to cover the pope’s visit even as journalists fromover 300 other print and broadcast organizations were granted entry.In 2012, independent or critical Cuban journalists continued to be subject to harassmentfor their reporting on topics deemed sensitive by the government. Such harassment took the formof arbitrary short-term detentions, internal deportations, house arrest, and the blocking ofindividuals’ mobile-telephone service by the state telecommunications company, ETECSA. InJuly, José Antonio Torres, a former journalist with the Communist Party newspaper Granma,was sentenced to 14 years in prison for spying after he published articles about the139

mismanagement of a construction project in Santiago and a fiber-optic cable laid between Cubaand Venezuela in 2011. In September, Calixto Martínez Arias, a journalist for the independentnews agency Hablemos Press, was arrested for reporting on cholera and dengue fever outbreaksthat plagued the island during the summer and went largely unreported by state media. Martínez,who had frequently been harassed by state authorities over the years, was charged with insultingthe president and faced a possible prison sentence of up to three years. Also that month, Robertode Jesús Guerra, editor of Hablemos Press, was detained and beaten by state security forces. InNovember, the government charged journalist Yaremis Flores with “disseminating falseinformation against international peace” after she published articles that criticized thegovernment for its harassment of journalists and its response to Hurricane Sandy. When anumber of journalists and activists, including Yoani Sánchez, went to a police station in Havanato obtain information about Flores’s status, they too were arrested and temporarily detained.The government owns all traditional media except for a number of undergroundnewsletters. It operates three national newspapers, four national television stations, six nationalradio stations, and one international radio station, in addition to numerous local print andbroadcast outlets. All content is determined by the government, and there is no editorialindependence. Cubans do not have the right to possess or distribute foreign publications,although some international papers are sold in tourist hotels. Private ownership of electronicmedia is also prohibited. The Roman Catholic Church is permitted to publish two magazines inCuba, Espacio Laical and Palabra Nueva, which are occasionally critical of the government.Approximately 26 percent of Cubans had access to the internet in 2012. However, themajority of users can reach only a closely monitored Cuban intranet, consisting of anencyclopedia, e-mail addresses ending in “.cu” that are used by universities and governmentofficials, and a few government news websites. For the average Cuban, access to the globalinternet comes through outdated dial-up technology and is often limited to international e-mail.In 2012, the Cuban government set rates for access to the World Wide Web at $6.50 an hour, and$1.65 an hour for international e-mail, in a country where the average monthly salary is $20.Faster connections are available at tourist hotels and foreign embassies, which many independentjournalists take advantage of, though this is technically illegal. The regime threatens anyoneconnecting to the internet illegally with five years in prison, while the sentence for writing“counterrevolutionary” articles for foreign websites is 20 years. However, the authorities do nothave the means to engage in systematic filtering.It had been hoped that a $70 million fiber-optic cable project between Cuba andVenezuela would improve internet access, particularly by increasing connection speeds.However, the fate of the cable remains unknown, with no increased internet speed noted withinCuba by year’s end. Despite the difficulties in gaining unfettered internet access, there is a smallbut vibrant blogging community, with more than 70 independent bloggers working in thecountry. Bloggers in Cuba have yet to be sentenced to prison for their work, but they often faceharassment and intimidation.CyprusStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 6Political Environment: 10140

Economic Environment: 9Total Score: 25Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 22,F 22,F 22,F 22,F 22,FFreedom of speech and expression are guaranteed under Article 19 of the constitution of theRepublic of Cyprus, which controls the largely Greek-speaking southern side of the dividedisland. These rights are generally respected in the south, where the independent press is vibrantand frequently criticizes authorities. The 1989 Press Law protects the circulation of newspapers,journalists’ right not to reveal sources, and access to official information. The internet is notsubject to any known government restrictions. Because there is no formal press council,journalists must use self-regulation to deal with complaints or professional lapses.There are some press freedom laws in the separatist Turkish Republic of NorthernCyprus, but authorities there are hostile to the independent press, and journalists can be arrested,put on trial, and sentenced under the “unjust actions” section of the criminal code.Reports of physical attacks or harassment aimed at journalists in the south are rare.However, the Northern Cyprus government has frequently targeted independent newspapers andjournalists who choose to cover controversial issues. Many journalists working in the north aresubject to regular press freedom violations, though there were fewer such incidents in 2012 thanin 2011. Media in Northern Cyprus can also display certain societal biases. In January 2012,using a reportedly derogatory tone, the Turkish Cypriot newspaper Kıbrıs revealed the identitiesof two men arrested under Section 171 of the penal code, which bans homosexual activity.Cypriots have access to Greek- and Turkish-language broadcasts throughout the island,and several channels are transmitted from nearby Greece and Turkey. The broadcast sectorconsists of a mix of state and private outlets. The state-funded Cyprus Broadcasting Corporationoperates three television channels and four radio stations in the south. Following the end ofanalog television transmission in 2011 and a requirement that all television stations broadcastnationally with a digital signal, several local television stations have shut down, unable to affordthe cost of nationwide transmission. There are 7 daily newspapers, many of which are closelylinked to political parties, as well as 31 weeklies and several monthly and other occasionalpublications. Northern Cyprus has its own press and broadcasters. Several daily newspapers areavailable, although mainland Turkish papers are generally preferred. The government-operatedBayrak Radio-TV offers two television channels—BRT 1 and BRT 2—as well as four radiostations. About 61 percent of the Cypriot population accessed the internet in 2012.[Although the narrative covers both Greek and Turkish Cyprus, the numerical rating for Cyprusis based on conditions on the Greek side of the island only.]Czech RepublicStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 4Political Environment: 8Economic Environment: 7141

Total Score: 19Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 18,F 18,F 18,F 19,F 19,FFreedom of the press is constitutionally guaranteed, though the Charter of Fundamental Rightsand Freedoms prohibits speech that might infringe on national security, individual rights, publichealth, or morality, or that may evoke hatred based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. Libelremains a criminal offense, but prosecutions are rare. The Press Law provides a sound basis forindependent journalism, and media protections have been bolstered by Constitutional Court andother institutional rulings. In August 2012, a district court reversed fines imposed by police onthe weekly Respekt for refusing to divulge the source of a document related to a corruptionscandal. The court found that the information was not necessary to the police investigation. InMarch, however, the Constitutional Court rejected a complaint by the Prima television station.The owners claimed that their right to freedom of expression was violated by the Council forRadio and Television Broadcasting, which had fined the station 3 million koruny ($153,000) forairing a report during daytime hours about the risk-taking prank group Jackass Praha that wascapable of “endangering the physical, mental, and moral development of minors.” According tothe Institute for the Protection of Journalists, members of the Czech Syndicate of Journalists—the largest professional organization of journalists in the country—are “often consulted on mediamatters by judges.”In 2011 the legislature amended the controversial 2009 “muzzle law,” which banned thepublication of information—particularly the names of individuals—obtained from policewiretaps, as well as information about individuals involved in criminal acts (both victims andperpetrators). Violators were subject to exorbitant fines and up to five years’ imprisonment.Critics complained that the law hindered reporting on corruption cases. The amendment makesan exception for information considered to be of “public interest,” though courts retain theauthority to determine whether the level of public interest outweighs the privacy rights of thoseinvolved. In 2010, legislators had already softened the law to allow journalists to publish thenames of politicians or other state officials involved in criminal proceedings related tocorruption, and reduced the severity of the prescribed punishments.Physical attacks and harassment aimed at journalists or media outlets are rare. Freedomof expression advocates were shocked by an unusual March 2011 raid on the offices of CzechTelevision, the public broadcaster, by 10 armed military police officers in masks. In searchingfor an allegedly classified version of a declassified military report that had been shown on theair, the officers confiscated newsroom computers, lists of sources, personal items, and papersunrelated to the military document. The television station lodged a formal complaint of abuse ofoffice, leading Defense Minister Alexandr Vondra to immediately suspend three officersresponsible for the raid. In September 2012 the Constitutional Court ruled that the search warrantwas unconstitutional.National print media consist of a variety of daily newspapers, weeklies, and magazinesrepresenting diverse points of view, though the economic crisis that began in late 2008 has had alasting effect on the media market, leading to four consecutive years of decline. German andSwiss corporations own 80 percent of newspapers and magazines. However, in recent years afew wealthy Czech business tycoons have entered the market, a development that could signal anunhealthy concentration of ownership and influence. There are three broadcasting companies142

operating at the national level: one public—Czech Television, with four channels—and twoprivate—TV Nova and Prima TV. The switchover to digital broadcasting in June 2012 resultedin a more diverse media sector, featuring the launch of several new television channels.Most electronic media outlets are privately owned, and they generally convey diverseviews without fear of government or partisan pressure. Media-related legislation includesminimal ownership restrictions, and none on foreign ownership. Media advocates have expressedconcern, however, that while public media are widely respected, their financial sustainability isbeing undermined by tighter control of public funds and increasing restrictions on advertising.Observers also point to a decline in the depth and quality of reporting in Czech news media, withweak accountability among the tabloids in particular, which have gained popularity at theexpense of the traditional press. This problem is most acute in the media’s portrayal of theRomany minority, who are often depicted as criminals or “unadaptables.”The internet continues to develop rapidly, with 75 percent of the population enjoyingregular and unrestricted access in 2012.DenmarkStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 2Political Environment: 5Economic Environment: 5Total Score: 12Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 10,F 11,F 11,F 13,F 12,FFreedom of speech is protected in Section 77 of the constitution, and the government generallyrespects this right in practice. However, legal restrictions exist for libel, blasphemy, and hatespeech. In April 2012, the Supreme Court acquitted free speech advocate and former newspapereditor Lars Hedegaard of making “insulting or degrading” statements about the treatment ofwomen in Muslim societies. The statements were made on a private video that had beenpublished on a blog without his knowledge. The judgment stressed that Hedegaard was onlyacquitted because he was unaware that the offensive statements would be made public.According to the public prosecutor’s office, more than 50 people have been found guilty ofviolating the hate speech clause of the criminal code since 2000.The 1985 Access to Public Administration Files Act permits any person to request publicdocuments located in an administrative file and requires authorities to respond to requests in atimely manner. If the request is expected to take longer than 10 days to process, they mustexplain the reason for the delay and provide an estimated response time. In 2012, a proposedrevision to the act came under fire from journalists and freedom of speech advocates. It wouldintroduce disclosure exemptions for documents prepared to advise ministers as well asdocuments exchanged between ministers and members of parliament in connection with laws orpolitical processes. Critics said this could cloak much of the country’s top-level decision makingin secrecy.143

Print, online, and broadcast media are regulated by the Danish Press Council, whose eightmembers are jointly appointed by the president of the Supreme Court and journalists’associations. Participation is mandatory for broadcast media and print outlets that publish at leasttwice a year; online media that choose to register receive the legal protections afforded totraditional journalists. If an outlet is found to have committed an ethical violation, the councilcan order it to publish the ruling; failure to do so can result in a fine or up to four months in jail,though these sanctions are rarely used. The current system has been undergoing a revisionprocess in the past few years, with politicians and victims of violations calling for strictercontrols.In January 2012, the companies operating Roj TV, a Copenhagen-based internationalKurdish satellite television station, were found guilty of “promoting terrorism” and received alarge fine. The court established that Roj TV is financed and controlled by the KurdistanWorkers’ Party (PKK), a separatist militant group operating in southeastern Turkey that isdesignated as a terrorist organization by the European Union and other entities. However,because the court had no legal authority to revoke its license, the station continued broadcasting.A subsequent investigation resulted in the September arrest of eight individuals suspected offinancing the PKK, and a two-month suspension of Roj TV’s broadcast license, as it had failed tocomply with a request from the Radio and Television Board (RTB). In addition, the governmentbegan work on a revision of the law regulating the RTB, weighing proposals that wouldempower the board to close outlets for promoting terrorism.The government does not in general restrict use of the internet. However, a growingnumber of sites are being blocked by court order, including file-sharing sites like Pirate Bay, forviolating copyright rules, and sites believed to contain child pornography. A controversial newlaw that came into effect in January 2012 requires both Danish and non-Danish online gamblingsites to register and pay taxes in Denmark. While the law in general liberalized previousgambling laws, it also led to the blocking of a number of foreign gambling sites. Separately, inJune 2011, the Ministry of Justice had put forward a proposal that would require public internetlocations—such as internet cafés—to verify potential users’ identities before giving them access.The draft was still before the parliament at the end of 2012.The aftermath of the 2005 controversy over cartoons of the prophet Muhammad stillaffects the Danish media, both in terms of direct threats against journalists and media houses andthrough a considerable chilling effect on coverage of related issues. The Danish Security andIntelligence Service (PET) found that the number of attempted or planned attacks was higher inthe years 2010–12 than at the height of the cartoon crisis. In June 2012, four Muslim men basedin Sweden were sentenced to 12 years in prison in Denmark for planning an attack on Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that originally published the cartoons. In October, a court inNorway found two Muslim residents guilty of planning a bomb attack on Jyllands-Posten. Thedecision was appealed at year’s end. The cartoonist at the center of the controversy, KurtWestergaard, continues to receive round-the-clock protection from the authorities after anassassination attempt in 2010.The private print media are vibrant, although many papers have clear politicalsympathies. Two of the three largest daily newspapers, Politiken and Jyllands-Posten, are ownedby the same company, but they have separate editorial boards and journalistic staff. The third,Berlingske, also runs the state-funded, public-service radio channel 24syv, which first went onthe air in 2011. Government subsidies and a value-added tax (VAT) exemption are vital for thepress; state support is available for struggling newspapers. The public broadcaster Danmarks144

Radio (DR), which operates two general-interest television channels, a 24-hour news channel,and four national radio channels, is dominant in both radio and television and is financed by alicense fee. TV2 is a privately run but government-owned television network, while the privatestation TV3 broadcasts from Britain because of advertising regulations. Satellite and cabletelevision are also available, as is a variety of internet-based news outlets. In 2012, 93 percent ofthe population had access to the internet.DjiboutiStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 24Political Environment: 27Economic Environment: 23Total Score: 74Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 72,NF 73,NF 73,NF 73,NF 74,NFThe media environment in Djibouti is among the more restrictive in Africa, featuringgovernment dominance of print and broadcast media, very low levels of internet access, severelimitations on free speech, and frequent harassment of journalists. Djibouti’s laws andconstitution provide for freedoms of speech and the press, but in practice the governmentimposes serious curbs on independent media. Journalism is limited in part by prohibitions onlibel and distributing false information. The 1992 Freedom of Communication Law prescribesprison sentences for media offenses and imposes age and nationality requirements on anyoneestablishing a private news outlet. Djibouti does not have a law guaranteeing access to publicinformation. The National Communication Commission, charged with issuing private radio andtelevision broadcasting licenses, accepted its first application in 2012, though it remainedpending at year’s end.The official media, which account for almost all of the country’s outlets, do not criticizethe government and practice widespread self-censorship. Journalists generally avoid coveringsensitive issues, including human rights, the army, the rebel Front for the Restoration of Unityand Democracy (FRUD), and relations with Ethiopia. The U.S. military presence in Djibouticreates additional pressures for self-censorship, as journalists are encouraged to refrain fromreporting on soldiers’ activities. Although there are no reports that the government limits accessto the internet, social media are closely monitored for plans of demonstrations or critical views ofthe government. The Association for Respect of Human Rights in Djibouti and the oppositionradio station and news website La Voix de Djibouti claim that their sites—the main sources forindependent views in the country—are regularly blocked. In August 2012, authorities blockedaccess to five Somali news websites that had posted confidential documents about the transfer ofmoney between Djibouti’s intelligence services and officials in Somaliland, a separatistSomalian territory bordering Djibouti.Journalists are subject to detention without charge, intimidation, and violence, furthercontributing to self-censorship. Prodemocracy demonstrations in February 2011 brought acrackdown on the media, including a near-total news blackout on the Arab Spring in state-145

controlled outlets. In addition, opposition media faced severe restrictions, arrests, and closures,which continued into 2012. In February 2012, Farah Abadid Hildid, a contributor to La Voix deDjibouti, was abducted and detained by the police for 24 hours, during which he allegedlysuffered physical and psychological torture. In August, another reporter for La Voix de Djibouti,Houssein Ahmed Farah, was arrested on allegations that he had been distributing membershipcards for a banned opposition party, though he was known for his critical reporting against thegovernment. He spent more than three months in jail and was repeatedly denied bail before hisrelease in November. No charges were lodged against Farah, who had also been arrested in 2004and 2011.The domestic media sector is very limited. Because of high poverty levels, radio is themost popular news medium. The government owns the principal newspaper, La Nation, as wellas Radio-Television Djibouti, which operates the national radio and television stations.Community radio, which has gained great popularity across Africa, is nonexistent, and Djiboutiis one of the few countries on the continent without any independent or privately ownednewspapers. Djiboutian law technically permits all registered political parties to publish anewspaper. Only one newsletter run by an opposition party, the National Democratic Party(PND), still publishes regularly, although other opposition groups and civil society activists areable to distribute written materials that are critical of the government. Printing facilities for massmedia are government owned, making it difficult to print criticism of the government for widecirculation.There are no private radio or television stations in the country, though foreign radiobroadcasts are available from the British Broadcasting Corporation, Voice of America, andRadio France Internationale, offering alternative sources of information to the public. La Voix deDjibouti started broadcasting in 2010 as a clandestine independent radio station operating fromabroad. Its website cannot be accessed within the country, though Reporters Without Borders hascreated a mirror site to bypass this censorship. Approximately 8 percent of the population wasable to access the internet in 2012. The only internet service provider is owned by thegovernment.DominicaStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 6Political Environment: 11Economic Environment: 7Total Score: 24Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 22,F 22,F 23,F 23,F 23,FDominican RepublicStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 7146

Political Environment: 20Economic Environment: 13Total Score: 40Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 39,PF 40,PF 39,PF 40,PF 41,PFAlthough the 2010 constitution guarantees freedom of expression and access to publicinformation, authorities often disregard or undermine these guarantees. Defamation is a criminaloffense punishable by fines and jail time, and libel lawsuits against journalists by governmentofficials and business executives are common when reporting threatens their political oreconomic interests. Two journalists—Melton Pineda and Johnny Alberto Salazar—weresentenced to jail for defamation during 2012, though Salazar’s conviction was eventuallyoverturned. Two other journalists, Robert Vargas and Genris García, settled out of court withCanadian clothing manufacturer Gildan Activewear after the company brought criminaldefamation charges against them. The case stemmed from articles the journalists posted on theirwebsites claiming that an assassination attempt on another journalist, Diego Torres, had occurredwhile he was investigating possible environmental contamination by the company at its factoryin Santo Domingo Province.Fierce debate occurred throughout the year over proposed legal amendments that wouldimpose harsher penalties for defamation, including longer prison sentences. While theamendments would also specifically prohibit cases against journalists, domestic and internationalpress groups urged full decriminalization instead. Due in part to advocacy efforts by theInternational Press Institute, a group of legislators in November expressed their intention to seeksuch decriminalization, but neither proposal had been enacted at year’s end.Attacks and intimidation against the press by both state and private actors continued to beproblems in 2012, especially for reporters investigating corruption. Members of the mediaexperience episodic police brutality, arbitrary detentions and inspections, equipmentconfiscations, threats, and verbal and physical harassment in both urban and provincial areas.According to the Inter American Press Association, journalists were subject to more than 25cases of physical or verbal attacks by the police and military between April and October 2012, aslight decrease from the previous six-month period. There were no murders of journalists in theDominican Republic in 2012. However, impunity for past attacks is common. The three menaccused of murdering cameraman Normando García in 2008 were acquitted in March 2012, andthere have been no arrests of those who ordered the 2011 murder of José Agustín Silvestre de losSantos, the host of a political program on the regional television station Caña TV.The run-up to May 2012 elections proved especially tense. In February, the attorneygeneral ordered an elite police unit to inspect the home and offices of journalist GuillermoGómez, who produces a television show and owns the digital newspaper El Siglo 21, afterGómez uncovered alleged corruption involving first lady and vice presidential candidateMargarita Cedeño de Fernández. The government alleged that the e-mail accounts of Cedeño andseveral government officials were hacked. In April, investigative journalist Nuria Piera accusedstate security agents of raiding her sources’ homes and offices after she reported that a senatorfrom the ruling Dominican Liberation Party had secretly donated more than $2.5 million toHaitian president Michel Martelly’s presidential campaign. On election night, the CentralElectoral Board closed down television channels Telesistema, Canal 11, and Supercanal 33 for147

allegedly broadcasting unofficial electoral results. The stations returned to the air the next day. Inaddition, several reporters and cameramen reported being roughed up by candidates’ securityguards at events during the campaign season.The Dominican Republic has five daily newspapers, more than 300 radio stations, andover 40 terrestrial and cable television stations. Ownership of many of these stations and thecountry’s newspapers is concentrated in the hands of a few powerful individuals and companies,leading to self-censorship by journalists to avoid damaging the owners’ political or businessinterests. There are two state-owned television stations and one state-owned radio station.Community radio and television stations, as well as websites, are also becoming increasinglyactive.Approximately 45 percent of the population accessed the internet during 2012, and therewere no reports of online censorship. Several online news sources produce content in Englishand Spanish, and usage of social-networking websites is increasing rapidly.East TimorStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 11Political Environment: 11Economic Environment: 13Total Score: 35Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 38,PF 37,PF 35,PF 35,PF 35,PFThe media environment in East Timor remained stable in 2012. Freedom of the press andexpression are protected under Articles 40 and 41 of the constitution. The debate over five draftmedia laws proposed by the UN Development Programme remained at an impasse, as Timoreseand regional press organizations argued that the laws would place new restrictions on journalists.One of the issues under discussion was the creation of a media council, which would resolvepress disputes outside of the court system. At the end of the year, however, details about thecomposition, operation, and funding of such a council remained unclear and the draft laws hadnot yet been approved by either the Council of Ministers or passed by the National Parliament.Where domestic laws currently do not exist, the 1999 Indonesian Press Law governs mediaissues.The implementation of East Timor’s new penal code in 2009 decriminalized defamation.However, misuse of the “defamatory false information” clause still threatens journalists. InMarch 2012, the national police commissioner, Longinhos Monteiro, said the police would arrestjournalists who published news stories considered to be inaccurate. In October, the publicprosecutor in Dili, the capital, placed two reporters, Raimundo Oki and Oscar Salsinha, underhouse arrest on criminal charges for an article critical of the judicial process following a fataltraffic accident.A culture of deference and respect for hierarchy continues to pervade journalism in EastTimor, and most news reported out of Dili features verbatim accounts recorded during organizedpress conferences. While most public officials pay lip service to freedom of the press, not all are148

comfortable with its actual practice, and there is a sense among many—including someinternational advisers—that journalism should ideally be linked with the process of nationbuilding.However, journalists are able to cover the news freely, and there are few cases ofreporters being harassed or attacked. In August 2012, radio broadcaster Leoneto da CruzGoncalves of Radio Rakambia was stabbed by two unidentified individuals riding onmotorcycles in front of East Timor’s Anti-Corruption Commission office; police were stillinvestigating at year’s end if the attack was connected to his work as a journalist.Four weekly and four daily newspapers operate on a regular schedule in East Timor, andseveral more appear sporadically. Circulations are very small, and are hampered by the highprice of papers relative to low consumer purchasing power, illiteracy, and a lack of distributionoutside Dili. After the country gained independence in 2002, broadcast media became dominatedby public radio and television outlets, but community radio stations—many with internationalfunding—also play an important role in the media landscape. According to a 2009 SoutheastAsian Press Alliance fact-finding mission, there are more than 15 community radio stationsacross the country, along with one national and three commercial stations. There is one nationaland one private television station. However, technical difficulties limit the reach of manybroadcast media outlets in rural areas, leaving an estimated 16 percent without access to anymedia. A 2011 nationwide media survey commissioned by the UN Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste found that radio still has the highest reach of any communication medium (a weekly reachof 55 percent), with television trailing not far behind (a weekly reach of 48 percent).The presence of internationally funded media-assistance organizations has had mixedeffects on journalism in East Timor. These organizations have made significant financialcontributions, thereby decreasing the importance of funding from the state and arguablyincreasing journalistic independence. At the same time, evidence suggests that their presence hascontributed to what some Timorese journalists call a “project mentality,” in which newsorganizations become dependent on grants from nonstate actors and find it difficult to beindependently sustainable.Internet access was limited to just 0.91 percent of the population in 2012 due to povertyand inadequate infrastructure. Nonetheless, the government does not censor websites or restrictusers’ access to diverse content. More households have mobile phones, and they are becoming animportant communication tool, especially in Dili, where 90 percent of the households surveyedowned a mobile phone.EcuadorStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 21Political Environment: 25Economic Environment: 15Total Score: 61Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 41,PF 44,PF 47,PF 52,PF 58,PF149

Status change explanation: Ecuador declined from Partly Free to Not Free due to governmentsponsoredregulations that severely restricted media coverage of electoral campaigns, PresidentRafael Correa’s directive to withdraw government advertising from privately owned media thatare critical of the government, and a general reduction in political and investigative reporting dueto an increasingly hostile environment for the press created by the Correa government.The media environment in Ecuador became more polarized in 2012, as President Rafael Correaand his administration continued to openly disparage and attack private and critical media. Whilethe constitution provides for freedoms of speech and the press, these rights are restricted inpractice. Libel and defamation are criminal offenses, and Correa has filed several criminal andcivil cases again critical journalists in recent years. However, during the UN Human RightsCouncil’s Universal Periodic Review process for Ecuador in 2012, the government denied theexistence of laws criminalizing opinion and rejected the legal standards recommended by theInter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). The most high-profile recent libel casewas an $80 million lawsuit filed by Correa against El Universo opinion editor and columnistEmilio Palacio and the newspaper’s directors. The president filed the suit in May 2011 inresponse to an opinion piece by Palacio that criticized Correa’s handling of a police uprising inSeptember 2010, which the government characterized as an attempted coup d’état. The articleaccused Correa of ordering police to open fire without warning on a hospital full of civilians, acharge Correa denied. In July 2011, a court ruled in favor of the president, but reduced thefinancial award to $40 million. Palacio and the directors of the paper—brothers Carlos, César,and Nicolás Pérez—were each sentenced to three years in prison. The defendants appealed thesentences, but they were upheld by the National Court of Justice in February 2012. Correasubsequently pardoned the accused, and the case was closed. In August, Palacio was grantedasylum in the United States. In a separate case, journalists Juan Carlos Calderón and ChristianZurita had been ordered in November 2011 to pay $1 million each in moral damages to Correafor revealing in their book Big Brother that Fabricio Correa, the president’s brother, had receivedsome $600 million in government contracts. In February 2012, Correa also pardoned Calderónand Zurita, and announced that he would withdraw the complaint.In another lawsuit, the newspaper La Hora was compelled by a court to print—on thefront page of its November 14, 2012, edition—a correction and an apology for having published“inexact or unproven information” about government spending on advertising. The dispute beganon October 10, when La Hora published data, which had been supplied by the nongovernmentalorganization Citizen Participation, stating that the government had spent more than $71 millionon official advertising since the beginning of 2012. The government, claiming that the data wereincorrect, sought to exercise the right of reply, and La Hora published a correction a few dayslater. However, the correction was in a different space than the original article, prompting thegovernment to bring the case to the courts. On November 12, the judge ordered La Hora topublish the government’s correction in the same space as the original article, along with anapology. Press freedom groups noted that Citizen Participation’s figures were already publiclyavailable, and that forcing the paper to publish the correction and apology on its front page couldbe seen as interfering with its editorial independence. Furthermore, the judge prohibited La Horafrom publishing information related to the dispute while it was ongoing, an act that brought arebuke by the Inter American Press Association.The government has also threatened to use criminal defamation laws to punish viewsexpressed through social media. In September 2012, Correa’s communications secretary warned150

the newspaper El Comercio that some reader comments on its website were offensive to thepresident and others, and could therefore be considered criminal offenses. In response, thenewspaper temporarily suspended online comments. In August, Correa requested, via his Twittermicroblog, that the intelligence agency investigate and prosecute a Twitter user who had calledhim immoral and a thief.The government employed other legal mechanisms to harass critical media outlets duringthe year. In July, after a labor inspection and for the second time in two years, police confiscatedcomputers and other equipment from Vanguardia magazine. Vanguardia had recently publishedarticles on alleged corruption in the public sector.Access to information is guaranteed in the constitution and by the 2004 Transparency andAccess to Public Information Law, but a 2011 report found uneven compliance and confusionover the law on the part of government officials.In January 2012, using his line-item veto power, Correa made modifications to aDecember 2011 electoral reform law that served to limit the media’s ability to provide fullcoverage of election campaigns. Among other controversial changes, Correa included aprovision that prohibited the media from directly or indirectly promoting any candidate orpolitical position. In effect, the law restricted the publication or transmission of any type ofinformation—including photographs, special interviews, and opinion pieces—about the electoralprocess that could be interpreted as favoring or discrediting a candidate. In response to lawsuitsover the constitutionality of the ban, the Constitutional Court upheld it, but removed languagereferring to “any type of message or special interview,” on the grounds that this would interferewith the journalistic duty to inform and disseminate ideas. After a request for furtherclarification, on December 20 the court determined that “indirect promotion” of a candidate maytake two forms: granting unequal space or air time to candidates, and not responding to acandidate’s right of reply or requests for space or airtime in a timely fashion. The court taskedthe electoral authority with writing rules for implementing these provisions, which would governthe electoral campaign due to start in January 2013. The rules were not publicly available atyear’s end.In September 2012, an electoral court fined Vistazo magazine $80,000 for violating anexisting ban on political propaganda during the 48-hour blackout period leading up to anelection. The magazine had published an editorial arguing in favor of a “No” vote in a May 7,2011, referendum, which included two questions relating to increased government control overmedia regulation and content. In a statement after the ruling, Vistazo noted that its piece was aneditorial, not propaganda, and that the progovernment paper El Telégrafo had published aneditorial in favor of the referendum the day before the vote.A controversial communications bill, under consideration for over three years, had stillnot been approved by the legislature at year’s end. The bill would create a powerful Council forthe Regulation and Development of Communication, a majority of whose members would benominated by the government or its allies. According to a study by the human rights organizationArticle 19, the bill equally distributes broadcasting licenses between private, community, andpublic broadcasters, but there are no guarantees for the independence of public broadcasters fromgovernment influence. Among other provisions, the bill would grant considerable governmentaccess to public-service airtime, impose content regulations that could limit free speech, andrestrict—with a few exceptions—the practice of journalism to those who possess certainprofessional qualifications.151

Meanwhile, the National Communications Council (CONATEL) continued to operate asthe broadcast licensing body. CONATEL is considered to be highly dependent on thegovernment, with four of seven members answering directly to the president, and thus oftensubject to government influence. In May 2012, CONATEL canceled the licence of TelesangayTV, owned by a member of the opposition. In July, 30 police officers entered the offices ofRadio Morena to close it down, using tear gas against employees who resisted the action. Theowner of Morena, a member of the opposition in the National Assembly, filed a case on theclosure with the IACHR.The Correa government has extended its assault on the press beyond Ecuador’s borders.In December 2011, a working group of the Organization of American States (OAS) studying theoperations of the IACHR presented a report that included recommendations, advocated byEcuador and Venezuela, that would drastically reduce the effectiveness of the commission’sspecial rapporteur for freedom of expression. The special rapporteur issues alerts callingattention to infringements of press freedom throughout the Americas, including several inEcuador during Correa’s presidency. The recommendations called for limiting the specialrapporteur’s budget and reducing the size and scope of the office’s reports, which traditionallyexamine countries in depth. Correa continued to push for these changes throughout 2012, andthey were headed for a debate and vote in the OAS general assembly in early 2013.Indimidation, harrassment, and attacks on journalists and media outlets continue to rise.In 2012, local press freedom group Fundamedios cited 173 incidents of verbal, physical, or legalharassment of the media by authorities and ordinary citizens—the largest number since 2008.Correa reacted by saying the report was politicized and aimed at attacking the government duringthe election period. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, one reporter was killed inconnection with his work in 2012. Byron Baldeón, a 31-year-old freelance photographer, wasshot and killed in front of his home in El Triunfo, Guayas Province. He had been set to serve as awitness in a case involving alleged police corruption. In an instance of intimidation, OrlandoPérez, director of the state-owned newspaper El Telégrafo, declared in March that he hadreceived death threats after publishing an opinion piece that was critical of a member of theconservative opposition. In September, journalist Janet Hinostroza temporarily left her televisionprogram after allegedly receiving threats related to a corruption investigation she was conductingthat involved a relative of Correa’s.The majority of media outlets, both print and broadcast, are privately owned. However,the government controls—directly or indirectly—19 outlets, including six television and cablestations, five radio stations, three newspapers, four magazines, and a news agency. Twelve of theoutlets under government control had been private until 2008, when the state took ownership ofthem to settle their parent company’s bankrupcy. By law, the government was required topromptly divest itself of the companies, but after more than four years, it has not done so. Thoseprivate media outlets not under government influence tend to have combative relationships withthe administration. Privately owned stations are encouraged but not required to air Correa’sweekly television and radio broadcast, in which he regularly denounces critical journalists andmedia outlets. Private television and radio stations are obliged by law to disseminate officialstatements and programs—called cadenas—for up to one hour a day, often interrupting newsprogramming. These statements are used extensively by the government to promote its ownagenda and occasionally target specific journalists. For example, in September a cadenainterrupted journalist María Josefa Coronel’s program on Teleamazonas to clarify what thepresident had eaten for breakfast on a particular day. A few days later, another cadena152

interrupted her program to criticize her and question her objectivity. In a three-hour-long radiocadena in December, Correa accused El Universo and El Comercio, among others, of attemptingto manipulate the public to prevent his party from winning the 2013 elections.According to an August 2012 Fundamedios report, most public advertising goes to mediaoutlets controlled by the state. In June, Correa prohibited his ministers from giving interviews toprivately owned media; in September, a judge upheld Correa’s order after its legality waschallenged. In July, Correa directed his press secretary to withdraw public advertising from whathe called “mercantilist” media outlets, including the newspapers Hoy, El Comercio, El Universo,and La Hora, and the television stations Teleamazonas and Ecuavisa.An antimonopoly law passed in July 2011 threatens to further weaken private mediaorganizations. It required individuals who owned a 6 percent or larger stake in a national mediacompany or financial institution to divest assets they held in other companies by July 13, 2012.The ban on simultaneously owning stock in the communications sector and other sectors wasfirst introduced in the May 2011 referendum. In October 2011, the Quito Chamber of Commercechallenged the constitutionality of the law, but the suit made little progress in 2012. As the July2012 deadline approached, there was confusion as to which media outlets were affected, since adefinition of private national media had not been provided. In November, the Office of theSuperintendent of Companies issued a definition of national private print media, along with newdeadline of early 2014 to transfer assets.The internet was accessed by about 35 percent of the population in 2012, with most usersliving in urban areas. There are no reported restrictions on access.EgyptStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 22Political Environment: 24Economic Environment: 16Total Score: 62Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 59,PF 60,PF 60,PF 65,NF 57,PFStatus change explanation: Egypt declined from Partly Free to Not Free due to officiallytolerated campaigns to intimidate journalists, increased efforts to prosecute reporters andcommentators for insulting the political leadership or defaming religion, and intensifiedpolarization of the pro– and anti–Muslim Brotherhood press, which reduced the availability ofbalanced coverage.Throughout 2012, the Egyptian press faced myriad challenges as the Egyptian courts, military,political establishment, and Islamist groups engaged in a power struggle over Egypt’s politicalfuture. Following the forced resignation of longtime president Hosni Mubarak in February 2011,the country was ruled by a military council, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF),whose 18-month tenure featured openings in the legal, political, and economic environment forthe media. The People’s Assembly, Egypt’s lower house of parliament, was elected in January153

2012, with Islamist parties winning nearly 70 percent of the seats, but it was then dissolved bythe SCAF in June after various electoral laws were deemed unconstitutional. Mohamed Morsi ofthe Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) won the presidency in a June 16–17runoff election, taking 51.7 percent of the vote, and executive power was formally transferredfrom the military to the new civilian leadership. The change led to several negativedevelopments for the media during the latter half of 2012, including increased polarizationbetween pro- and antigovernment outlets, a heightened use of defamation laws against the press,and physical harassment of journalists by nonstate actors with the tacit support of the authorities.A provisional constitution adopted by the SCAF in March 2011 remained in effect untilDecember 2012, when a new constitution was ratified. Article 12 of the provisional charterguaranteed freedom of expression and opinion “within the law.” Article 13 provided for freedomof the press and outlawed censorship—including administrative actions such as stopping orpreventing publication—with exceptions for threats to national security and during states ofemergency and times of war. After winning the presidency, Morsi worked aggressively to pushthe new constitution through the approval process. The draft was met with protests and strikes byjournalists and private media outlets, but it was adopted in a national referendum on December15. The constitution addresses freedom of the press in contradictory terms. While enshriningpress freedoms in its articles, it also leaves media professionals exposed to excessivepunishments under the law, including prison sentences for “malpractice.” In addition, it upholdspreexisting laws pertaining to the sanctity of the president. The constitution’s ambiguityregarding the media leaves significant room for censorship and paves the way for self-censorshipon social, cultural, and political issues. While Article 45 states that “freedom of thought andopinion shall be guaranteed,” several other articles appear to challenge this provision, includingArticle 44, which prohibits the “insulting of prophets.” Article 48 gives courts the authority toshut down a media outlet if a judicial review finds that an employee of the outlet has notobserved the vague provisions of the article, such as “respecting the sanctity of the private livesof citizens and the requirements of national security.” Furthermore, Article 216 calls for thecreation of the National Press and Media Association, a new agency to administer all stateownedmedia outlets. It is unclear how the association members would be selected or howguidelines would be enforced.Neither of the constitutions in effect during 2012 replaced the Mubarak-era press laws orpenal code, which include an array of articles that allow journalists to be prosecuted for theirreporting. Egypt had been under a state of emergency since 1981, and one of the central demandsof the 2011 revolution was the abolition of the Emergency Law, which allowed indefinitedetention without charge or trial, among other abusive practices. The SCAF kept the law inplace, even expanding it to include the offense of “spreading of false information harmful tonational security,” before allowing it to expire in May 2012. Egypt also has laws againstblasphemy, and a group of Islamist lawyers filed a complaint against media mogul NaguibSawiris for posting a picture on his Twitter microblog in June 2011 that showed Disney cartooncharacters dressed as fundamentalist Salafi Muslims. The case was dismissed by the courts inMarch 2012. The Morsi government placed a strong emphasis on public morality, leading to adramatic increase in prosecutions for blasphemy, “insult to religion,” and offending publicdecency. The cases were disproportionately directed against non-Islamist citizens, journalists,and media personalities. Blogger Alber Saber was sentenced in December 2012 to three years injail for insulting religion and the president after he allegedly posted a link to the trailer for anotorious anti-Islam film, The Innocence of Muslims.154

Although the Morsi government issued a decree in August that banned the pretrialdetention of journalists, it also repeatedly targeted its media critics for prosecution on defamationcharges. Islam Afifi, the editor of Al-Dustour, was detained in August on charges of “publishinglies” about the president and endangering national stability and security after his newspaper ranstories that were critical of the FJP. Afifi’s trial was still pending at the end of the year. InOctober, television journalist Tawfik Okasha, an outspoken supporter of the military and theSCAF, was sentenced to four months in prison for defamation after he alleged that Morsi’selection was fraudulent. According to a report by the Arabic Network for Human RightsInformation (ANHRI), at least 24 criminal cases were filed for insulting the president during thesix months after Morsi’s election, significantly more than under the country’s previouspresidents.The independence of the judiciary was challenged in 2012 as the government andIslamist groups attempted to influence rulings on the constitution, election laws, and pressfreedom issues. This was more evident in court cases against journalists who were critical of thegovernment than in connection with legal violations by progovernment media, which generallywent uninvestigated and were rarely brought to trial. Multiple drafts of what would be Egypt’sfirst freedom of information law were written and debated throughout 2012, but no bill had beensubmitted for passage by year’s end.Under Mubarak, the government controlled all media licensing, with the presidentleading the newspaper licensing body, the High Press Council. The Egyptian Radio andTelevision Union (ERTU), the government-operated public broadcaster, was under the control ofthe Information Ministry, and it granted radio and television licenses. In 2011, the SCAFlicensed 16 new satellite television stations but later rescinded its decision and ordered that nonew licenses be granted for satellite channels. It also threatened to “take legal measures againstsatellite television stations that jeopardize stability and security.” Decisions surroundinglicensing and permission to publish and broadcast remained opaque under Morsi’s presidency.The government—through the Ministry of Information, ERTU, and the Shura Council, Egypt’supper house of parliament—has been given authority to oversee licensing and determine what isappropriate for broadcast. Under the new constitution, the government and the judiciary havepower to withdraw the licenses of stations that violate a wide range of social, cultural, religious,and political sanctities now protected by the charter. Under the provisional constitution, onlylegal entities, corporations, or political parties could own print media. These restrictions werelifted under the new constitution.While in power, the SCAF warned editors and journalists against publishing anythingcritical of the armed forces without prior consultation and permission, appointed a newinformation minister despite hopes that the ministry would be abolished, and appointed a militarycensor to supervise the press, prompting several popular writers to suspend their columns as anact of protest. Nonetheless, professional and citizen journalists made significant attempts tocounter censorship and shoddy reporting by conducting in-depth investigative reports aboutinstances of violence, and by setting up public screenings of news videos they produced. Twocampaigns that began in December 2011, Mosireen (The Insistent) and Askar Kazeboon(Military Liars), organized video screenings aimed at publicizing SCAF abuses against protestersand civilians and dispelling the propaganda broadcast via state media. In January 2012, reporters,anchors, and editors at state media were punished for attempts to provide coverage that wascritical of the military’s rule. In one prominent incident, while reporting on the parliamentaryelections, state television senior correspondent Ahmed Wageeh called for the attorney general to155

investigate how public funds are used in the broadcasting industry. He was later prohibited fromappearing on camera. In May, major protests against military rule led to attacks on anddetentions of 18 journalists who were covering the demonstrations. Also that month, authoritiesraided and confiscated equipment at the offices of the Iranian government television network Al-Alam and issued an arrest warrant for the bureau chief on the grounds that the station wasoperating without the necessary license. Al-Alam had been critical of the SCAF government.After Morsi came to power, state and private media were increasingly driven intoadversarial Islamist and non-Islamist camps, to the detriment of journalistic integrity andobjectivity. Morsi gave the Islamist-led Shura Council the authority to appoint new executivesand chief editors for the state publications—including Egypt’s three largest newspapers, Al-Ahram, Al-Akhbar, and Al-Gomhuria—continuing a long tradition of politically appointing theadministrative and editorial leadership of the government press. Rather than disbanding orrestructuring the much-maligned Ministry of Information, Morsi and Prime Minister HeshamQandil retained the body and appointed a minister from the Muslim Brotherhood who movedquickly to formalize the state media’s progovernment bias. According to ANHRI, it becamedifficult to get articles critical of the government published in the state newspapers. For instance,Al-Akhbar eliminated its regular “Free Opinion” section and ceased publishing the writings ofnovelist Ibrahim Abdul Meguid because of his criticism of the Brotherhood. Al-Akhbar alsorefused to publish an article by writer Yusef al-Qaeed that criticized Islamist intimidation ofopposition-aligned media. An article by Ghada Nabeel that denounced these publication banswas itself refused publication by Al-Gomhuria.More state media employees were subjected to professional investigation under Morsiduring the latter half of 2012 than in the entire 18 months of SCAF rule. Typically theseinvestigations targeted those who departed from the script on air, gave airtime to highly vocalcritics of the government, or covered the protests against the Muslim Brotherhood in sympatheticterms. Some state media professionals were reprimanded on charges of “indecency” forpurportedly breaking social taboos.The Brotherhood’s party newspaper, Freedom and Justice, and its affiliated satellitetelevision network, Misr25, both became platforms for the overt promotion of the Morsigovernment’s policies and rarely offered any criticism of its performance. During volatileperiods in Morsi’s presidency—such as the aftermath of a November 22 decree in which heappeared to claim absolute power, or the rushing of the divisive constitutional draft to areferendum—the Brotherhood’s media arms served as trusted supporters of the president’sdecisions. They also actively vilified the opposition as either disgruntled members of the oldregime, thugs, or infidels. Also firmly in Morsi’s camp during the year were several privateIslamist satellite channels, such as Al-Naas and Al-Hafeth. Conversely, a large number of otherprivate satellite networks, such as ONTV, CBC, Al-Tahrir, Al-Nahar, Al-Balad, and Al-KaheraWal-Naas, became critical of the Muslim Brotherhood’s conduct, Morsi’s presidency, andIslamist politics in general.There was also a marked decline in the government’s commitment to providing access toofficials and official sources under Morsi. The government selectively granted unfettered accessto its media supporters while withholding information from critical outlets.Egypt does not filter internet content. Many bloggers and online activists freely criticizethe government and debate contentious issues, although online news outlets are cautious whenposting content covering the government or religion, and editors of official news websitespractice self-censorship along similar lines.156

Despite the trend of media polarization and editorial controls within politicized outlets,there has been a general easing of official censorship since 2011 and a reduction in obstacles forforeign journalists seeking to enter and report from the country. However, foreign journalists stillencountered harassment and arrests during 2012. In February, Australian journalist AustinMackell was arrested and detained in the city of Mahalla al-Kubra. He was charged withincitement to vandalize public property and government buildings and faced a travel ban until thecharges were dropped in August. Both foreign and domestic female reporters were subject tosexual assault while covering demonstrations or in the custody of security forces. For example,in June 2012, British journalist Natasha Smith was sexually assaulted by a mob while coveringpostelection celebrations in Cairo’s Tahrir Square.The incidence of physical attacks and intimidation against members of the local pressremained high in 2012. In May, over a dozen journalists were attacked by uniformed andplainclothes security personnel while covering demonstrations in Alexandria. In the latter half ofthe year, attacks on the media and threats to journalists were increasingly led by civilian groupsaligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. Widespread violence, intimidation, and threats weredirected at journalists who expressed criticism of the government’s policies and conduct.December protests in response to Morsi’s controversial constitutional declaration became violentand caused hundreds of injuries. On December 6, Al-Hosseiny Abou Deif, a reporter for theprivate newspaper Al-Fagr, was shot in the head with a rubber bullet at close range whilecovering clashes between Morsi supporters and opponents. He died a week later. Otherjournalists who were injured as they reported on these confrontations included Mohamed Azouzof Al-Gomhuria, Osama al-Shazzly of the private daily Al-Badil, Ahmed Abd al-Salam of theprivate daily Al-Alam al-Yawm, Sahar Talaat of Radio France Internationale, Ahmed KhairEldeen of ONTV, and freelance journalist Mohamed Saad. Two foreign journalists were alsoattacked in the demonstrations: reporter Mehmet Akif Ersoy and cameraman Adil Ahmet fromTurkey’s TRT television. Also in December, Islamist groups attempted to silence criticism of thegovernment by besieging Media Production City, a facility that houses all of Egypt’s privatesatellite television studios. The assailants attacked journalists and threatened the lives oftelevision network employees. Neither the security forces nor the prosecutor general took anymeasures to combat this intimidation.Egypt has more than 500 newspapers, magazines, journals, and other periodicals, andduring Mubarak’s rule the vast majority were in the hands of the state, which owned 99 percentof newspaper retail outlets. Since the 2011 uprising, there has been significant ferment in themedia sector as new outlets proliferate. Under Mubarak, all terrestrial television broadcasters—two national and six regional—were owned and operated by the government through the ERTU.However, there were four privately owned, independent satellite channels and several pan-Arabstations that attracted wide viewership. At least 16 new channels have emerged in the post-Mubarak era. Media ownership patterns, spending, revenues, and advertising remain beyondtransparent scrutiny across the industry. The government supports state media directly andthrough advertising subsidies, although it is unclear what types of advertising subsidies exist.Independent media that criticized the Morsi government or the Muslim Brotherhood came underfinancial pressure in late 2012, as the government influences advertisers. Such pressure has beenexacerbated by the economic turmoil in the country. Both government and private newspapershave been forced to slash their budgets to account for financial shortfalls, though no notablenewspaper or station went out of business in 2012.157

Some 44 percent of Egyptians accessed the internet regularly during 2012, and nearly 70percent had access to mobile telephones. Social media, particularly Facebook and Twitter, play akey role in spreading news and information.El SalvadorStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 10Political Environment: 17Economic Environment: 14Total Score: 41Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 42,PF 42,PF 43,PF 42,PF 40,PFFreedom of the press is protected under El Salvador’s constitution, and Salvadoran journalistsare generally able to report freely. Critical reporting on the government and opposition parties isfor the most part permitted, and slander, libel, and defamation were decriminalized in 2011.However, there were setbacks in the implementation of a new access to information law during2012, and the year was also marked by occasional threats and armed attacks against mediaoutlets.The Access to Public Information Law, approved by the legislature in March 2011, wentinto effect in May 2012. But in February, President Mauricio Funes had vetoed all candidates forthe Access to Public Information Institute (IAIP), stalling the creation of the body intended tooversee compliance with information requests. The Supreme Court ruled in December that Funesdid not have the right to block IAIP candidates, and that the president could not restrict access toinformation that had not been declared classified (reservada) by the legislature, as he hadattempted to do in a regulation issued in September 2011. Also in December, the digitalnewspaper El Faro reported that two of its information requests had been denied because thegovernment claimed that the law did not apply to documents produced before May 2012. Legalexperts argued that documents produced since May 2011 should in fact be available.Although El Salvador is generally a safe place to practice journalism, there are stillsporadic threats and acts of violence against media workers, especially in provincial areas. InJanuary 2012, journalists with Radio Victoria, a community station in the northern department ofCabañas, received death threats after supporting environmental activists in their opposition to aCanadian company’s gold-mining operations. In March, journalists at El Faro were threatenedand harassed after reporting on a truce the government was secretly brokering between twomajor criminal gangs, Mara Salvatrucha 13 (MS-13) and Barrio 18. The gangs reportedly sentdeath threats to El Faro owner Carlos Dada. International press freedom groups called on thegovernment to protect El Faro workers, which Funes pledged to do in April. In September,gunmen attacked the installations of Radio Sonora, assaulting two employees and stealing radioequipment. Various other impediments to journalistic activity were reported in 2012, includingan incident in July in which Rafael Mendoza, an experienced congressional reporter for thenewspaper El Diario de Hoy, was prohibited from entering the Legislative Assembly afterallegedly insulting the chamber’s president.158

In a victory over impunity for past crimes against journalists, a judge in May sentencedJonathan Martínez Castro to 30 years in prison for the murder of Channel 33 cameraman AlfredoHurtado in April 2011. The defendant and another man indicted in the case, Marlon AbregoRivas, who was still at large in 2012, are both members of MS-13. Hurtado had been coveringpolice operations against local gangs when he was shot to death. Citing Hurtado’s murder andthe intimidation aimed at El Faro, the Committee to Protect Journalists noted that the country’swidespread gang violence was posing a growing threat to Salvadoran journalists.There are four daily newspapers, but most of the country depends on privately ownedtelevision and radio networks for news. Limited resources prevent many media outlets fromproducing to their full capacity, and reporters often exercise self-censorship to avoid offendingmedia owners, editors, and government officials. Community radio has been stifled by the 1997Telecommunications Law, which does not recognize community media outlets. The law hasmade it all but impossible for such stations to obtain operating licenses. In a positive step, inMay 2012 the Association of Participatory Radio and Programming of El Salvador (ARPAS)signed a cooperation agreement with the Funes government that formally recognized theimportance of community radio to Salvadoran society and arranged for state-owned outlets tocarry community programming.Nearly 26 percent of the population accessed the internet in 2012, and there were noreported government restrictions on the medium. Online newspapers such as El Faro andContraPunto are known for their independent, investigative journalism.Equatorial GuineaStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 27Political Environment: 37Economic Environment: 27Total Score: 91Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 89,NF 90,NF 90,NF 90,NF 91,NFThe regime of longtime president Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo continued to clamp downon the media during 2012. Freedoms of expression and the press are legally guaranteed andassured in public declarations by Obiang, but these rights are ignored in practice. As in pastyears, the government relied on its extensive powers under the Law on the Press, Publishing, andAudiovisual Media to severely restrict journalistic activity. By law, the government hasprepublication access to press materials, which encourages self-censorship. There are no lawsguaranteeing freedom of information. Local journalists and private publications are required toregister with the government through a prohibitively complex and bureaucratic process.Almost all local coverage is orchestrated or tightly controlled by the government, andstate-controlled media do not cover international news unless the president or another seniorofficial travels abroad. Journalists in recent years have been permitted to voice mild or vaguecriticism of government institutions, but criticism of the president, his family, other high-rankingofficials, or the security forces is not tolerated. The media have been unable to report on the159

multiple international criminal investigations into alleged money laundering by the president’sson. Several acts of international news censorship emerged in 2012. Just as in 2011, when newsof the Arab Spring uprisings was blacked out, the state radio and television broadcaster RTVGEwas instructed not to report on the political unrest in Mali or on the ongoing civil conflict inSyria. Few international journalists are granted access to the country, and those who are faceroutine censorship, particularly on coverage of poverty and the oil sector.Journalists who cross the line into impermissible reporting typically suffer reprisals. InMay 2012, the director general of RTVGE barred independent journalist Samuel Obiang Mbanafrom participating in a televised debate on press freedom because he was deemed “problematic.”In October, state officials canceled the RTVGE radio program Cultura en Casa after a guestcriticized a Supreme Court judge for his involvement in the demolition of homes in the city ofBata.The most influential medium in the country is radio, and all domestic radio and televisionstations are operated by the government or members of the president’s family. The top two radiostations are the state-run Radio Nacional de Guinea Ecuatorial and the private Radio Asonga,owned by the president’s son. Applications to open private radio stations have been pending forseveral years but remain unapproved. Uncensored satellite broadcasts are increasingly availableto those who can afford the service. The government operates at least two newspapers, while ahandful are published by nominally independent figures or members of the small politicalopposition. El Lector, which claims to be an independent newspaper, was launched at theNational University of Equatorial Guinea in 2012. However, the paper’s articles tend to praisethe Obiang government. The country has little of the infrastructure necessary for independentmedia to operate, such as printing presses and newspaper retailers, and the lack of a welldevelopedlocal private sector hinders the ability of media outlets to raise revenues throughadvertisements. There are no national journalist unions or press freedom organizations registeredin the country, and the only publishing facility for print media is located at the Ministry ofInformation. Print media are generally unavailable in rural areas.An estimated 14 percent of the population accessed the internet in 2012. The governmentdoes not overtly restrict internet access, due in part to a lack of basic internet and mobiletelephoneinfrastructure. However, in 2011 a large drop in online visits by Equatoguineans toAfrol News, an African online news service that is often critical of the Obiang regime, has fueledspeculation that the government was attempting to block this site. There were no credible reportsthat the authorities monitored e-mail or internet chat rooms in 2012. According to the U.S. StateDepartment, the internet has replaced broadcast media as the primary medium for oppositionviews.EritreaStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 30Political Environment: 40Economic Environment: 24Total Score: 94Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012160

Total Score, Status 94,NF 94,NF 94,NF 94,NF 94,NFEritrea continued to rank among the worst media environments in the world in 2012. It haslacked any form of privately owned media since 2001, when the government banned the oncevibrantprivate press. Key editors and journalists were imprisoned, and the crackdown laterextended to state-employed journalists.The constitution guarantees freedoms of speech and of the press, but these rights areignored in practice. The 1996 Press Proclamation Law mandates that all newspapers andjournalists be licensed. It also stipulates that publications must be submitted for governmentapproval prior to release, and prohibits reprinting articles from banned publications.According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 28 journalists were imprisoned inEritrea as of December 2012, the fourth largest number in the world after Iran, Turkey, andChina. Nine have been in prison since 2001, and almost all are being held incommunicado. Thereis little information on the condition of those imprisoned, though unconfirmed reports indicatethat several jailed journalists are in very poor health or have died in detention. In February andMarch 2011, four journalists working for the government radio and television station, DimtsiHafash, were arrested and imprisoned; the government has yet to disclose the charges againstthem. Journalist Tesfalidet Mebrahtu, also with Dimtsi Hafash, was arrested at the same time forallegedly planning to flee the country, but was released in 2012.Most independent or critical journalists have left the country due to intimidation andarbitrary imprisonment, and those who remain engage in self-censorship. The minister ofinformation, Ali Abdu, reportedly fled into exile in late 2012 while on a trip in Europe.Individuals who seek refuge abroad have come under continued pressure. In December 2012,Eritrean journalists Abdalal Mahmoud Hiabu and Haroun Adam of the Sudan-based EritreanCentre for Media Services were detained without charge by Sudanese authorities. They remainedin custody at year’s end.Foreign journalists are not able to freely enter the country and are generally not welcomeunless they agree to report favorably about the regime. There have been occasional reports fromjournalists operating undercover, and President Isaias Afwerki has granted interviews to foreignbroadcasters such as Sweden’s TV4 and the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera. However, it remainedalmost impossible for foreign journalists to report from within the country in 2012.The three newspapers, two television stations, and three radio stations that operate in thecountry remain under state control. Individuals are allowed to purchase satellite dishes andsubscribe to international media, though the importation of foreign publications without priorapproval is not permitted. Several radio stations run by Eritreans abroad are attempting to reachlisteners in Eritrea, including opposition-aligned stations broadcasting from Ethiopia and RadioErena, which broadcasts via satellite and over the radio from Paris. In mid-2012 there werereports that Radio Erena’s signal was being jammed, and as of the end of the year the station wasstill not accessible on satellite, although it was streaming on the internet.The government requires all internet service providers to use state-controlled internetinfrastructure. Many websites managed by Eritrean exiles are blocked, as is the video-sharingwebsite YouTube. Authorities are believed to monitor e-mail communications, although internetuse is limited, with just 0.8 percent of the population able to access the medium in 2012.Estonia161

Status: FreeLegal Environment: 5Political Environment: 4Economic Environment: 7Total Score: 16Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 16,F 15,F 17,F 18,F 18,FThe constitution provides for freedoms of speech and the press, and the government respectsthese rights in practice. Libel is not a criminal offense, but journalists can be sued for civildefamation, and several such cases were filed in 2012. Legal amendments enacted in 2010contained provisions that many observers regarded as threats to freedom of speech, including ameasure that would allow courts to jail journalists for refusing to disclose their sources in casesinvolving major crimes. While the amendments have drawn criticism from rights groups, no onehas been prosecuted under them to date. In June 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that web portalsand online news outlets could be held responsible for reader comments posted on their sites. Thecase was pending before the European Court of Human Rights at year’s end.The Public Information Act, the primary law governing freedom of information, obligesthe authorities to assist citizens in accessing public documents. Estonia is among 14 countriesthat signed the Council of Europe’s Convention on Access to Official Documents, whichestablishes the right of anyone to request information held by public authorities at no charge.There are two press councils in the country, and public-service broadcasting is supervisedby the Estonian Broadcasting Council (RHN). The RHN has nine members—five politicians andfour professionals—who are elected by Parliament. In May 2012, after the terms of the fourindependent experts expired, the ruling coalition replaced them with its own appointees without apublic debate. The country’s numerous media outlets express a wide variety of views, generallywithout government interference. In December 2012, however, Prime Minister Andrus Ansipquestioned the integrity of some journalists as he responded to media criticism of hisenvironment minister. Several politicians in 2012 also criticized the public broadcaster, EestiRahvusringhääling (Estonian Public Broadcasting, or ERR), calling for the regulation ofjournalistic activities.Political tensions between Estonia and Russia sometimes affect media freedom. In May2012, the Russian Foreign Ministry expressed concern over Estonia’s move to annul the visa of aRussian journalist, Igor Korotchenko, who had been scheduled to participate in a conference inEstonia covering the politically sensitive subject of World War II. Estonian authorities claimedthat Korotchenko had been turned away because he had “filed inaccurate information on his visaapplication about the purpose of his stay.”ERR operates two television stations (ETV and ETV2) and five radio stations. There aretwo primary national commercial television stations—Kanal 2 and TV3—and a large number ofprivate radio stations and cable and satellite services. In November 2012, Parliament amended alaw that obliges cable operators to retransmit all free-to-air television channels, clarifying thatthe broadcasters can charge “reasonable” fees to cable services for their content. Manycommercial broadcasters have been struggling financially even as cable operators continue toearn profits. Media ownership has become increasingly concentrated over the years, with162

Scandinavian business interests taking a sizable share, particularly in the television sector. TheEstonian-language print media landscape includes four national dailies as well as regional,municipal, and weekly papers. For the country’s sizable Russian-speaking population, there aretelevision and radio programs in Russian (including on ERR), Russian-language newspapers, andaccess to broadcast and print media from Russia. As a result of the country’s 2009 economiccrisis, a number of print outlets ceased publishing, or cut staff and salaries and reduced theiroutput. The recession also led to significant declines in the advertising market. However, thecountry recovered quickly, and the decline in advertising revenues has since slowed or reversed,particularly in the internet sector.Estonia remains among the leading countries in the world regarding internet penetration,with approximately 79 percent of the population active online in 2012. Several newspapers havegone online in the past few years, and online-only news portals have an extensive readership.EthiopiaStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 28Political Environment: 35Economic Environment: 19Total Score: 82Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 76,NF 76,NF 78,NF 78,NF 81,NFDespite the death in August of longtime prime minister Meles Zenawi, the political and mediaenvironment in Ethiopia remained highly repressive in 2012. The new prime minister,Hailemariam Desalegn, appeared set to continue many of his predecessor’s policies. Thegovernment continued making extensive use of a 2009 antiterrorism law to stifle dissent duringthe year. It also stepped up control of the internet, passing a new telecommunications law,launching initiatives to hamper online debate, and blocking access to critical websites. Accordingto the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Ethiopia was the second-leading jailer ofjournalists in Africa in 2012, after Eritrea.While the constitution guarantees freedom of the press, the 2005 criminal code containsmany provisions that limit this right, including restrictions on “obscene” communication,criminal defamation, and criticism of public officials. In August 2012, the government filedcriminal charges of defamation and “inciting the public through false rumors” against TemesgenDesalegn, editor in chief of the independent weekly Feteh, who had written articles thatcriticized Meles’s rule. Although the charges were later dropped, Feteh was unable to continuepublishing due to government pressure.Private media and press freedom groups criticized the 2008 Freedom of the Mass Mediaand Access to Information Proclamation for imposing restrictions on the practice of journalismand harsh sanctions for violations. In 2012, the parliament expanded on the theme of the 2009antiterrorism law by passing the Telecom Fraud Offences Proclamation, which prescribessignificant fines and up to eight years in prison for those convicted of using thetelecommunications network to disseminate a “terrorizing message.” The law also appears to163

criminalize the use of popular voice-over-IP (VoIP) communications software such as Skype,among other provisions.The 2009 antiterrorism law, supposedly designed to confront the challenges posed byarmed insurgencies, has been used extensively against politicians and journalists. They havebeen accused of varied collaborations with groups labeled as terrorist organizations by theparliament. Most journalists affected by the law were arrested simply for publishing informationabout these groups or for conducting interviews with their leaders. In January 2012, a courtsentenced two journalists—editor Woubshet Taye of the now-defunct weekly Awramba Timesand columnist Reeyot Alemu of Feteh—to 14 years in prison, ostensibly for plotting terroristattacks. The charges were widely regarded as a response to their critical coverage of thegovernment. Reeyot’s sentence was reduced to five years on appeal in August. Both had been indetention since June 2011. In July 2012, independent journalist and blogger Eskinder Nega wassentenced to 18 years in prison on terrorism charges, having been arrested in September 2011 forcriticizing the similar arrests of other journalists. Five journalists living in exile received harshprison sentences in absentia in the same court ruling. In September, the government pardonedtwo Swedish journalists, Johan Persson and Martin Schibbye, who had been arrested byEthiopian forces after entering the restive Ogaden region in 2011 and charged under theantiterrorism law.The selective approach taken by the government in implementing laws and the lack of anindependent judiciary continues to be of grave concern. Journalists have few guarantees that theywill receive a fair trial, and charges are often filed arbitrarily in response to personal disputes.Court cases can continue for years, and many journalists have multiple charges pending againstthem.Ethiopia has one of the continent’s most progressive freedom of information laws,although access to public information is largely restricted in practice, and the government hastraditionally allowed only state-owned media outlets to cover official events. The 2009Proclamation for the Registration and Regulation of Charities and Societies has crippled theability of nongovernmental organizations to monitor and advocate media freedom and otherhuman rights issues, in part by restricting foreign funding and imposing rigid and intrusivespending rules.Censorship and self-censorship are routinely practiced. Many private newspapers reportthat officials attempt to control content through article placement requests and telephone calls toeditors about stories that are critical of the government. In April 2012, the state-run BerhanenaSelam Printing Press, which has a near monopoly, introduced a revised “standard contract” thatallows it to refuse distribution of content deemed to be contrary to state interests. Publishers mustsubmit to the contract or risk losing their printing privileges. The printer voided agreements withFeteh and the opposition daily Finote Netsanet, effectively putting them out of business. Bygiving the state enterprise the power to vet and review articles before printing them, the newcontract essentially reestablished official prepublication censorship in Ethiopia.The government restricts access to numerous websites, including news sites, oppositionwebsites, and the sites of groups designated as terrorist organizations. Controversial politicalblogs, many of which are based abroad, are blocked, preventing important voices fromcontributing to the local political debate. In 2012, Tor, a software package that allows users tocircumvent internet filtering and browse the web anonymously, was blocked when the EthiopianTelecommunications Corporation started to use deep packet inspection (DPI). According to testscarried out by the OpenNet Initiative in 2012, dozens of web addresses were reportedly blocked,164

including online news portals such as Nazret.com and groups such as the Oromo LiberationFront, which has been designated a terrorist organization by the government. Two internationalnews sites, Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya, were also reported to be inaccessible.There were no reports of physical attacks on journalists during the year, thoughharassment, intimidation, and arbitrary arrest were common. Ethiopian authorities detained twoVoice of America (VOA) journalists, Peter Heinlein and Marthe Van Der Wolf, in May andOctober, respectively, for their coverage of protests by members of the Muslim community. Suchprotests were common in 2012, and the government acted to restrict coverage of them,orchestrating raids on media outlets and the homes of journalists. The editor of the Muslimorientedpaper Ye Muslimoch Guday, Yusuf Getachew, was arrested in July and charged withterrorism in October, while at least two of his colleagues went into hiding and the paper wasforced to stop publishing. Such crackdowns have contributed to a trend of journalists fleeing intoexile for fear of arrest in recent years. The increasing number of departures has significantlyweakened the media sector and hampered its ability to challenge government restrictions.The number of print outlets covering politics decreased significantly after 2005, whileweekly papers and magazines on business and lifestyle topics—catering to the growing urbanmiddle class—are proliferating. The state operates the only national television station and ownsalmost all radio outlets, the primary sources of information for Ethiopians. State-controlledmedia are biased toward the government and the ruling party. Broadcasting law prohibits anypolitical, religious, or foreign entities from owning stations. In 2007, a new broadcastingauthority was created, and the first licenses were awarded to private FM stations in the capitalowned by individuals seen as friendly to the ruling party. The signals of internationalbroadcasters Deutsche Welle and VOA have occasionally been jammed, reportedly withtechnical support from the Chinese government. The authorities continued this practice in 2012,claiming that the jammed broadcasts were destabilizing the country. Fear of prosecution andheavy taxes on the publishing process have effectively concentrated the printing industry in thehands of the largest state printer, Berhanena Selam.Due to an extremely poor telecommunications infrastructure, only about 1.5 percent ofEthiopians had access to the internet in 2012. The government has resisted liberalizingtelecommunications, maintaining a monopoly and keeping prices artificially high. In recentyears, important changes were introduced regarding mobile and internet services, including anincrease in capacity for mobile services and the introduction of mobile internet—albeit atexpensive rates—in major cities. The government has invested massive resources in newcommunication technologies that permit it to maintain close contact with the periphery of thecountry. It has set up a satellite-based videoconferencing system known as WoredaNet to allowthe prime minister, cabinet members, and high-level civil servants to regularly communicate withlocal officials.FijiStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 18Political Environment: 26Economic Environment: 12Total Score: 56165

Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 37,PF 40,PF 54,PF 57,PF 58,PFThe constitution, suspended since April 2009, guarantees press freedom and freedom ofexpression, but the military government led by Prime Minister Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama doesnot respect these rights in practice. In late December 2012, the head of the constitutionalcommission, Kenyan constitutional lawyer Yash Ghai, presented a draft constitution to thepresident. However, the following day police seized and destroyed all additional copies. The fateof the draft was still uncertain at year’s end.Media outlets and journalists faced instances of legal and official harassment in 2012. InOctober, the Fiji High Court ruled that the leading daily newspaper, the Fiji Times, was incontempt of court over an article republished from a New Zealand newspaper in November 2011that questioned judicial independence in Fiji. Chief editor Fred Wesley and former publisherBrian O’Flaherty were found guilty and faced possible imprisonment. The prosecutor accusedthe newspaper of being “reckless” and demanded a six-month jail sentence for the editor, threemonths for the publisher, and a FJ$500,000 (US$280,000) good-behavior bond for the daily. Theruling was widely criticized as harsh and politically driven. At year’s end the sentences had notyet been issued. In a similar contempt case in 2009, the Fiji Times had been fined FJ$100,000(US$56,000).Fiji does not have a freedom of information law, and access to government informationcan be difficult. In January 2012, the government ended official censorship and opened widerpublic debate by lifting the Public Emergency Regulations (PER), which had been imposed in2009 and allowed authorities to decide what constituted balanced and quality journalism and todirectly censor news content. Nevertheless, a continuing pattern of self-censorship was apparentdue to the chilling effect of the harsh 2010 Media Industry Development Decree (MIDD). Thetough penalties under the decree have deterred most media from criticizing the regime. Thedecree established the Fiji Media Industry Development Authority, which has the power toenforce the MIDD and investigate possible violations, sidelining the self-regulatory Fiji MediaCouncil. The MIDD also established a separate media tribunal to hear cases referred by theauthority, and to impose penalties on journalists whose work is deemed to be against the “publicinterest or public order.” Violations of these vaguely worded provisions are punishable by a fineof up to FJ$1,000 (US$560) or imprisonment of up to two years for journalists; the penalty forany media company that breaches the decree may be as high as FJ$100,000 (US$56,000). Inaddition, the MIDD overrides traditional checks and balances by forbidding the judiciary fromchallenging the decree itself or the institutions it established.The Telecommunications Regulatory Unit within the Department of Communications isresponsible for granting broadcast licenses and regulating Fiji’s telecommunications sector. InJune 2012, the government passed the Television Amendment Decree, which requires alltelevision broadcast licenses to comply with the code of ethics established under the MIDD. Thesame month, the government threatened to discontinue Fiji TV’s license if it broadcastantigovernment programming, after the station aired interviews with former prime ministersLaisenia Qarase and Mahendra Chaudhry.Despite the end of official media censorship that accompanied the lifting of the PER, thegovernment continued to monitor internet traffic, especially to control criticism on antiregimeblogs such as Coupfourpointfive, Fijileaks, and Fiji Today. There was also evidence that the166

government monitored private e-mail. Cases of physical attacks or harassment aimed atjournalists or media outlets are rare, in part because of the substantial roles already played bylegal restrictions and self-censorship in limiting controversial coverage.Fiji’s media landscape consists of both public and private outlets. The private radionetwork Communications Fiji Limited operates several multilingual stations and competes withthe public broadcaster, Fiji Broadcasting Corporation, which launched a television channel in2012. An independent station, Mai Television, also competes with the long-established privateoutlet Fiji TV. The internet was accessed by about 34 percent of the population in 2012.Under the MIDD, foreign owners can hold no more than a 10 percent stake in mediaoutlets. This clause was reportedly designed to make critical sections of the news media morepliant. It led to the sale of the Fiji Times, the country’s oldest and most influential newspaper,founded in 1869 and previously wholly owned by the Australian branch of Rupert Murdoch’sU.S.-based News Corporation. Since the 2006 coup, the newspaper had been the most criticalmedia opponent of the regime and the strongest voice for a return to democracy. In 2010,Murdoch was forced to sell the Fiji Times to a local trading company, the Motibhai Group.Meanwhile, the rival daily Fiji Sun, which supports the regime, has benefitted from a virtualmonopoly on state advertising. Despite overall economic improvement, media outlets continue torely in large part on government advertising revenue.FinlandStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 4Political Environment: 3Economic Environment: 4Total Score: 11Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 9,F 10,F 10,F 10,F 10,FFinland continued to rank among the most free media environments in the world in 2012.Freedom of expression and access to information are guaranteed under Article 12 of theconstitution. Although journalists and media outlets are generally allowed to operate freely,defamation is considered a crime, and the government actively pursues cases involvingdefamation of religion or ethnicity. Finnish law gives every citizen the right of reply and theright to have false information corrected in both internet-based and traditional publications.In June 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that Jussi Kristian Halla-aho, a member ofparliament with the True Finns party, was guilty of “inciting hatred against an ethnic group” fora 2008 blog post that compared Islam to pedophilia and implied that Somalian immigrants areprone to theft and dependence on welfare. Halla-aho had deliberately written the post to provokethe state prosecutor after a court sentenced nationalist activist Seppo Lehto to two years in prisonfor racism and blasphemy.The self-regulatory Council for Mass Media (CMM) is responsible for upholding ethicalstandards across print, broadcast, and online media. The CMM is primarily made up of mediarepresentatives, but it also includes members of academia and the public. The council accepts167

and adjudicates complaints from the public, and the maximum sanction is a reprimand that mustbe published or broadcast immediately. Participation in the CMM is voluntary, but all majormedia outlets have signed on. State assistance accounts for up to 30 percent of the CMM’s totalfunding; annual fees make up the remainder.Physical harassment of or threats against journalists are extremely rare.While print circulation numbers are down due to the transition to digital media, Finlandstill boasts a large newspaper readership, and subscriptions remain the norm. Media ownership isconcentrated, with Alma Media and Sanoma controlling most newspaper distribution. Publicbroadcaster Yleisradio OY (YLE) and commercial channel MTV3 dominate televisionbroadcasting. The radio sector includes four public-service channels and the commercial channelRadio Nova, as well as a large number of regional and local stations. Public radio offersbroadcasts in the minority languages Swedish and Sami (Lapp).The internet is open and unrestricted, and around 91 percent of citizens had regularaccess in 2012. Critics have raised concerns regarding the precision of Finland’s system forfiltering child pornography, which has been found to block many legal sites. In 2010 it became alegal right for every Finn to have a 1 Mbps broadband internet connection.FranceStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 5Political Environment: 10Economic Environment: 7Total Score: 22Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 22,F 22,F 23,F 23,F 24,FThe constitution and governing institutions in France support an open press environment,although certain laws limit aspects of press freedom in practice. Freedom of informationlegislation is in place, but there are exceptions to protect the reputation or rights of a third party,and requests for information are often denied.A law that took effect in January 2010 strengthened protection of sources in France,holding that journalists can only be compelled to reveal sources when the information is requiredfor the investigation of a serious crime. In March 2012, the Paris Court of Appeals, citing aprocedural technicality, rejected a case in which former prosecutor Philippe Courroye wasaccused of illegally obtaining the telephone documents of journalists at Le Monde in 2010. Theprosecutor was investigating the so-called Bettencourt affair, in which then president NicolasSarkozy and labor minister Éric Woerth were accused of receiving illegal funding from L’Oréalcosmetics heiress Liliane Bettencourt. In February, the same court had rejected a suit against thejournalist Romain Bolzinger, in which the Paris police accountability organization tried to forcehim to reveal the identity of officers who had sold confidential information to journalists.Bolzinger aired a story on Canal+ television in 2010 that showed journalists obtaininginformation by bribing policemen. In March 2012, he filed a complaint on the grounds that hisphone records had been obtained illegally in an attempt to discover the identity of the corrupt168

officers. In another case, the European Court of Human Rights in June ruled in favor of fivejournalists from L’Equipe and Le Point who asserted that the French authorities had illegallysearched their offices in 2005 for information about their sources for a 2004 sports dopingarticle.While the government generally does not restrict the use of internet, laws againstcopyright infringement, terrorism, and other abuses give the authorities some power to limitonline activity. In September 2010, the High Authority for the Dissemination of Creative Worksand Protection of Rights on the Internet (HADOPI) began operation. Under the 2009 law thatcreated it, three warnings are issued to users who illegally download copyrighted material beforetheir access is suspended for up to one year; they can also face fines or jail time for violations.However, in December 2012, high-level officials announced plans to defund HADOPI becausethe multimillion-dollar project had only resulted in one €150 ($200) fine and two cases that weredismissed.A 2006 antiterrorism law allows security agencies to monitor the internet for suspectedterrorist activity. During a speech in March 2012, in the wake of terrorist violence in Toulouse,Sarkozy announced a proposal under which any person frequenting websites that advocateterrorism would face criminal charges. The 2011 Law on Guidelines and Programming for thePerformance of Internal Security (LOPPSI 2) allows sites suspected of containing childpornography to be blocked without a court order. It also allows police to install or removespyware under judicial control.There are strict defamation laws with fines for those found guilty; the law also punishesefforts to justify war crimes and crimes against humanity, as well as incitement to discriminationand violence. In 2011, the Constitutional Council amended Article 35 of the 1881 press law,removing a rule that parties accused of defamation could only use truth as a defense if theallegedly defamatory statement was made within the last 10 years. Holocaust denial is a crimeunder the 1990 Gayssot Act, which makes it illegal to question crimes against humanity asdefined by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal. In February 2012, the Constitutional Councilstruck down a recently approved law that banned denial of the Armenian genocide andprescribed up to a year in prison and fines of up to €45,000 ($58,000) for violations. Also inFebruary, the parliament declared that the defamation of Harkis—Muslim Algerian loyalists whoserved as auxiliaries to the French army during the Algerian war of independence—is punishableby fines.Defamation laws are often used to pressure journalists. In January 2012, a court in Lillerequired documentary filmmaker Sophie Robert to remove three interviews from her film onautism because the interviewees claimed that she had misrepresented their views. Robert wasalso ordered to pay between €5,000 ($6,400) and €7,000 ($9,000) to each of the three plaintiffs.In March, a Paris court cleared Michel Gaillard, director of the satirical Le Canard Enchainé, oflibel after the publication alleged that France’s second-largest builder, Bouygues, was underinvestigation for corruption. In April, blogger and Puteaux municipal councilor ChristopheGrébert was found guilty by a court in Nanterre for writing that the head of the mayor’s officewas improperly living in student housing, though he was ordered to pay only nominal damages.Separately, defamation suits related to the Bettencourt affair continued throughout the year. InMarch, director Franz-Olivier Giesbert and editor Hervé Gattegno of the weekly Le Point wereindicted for publishing recordings taken at the home of Liliane Bettencourt by her butler. Threeother journalists, Fabrice Lhomme of Le Monde and Edwy Plenel and Fabrice Arfi of Mediapart,were indicted in April for the same reason. In October, Courroye, the former prosecutor in the169

case, filed charges against Le Monde for printing a transcript of his testimony as a witness.Meanwhile, in December, President François Hollande came under fire for allegedly attemptingto sway the outcome of a defamation case that his partner, Valérie Trierweiler, had broughtagainst two biographers.Access to sources and editorial independence suffered some setbacks surrounding the2012 presidential and legislative elections. In February, two reporters from Mediapart weredenied access to the right-wing National Front party’s presidential convention. The party said theonline journal had not given enough visibility to its candidate, Marine Le Pen. In addition,France’s immigrant detention centers—a recurrent subject of debate during the campaign—oftendenied access to journalists trying to cover the issue. In May, television journalist Joseph Tualwas suspended without pay and brought before a disciplinary board at France 3 for writing on hismicroblog that the channel’s directors should step down in light of Hollande’s victory.Media outlets and journalists are occasionally subject to raids and attacks. In February2012, the office of a Turkish weekly, Zaman France, was attacked by 15 people wearing hoodswho threatened journalists, destroyed equipment, and damaged the premises. The attack wasclaimed by the Euphrates Revolutionary Revenge Brigade, which said it was allied with theTurkey-based Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) guerrilla group. Earlier, in January, the Parisbasedsatellite operator Eutelsat had urged its distributors to stop carrying broadcasts from RojTV after a Danish court found the station guilty of supporting the PKK, a designated terroristorganization. In July, French authorities raided the headquarters of the television station TF1after it broadcast recordings of Toulouse gunman Mohammed Merah’s conversation with thepolice before he was shot. In September, police raided the offices of the magazine Closer in anattempt to discover the identity of a photographer who had taken surreptitious photos of theDuchess of Cambridge sunbathing in Provence.The independent media are robust and express a wide range of opinions largely withoutrestriction, and most of France’s more than 100 newspapers are privately owned. There are over1,200 radio stations, and since the state monopoly on radio ended in 1982, private stations haveflourished, although public broadcaster Radio France continues to be popular. In 2012,approximately 83 percent of the population accessed the internet.Many private media outlets—print as well as broadcast—are owned by companies withclose ties to prominent politicians and defense contractors. In 2009, advertisements wereeliminated on the five public channels during prime time, and the channels were expected tobecome completely ad-free by 2013. The lost income was to be made up through higher taxesand licensing fees. However, since these revenue increases have not raised as much as expected,there were talks in 2012 on repealing the ban. In November, French tax authorities reportedlystarted an investigation against Google France that could ultimately force the company to pay €1billion ($1.3 billion) for tax noncompliance. Earlier, Google had threatened to stop linking toFrench news sites amid an ongoing dispute with French media on whether the search giantshould pay news outlets for content.GabonStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 24Political Environment: 25170

Economic Environment: 22Total Score: 71Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 69,NF 69,NF 71,NF 69,NF 70,NFThe constitution guarantees freedom of expression and of the press, but authorities continued toemploy legal harassment, threats, and financial pressure to curb critical reporting in 2012.Libel can be treated as either a civil or a criminal offense, and the government ispermitted to criminalize civil suits and initiate criminal cases in response to the alleged libel ofpublic officials. Publications can also be suspended for libel and other offenses. The justicesystem was used to curtail press freedom on numerous occasions during 2012. In March, sixjournalists were summoned for questioning on their connections to a story that accused PresidentAli Bongo Ondimba’s chief of staff, Maixent Accrombessi, of smuggling drugs, money, andwomen on the presidential plane during an unofficial trip to Benin, which was widely reported inthe Beninese press. Two of the journalists fled the country for fear of being jailed, though noneof the six were formally charged. In October, the General Directorate for Investigationinterrogated Olivier Ndembi, a reporter for the progovernment daily L’Union, for failing todisclose the names of several Gabonese politicians who were alleged to be involved in ritualkillings, a taboo subject in the country.There is no freedom of information law, and access to official information remainsdifficult in practice.In 2012, the government continued to use its main media regulatory body, the NationalCommunications Council (CNC), to restrict critical journalism. Since all nine members of theCNC are appointed by Bongo and the presidents of the two chambers of parliament (both fromBongo’s Gabonese Democratic Party), the body has been accused of being subject toconsiderable political interference. In May, Guy Bertrand Mapangou, Bongo’s formerpresidential spokesman, was named to chair the CNC, with local observers anticipating that hewould impose increased sanctions on journalists. In January, the CNC had suspended TV+ forthree months and the private weekly Échos du Nord for two months for disseminating a NewYear’s address by TV+ owner and opposition leader André Mba Obame. The move followed athree-month suspension of TV+ in 2011 for broadcasting Obame’s mock presidentialinauguration, meant to question the legitimacy of Bongo’s 2009 election. In August, the CNCsuspended two newspapers, Ezombolo and La Une, for six months for allegedly disrespectingpublic institutions. Two progovernment newspapers, Le Scribouillard and Le Gri Gri de laGriffe, were suspended for two months in September for publishing an unflattering cartoon of aprominent politician.Most media outlets occasionally voiced criticism of the government and ruling party, butself-censorship persisted, especially when it came to the president. There were no reports ofphysical attacks on journalists during 2012, though intimidation of opposition affiliates didoccur. In August, more than a dozen gunmen raided TV+ and burned its transmitters, markingthe second attack on the building since 2009.The two government-affiliated newspapers, L’Union and Gabon Matin, are the onlydailies in the country. Twenty-three private weeklies and monthlies print sporadically due tofinancial constraints and government-ordered suspensions. Foreign publications are readilyavailable. Gabon has seven private radio stations and four private television stations. The171

government owns two radio stations and two television stations that broadcast nationwide.Satellite television is also available to those who can afford it, and foreign radio broadcasts arewidely accessible. Government officials and other powerful figures use financial pressure tocontrol the press, and ownership of media outlets is opaque.Nearly 9 percent of the population accessed the internet in 2012. There were no reports ofinternet censorship, but until 2011, access to the sole fiber-optic submarine cable wasmonopolized by Gabon Telecom, and broadband internet penetration was limited by high costsand lack of availability outside the capital. The arrival of a second cable in 2011, part of theAfrica Coast to Europe (ACE) project, improved the prospects for lower prices, widerconnectivity, and increasing internet use.The GambiaStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 28Political Environment: 35Economic Environment: 20Total Score: 83Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 79,NF 79,NF 81,NF 81,NF 81,NFConditions for press freedom and freedom of expression deteriorated slightly in 2012. The presscontinued to operate in a climate of fear due to legal and extralegal pressure, while thegovernment of President Yahya Jammeh ignored calls for accountability regarding past cases ofmurder and abuse targeting journalists.Although Article 34 of the constitution provides for freedom of the press and freedom ofexpression, the government does not respect these rights in practice. Constitutional protectionsare undermined by other legislation, primarily the 2004 Newspaper Amendment Act, whichestablished a newspaper registration process that extracts excessive bonds from mediainstitutions, as well as a 2004 criminal law that mandates stiff penalties for offenses includingpublication of false information, sedition, and libel. Journalists are regularly arrested anddetained on flimsy, superficial charges. In January 2012, reporter Mamadou S. Jallow of theprivate Daily News was arrested, detained, and charged with defamation for a story alleging thata local chief gave a state-sponsored travel voucher to his lover. Three journalists coveringjudicial decisions faced arrest and detention on contempt-of-court charges during the year. InJune, a lower court ordered the arrest of Abdul Hamid Adiamoh, the managing editor of thenewspaper Today, for an article that allegedly misrepresented a cross-examination in a criminaltrial. He was later convicted and ordered to pay a fine of 100,000 dalasi ($3,200) or serve sixmonths in prison with hard labor. Also in June, the deputy editor of the Daily News, Lamin Njie,was arrested and held for three days for a story about the court proceedings in a case regardingeconomic crimes. In July, journalist Sidiq Asemota of the Daily Observer was arrested on theorders of the presiding judge of the Banjul High Court and detained for a day for allegedlymisreporting the facts of a forgery case.172

Despite a 2005 press law that guarantees the right of citizens to obtain information andprohibits censorship, reporters from news outlets that are perceived to be critical of thegovernment are routinely denied access to public information and excluded from official events.There are broad restrictions on any content that is considered contrary to the principles of Islamor offensive to other religions. Media outlets are sometimes fined and journalists are occasionallyarrested for disseminating “un-Islamic material,” leading to self-censorship.Several instances of overt censorship of media outlets occurred in 2012. In August,officers of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) shut down the radio station Taranga FM,citing “directives from above.” The station ran a weekly talk show that interviewed prominentopposition figures. In September, two independent newspapers, the Standard and the DailyNews, were ordered closed by the NIA, which claimed authority from the office of the president.Both newspapers had extensively covered Jammeh’s decision the previous month to executeevery prisoner on death row. The Standard had been shut down eight times between 2010 and2011. In October, security forces imposed a ban on coverage of a Supreme Court case involvingseven prisoners on death row. The authorities have also periodically blocked the online newssites Freedom and The Gambia Echo, both based in the United States.Extralegal intimidation of journalists did not ease in 2012. In September, BritishBroadcasting Corporation (BBC) correspondent Thomas Fessy was detained and ordered toleave the country, despite having the proper entry visa. The reporter had flown into the Gambiafrom Senegal to report on the execution of the country’s condemned inmates in August. Later inthe year, journalists Abubacarr Saidykhan and Baboucarr Ceesay received written and verbaldeath threats from unknown men for their ongoing coverage of the death-row controversy.Saidykhan later fled the country due to the threats. In December, security forces entered hisresidence and arrested and temporarily detained his younger brother in an effort to ascertain hislocation. A number of other journalists continue to live in exile following earlier threats to theirlives.Efforts by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court of Justicein Abuja to hold the government accountable for past mistreatment of journalists have bornelittle fruit. In February 2012, the court rejected the Gambian government’s appeal against ajudgment awarding $200,000 in damages for the 2006 imprisonment of now exiled journalistMusa Saidykhan. At the time of his arrest, Saidykhan was editor in chief of the Independent, aweekly that has since been banned. The government has so far ignored the court’s ruling. Inanother ongoing case, in 2008 the ECOWAS court had ordered the Gambian government torelease and compensate “Chief” Ebrimah Manneh, who was arrested in 2007 by state securityagents and has been missing since. The government rejected the decision in 2009, with theattorney general and justice minister formally declaring that Manneh was not in governmentcustody. In October 2011, Justice Minister Edward Gomez claimed in an interview with theDaily News that Manneh was alive, though he revealed no more information regarding hiswhereabouts. In February 2012, the Gambian government asked for UN assistance in Manneh’sdisappearance, but no further developments in the case were reported by year’s end.The government owns The Gambia Info newspaper, a national radio station, and the onlynational television station. Political news coverage at these outlets generally toes the official line.There are eight private newspapers and nine private radio stations. Private media outlets aresubject to official pressure, and many have toned down coverage of the opposition. Mostbusinesses avoid advertising with private media outlets for fear of government reprisals. Apremium television network operates as a locally based satellite station. Foreign news services173

are rebroadcast on several local radio stations. Although the government rarely interferes withforeign cable or satellite television news broadcasts, most Gambians do not have practical accessto the requisite technology for viewing them. About 12 percent of the population had access tothe internet in 2012.GeorgiaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 12Political Environment: 20Economic Environment: 17Total Score: 49Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 60,PF 60,PF 59,PF 55,PF 52,PFThe constitution protects press freedom, and Georgia has some of the most progressive medialegislation in its region. Government influence over private media, particularly broadcast outlets,persisted during 2012 in the run-up to October parliamentary elections. However, there wassome progress during the year on loosening media regulations and increasing access to adiversity of viewpoints, especially in the immediate preelection period. The balloting resulted ina victory for the opposition Georgian Dream party and Georgia’s first peaceful transfer of powerthrough elections. President Mikheil Saakashvili’s United National Movement (UNM), whichhad been in power since 2004, conceded defeat, and the Georgian Dream leader, billionairebusinessman Bidzina Ivanishvili, was appointed prime minister.Article 19 of the 1995 constitution and the Law on Freedom of Speech and Expressioncontain safeguards against censorship. Legal cases are rarely brought against journalists, and theinternet is not currently subject to government regulation. However, legislation is at times slowlyimplemented, and enforcement is often determined by political concerns. The governmentdecriminalized libel in 2004 as part of an effort to bring Georgian media laws into line withEuropean standards. Although the country adopted freedom of information legislation in 1999,journalists reported that government officials, particularly local authorities, continued to limit ordelay access to information. In the last few months of 2012, the new government appeared moreresponsive to freedom of information requests than its predecessor. New restrictions onjournalists were introduced just five days before the parliamentary elections, when the CentralElectoral Commission approved a regulation that limited media coverage at polling stations.The Georgian National Communications Commission (GNCC) regulates and licenses thecountry’s telecommunications and broadcast media and has been accused of lackingindependence from political influence, as its members are nominated by the president. Thecommission’s chairman has been criticized for holding a stake in a wholesale television airtimebusiness during previous years of his tenure, and for continuing to hold a stake in a company thatproduces and places advertising, including in broadcast media. Progovernment outlets have attimes been allowed to operate without licenses, while enforcement was often rigorous foropposition outlets. In 2011, the GNCC renewed the issuance of broadcast licenses, which it haddelayed for the past three years, and the Constitutional Court ruled in April 2012 that television174

stations would no longer require a license to broadcast via cable networks. However, licenses arestill required for satellite uplinks. The Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics, a self-regulatorybody, held discussions throughout the year on improving media accountability and urging greaterjournalistic integrity. Though a 2011 proposal had envisioned expanding the organization’smandate to include ethics violations by nonmembers, the body failed for a second time to pass arevised charter in 2012.Georgia has the freest and most diverse media landscape in its region. Despite the recentpolitical changes, however, media remain politically polarized, and neutral and objective news isonly available from a few sources. After Ivanishvili formed his new opposition party in April2012, sharply intensifying political competition, the traditionally pro-UNM broadcast media tookadvantage of their dominant positions in the market to propagate negative coverage ofIvanishvili. In May, he bought TV9—originally Igrika TV—as a means of countering suchcoverage. With no terrestrial license, TV9 was broadcast to satellite receivers via the televisiondistributor Global TV, which functions like a cable provider and is owned by Ivanishvili’sbrother. Global TV was then subjected to harassment from the authorities, including theinterrogation of one of its owners, property damage, and the seizure of its equipment. At onepoint, five stations affiliated with the UNM government, led by the highly popular Rustavi-2 andImedi TV, withdrew permissions for Global TV to carry their signals.In June and July, stockpiles of satellite dishes owned by Global TV and the oppositionleaningMaestro TV were impounded by the state. Authorities accused the companies ofattempting to buy votes for the opposition by distributing the receivers free of charge. The legaljustification for the seizures was questioned by civil society groups, but the charges were notdropped until after the elections. Harassment of opposition-oriented media—coupled with asignificant consumer demand for these outlets—motivated civil society to launch a campaign forlegislation requiring cable operators to carry all television stations, a proposal which lawmakersinitially rejected. However, on June 29, the parliament reversed its position and approved a“must carry and must offer” rule for a limited 60-day period before election day. On September18, Maestro TV and TV9 aired graphic footage of the physical and sexual abuse of inmates at aTbilisi prison, causing public outrage. Pro-UNM stations covered the scandal withoutquestioning the official government position, and the public broadcaster initially refused to coverit at all. Given the timing and the fact that the new legislation had broadened the audience of thetwo opposition stations, the leaked videos are believed to have dramatically diminished supportfor the UNM in the October elections.Despite the change in leadership after the vote, political influence over broadcast mediaremains a concern. Members of the board of the state-run Georgian Public Broadcaster (GPB),which operates television and radio stations, are approved by the president, and its maintelevision channel, 1TV, has been widely perceived as biased in favor of the former government.Under the UNM, the GPB retained a significant advantage over other media due to the statesubsidies it received. Shortly after the elections, it canceled some of its current affairsprogramming and cut its staff. In November, the new government ordered the revenue service toconduct a financial audit and investigate the broadcaster’s 3.8 million lari ($2.3 million) tax debt.The next month, GPB director Giorgi Chanturia resigned, claiming that his departure wasunrelated to the tax probe. On December 26, a new director was elected through secret ballot.Although the 143 applicants presented the board with an opportunity to choose an externalcandidate, they opted for someone from the previous management structure, technical directorGiorgi Baratashvili. In mid-October, staff of the GPB’s Russian-language channel—First175

Information Caucasus (PIK), launched in 2011—staged a silent broadcast to protest the GPB’swithholding of wages and failure to pay the station’s bills. Five days later, the station was takenoff the air. The GPB explained that the closure was a result of the unsanctioned protest, but someof PIK’s former employees speculated that the new government opposed prolonging its fundingbecause of its allegedly pro-UNM, anti-Kremlin bias.The level of violence and harassment aimed at journalists increased in the summer priorto the parliamentary elections. Pressure came in the form of physical attacks, blackmail, andaggressive interference, mostly directed at opposition-oriented media. Stern warnings issued byinternational and domestic monitoring groups concerning the use of violence against the mediahelped curb such incidents by the end of the summer. During the official preelection period,running from August until October, local monitors documented fewer cases of harassment,though some incidents still occurred.A large number of private print outlets operate in the country and typically enjoy editorialindependence, but they have very limited circulation. Magazine readership is on the rise, boostedby a newfound interest in serious, analytical reporting. There are 49 radio stations, providinggenerally free and independent coverage. Most of the more than 60 television stations supporteither the UNM or Georgian Dream, both editorially and through the selection and treatment ofnews. Georgia’s broadcast media ownership underwent some reorganization after the elections,though political allegiances remained largely unchanged. An exception was Imedi TV, one of thetwo privately owned television broadcasters with nationwide coverage. Prior to the elections,Imedi had been subject to government editorial control through close links between its ownersand the UNM. Two weeks after the elections, however, the owners returned it to the family ofthe late former owner, billionaire businessman and Saakashvili critic Badri Patarkatsishvili, fromwhom it had been controversially seized in 2007. The station has since taken on a generally pro–Georgian Dream orientation. The owners of the other private television station with nationwidecoverage, Rustavi-2, were reshuffled after the elections, but the station remains in the hands ofUNM loyalists and maintains its pro-UNM coverage. TV9 is technically owned by Ivanishvili’swife and another close relative, but it receives its funding from the billionaire. Following hiselection as prime minister, media monitors urged Ivanishvili to distance himself from the media,and he has stated plans to do so on numerous occasions, but no changes to TV9’s ownershipstructure had occurred by year’s end. A number of smaller stations, such as Kavkasia TV andMaestro TV, operate without national reach.The lack of transparency in media ownership and property rights, especially for televisionstations, was partially resolved in April 2011 with the adoption of amendments to the Law onBroadcasting that require the full disclosure of ownership structures, including all owners andfinancial sources. The Coalition for Media Advocacy, established by local journalism and humanrights organizations, had been actively involved in negotiating the amendments. They alsoinclude a ban on the ownership of broadcast media by offshore companies, forcing severaltelevision stations to alter their opaque ownership structures. However, concerns regardingmedia concentration remain unresolved. Though the law stipulates that individuals or entities areprohibited from owning more than one television or radio license in any one area, no explicitmechanisms are in place to prevent individuals from owning shares in companies that in turnown the broadcast licenses. The state continues to own and support Ajara TV, a major station inGeorgia’s Ajara Autonomous Republic, even though legislators have long made plans for itsreorganization. A draft law submitted to the parliament in December 2012 would apparentlytransform the station into one of the channels of the public broadcaster.176

The media do not have a high degree of financial independence. Until October 2012, allnationwide television stations were owned and subsidized by large businesses with close links tothe state. State subsidies in the form of tax amnesties in 2010 and 2012 unfairly benefitedstations loyal to the outgoing government, allowing Rustavi-2 and Imedi TV to write off taxdebts of approximately 40 million lari ($25 million). The advertising market remains highlypoliticized. Advertisers favor progovernment media, with critical outlets struggling to selladvertising space and airtime. Print media are especially challenged by a lack of advertisingincome and financial resources—problems that particularly affect their distribution capacity.Distribution in the capital, Tbilisi, has been hampered by an October 2011 city governmentinitiative to dismantle existing press kiosks and auction off the rights to install and operate newkiosks. The program is open to participation by any company, whereas in the past the kioskswere operated by press distributors. The Georgian Press Association, which represents leadingTbilisi dailies, joined forces with print media distributors in an effort to ensure fair andunimpeded distribution.Approximately 46 percent of Georgians accessed the internet in 2012. While mostTbilisi-based newspapers are not active on the web, regional newspapers have been steadilyexpanding their online presence, and web publications, such as the independent NetGazeti,Civil.ge, and Media.ge, are recognized for providing balanced news coverage. In addition,several television stations operate parallel websites. The web portals of news agencies, such asInterpressnews.ge, are widely used for fact-based news. Blogs and social-networking sites likeFacebook are also playing a growing role in spreading news and information.The separatist territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia are effectively under Russiancontrol. There is little local media activity in tiny South Ossetia. The separatist authoritiesoperate a television station, although most programming is rebroadcast from Russia. There isalmost no independent print sector. In Abkhazia, a larger and more ethnically mixed region, themedia environment is more diverse. The local population has access to both Russian and Abkhaztelevision content; Georgian stations are typically only available via satellite. Abkhazia’sresidents also have access to Georgian and Turkish radio, and the territory is home to severalprivate print media outlets. Overall, media ownership and coverage is dominated by localauthorities.[The scores for Georgia do not reflect conditions for the media in South Ossetia and Abkhazia,although these separatist territories are covered in the narrative report.]GermanyStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 6Political Environment: 7Economic Environment: 4Total Score: 17Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 16,F 16,F 17,F 17,F 17,F177

The German constitution and basic laws guarantee freedoms of expression and the press, butthere are provisions banning hate speech, Holocaust denial, and Nazi propaganda. The media inGermany remained free and vibrant in 2012. No journalists were convicted on criminal libelcharges during the year, and in a positive step, journalists Arndt Ginzel and Thomas Datt, whowere convicted in 2010 in a Dresden court for libeling two judges, were acquitted on appeal inDecember 2012. Ginzel and Datt had been investigating a corruption scandal involving highrankingmembers of the judiciary in Saxony.An antiterrorism law that gives the police greater power to conduct covert surveillancetook effect in 2009. It permits remote and secret searches of computers, telephone lines, andhomes of suspected terrorists. Journalists remain concerned that the law will limit their ability tokeep sources confidential, but it was not known to have been used against the media as of theend of 2012. Separately, the parliament in 2012 finally passed legislation introduced in 2010 thatprohibits the prosecution of journalists for reporting classified information obtained fromgovernment informants. It also tightens the circumstances in which a journalist’s materials canbe confiscated.Germany’s controversial 2008 data retention law was overturned by the FederalConstitutional Court (FCC) in 2010. Based on a European Union directive, the law had requiredtelecommunications companies and internet service providers to store user data for up to sixmonths. It also permitted the wiretapping of journalists under certain conditions. Despite risingpressure from the European Commission, the Ministry of Justice declared in 2012 that a new lawwould only be introduced after the revision of the European Union directive, which was expectedin 2013.Freedom of information legislation that took effect in 2006 established that informationheld by public authorities should be open and available, but it contains numerous exceptions andrequires the payment of high fees for every request.There is a legal ban on accessing online child pornography and Nazi propaganda.Although there are no prepublication censorship regulations, the German courts and otherauthorities have sought the removal of specific web content for reasons including defamation,privacy or security issues, and hate speech, according to Google’s Transparency Report.The German media generally enjoy editorial independence. In 2012 there were fewpublic cases of journalists and media outlets being intimidated by political or economic actorswith the aim of interfering in news coverage. In October, Christian Social Union (CSU) partyspokesperson Michael Strepp called the editorial office of the national public television networkZweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF) in an attempt to stop it from airing a report on a gatheringof the rival Social Democratic Party (SPD). Strepp later resigned over the incident. Violenceagainst journalists is rare, and there were no reported attacks in 2012.There are almost 350 daily and more than 20 weekly newspapers in Germany. Whilelocal and regional newspapers have the greatest influence, there are 10 nationally distributedtitles. Financial strains have fueled a trend of merging editorial departments, leading todiminished media plurality and a reduced diversity of views. In 2012, several German mediacompanies announced cost-saving measures, and important outlets like the newspaperFrankfurter Rundschau and the news agency dapd became insolvent. The financial newspaperFinancial Times Deutschland was closed in December. Meanwhile, in October, the parliamentpassed an amendment to the Act against Restraints on Competition that facilitates the merger ofprint outlets. Advocacy groups argue that the new rules could harm media diversity. However,178

other provisions of the law are designed to strengthen diversity at the wholesale level, ensuringthat a range of newspapers are distributed to retailers.Germany’s television market is among the most competitive in Europe, and more than 90percent of households have cable or satellite television. There are nine regional public-servicebroadcasters for the country’s 16 states, plus ZDF and two national public radio stations. All arefinanced primarily by license fees and managed by independent bodies. In addition, a number ofprivate broadcast outlets operate throughout the country. Germany is home to some of theworld’s largest media conglomerates.Approximately 84 percent of Germans accessed the internet in 2012.GhanaStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 8Political Environment: 10Economic Environment: 10Total Score: 28Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 27,F 26,F 26,F 26,F 28,FThe environment for freedom of expression and the press in Ghana remained generally healthy in2012, despite the potential for political turmoil surrounding the death of President John AttaMills and the succession and subsequent election of his vice president, John Dramani Mahama ofthe National Democratic Congress (NDC), as the new head of state. Freedom of the press islegally guaranteed, and the government typically respects this right in practice. Criminal libeland sedition laws were repealed in 2001, but Section 208 of the 1960 criminal code, which bans“publishing false news with intent to cause fear or harm to the public or to disturb the publicpeace,” remains on the books and is occasionally used against journalists. Moreover, current andformer public officials and private citizens sometimes bring civil libel cases that seek cripplingamounts in compensation from media outlets, which can encourage self-censorship. InNovember 2012, the general secretary of the NDC, Johnson Asiedu-Nketia, sued the privateDaily Guide newspaper over a story alleging that he had purchased multiple properties in Accraand Kumasi.The cabinet approved a Right to Information Bill in November 2009 that would reinforcethe constitution’s guarantee of freedom of information. However, at the end of 2012, theparliament had yet to pass the measure. The Ghana Right to Information Coalition (GRIC), anadvocacy group, has lamented the delay, but the Ghana Trades Union Congress (TUC) vowed tooppose any version of the bill that does not provide for an independent information commission.The TUC also argues that too many public and government entities would be exempt fromsupplying information under the current draft.While the state-run Ghana Broadcasting Corporation (GBC) is protected fromgovernment interference by the 1992 constitution, political parties attempt to influence coverage.Private media face a degree of editorial pressure from their owners , particularly those withpolitical connections, and some journalists practice self-censorship for political or commercial179

easons. Government offices and political parties occasionally boycott media outlets or programsthat they perceive as biased. In one such case, industry groups brokered a truce in March 2012between the government and Multimedia Group Limited, which runs a number of radio stations.There was no spike in harassment of journalists associated with the 2012 elections.However, journalists and photographers continued to face intimidation and physical attacks onthe job, with a number of incidents reported during the year. In January, Gifty Lawson, aphotographer for the Daily Guide, was attacked by state security agents while attempting tocover a story about a police official involved in a drug-smuggling case. In June, VictorKwawukume, a reporter for the state-owned Daily Graphic, was assaulted by police officerswhile observing a raid on suspected drug traffickers in the Volta Region. In December, attackswere reported against journalists from Joy FM, TV3, and Metro TV who were covering theaftermath of the presidential election. The victims were all assaulted by supporters of theopposition New Patriotic Party (NPP). The NPP later apologized and condemned the attacks.Dozens of newspapers, including two state-owned and two private dailies, publishregularly, and there are 28 television stations in operation, of which 20 are free-to-air. Radio isthe most popular medium, with more than 240 FM stations nationwide, of which 33 are state-runand over 150 are commercial. The first community radio station, Radio Ada, was launched in1999 and became a founding member of the Ghana Community Radio Network. By September2012, 27 of the 41 community radio stations granted licenses by the National CommunicationsAuthority (NCA) were functioning. Community radio stations have effectively informed citizensin marginalized communities throughout the country, contributing to stronger publicinvolvement in local politics. However, the NCA has been criticized for slow licensingprocedures and bias. Poor pay and unprofessional conduct, including the fabrication of highlysensationalist news stories, remain problems in the media sector. Economic sustainability is achallenge for both public and private media. The GBC receives inadequate funding from thegovernment and must sell advertising slots to remain afloat, leaving it dependent on the largecorporations that can afford its rates.Use of the internet is growing and remains unrestricted, but the level of penetration is stilllow, at 17 percent of the population in 2012. Active blogging and usage of social media haveincreased in urban centers, most notably in Accra.GreeceStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 12Political Environment: 19Economic Environment: 10Total Score: 41Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 27,F 29,F 29,F 30,F 30,FStatus change explanation: Greece declined from Free to Partly Free due to an increasinglyhostile legal, political, and economic environment for the press; a rise in intimidation of andattacks against journalists; closures of, or cutbacks at, numerous print and broadcast outlets as a180

esult of the economic crisis; and a consequent reduction in media diversity and incomprehensive and accurate reporting about the country’s political and economic situation.In 2012, Greece’s economy worsened as the government adopted additional austerity measures,leading to protests and social unrest throughout the year. Parliamentary elections held in Mayand again in June led to victory for the conservative New Democracy party, which formed acoalition government that continued to push through the unpopular austerity program.Meanwhile, the far-right party Golden Dawn, which captured seats in the parliament for the firsttime, embarked on a campaign of intimidation aimed at groups including immigrants and thepolitical left. These factors contributed to a significant decline in the legal, political, andeconomic environment for press freedom in 2012.The constitution and Greek law include provisions for freedom of speech and the press,as well as the right to access to information. However, there are some limits on speech thatincites discrimination, violence, and public disharmony, as well as on publications that areobscene, offend religious beliefs, or advocate the violent overthrow of the political system. In2012, the enforcement of these laws increased, and there were several instances in which thegovernment threatened journalists with legal action. In the most prominent case, journalistKostas Vaxevanis was arrested in October and charged with violation of privacy for publishing,in his investigative magazine Hot Doc, the so-called Lagarde List of prominent Greek citizenswho had transferred funds to Swiss bank accounts, allegedly to avoid paying taxes in Greece.The list had been given to the Greek government by then French finance minister ChristineLagarde in 2010, but Greek officials had taken no action. Though Vaxevanis was initiallyacquitted, in November prosecutors announced that he would face a retrial because the originalverdict had “lacked credibility.”Among other cases, in February the National Council for Radio and Television(NCRTV)—an independent agency that oversees broadcast media—fined radio station Real FM€25,000 ($32,600) for comments made on the air by journalist Giorgos Tragas about Germanchancellor Angela Merkel that were deemed to be defamatory. In September, a blogger using thepseudonym “Geron Pastitsios” was arrested on charges of malicious blasphemy for maintaining asatirical Facebook page for Elder Paisios, a deceased religious figure who remains popular withsegments of the Greek populace. In October, television journalist Spiros Karatzaferis wasarrested a day before he was to broadcast potentially damning allegations regarding thegovernment’s alteration of economic data. Karatzaferis was arrested on an unrelated warrant thathad not previously been acted upon. Also in October, Public Order Minister Nikos Dendiasthreatened to file a lawsuit against Britain’s Guardian newspaper for alleging in an article thatdetained Greek protesters were tortured and beaten at police headquarters in Athens. The storywas initially not widely reported by Greek media. Dendias backed down after a medicalexaminer’s report confirmed that the protesters had been abused.The regulatory environment for broadcasting remains murky. The most recent licensesfor radio stations were issued in 2002, and for television stations in the late 1990s. The originalterms of all extant licenses have since expired. The government has passed successive one-yearextensions of all broadcast licenses, and this practice continues even though a 2011 decision bythe Council of State declared it unconstitutional. Many radio and television stations are operatingwith a permit, which can be revoked at any time, while others function without any kind oflicense. Since no new licenses have been issued in several years, the only way to enter thebroadcast market is by purchasing an existing station. Moreover, a policy that has recently been181

enforced by the NCRTV requires stations to classify their programming as either news orientedor non–news oriented. Stations in the latter category are not permitted to air any news-relatedprogramming, and have been fined for doing so. It is difficult for stations to changeclassifications once they have been set, though enforcement of the rule is uneven, with morepolitically and economically influential stations often avoiding punishment.A 2007 media law mandates that the main transmission language of radio stations beGreek. The law also requires radio stations to keep a certain amount of money in reserve and hirea minimum number of full-time staff, placing a disproportionate burden on small, municipal, andminority-owned stations. The same law permits broadcast stations owned by political parties tooperate without a license. In October 2012, the Council of State ruled in favor of HristianismosFM, a radio station belonging to the Free Apostolic Church of Pentecost. The station had beenshut down in 2001 after it was unable to acquire a license. Based on the new decision, theNCRTV issued a license to the station, but it failed to allocate a frequency, and the outletremained off the air at year’s end. In December, Euronews—a pan-European news channel ofwhich the public broadcaster Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation (ERT) is a founding member—launched its Greek-language version. Within a few days, however, its terrestrial broadcast wastemporarily halted by ERT, which cited potential “harmful consequences” for ERT’s ownnewscasts and the public interest.Both public and private media are largely free from government restrictions, but stateownedstations tend to report with a progovernment bias. There are several independentnewspapers and magazines, including some that portray the incumbent government unfavorably.However, many media owners have a close relationship with the government, and this is oftenreflected in a lack of critical commentary on key issues, including the debate surrounding thefinancial crisis. In February, economist and journalist Dimitris Kazakis was fired by radio stationAlpha 98.9 as a result of his antiausterity views. In October, ERT, allegedly under politicalpressure, suspended television presenters Kostas Arvanitis and Marilena Katsimi for commentsthey made on the air about the public order minister’s reaction to the Guardian article notedabove. The two were later reinstated. Also in October, the general manager of the state-ownedAthens-Macedonian News Agency (AMNA) was ousted for the agency’s publication of twopurportedly inaccurate wire-service reports, one of which pertained to the Lagarde List. InDecember, journalist Thanos Dimadis resigned from national station Skai TV, claiming that hecould no longer work under the pressure of maintaining Skai’s proausterity editorial line.A trend of growing violence against journalists continued in 2012. A number ofjournalists were attacked and in some instances injured during protests against the country’sausterity plan. In March, correspondent Anthee Carassava was attacked by police and taken to apolice station after covering an independence day military parade in Athens. In April, ManosLolos, an accredited photographer covering a protest in Athens, was hospitalized with severeinjuries after being beaten by police. Journalists were also attacked by individuals affiliated withGolden Dawn during the year, including Xenia Kounalaki, who was threatened in April afterpublishing a critical article on the party. In November, journalist Michael Tezari was beaten bymembers of Golden Dawn at an anti-immigrant demonstration. Separately, KonstantinosBogdanos, a radio presenter and journalist for Skai TV, was violently assaulted by three men inAthens in May. And in September, an attempt was made on the life of Vaxevanis outside hishome in Athens. No suspects were arrested by year’s end in either attack.The contracting economy, and the resulting decline in circulation and advertising,continued to adversely affect the media sector in 2012, weakening its ability to cover the crisis182

and the corresponding political turmoil. Numerous media outlets have either closed, cut backstaff and salaries, scaled down or eliminated their news departments, or failed to pay wages.Since the onset of the country’s financial woes in 2010, an estimated 30 percent of journalistshave lost their jobs. During 2012, a number of radio and television stations went off the air,including the national station 902 TV and the municipal radio station Xenios FM. In September,prominent news radio station Antenna FM switched to a music format to cut costs. Newspaperssuch as Apogevmatini, Eleftherotypia, Avriani, Adesmeytos Typos, the weekly financial paperKosmos tou Ependyti, and the English-language Athens News suspended printing in 2012.Employee strikes at media outlets, most often due to unpaid wages, were frequent, causingrepeated interruptions in their operations.Approximately 56 percent of the population accessed the internet on a regular basis in2012, and access is not restricted. With the cutbacks at traditional outlets, many journalists andcitizens are using new and social media to disseminate independent or alternative viewpoints.GrenadaStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 7Political Environment: 11Economic Environment: 5Total Score: 23Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 24,F 24,F 24,F 24,F 24,FGuatemalaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 16Political Environment: 25Economic Environment: 18Total Score: 59Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 58,PF 60,PF 60,PF 59,PF 60,PFGuatemalan journalists continued to work under difficult conditions in 2012. Article 35 of theconstitution ensures freedom of expression, which is generally respected by the government.However, the Guatemalan press is subject to several legal restrictions, including Article 41 of theRadio Communications Law, which prohibits transmissions “offensive to civic values and thenational symbols,” “vulgar comedy and offensive sounds,” and programs “contrary to morals andgood etiquette.” No legal cases were known to have been brought against journalists or outletsduring 2012. Libel and defamation, however, remain part of the criminal code, with penalties ofup to five years’ imprisonment, and business and political leaders regularly threaten to sue183

journalists under these provisions. Repeating another person’s defamatory statement is also acrime, with similar penalties.Despite the 2008 Law for Free Access to Public Information, obtaining informationremains difficult in practice, especially for journalists covering corruption in regions outside thecapital. Under proposed modifications to the 2008 law, introduced in February 2012, diplomaticand military records would become confidential, and time restrictions on holding classifiedinformation would be eliminated. Separately, legislators approved a measure in Februaryblocking press access to certain closed-door sessions. This step was ostensibly taken to restrainattention-seeking congressional members and preserve the prestige of the body.There is no independent media regulation or licensing body, and the government controlsthe allocation of airwaves through public auctions that require bidders to meet technical andfinancial benchmarks. As such, community radio stations are at a particular disadvantage, andare not even recognized as broadcasters under the law. At the end of 2012, the GeneralTelecommunications Law went into effect, further restricting community radio. The new law,which was strongly opposed by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights inGuatemala and various press freedom groups, was criticized for offering existing commercialradio frequency holders a simple process for 25-year frequency renewals—five years more thanthe previous law. This in turn restricted indigenous communities’ access to radio frequencies.Opponents argue that the new law allows unrestricted ownership and constitutes a blow to mediapluralism. Under both the previous law and the new one, dozens of community radio stations thathad yet to be assigned frequencies were forced to operate without a license and, therefore, werevulnerable to the threat of closure and confiscation of equipment. The 1996 Peace Accords thatended the Guatemalan civil war gave indigenous groups the right to their own media, but thelicensing restrictions of the new law ensure that those guarantees will remain unimplemented. InMay, police raided two community stations—which were technically operating illegally—in thecity of San Miguel Chicaj, Radio Uqul Tinamit and Jun Toj, and arrested radio journalist BryanEspinoza.In 2012, there were cases in which government officials pressured the media or censoredcontent. In May, six local television stations in Mazatenango were shut down after local mayorRoberto Lemus proclaimed that criticism of his administration would not be tolerated andpressured the stations’ parent company, Cable DX, to close the stations. Similarly, in August thetelevision program Free Expression, led by journalist Evaristo García in the town of NuevaConcepción, was cancelled after the local mayor complained to the station’s owner that the showcriticized his administration. Sporadic cases of violence against the press by drug traffickers andother criminal organizations continued in 2012 and were rarely prosecuted, encouraging selfcensorship.A report from the Center for Informative Reports on Guatemala (CERIGUA)attributed self-censorship among the Guatemalan press to intimidation by criminal gangs,including the country’s infamous maras. As one example, CERIGUA reported on thesuppression of media coverage of protests against criminal extortion in the Chimaltenangomarket following gang intimidation.A number of journalists received death threats or were assaulted during 2012. Mediarights groups reported a number of cases of extralegal intimidation and violence aimed atjournalists, often in connection with stories that exposed corruption, criticized governmentofficials, or described the increasing activities of drug cartels. While no journalists were killed in2012, CERIGUA noted 35 instances of aggression against journalists during the year—two morethan in 2011—and 53 complaints were filed with the special prosecutor for crimes against184

journalists. In July, photojournalist Luis Soto of El Periódico was hit in the head with a rockwhile covering a student protest in Guatemala City. In February, Víctor Espino, a radio andnewspaper reporter in the department of Jalapa, filed a complaint stating that he had beenthreatened by police while trying to cover a vehicle accident. In October, newspaper columnistCarolina Vásquez Araya received death threats after denouncing sexual abuse against girls on acotton plantation. In November, members of the Independent Media Center journalist networkwere threatened with lynching and maiming by employees of the mining company Exmingua.In a stride against impunity, in August a judge sentenced Juan Manuel Ralón, the vicepresident of the Safety Commission of Panajachel, to nearly four years in prison for threateningjournalist Lucía Escobar. In 2011, death threats had forced Escobar into hiding after she wroteabout the commission’s abuses of authority and extralegal activities.Newspaper ownership is in the hands of business elites who maintain centrist orconservative editorial stances. There are four major daily papers, all privately owned. Electronicmedia ownership is concentrated in the hands of Ángel González, a politically connectedMexican entrepreneur who favors conservative perspectives and controls Guatemala’s four mainprivate television stations. One state-owned radio station competes with numerous privatestations. Some media owners allege that the government allocates advertising unevenly in favorof supportive outlets. Bribery of journalists remains a concern. In August, newspaper reporterEnrique García accused congressman Estuardo Galdámez of trying to bribe him by “gifting” hima bag of cash. There were no reports of government restrictions on internet usage, and the webwas accessed by about 16 percent of the population in 2012.GuineaStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 18Political Environment: 27Economic Environment: 17Total Score: 62Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 66,NF 66,NF 71,NF 59,PF 62,NFThroughout 2012, President Alpha Condé continued to oversee uneven progress on seriousgovernance and human rights issues. Constitutional and legislative reforms enacted in 2010 thatimproved the legal environment for press freedom remained unimplemented, and members of themedia continued to be subject to censorship, suspension, detention, threats, and assaults by thegovernment and security forces.The transitional government promulgated a new constitution by decree in March 2010that guarantees press freedom, and in June of that year it passed two new media laws that wereviewed as significant improvements by international press freedom groups. The first removedprison penalties for press offenses and narrowed the previously vague definition of defamation.The second called for the creation of a new media regulatory agency with 5 of the 11 membersselected by media organizations, as opposed to being appointed by the president, as in the past.However, libel against the head of state, slander, and false reporting remain offenses under the185

new law and can be subject to high fines. In late 2010, a law on access to information wasadopted. By the end of 2012, none of these laws had been effectively implemented. The lack ofimplementation is reportedly a result of bureaucratic delays, procedural errors, and—in the viewof critics and Guinean media members—disinterest or resistance on the part of governmentofficials.Various incidents in 2012 demonstrated the government’s willingness, particularlythrough its media regulatory body, the National Communication Council (CNC), to restrictreporting on political issues as well as critical commentary of government action. In August,private radio station Liberté FM was shut down by the government, without explanation, inadvance of a public protest scheduled for the following day to demand that delayed legislativeelections be held. As a result, the station was unable to report live on the protests. The stationwas allowed to resume broadcasting the day after the protests. In December, the CNC suspendeda popular radio show on privately owned Planète FM for five weeks and its host for a week afterthe show received a defamation complaint from a presidential adviser over critical commentaryaired early in the month. Later in December, the CNC issued a formal warning to another privatestation, Espace FM, over its commentary on a fatal political demonstration, and questioned thehost of a Planète FM show for criticizing the previous sanctions imposed on the station. Ingeneral, there were no government restrictions on access to the internet or reports that thegovernment monitored internet activities, and the internet is gaining importance as a platform forvoicing antigovernment criticism, with the most popular sites managed by the diasporacommunity.Media practitioners continued to operate in a politically polarized and occasionallydangerous environment in 2012, particularly when reporting on antigovernment protests. In May,several journalists were assaulted while reporting on a protest in Conakry, the capital, including areporter for the newspaper Aminata, who was beaten with batons by six police officers despitethe fact that he had identified himself as a reporter. In August, while on their way to report on thebarring of opposition members from antigovernment demonstrations, six journalists from EspaceFM and Renaissance FM were severely beaten by a group of men believed to be connected to theRally of the Guinean People, Condé’s political party. Also in August, reporters for Soleil FM andEspace FM were harassed by riot police while covering protests against police brutality andviolence. In September, a trainee journalist for the privately owned newspaper Lynx-Lance wasattacked and robbed by progovernment militants while reporting on a political riot. On the sameday, the premises of Conakry-based Sabari FM were vandalized by unknown persons, leading tosignificant destruction of reporting equipment.The new media laws passed in 2010 guarantee the freedom to open a newspaper. Anumber of private publications, mostly weeklies, are published in Conakry, though distributionin the interior is irregular. The only daily newspaper is state-owned and avoids criticism of thegovernment. Advertising revenue is insufficient to cover the costs of operating a newspaper, butsince 1996 the government has provided increasing subsidies for both print and online media,regardless of their political allegiances. Low pay for journalists has led to ethical compromises,such as accepting bribes to suppress unflattering stories.In a country with high illiteracy rates, radio is by far the most influential medium. RadioTélévision Guinéenne (RTG) operates radio and television stations with programming in French,English, and a number of vernacular languages. Numerous private radio stations operatethroughout Guinea. Some local newspapers and broadcast outlets are thought to be controlled bypolitical or business interests. Many citizens listen regularly to foreign radio programs on FM186

and shortwave radio. The government did not restrict access to or distribution of foreigntelevision programming via satellite or cable, though few citizens could afford these services.Although access to the internet has expanded through the growing number of privately runinternet cafés in the capital and a few large towns, only about 1.5 percent of the population usedthe medium in 2012.Guinea-BissauStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 19Political Environment: 29Economic Environment: 17Total Score: 65Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 53,PF 52,PF 54,PF 57,PF 57,PFStatus change explanation: Guinea-Bissau’s status declined from Partly Free to Not Free due torestrictions on coverage of the April 2012 coup and subsequent protests, as well as increasedabuse, intimidation, and threatening of journalists by the military in the aftermath of the coup.The latest episode in Guinea-Bissau’s history of political instability—an April 12, 2012, coup inwhich the prime minister and interim president were arrested by the military—led to a sharpdeterioration in press freedom. The military authorities imposed restrictions on coverage andharassed, attacked, and threatened journalists.Freedoms of expression and the press are guaranteed in the 1993 constitution and a 2005law. However, these rights are restricted in practice due to the existence of criminal laws banninglibel, abuse of press freedom, and violation of state secrets. There is no legislation guaranteeingthe right to access information.The April coup was followed by a news blackout. The military shuttered all radio andtelevision stations, using only the state-owned Rádio Nacional to broadcast music and directivesto the population. After four days, the military allowed media executives to resume broadcastingon the condition that they did not cover ongoing protests in Bissau, the capital, or criticize thecoup. While there were no reports that any outlets were permanently shut down in 2012,authorities in the past have threatened to close the main opposition radio station, and otheroutlets have been temporarily shuttered during periods of political turmoil.In the aftermath of the coup, journalists found themselves under threat from the military.António Aly Silva, who publishes the well-known blog Ditadura do Consenso, was reportedlydetained and beaten on April 13 after photographing troops surrounding the prime minister’sresidence. He was released after nine hours, but according to some reports, his photographicequipment was confiscated. On the same day, soldiers restricted access to the offices of Rádio eTelevisão de Portugal (RTP), Portugal’s state broadcaster and the only television station in thecountry that is not owned by the Bissau government, threatening journalists at gunpoint andstealing cameras and other equipment.187

Threats against the media eased somewhat when a transitional civilian government wasinstalled in late May. However, an attack on military barracks in late October resulted inrenewed tensions. The transitional government, which accused former colonial power Portugalof masterminding what it called an attempted countercoup, ordered the expulsion of RTP’sBissau bureau chief, Fernando Teixeira Gomes; the deportation order was later reversed. Inanother incident, the armed forces’ chief of staff directly threatened reporters at a pressconference, saying, “Any journalist who asks questions about former president Nino Vieira’s[2009] assassination will not leave this barracks alive. I will kill him. We are at war.” Silvareported receiving death threats in late October from soldiers who came to his home, and theblogger was forced to go into hiding.In addition to the coup-related repression, media workers in recent years haveexperienced increasingly harsh treatment at the hands of government and military officials, aswell as private citizens, who have close connections to South American drug traffickers. Since2009, at least three journalists have fled into exile due to threats related to their reporting on drugtrafficking in the country. The resulting climate of fear has led to a significant amount of selfcensorship,with many journalists afraid to cover drug-related issues at all. Impunity is the normfor public officials and members of the armed forces who abuse members of the press.A government-owned newspaper, Nô Pintcha, operates alongside several privatelyowned print outlets. The state-run Rádio Televisão de Guinea-Bissau and RTP’s Africa serviceoperate the country’s two television networks. A number of private radio stations compete withthe state-run radio broadcaster. The press in Guinea-Bissau, one of the world’s poorest countries,is plagued by financial instability. With only one state-owned printing press, publicationsstruggle with high costs, slow production, and limited supplies. Broadcast outlets face unreliableelectricity that hinders steady operations. Although many young people continue to pursuecareers in journalism, the lack of resources hampers growth.Around 2.9 percent of the population had access to the internet in 2012. No governmentalrestrictions are apparent, though a lack of equipment and infrastructure drastically limits accessto the internet in practice.GuyanaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 9Political Environment: 14Economic Environment: 10Total Score: 33Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 31,PF 30,F 30,F 30,F 33,PFGuyana’s constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press, but relations between thePeople’s Progressive Party (PPP) government and some media outlets have deteriorated in recentyears. While defamation is not a criminal offense, public officials have utilized civil libel suits tostifle criticism. In 2010, then president Bharrat Jagdeo sued journalist and political activistFreddie Kissoon as well as the editor in chief and publishers of Kaieteur News for libel over a188

critical article, and obtained a preliminary injunction barring the newspaper from printing similarcontent. Hearings in the case took place in late 2012, and the courts had not rendered a finaldecision by year’s end.The 2011 Access to Information Act guarantees the right of access to information,requires government bodies to publish documents, and creates a commissioner of information toregulate data requests and releases. However, the government had not implemented the law bythe end of 2012, and critics objected to the inclusion of a clause that made the president exemptfrom the legislation’s provisions.A new Broadcasting Act went into effect in 2012. Although initially seen as anopportunity to extend media freedom and reduce government influence, the act has been widelycriticized for its failure to advance either of those goals. The law gives the president the power toappoint six of the seven members of the new National Broadcasting Authority (NBA). PresidentDonald Ramotar stacked the body with PPP insiders who had little or no broadcastingexperience. In addition, a clause in the Broadcasting Act states that all programs must be “fairand balanced,” which could be used to control content. The law allows the NBA to issue licensesfor private television and radio operators, but none of the radio stations that received licenseshave begun operating, and licenses have been denied to television stations operating inopposition strongholds. In late 2011, then president Jagdeo controversially used executive powerto grant radio licenses to friends and political allies before the new broadcasting regulations tookeffect.Guyana has a vibrant, though threatened, opposition press. Cases of censorship aimed atopposition-leaning media were reported in the run-up to the November 2011 general elections. InOctober 2011, Jagdeo ordered a four-month suspension of CNS Channel Six, a privately ownedtelevision station, due to a comment made on the air by an opposition lawmaker earlier in theyear. After local and international media rights groups condemned the move, which would havesilenced the station during the election period, Jagdeo postponed the ban until December 2011.In November 2012, CNS Channel Six reported signal interference that it characterized as anintentional attack.There are occasional cases of attacks and harassment against journalists and mediaoutlets. In August 2012, Kissoon was assaulted after publishing a column in which he claimedthat he had been “a victim of state oppression.” Earlier in the year, he was dismissed from hislecturer position at the state-run University of Guyana, which he had held for 26 years. InNovember, police began an investigation to determine how reporters received information aboutthe country’s Central Intelligence Agency, a move the Guyana Press Association called a form ofintimidation.The government owns and controls the country’s only two radio stations, run by theNational Communications Network, though licenses for private stations have been issued. Thereare 23 television stations, most of which are in private hands. Including the government-owneddaily, the Chronicle, Guyana has seven national newspapers and six other periodicals. Themajority of paid advertising appears in progovernment newspapers, including the Guyana Times,which is owned by a friend of Jagdeo’s, and this affects the economic viability of oppositionpapers. Kaieteur News has opted to place government advertisements free of charge, and it isbelieved that this loss of revenue accounts for the paper’s December 2010 decision to charge foraccess to its website.Use of the internet is not restricted by the government, and approximately 34 percent ofthe population accessed this medium in 2012.189

HaitiStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 14Political Environment: 17Economic Environment: 18Total Score: 49Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 56,PF 53,PF 49,PF 49,PF 50,PFIn 2012, press freedom in Haiti experienced a modest improvement despite countrywide social,political, and economic instability—longstanding conditions that have only intensified in theaftermath of the catastrophic January 2010 earthquake. Since taking office in May 2011,President Michel Martelly has been praised for his willingness to hold press conferences and hisuse of social media to communicate to the public. At the same time, Martelly has been criticizedfor his open hostility and occasional derogatory comments toward journalists, as well as for hisfrequent refusal to speak with representatives of media outlets critical of the government, thoughpress organizations noted slight improvements in 2012.Haiti’s constitution guarantees freedom of the press and freedom of expression, andforbids censorship except in the case of war. In recent years, the government has increasinglyupheld these provisions. Nonetheless, journalists in Haiti continue to face widespread andentrenched poverty, lack of institutional support, difficulty accessing information, and a traditionof excessively biased media. Defamation remains a criminal offense in Haiti, though only a fewcases in recent years have advanced beyond the initial charge. In January 2012, Defend Haiti, aU.S.-based online news website, received a cease and desist letter from a lawyer representing theHaitian government. The website was accused of orchestrating a smear campaign against thegovernment in relation to money allegedly missing from an education fund. Although the paperwas not subject to any additional threats or sanctions, it limited its subsequent coverage of theissue. In February, Haiti’s first lady, Sophia Martelly, sued the newspaper Haiti Liberté fordefamation after it reported on a clash between university students and President Martelly’ssecurity team; no further action was reported following the newspaper’s response to the initialsummons. In September, Haiti-Observateur, a Haitian-American weekly newspaper, was sued ina U.S. court by Haitian prime minister Laurent Lamothe for defamation over its claim that he hadorchestrated and profited from the sale of a telecommunications company to the Haitiangovernment; the case was pending at year’s end. The state-owned Télévision Nationale d’Haïti(TNH) has been enmeshed in legal controversy since April 2011, when five journalists werefired for unprofessional conduct involving coverage of Martelly, then a presidential candidate. InApril 2012, the TNH director sued two of the fired reporters for criminal defamation in a casethat remained active in the Court of Appeals at year’s end.Article 40 of the constitution stipulates that the government must publicize all laws,international agreements, decrees, treaties, and contracts; in practice, however, the governmentmakes it difficult for local journalists to access public information. The state-run NationalTelecommunications Council (CONATEL) issues licenses to radio stations and does not regulatecontent. In December 2011, media associations and journalists in Haiti signed their firstjournalistic code of ethics, which includes clauses pertaining to respect for individual dignity and190

privacy, prohibition of discrimination in journalistic work, and encouragement of an unbiasedand balanced treatment of information. In February 2012, journalists protested a meeting held bythe first lady to explore the possibility of creating a law to regulate the press, alleging that thegovernment was attempting to control the media, according to the Institute for Justice &Democracy in Haiti (IJDH). Since the meeting, no further action has been taken on the issue.Despite improvements from the recent past, journalists in Haiti occasionally faceharassment, intimidation, and violence. In March 2012, Wendy Phele, a journalist for Radio TéleZénith, was shot by a local mayor’s bodyguard while attending one of his public speeches. Themayor, who refused to allow the arrest of his bodyguard, was removed from office by the interiorminister in June, a move applauded by the media community. In September, three journalistsfrom the newspaper Le Nouvelliste were arrested and temporarily detained after resisting policeefforts to seize their video and photographic equipment following a traffic accident.Radio is by far the dominant news medium, with more than 90 percent of the populationenjoying radio access. Over 290 FM stations operate without a license, and there are more than70 community stations scattered across the country. Many of these stations are affiliated withpolitical organizations or parties. In addition to the state-owned TNH, there are several privatetelevision stations, though audiences remain small due to lack of electricity and resources.Newspaper distribution also remains limited due to high rates of illiteracy. Haiti has severalweekly and two daily newspapers—Le Nouvelliste and Le Matin—all of which are privatelyowned and published in French, which is spoken by only about 20 percent of the population.There are no government restrictions on the internet, which was accessed by nearly 11 percent ofHaitians in 2012.The concentration of wealth among a small number of Haitians and the effects of the2010 earthquake have negatively affected media outlets’ ability to obtain advertising revenue andsustain themselves financially. Journalists also struggle with low salaries, and some mediaoutlets and journalists accept bribes due to economic hardship. However, new communicationsminister Ady Jean Gardy pledged his support for media workers after he took office in May2012, and has said he plans to offer journalists health and life insurance.HondurasStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 17Political Environment: 30Economic Environment: 15Total Score: 62Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 51,PF 52,PF 59,PF 61,NF 62,NFFreedoms of speech and of the press are constitutionally protected in Honduras, but the killingand intimidation of journalists limited press freedom in practice during 2012. The ongoing lackof accountability since the 2009 coup d’état continues to have a negative effect on freedom ofexpression. Despite President Porfirio Lobo’s stated determination to bring perpetrators ofviolent crimes against journalists to justice, no more than a handful of cases have been191

investigated. Given this culture of impunity, many journalists fear that the killings are carried outon the orders of, or with the concealed approval of, the police, the military, and othergovernmental authorities. However, in September 2012, a court handed down a rare convictionand 28-year prison sentence for the 2010 killing of journalist Jorge Alberto Orellana. In anotherpositive step against impunity, 10 arrests were made in relation to the May 2012 murder of aprominent radio journalist, Ángel Alfredo Villatoro.Despite the 2005 abolition of the penal code’s desacato (disrespect) provision, which wasaimed at protecting the honor of public officials, other restrictive press laws remain on the booksand can be used to subpoena and punish journalists who report on sensitive issues such asgovernment corruption, drug trafficking, and human rights abuses. A freedom of information lawwas passed in 2007, but access to public information continues to be problematic in practice.The government indicated early in 2012 that it was considering a law to “regulate” newsmedia activity, and the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL) took initialsteps to introduce a bill that would give it oversight of national broadcast networks. Critics claimthe proposal would permit major restrictions on media independence. The plan had not movedforward by the end of 2012.Community radio stations are not clearly recognized by law, meaning they operate underthreat of closure. Such stations, particularly those that carry opposition views, are regularlyharassed and persecuted on dubious legal grounds. In February 2012, the electricity wasdisconnected at community stations La Voz Lenca and Radio Guarajambala FM by unknownmen dressed in utility uniforms. At the time of the incident, the outlets were voicing support for aprotest by local indigenous people against the construction of a power plant in Intibucá. InNovember, CONATEL ordered Radio Guarajambala FM to change frequencies and lower thestrength of its broadcasts based on a five-year-old complaint that had already been rejected byCONATEL legal experts.Government pressure and censorship continue to threaten press freedom. In October, themayor of Talanga ordered the suspension of cable television channel Telecentro’s broadcastsignal, attempted to obstruct the circulation of the newspaper El Heraldo by buying up copies,and prohibited media outlets from selling advertising space to his political opponents. Also thatmonth, the online newspaper Hondudiario was disabled for 48 hours following a cyberattack.The owners stated that the attack was a reprisal for the outlet’s investigation into a large debtaccrued through the superfluous use of government helicopters.Self-censorship has been exacerbated by an increase in intimidation and regular reports ofdeath threats against journalists and their families, largely by criminal groups. In August, twomen on a motorcycle fired gunshots at the home of journalist José Encarnación Chinchilla Lópezof Radio Cadena Voces in El Progreso. Chinchilla’s 24-year-old son was injured. In November,three armed men threatened the son of prominent journalist Renato Alvarez outside his home.Local press freedom advocates have also faced threats. In February, Danilo Osmaro Castellanos,the vice president of the Committee for Free Expression (C-Libre), received telephone calls andtext messages threatening his life and the lives of his family members.High levels of violence have made Honduras one of the world’s most dangerouscountries for journalists. According to C-Libre, nine reporters were killed in 2012, although insome cases it was unclear whether the murders were directly tied to their work. In March,journalist Fausto Elio Valle Hernández Arteaga of Radio Alegre de Colón was found hacked todeath in Sabá, Colón Department. The May murder of Villatoro, the news director of RadioHRN, led to large protests by journalists and human rights activists calling for justice and better192

protection for media personnel. Villatoro was found shot to death on a Tegucigalpa sidewalk aweek after he was kidnapped. The country’s human rights commissioner made a number ofarrests, including that of a police officer, in connection with the murder, and investigations intothe crime were ongoing at year’s end. In July, Adonis Felipe Bueso Gutiérrez, a reporter withRadio Stereo Naranja, was kidnapped and murdered along with two of his cousins in Villanueva,Cortés Department. In August, journalist José Noel Canales of Hondudiario was shot to death onhis way to work. Many attacks occur in retaliation for journalists’ coverage of organized crime,drug trafficking, corruption, or other sensitive issues.Honduras has at least nine daily newspapers, six private television stations, and five radiostations that broadcast nationally, as well as a large number of community radio stations. Most ofthe major outlets are owned by a small group of business magnates who have political andcommercial interests and exercise considerable control over content. Corruption amongjournalists and government manipulation of state advertising purchases remain common.According to a 2008 report by the Open Society Institute, journalists often entered into contractswith government officials and received payments in return for favorable reporting.About 18 percent of the population had access to the internet in 2012, but poorinfrastructure in rural areas limits penetration.Hong KongStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 11Political Environment: 15Economic Environment: 9Total Score: 35Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 30,F 33,PF 33,PF 32,PF 33,PFFreedom of expression is protected by law, and Hong Kong media remain lively in their criticismof the territory’s government and to a lesser extent the Chinese central government. However,political and economic pressures have narrowed the space for free expression. According to apoll published in June 2012 by the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA), 87 percent of thejournalists surveyed believed that press freedom had eroded during the seven-year tenure ofChief Executive Donald Tsang, who stepped down in July. Over the course of the year, growinggovernment restrictions on access to information, violent attacks on the offices of two mediaentities, and heightened intrusiveness by Beijing’s Liaison Office further threatened pressfreedom in the territory.Under Article 27 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong residents enjoy freedoms of speech,press, and publication, and these rights are generally upheld by the territory’s independent courts.However, they risk being undermined by the power of the National People’s Congress (NPC),China’s rubber-stamp parliament, to make final interpretations of the Basic Law; Chinesesurveillance in the territory; and the mainland economic interests of local media owners. HongKong has no freedom of information law. An administrative code is intended to ensure openaccess to government information, but official adherence is inconsistent, prompting local193

journalists and watchdog groups to urge the government to give freedom of informationrequirements the force of law. A number of legislative items proposed by the Hong Konggovernment during 2012 could threaten free expression, though none had passed by year’s end.The HKJA expressed concern that proposed antistalking legislation could be used to limitreporters’ movements by classifying legitimate journalistic activity as stalking. Critics alsoargued that draft amendments to the Copyright Ordinance could be used to penalize politicalparodies, including those circulated online.Press freedom advocates continue to question the selective application of theBroadcasting Ordinance and the constitutionality of existing procedures for granting licenses tonew media outlets. Decisions to grant or refuse licenses are made by the executive branch ratherthan an independent body. To date, only two broadcast companies, Television BroadcastsLimited (TVB) and Asia Television Limited (ATV), have licenses to compete in the free-to-airtelevision market. The lack of competition has led to doubt about the diversity of news coverageand unfair advantages in attracting advertising. In early 2012, the government appeared ready toissue more free-to-air television licenses. No new licenses had been issued by year’s end,although three prospective broadcasters had received initial approval from the BroadcastingAuthority. Some observers speculated that the delay stemmed from the Chinese centralgovernment’s hesitation to expand public access to new stations beyond its control. Theprodemocracy station Citizens’ Radio, having operated for years without a license, has facedrepeated raids and prosecutions on charges of illegal broadcasting. The activists who run theoutlet argue that the prosecutions are illegitimate because the licensing procedure isunconstitutional. A magistrate dismissed charges against the station on those grounds in January,but an appellate court reversed the ruling in April. The activists planned a final appeal, and thestation continued broadcasting during the year. Separately, in November, five lawmakers fromHong Kong’s Democratic Party won a final appeal against their conviction for speaking on theradio station. The defendants had each been fined HK$1,000 (US$129) in 2009 for participatingin a 2008 Citizens’ Radio forum. In a case that raised questions about Chinese journalists’ abilityto work in the territory, the Hong Kong immigration department continued to delay a 2011 workvisa application by outspoken mainland journalist Zhang Ping (pen name Chang Ping), who hadbeen hired as editor of the online magazine iSun Affairs. Observers reported that replies aretypically obtained within four weeks.In recent years, Beijing’s efforts to influence the news, publishing, and film industrieshave increased. This trend intensified in 2012, particularly in the run-up to the chief executiveelection in March, during which the central government shifted its support from candidate HenryTang to the eventual winner, Leung Chun-ying, prompting an unusual split in the pro-Chinacamp. Press freedom groups reported that staff from the Liaison Office of the Central People’sGovernment, mainland China’s representative agency in Hong Kong, contacted newspaperpublishers, owners, and even editors by telephone or in person to castigate them for articles thatwere critical of Leung or pressure them to report favorably on the office itself. In most cases, thetargeted outlets appeared to stave off the pressure, at least in the immediate term. However, inwhat was perceived as a serious infringement on press freedom, Sing Pao altered an opinioncolumn by commentator Johnny Lau that had rejected both Tang and Leung, reframing it as avirtual endorsement of Leung. Although the paper’s chief editor initially apologized, it laterdiscontinued Lau’s column after he submitted a piece about the death of prominent U.S.-basedChinese democracy advocate Fang Lizhi. These incidents represented a change from the past,when the targets of Chinese pressure were primarily voices and topics perceived as politically194

sensitive on the mainland, rather than related to internal Hong Kong politics. In April and May2012, the newly elected Leung sent four letters to the Hong Kong Economic Journal and AppleDaily, complaining about their critical reporting. In a positive development, however, he signeda pledge presented to him by the HKJA, promising to defend press freedom and not enact lawsbanning treason, sedition, and other such offenses—as called for in Article 23 of the BasicLaw—without first reaching public consensus.Media self-censorship continues to pose a serious threat to free expression. Among therespondents to the June 2012 HKJA survey, nearly 36 percent admitted to self-censorship, citingthe following practices in order of most to least common: downplaying information unfavorableto conglomerates that wield strong influence over advertising, downplaying informationunfavorable to the central government, downplaying information detrimental to the mediaowners or their interests, slanting news in favor of a chief executive candidate, and downplayinginformation unfavorable to the Hong Kong government or slanting news in its favor. Some selfcensorshipstems from the close relationship between local media owners and the centralgovernment. Several owners sit on the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference(CPPCC), an advisory body that has little real influence over government policy but is used byChina’s ruling Communist Party to co-opt powerful members of society. A number of HongKong media owners are also current or former members of the NPC, and many have significantbusiness interests in mainland China. The appointment of editors with ties to China has alsoprompted accusations of self-censorship, even in otherwise well-respected outlets. In January2012, Wang Xiangwei, a mainlander who had once worked for the state-run China Daily, washired as chief editor of the influential English-language South China Morning Post. Controversysurrounded Wang after he reportedly downplayed an article on the suspicious death of mainlandactivist Li Wangyang, prompting a backlash from senior staff, and discontinued the contract ofaward-winning journalist Paul Mooney, who had been responsible for many of the paper’shardest-hitting stories on human rights violations in China.The Hong Kong government has tightened control over journalists’ access to informationin recent years. Indeed, in the HKJA survey, an overwhelming majority of journalists said thishad contributed to a decline in press freedom. Over the past two years, officials haveincreasingly shifted to off-the-record briefings to announce policies and released official footagefor news events rather than opening them to the press. In addition, the police and firedepartments have released less detailed and timely information about newsworthy incidents. Oneexample of withheld information that provoked particular criticism in 2012 was thegovernment’s concealment of a trip to Beijing by the education minister at the height of acontroversy over a proposed national education curriculum. Separately, after the LegislativeCouncil moved to a new complex in 2011, the government issued new security rules thatrestricted journalists’ ability to interact with lawmakers; these regulations remained in placethroughout 2012.Violence against journalists is rare in Hong Kong. However, several attacks againstjournalists and their property occurred in 2012. In August, four masked men entered the officesof the citizen journalism and commentary website In-Media, destroying computers and otherequipment. The Sing Tao media group suffered two attacks: a stolen car rammed into itsheadquarters in Shau Kei Wan in August, and in September men wielding axes attacked thecompany’s offices in southern Kowloon. The motives remained unclear, though organized crimeinvolvement was suspected in the Sing Tao attacks. On December 30, at a pro–Hong Konggovernment rally, several participants attacked two journalists, leading to minor injuries. One of195

the perpetrators was arrested and later fined based on video footage of the assault. During a visitby Chinese president Hu Jintao in June, a journalist from Apple Daily was briefly detained afteryelling out a question regarding the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Although restrictions onmedia access were more stringent than during past visits by Hu, they were not as heavy-handedas those imposed during Vice Premier Li Keqiang’s trip in 2011, which had sparked a largepublic outcry.Online media are sometimes disrupted by attackers with apparent political motives. Twodays before the chief executive election in March 2012, administrators of an online election pollorganized by Hong Kong University reported that the website was brought down by a massivedenial-of-service attack. The poll aimed to gauge the general public’s opinion of the candidates,as only the 1,200 members of an elite electoral committee are able to participate in the officialvote.Hong Kong journalists face restrictions and intimidation when covering events on themainland, limiting their ability to provide national news to the local population. Chineseauthorities require journalists to obtain temporary press cards from the Liaison Office in HongKong prior to each reporting visit to the mainland, and to obtain the prior consent ofinterviewees. Even with accreditation, journalists from the territory have repeatedly beensubjected to surveillance, threats, beatings, and occasional jailing when reporting on themainland. In September 2012, Felix Wong Chi-keung of the South China Morning Postsustained severe bruises to his face and legs after police in Shenzhen beat him as he tried tophotograph anti-Japanese protesters, despite the fact that he identified himself as a journalist.Hong Kong’s media are outspoken. There is a high degree of professionalism, andpolitical debate is vigorous. Dozens of daily newspapers are published in Chinese and English,and residents have access to satellite television and international radio broadcasts from serviceslike the British Broadcasting Corporation. Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) operates as anindependent department in the government and earns high public-approval ratings for its criticalcoverage of the authorities. After rejecting proposals to turn RTHK into an independent publicbroadcaster in 2009, the government issued a new charter in 2011 that redefined its mission toinclude promotion of the official “one country, two systems” policy on Hong Kong’s autonomywithin China, among other changes. Also that year, Roy Tang Yun-kwong, previously the deputysecretary of the Labour and Welfare Bureau, was appointed as the new director of broadcasting.The choice marked the first time since the 1930s that an outside civil servant was “parachutedin” to lead RTHK; directors were typically appointed from within the station. Some feared thiscould threaten the station’s editorial independence. RTHK was also criticized in November 2011for discontinuing the contracts of two popular current affairs talk-show hosts. Such criticismeased somewhat in 2012 after the station introduced a new television program, Face to Face,featuring a young host who aggressively questioned government representatives. Publicationsknown for their criticism of the Chinese central government, such as Apple Daily and the EpochTimes, have reported difficulties in attracting advertisers in recent years because of fears amongprivate business owners that the association would damage their economic interests on themainland.There are no restrictions on internet access in Hong Kong. The territory has one of thehighest internet usage rates in Asia, with nearly 73 percent of the population accessing themedium during 2012.196

HungaryStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 12Political Environment: 13Economic Environment: 11Total Score: 36Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 21,F 21,F 23,F 30,F 36,PFHungary’s constitution protects freedom of speech and of the press, but complex and extensivemedia legislation adopted in 2010 is widely seen as undermining these guarantees. A ruling bythe Constitutional Court in December 2011 and amendments adopted during 2011 and 2012 tomeet objections from the European Commission did little to limit the power of a new mediaregulation authority, which is currently controlled by the ruling Fidesz party.In 2010, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party used its parliamentary supermajorityto pass numerous mutually reinforcing legislative changes, tightening government control of thebroadcast sector and extending regulation to print and online media. In July of that year, itamended the constitution, removing a passage on the government’s obligation to prevent mediamonopolies. It then consolidated media regulation under the supervision of a single entity, theNational Media and Infocommunications Authority (NMHH), whose members are elected by atwo-thirds majority in the parliament and whose leader also chairs a five-person Media Counciltasked with content regulation. The law gives the head of the NMHH the right to nominate theexecutive directors of all public media. The first president of the NMHH, Annamária Szalai, aformer Fidesz politician, was appointed by Orbán for a nine-year term, initially without limits onreelection. The structure and broadly defined competencies of the new regulatory bodies wereoutlined in subsequent legislation, including the Press and Media Act of November 2010 and theso-called Hungarian Media Law, which was adopted in December 2010 and came into effect onJanuary 1, 2011. Though they share a leader and consist entirely of Fidesz nominees, the NMHHand Media Council are theoretically autonomous, both from the government and from eachother.The composition of the two bodies raised significant concerns among Hungarian mediaemployees, opposition parties, and civil society activists. The expansion of regulatory oversightfrom broadcast to print and internet-based media also drew a wave of criticism from theinternational community, including the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, the mediarepresentative of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the UNspecial rapporteur on freedom of expression, and various press freedom and human rightsorganizations.By late February 2011, negotiations between Hungarian government officials, EuropeanUnion (EU) media monitoring bodies, and Hungarian media experts had yielded amendments toa number of provisions identified by the European Commission as violations of EU law. Ruleson registration and authorization of media service providers were amended to comply with theEU’s Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Directive, allowing print, ancillary, and on-demandmedia to register with the NMHH within 60 days of launching their services, rather than prior todoing so. However, all media outlets, including online services, still must register. An additional197

amendment protects audiovisual media service providers based in other EU member states frombeing fined for breaching certain provisions of the Hungarian Media Law, such as a ban onincitement of hatred. In general, the amendments resulted in a few improvements, but alsoyielded a new restriction: Media service providers can be fined for failing to register with theNMHH.On December 19, 2011, Hungary’s Constitutional Court annulled several pieces oflegislation from 2010 and 2011, including provisions of the Press and Media Act and somesections of the Media Law. The ruling excluded print and online media from the scope of thesanctioning powers of the NMHH; revoked the media authority’s right to demand data frommedia service providers, publishers, and program distributors; deleted a provision limiting theconfidentiality of journalists’ sources to stories serving the public interest; and eliminated theposition of media commissioner, an appointee of the NMHH president with the authority toinitiate proceedings that do not involve violations of the law and whose decisions can beenforced by NMHH-issued fines and sanctions. The revisions were approved by the parliamentin May 2012. However, in an interview published on June 7 in the Budapest weekly Figyelő,Neelie Kroes, the EU commissioner for the digital agenda and vice president of the EuropeanCommission, said the recent changes “failed to address the concerns of the EU and of theCouncil of Europe.” Kroes called the Media Law “embarrassing,” noting that the revisionsaddressed just 11 of 66 recommendations made by the Council of Europe.The unamended provisions of the law still allow the Media Council to fine the media for“inciting hatred” against individuals, nations, communities, minorities, or even majorities. Iffound to be in violation of the law, radio and television stations may receive fines proportional tothe “market power” of the outlet in question. These fines must then be paid before an appealsprocess can be initiated. Under the Media Law, the NMHH can initiate a regulatory procedure inthe case of “unbalanced reporting” and, ultimately, it can also suspend the right to broadcast.Another controversial component of the Media Law is the system of co-regulation. In July 2011,the NMHH concluded public administration agreements on media co-regulation with fourHungarian media self-regulatory bodies: the Association of Hungarian Content Providers (MTE),the Advertising Self-Regulatory Body (ÖRT), the Association of Hungarian Publishers (MLE),and the Association of Hungarian Electronic Broadcasters (MEME). These formerly independentbodies are now responsible for ensuring compliance with NMHH content rules and riskbecoming instruments of censorship.As was the case under the previous media regulation authorities, broadcasters withexpiring licenses are required to enter a new bid with the NMHH. Even as several radio stationshave been forced to stop broadcasting due to a lack of advertising revenue, license fees forBudapest-based frequencies more than doubled in 2011. Klubrádió, a popular station known forits bold, antigovernment political commentary, has been waiting for the renewal of itsbroadcasting license since it expired in February 2011. It has been granted a series of two-monthextensions of its previous license, making it extremely difficult to attract advertisers. The stationwas denied renewal of eight local frequencies in 2011, and that December it lost the bid for itsmain frequency to the newly established station Autórádió, which met the new NMHH tender’srequirements by featuring mostly music rather than commentary. The new laws governingbroadcast media content are detailed in terms of what type of programming may be played andwhen. Radio broadcasters must devote at least 25 percent of their airtime to Hungarian music,while 50 percent of television programming must be devoted to European productions. Critics ofthe Klubrádió frequency tender say it was designed to evict the station from its home of over 10198

years. After Autórádió’s bid was disqualified by a court decision in March 2012, several courtsruled in favor of Klubrádió, but the station had yet to regain control of its main frequency atyear’s end.In June 2012, the European Commission referred Hungary to the European Court ofJustice over the questionable independence of its new data protection authority, created by a newconstitution enacted in April 2011 and in operation since January 2012. The commissioner of theprevious data protection body was removed before the end of his term, and the leader of the newauthority is appointed by the president on the recommendation of the prime minister. Originally,this official was subject to dismissal by the prime minister or president on arbitrary grounds, butthat provision was revoked by the parliament in April 2012.The government has made some specific attempts to regulate online media. Under anamendment to the criminal code proposed at the end of 2012, websites deemed by the NMHH tocontain criminal content—such as child pornography—or content that incites criminal activitywould be placed on a blacklist via court order, and internet service providers (ISPs) would becompelled to block the sites. The amendment allows the government to take action if ISPs fail toheed the blocking orders.Hungary enjoys a broad array of print, broadcast, and online media. Most outlets appearto identify with one or the other side of the political spectrum. The media landscape is dominatedby private companies, with high levels of foreign investment in national and local newspapers.Privately held newspapers include 10 national and 24 local dailies. Hungary has five nationalpublic radio stations and two main private stations. Thanks to the activities of a small number ofaffluent Fidesz-aligned businesspeople, there has been a significant growth in the number ofconservative or right-wing media in recent years. With a portfolio that includes print andbroadcast elements as well as Hungary’s biggest outdoor advertisement company, four suchindividuals owning 15 companies saw the aggregate profits of their media empire increasesevenfold in 2011 compared with 2009.The tabloidization of Hungarian broadcast media remains a major concern and hassometimes been used by the government to justify new restrictions on content. Thenongovernmental organization Nyilvánosság Klub (Openness Club) monitored several publicand private television and radio stations between November 7 and December 16, 2011, findingthat just 23 percent of coverage in this period was devoted to international news, compared with32 percent in 2007. The study also found that serious political coverage on public television haddecreased by 30 percent since 2007. During the six weeks that Nyilvánosság Klub monitored thestate-run Hungarian Television (MTV) and Hungarian Radio (MR), they aired only twomentions of foreign criticism of the government. Among all the stations monitored, the onlybroadcasters that were regularly critical of Fidesz were ATV, a commercial cable televisionstation, and the embattled Klubrádió.In 2011, the government-funded news agency MTI became the official source for allpublic media news content. It publishes nearly all of its news and photographs online for free,and offers media service providers the ability to download and republish them. Paid-subscriptionnews agencies and smaller media outlets with limited resources cannot compete with MTI, andthe incentive to practice “copy-and-paste journalism” is high. The accuracy and objectivity ofMTI reporting has come under criticism since the Orbán government came to power in 2010.State and state-dependent advertisers usually buy space in progovernment media, and manyprivate companies have followed suit.199

Under the Media Law, the funding for all public media is centralized under one body, theMedia Service Support and Asset Management Fund (MTVA), supervised by the Media Council.By creating a central property management and production fund, the government deprived threepreviously independent institutions—MTV, MR, and Danube Television (Duna Televízió)—oftheir financial and organizational autonomy.In December 2011, a group of Hungarian journalists, led by then MTV1 foreign newsproducer Balazs Nagy Navarro, went on a hunger strike to protest alleged manipulation of thestate media by the Orbán government. Both Nagy Navarro and another leading figure in thehunger strike, Aranka Szavuly, were dismissed from their jobs at MTV1 late that month forcausing a “provocation.” The strike continued throughout 2012. By the end of 2011, MTVA hadlaid off nearly 1,000 employees as part of a long-anticipated streamlining of the public media.The government claims this was due to budgetary concerns, though the public media received a10 percent budget increase in 2011 and an increase of approximately 2 percent in 2012.Throughout the year, employees of the public and private media spoke to international media andpress freedom watchdog organizations about growing self-censorship by journalists and editorsin the face of fines or unemployment.Diversity is on the rise in online media. Most notably, there has been an increase indomestically owned internet-based outlets. At approximately 72 percent, Hungary’s internetpenetration is just below the European average, according to the InternationalTelecommunication Union. Data published by the U.S. State Department show that as of January2011, there was a significant gap between the usage rates in Budapest and the rest of the country.IcelandStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 3Political Environment: 5Economic Environment: 6Total Score: 14Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 9,F 9,F 10,F 12,F 14,FFreedom of expression is protected under Article 73 of the constitution, and the governmentgenerally does not interfere in the independent media’s presentation of a wide variety of views.However, there are limitations on free speech, including fines or imprisonment for those whobelittle the doctrines of officially recognized religious groups or deliver verbal assaults based onrace, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation.A new media control law passed in 2011 was intended enhance press freedom throughcomprehensive regulation of broadcast, print, and web-based media. However, press freedomorganizations opposed several components of the legislation, particularly the creation of the StateMedia Committee, a state-run body with sweeping powers to impose fines on media outlets thatdo not comply with the law. Another provision requires outlets to register and detail their“editorial strategy.” Nonregistration can result in fines of approximately $1,600 per day. Anoutlet may also be fined for not adhering to its stated editorial strategy. The new law includes a200

an on reporting that might encourage hate speech based on “race, gender, sexual orientation,religious belief, nationality, opinion or cultural, economic, social or other standing in society.”Journalists fear that the economic and social standing portion of this clause could be used bypowerful interests to incriminate journalists if any negative information is published about them.Two positive safeguards afforded by the law are editorial independence from owners and theprotection of journalists’ sources.Iceland’s libel laws have been a concern in recent years. The courts’ handling of libelcases is seen by journalists as too rigid, leading to frivolous lawsuits that aim to silence criticalpress. In July 2012, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ordered the Icelandicgovernment to pay damages to journalists Erla Hlynsdóttir and Björk Eiðsdóttir, who had beenfound guilty of defamation under the old media law because they had quoted sources that madedefamatory statements. The ECHR found that quoting a source who makes possibly defamatorycomments could not in itself be seen as defamatory, and that the correct journalistic ethicalpractices were in place. Under Article 51 of the new media law, journalists can no longer be heldresponsible for potentially libelous quotes from sources. Nevertheless, libel cases continued to beadjudicated in 2012, and some were decided under the old law. In November, the Supreme Courtoverturned a prior ruling and convicted journalist Svavar Halldórsson of the NationalBroadcasting Service of defaming a business tycoon by accusing him of financial illegalities.Halldórsson was ordered to pay 300,000 kronur ($2,400) in damages.The Freedom of Information Act of 1996 guarantees access to government informationfor all individuals without requiring a reason for the request. An ambitious legislative proposalknown as the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative (IMMI) was approved by the parliament in2010. IMMI is intended to create a global safe haven with unprecedented transparency and legalprotection for the press, bloggers, and whistle-blowers. The proposed reforms were still underway at the end of 2012, with the Icelandic lobby organization International Modern MediaInstitute spearheading the process, but the project was progressing slowly. Although the 2011media law provides source protection—a pillar of IMMI—many other aspects of the new law areconsidered setbacks to IMMI’s reform goals.The country’s wide range of publications includes both independent and party-affiliatednewspapers, but the financial crisis that began in 2008 has led to cutbacks in both broadcast andprint media. The Icelandic National Broadcasting Service (RUV) runs radio and televisionstations funded by license fees as well as advertising revenue. RUV was reestablished as a publiccorporation in 2007, having previously operated as a state-owned institution; it has publicserviceobligations, and holds a market share of around 50 percent. Media concentration is aconcern in Iceland, as the company 365 controls much of the country’s private television andradio broadcasting, one of the major national newspapers, and several magazines. In 2012,around 96 percent of the population accessed the internet, and 72 percent were reported to be onthe social-networking site Facebook. The internet is not restricted by the government.IndiaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 10Political Environment: 19Economic Environment: 9201

Total Score: 38Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 35,PF 36,PF 33,PF 35,PF 37,PFIndia’s vibrant media are the freest in South Asia, but journalists, particularly those in rural areasand certain conflict-racked states, faced a number of challenges in 2012, including legal actions,occasional violence, and the expansion of internet censorship.The constitution provides for freedoms of speech and expression, subject to some legallimitations, though these rights are not consistently upheld. The 1923 Official Secrets Act givesauthorities the power to censor security-related articles and prosecute members of the press. Stateand national authorities, along with the courts, have on occasion used other security laws,sedition statutes, criminal defamation legislation, bans on blasphemy and hate speech, andcontempt-of-court charges to curb sensitive reporting. Two journalists who were arrested in 2011and charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the sedition law—SudhirDhawale of the Marathi-language monthly Vidrohi and freelance journalist Lingaram Kodopi—remained in custody in 2012. In November, Naveen Soorinje, a reporter for a local-languagetelevision news channel, was arrested and charged with participating in an attack on women by aright-wing Hindu group in Karnataka State, although he had merely filmed the assault. Heremained in jail at year’s end after repeated requests for bail were denied.Legal restrictions on internet content have been increasing. The 2008 InformationTechnology (IT) Act gives the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology theauthority to block material that endangers public order or national security. The law also enablesthe prosecution of cybercafés, search engines, and internet service providers (ISPs). In 2011, thegovernment introduced rules under the IT Act that would compel companies to removeobjectionable content within 36 hours of receiving an official notice and oblige cybercafés toinstall surveillance cameras and submit records of their users’ online activity to the government.A lawsuit filed in 2012 against several global internet companies with the government’s approvalwould penalize the firms for failing to remove content deemed offensive and likely to incitereligious conflict; the case was still pending at year’s end. In the meantime, official contentremovalrequests dramatically increased during the year. In September, freelance cartoonistAseem Trivedi was arrested and charged with sedition for publishing cartoons on his website thatostensibly mocked national symbols and criticized corruption, prompting government ministersto initiate a review of the sedition law. While the sedition charge was eventually dropped, othercharges against Trivedi were still pending.Implementation of the landmark Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 has been mixed,with the majority of requests blocked due to the law’s broad categorical restrictions on therelease of information. The RTI Act’s success has also been hindered by an overall lack ofawareness of the rights it guarantees, a large backlog of appeals and requests, and widespreadinefficiency within state and local governing bodies. In July 2012, the government issued newRTI rules, imposing a word limit on requests and making appeals more cumbersome. InSeptember, the Supreme Court ruled that all chief information commissioners should be retiredjudges, raising concerns among activists that the change would cause additional delays inadjudicating RTI requests. While some state governments are making an effort to disseminateinformation about the law, especially in rural and isolated areas, others are employing various202

means to make requests more onerous. A number of activists who have attempted to use the RTIAct to uncover abuses, particularly official corruption, have been killed in recent years.The Press Council of India (PCI), an independent self-regulatory body for the print mediathat is composed of journalists, publishers, and politicians, investigates complaints of misconductor irresponsible reporting, but does not have punitive powers. The regulatory framework for therapidly expanding broadcast sector does not at present feature an independent agency that is freefrom political influence. The News Broadcasters’ Association, an industry body that primarilyrepresents the television sector, issued a new set of self-regulatory guidelines in February 2009,covering topics including crime, violence, and national security. The move was part of a bid toforestall official regulation of news coverage in the wake of the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks,including proposals by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) to increase controlson television news feeds in times of crisis. Media critics continued to call for greater regulatorycurbs on unethical journalism in 2012. While access to the profession of journalism is open, anaccreditation mechanism for online journalists has not yet been developed. Media industrygroups and local press freedom advocacy organizations remain fairly weak.Despite increasing diversity in the print and online media landscapes, outlets havedifficulty accessing official information, and some self-censor to avoid losing state governmentadvertising, which is a key source of revenue. Foreign journalists occasionally have troubleobtaining visas to report from within the country, particularly if their prior reporting has beencritical.Physical intimidation of journalists by a variety of actors continued to be a problem in2012, and media offices were also targeted during the year. Journalists were attacked, threatened,abducted, or detained by police, political activists, right-wing groups, insurgents, local officials,or criminals. Four journalists were killed in 2012, according to the Committee to ProtectJournalists (CPJ), although in two of the cases it remained unclear whether the crimes weremotivated by the reporters’ work. Two of the victims were beaten to death in Madhya Pradesh inFebruary and March, a third died after opening a parcel bomb in West Bengal in September, andthe fourth was killed by police while covering protests in Imphal, the capital of Manipur State, inDecember. In July, Tongam Rina, a journalist with the Arunachal Times, narrowly survived ashooting attack. The paper’s offices and staff were also attacked by unidentified men in March,April, and September. A prevailing climate of impunity encourages such violence, with manypast murders remaining unsolved, according to CPJ.Members of the press are particularly vulnerable in rural areas and insurgency-rackedstates such as Chhattisgarh, Jammu and Kashmir, Assam, and Manipur, where reporters facepressure from both the government and insurgents. Those suspected of Maoist or other insurgentsympathies were sometimes threatened with sedition charges or detained by the authorities in2012, while others were pressured to reveal their sources for sensitive stories or were blockedfrom covering the news. Kashmiri journalists continued to encounter physical harassment andverbal suggestions or written directives from the government or militant groups to slant coveragea certain way.India is one of the few countries in the world where print media remain a vibrant andfinancially sustainable growth industry, and there are rising numbers of print and broadcastoutlets that cater to national or various regional or linguistic audiences. Most print outlets,particularly in the national and English-language press, are privately owned, provide diversecoverage, and frequently scrutinize the government. The low cost of newspapers—which aresold at prices far below the cost of production—ensures wider access to print media than in most203

low-income countries. The broadcast media are predominantly in private hands, and diversity inthe television sector has expanded exponentially. More than 800 television channels are inoperation, with a significant proportion focused on news and current events. India’s statecontrolledtelevision station, Doordarshan, has been accused of manipulating the news to favorthe government, and some private satellite television channels provide coverage that reflects thepolitical affiliations of their owners, according to the U.S. State Department. The state retains amonopoly on AM radio broadcasting, and private FM radio stations are not allowed to air newscontent. Under a 2006 policy that provided guidelines for the ownership and operation ofcommunity radio stations by civil society groups, there has been a modest increase in suchstations, leading to a greater diversity of coverage. As of late 2012, the MIB reported that morethan 140 community stations were functioning, while several hundred applications were stillbeing processed. There are no restrictions on cross-ownership or vertical integration of media,and growing consolidation and corporatization in the industry has resulted in potential threats toeditorial independence and plurality. In 2012, a number of complex mergers, including plans forthe Reliance industrial conglomerate to fund a major acquisition by the Network 18 media group,prompted the MIB to initiate a review of the cross-ownership issue.Access to foreign media, with the exception of some outlets based in Pakistan, isgenerally unrestricted. However, authorities sometimes block distribution of certain foreign printeditions due to content such as maps of the disputed Kashmir region. In recent years, intelligenceagencies have also objected to broadcasts from neighboring countries that contain “anti-India”content, and the government has attempted to block service providers from carrying them andincrease the penalties for doing so. Some impediments to production and distribution of domesticmedia, such as blockades of newspapers or official instructions not to carry certain cablechannels, also occasionally arise.The placement or withdrawal of advertisements is used by both the national and statelevelgovernments to reward favored news outlets or punish those that produce critical stories.Bribery is also a major concern, as is the erosion of barriers between the editorial and advertisingdepartments at many outlets, sometimes through the use of “private treaties” with majorcompanies. Despite investigations by India’s election commissioner and the PCI, the practice of“cash for coverage”—in which payments are made to secure favorable news coverage forcandidates and parties, particularly during election cycles—remains deeply entrenched.The internet was accessed by about 13 percent of the population in 2012. Mobiletelephones are increasingly being used as a means of gathering and disseminating news andinformation, particularly in rural communities and areas with high rates of illiteracy. However,the government retains the power to obstruct online communications. In August 2012, thegovernment blocked several hundred websites and social-media accounts and temporarilyrestricted mobile-phone text messaging, ostensibly to combat serious outbreaks of communalviolence in several states. In September, the government temporarily blocked some internetservices and telecommunications in response to protests in Kashmir.IndonesiaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 16Political Environment: 18204

Economic Environment: 15Total Score: 49Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 54,PF 54,PF 52,PF 53,PF 49,PFIndonesia’s media environment continues to rank among the most vibrant and open in the region.Constitutional and legal provisions allow for freedom of speech and freedom of the press.However, both the government and private actors sometimes use their power to obstruct theserights. Defamation is an offense covered by more than 40 provisions of the country’s criminalcode. Although the independent Indonesian Press Council, created by the 1999 Law on the Press,is supposed to adjudicate all media disputes according to a 2005 Supreme Court ruling,authorities continue to undermine the council’s mandate by bringing defamation charges to thecourts. However, there were fewer court cases involving media freedom in 2012 than in previousyears, perhaps indicating that the police were beginning to comply with a memorandum ofunderstanding (MoU) they had signed with the press council in February 2011. Under the MoU,the police agreed to pursue cases involving news reporting by applying the press law from theoutset, and consulting with the press council when they receive a press-related complaint.A 2011 Constitutional Court decision to uphold a law prohibiting blasphemy (Article156a of the criminal code) continued to have negative implications for media freedom in 2012,as did the judges’ apparent endorsement of the government’s argument that prohibition ofblasphemy is vital to protecting religious harmony. The charge carries a punishment of up to fiveyears in prison. In January 2012, Alexander Aan, a civil servant in West Sumatra Province, wasarrested and charged with blasphemy over a posting on his Facebook page declaring that “Goddoesn’t exist,” as well as other statements and images that a local council of Muslim clericsdeemed insulting to Islam. Aan was also charged with “disseminating information aimed atinciting religious hatred or hostility” under the 2008 Electronic Information and TransactionsLaw. He was convicted in June and sentenced to 30 months in jail and a fine of 100 millionrupiah ($10,300). Also in June, Hasan Suwandi, a guardian at a mosque in Cianjur, West JavaProvince, was tried for criminal defamation under Article 310 of the criminal code, which carriesup to two years’ imprisonment. The police brought the charges after Hasan allegedly told a localnewspaper that the district police chief had given permission for an Ahmadiyya mosque to bereopened. Hasan was found guilty and sentenced to six months’ probation. Ahmadiyya is aheterodox Islamic sect with approximately 400,000 Indonesian followers. In early 2011, thegovernment of East Java had banned Ahmadis from using any form of media to spread theirbeliefs, and from displaying the name Ahmadiyya in public and in mosques.The 2008 Law on Public Information Transparency provides for the right to freedom ofinformation. It took effect in 2010, but implementation remains flawed. The State IntelligenceLaw (SIL), which was passed in October 2011, has been criticized as a serious threat to civilliberties and journalistic freedom. Article 32 authorizes intelligence agencies to interceptcommunications without prior court approval, while Article 26 prohibits individuals or legalentities from revealing or communicating state secrets, with penalties of up to 10 years in prisonand fees exceeding 100 million rupiah ($10,300). This article is open to misinterpretation andabuse by state officials, as state secrets are not clearly defined and can easily conflict with theLaw on Public Information Transparency. The Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) joined anumber of other nongovernmental organizations and individuals in filing a challenge to the SIL205

efore the Supreme Court in January 2012. The group has raised concerns that the law could beused to rein in journalists and organizations that seek to disseminate information to the widerpublic, but there was no evidence of this during the year.Print media are regulated through the press council, while broadcast media must belicensed by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology and the IndonesianBroadcasting Commission (KPI). Both of these bodies appear to operate independently for themost part. However, under the 2002 Broadcast Act, local stations are prohibited fromdisseminating foreign broadcasts, and foreign ownership of broadcast media is banned. The acthas drawn criticism for its limits on content and severe penalties for violations, and thegovernment has occasionally used it to restrict broadcasting. Although there are hundreds ofcommunity radio stations in Indonesia, the World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters(AMARC) has called for legal reform and equitable distribution of frequencies to promote thegrowth of community radio in the country, pointing to the slow process of licensing, the lack ofproper enabling legislation, and a lack of transparency and fairness in licensing decisions as themajor obstacles to the sector’s development.Journalists remain subject to attacks and physical harassment from both the authoritiesand nonstate actors. AJI reported that violence against the press in Indonesia increased in 2012,with the total number of incidents rising to 56, from 49 in 2011. Two journalists were killedduring the year. In April, Leiron Kogoya, a journalist for Papua Pos Nabire and the Pasifik Posdaily, was killed when a small passenger plane he was travelling on was shot at by anunidentified armed group as it was about to land in the eastern Papua region. Leiron wasplanning to cover local elections in Jayapura, according to AJI. In November, Metro Manadojournalist Aryono Linggotu, known as Ryo, was stabbed to death in Manado, North SulawesiProvince. AJI reported that police were reluctant to investigate the possibility that the killing wasrelated to his work; Ryo had been critical of the Manado police in the past and had coveredcriminal cases under the department’s purview. Most murders or serious attacks againstjournalists are not adequately investigated or prosecuted, leading to a climate of impunity.Journalists also face physical harassment while attempting to cover sensitive newsstories. In October, six journalists were roughed up when they tried to cover the crash of amilitary jet in Riau Province. Military personnel assaulted and seized a video camera from atvOne journalist as he sought to film the wreckage. A photographer for the Riau Pos newspaperand a reporter for the Antara News Agency were similarly targeted.The province of West Papua continues to be an especially dangerous place for journalists,and few foreign reporters can enter without being closely monitored by authorities. In February2012, Indonesian officials detained Czech journalist Petr Zamecnik and then deported him forreporting without official permission in the West Papuan town of Manokwari. Zamecnik hadentered the country on a tourist visa and was arrested after photographing a Papuanindependence rally. Coverage of the sensitive issue of Papuan separatism and the associatedinsurgency by both local and foreign media tends to draw special scrutiny and restrictions fromthe government.In general, the Indonesian public has access to a variety of news sources and perspectivesprovided by a significant number of private print and broadcast outlets. Television is the mostpopular medium, and the sector is competitive, with 10 national commercial networks in additionto the state-owned Televisi Republik Indonesia. However, there is ongoing concern about theability of political parties, large corporations, and powerful individuals to control media content,either indirectly through the threat of lawsuits or directly through ownership, with many major206

media outlets openly reflecting the political or business interests of their proprietors. As thecountry prepared for the 2014 presidential election, wealthy politicians and businessmen furtherconsolidated their press empires in 2012. Although many Indonesians remained hopeful thatthese media moguls would continue to compete with one another, the possibility remained thatvarious political interests could form alliances and create monopolies that would limit mediaindependence in ways not seen since the Suharto dictatorship. A study conducted in late 2011 bythe nonprofit groups Hivos Southeast Asia and the Center for Innovation, Policy, andGovernance found that nearly all of the 12 most prominent media companies had ties to politicalparties in some respect. For example, Aburizal Bakrie, a powerful business magnate andchairman of the Golkar party, owns tvOne and ANTV. The rival Media Group, owned by SuryaPaloh, founder and patron of the National Democratic Party, includes Metro TV and thenewspaper Media Indonesia.Advertising remains a robust source of income for newspapers and television companies,and the shift to online news sources has been slow. Working conditions for Indonesianjournalists remain poor. According to AJI, media companies do not pay competitive salaries totheir employees, which can lead some journalists to take second jobs with corporate sponsors orrequest bribes for coverage.In 2012, the internet was accessed by 15 percent of the population. There are nogovernment restrictions on access, but the lack of high-speed infrastructure outside the majorcities limits the medium’s use as a news source. Social-media sites such as YouTube, Twitter,and Facebook have become extremely prominent in Indonesia, and they are generally accessedwithout interference.IranStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 30Political Environment: 38Economic Environment: 24Total Score: 92Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 85,NF 85,NF 89,NF 91,NF 92,NFThe government sustained its crackdown on the media in 2012, as scores of journalists werethreatened, beaten, arrested, subjected to unfair trials, and imprisoned, particularly in the run-upto parliamentary elections in March. The authorities extended the use of intimidation andharassment to journalists’ family members. The media environment in Iran, which remained oneof the most repressive in the world, was also affected by further outlet closures and systematicinternet censorship.Constitutional provisions and laws restrict what can be covered in the press and fail toprovide protections for the media. The government regularly invokes vaguely worded laws tocriminalize dissenting opinions. Article 24 of the constitution guarantees freedom of the press,but with a broad exception for content that is deemed “detrimental to the fundamental principlesof Islam or the rights of the public.” The Press Law, first drafted in 1986 and amended in 2000,207

states that “publications and news media shall enjoy freedom of expression provided what theypublish does not violate Islamic principles of the civil code.” Article 3 of the law states, “Thepress have the right to publish the opinions, constructive criticisms, suggestions and explanationsof individuals and government officials for public information while duly observing the Islamicteachings and the best interest of the community.” Article 500 of the penal code states thatanyone who undertakes any form of propaganda against the state will be sentenced to betweenthree months and a year in prison, but the code leaves “propaganda” undefined. Under Article513, certain offenses deemed to be an “insult to religion” are punishable by death, or prisonterms of one to five years for lesser offenses, with “insult” similarly undefined. In 2010, thegovernment broadened the definition of the crime of moharebeh, or “enmity against God,” inorder to convict activists and journalists. Iranian law also provides for sentences of up to twoyears in prison, up to 74 lashes, or fines for those convicted of intentionally creating “anxiety andunease in the public’s mind,” spreading “false rumors,” writing about “acts that are not true,” andcriticizing state officials; however, many prison sentences have been arbitrarily harsh, rangingfrom 6 to 10 years or more. A government decree issued in April 2012 made it mandatory fornews outlets to reveal their sources for any information they publish. Furthermore, newsagencies are prohibited from quoting content from blocked websites or suspended newspapers.The judiciary frequently denies accused journalists due process by referring their cases tothe Islamic Revolutionary Court (IRC), an emergency venue intended for those suspected ofseeking to overthrow the regime. Cases against journalists before the IRC have featured closeddoorhearings and denial of access to an attorney or a fair jury. In 2010, Ayatollah MohammadEmami Kashani, a member of the powerful Assembly of Experts, forbade lawyers fromdefending political suspects, making it difficult for members of the legal profession to assistarrested journalists. Several prominent human rights lawyers who have defended journalists andothers in political cases have themselves been prosecuted in recent years.Amid strict censorship rules, more than 40 newspapers and other publications have beenforced to close for various lengths of time since 2009, and officials continued to shut downpublications throughout 2012. Shahrvand-e Emrooz, a weekly reformist newsmagazine that wasshut down in 2011 for violating press laws after printing articles critical of President MahmoudAhmadinejad’s policies, remained closed during 2012. In February, leading reformist dailyRouzegar was temporarily closed for the second time in six months for allegedly publishingantiregime propaganda. Etemad, another reformist newspaper, was banned for two months inNovember 2011 after publishing an interview with Ahmadinejad’s press adviser, Ali AkbarJavanfekr. In the interview, Javanfekr criticized hard-liners within the regime who opposed thepresident. The authorities said the paper had been shut down for “publishing falsehoods andinsulting public officials.” Etemad was allowed to resume publishing in 2012, but access to itswebsite has been blocked within Iran. Javanfekr was taken into custody in September 2011 toserve a six-month prison sentence stemming from separate charges of “publishing materialscontrary to Islamic norms”; he had written an article in August 2011 that challenged Iran’s dresscode for women. The reformist newspaper Shargh was shut down in September 2012 afterpublishing a cartoon that allegedly mocked veterans of the Iran-Iraq war. Shargh’s editor, MehdiRahmanian, was arrested and released on bail. In December, a court acquitted both Shargh andRahmanian. In order to remain in business, many news outlets and journalists practice selfcensorshipand attempt to abide by official restrictions.In addition to the print media, blogs and news websites—particularly those in the Persianlanguage—were increasingly targeted for censorship during 2012. The regime imposes208

systematic controls on the internet and other digital technologies. According to the OpenNetInitiative, the Iranian government has become one of the most sophisticated and pervasivefilterers of online content in the world, and it has the technological capability to produce its ownmonitoring and filtering software. Connection speeds were slowed or internet service cut offentirely during critical moments throughout the year, such as the February anniversary of the1979 revolution or the run-up to the March parliamentary elections. The government hasforbidden any reporting on the economic sanctions imposed on Iran by the internationalcommunity in response to its nuclear program, and it has blocked websites that monitor currencyexchange rates. Furthermore, the government routinely blocks social-media websites includingYouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, and carefully monitors the activities of Iranians who manageto reach such platforms.The government has targeted journalists’ associations and civil society organizations thatsupport freedom of expression. The authorities also use official or loyalist media outlets topropagate false claims about activists. The semiofficial Fars News Agency often publishesfabricated confessions or resignations, while the official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA)continues to monitor articles produced by Fars prior to publication to ensure that they do notviolate its rules or contain prohibited information.Foreign media are unable to operate freely in Iran. They have been accused by theauthorities of fomenting the unrest that followed the disputed 2009 presidential election, and theyare often punished for airing criticism of the government. The government requires all foreigncorrespondents to provide detailed itineraries and proposed stories before visas are granted, andvisas are regularly denied to foreign reporters who have previously been critical of the regime.Furthermore, foreign media are forbidden from shooting film or photography within Iran. InMarch 2012, the government suspended the accreditation of journalists affiliated with Reutersafter the international news agency erroneously identified participants in an Iranian women’smartial arts class as “female ninja assassins” in the headline of an article.According to a December 2012 report by the Committee to Protect Journalists, Iran hasthe second-largest number of incarcerated journalists in the world, after Turkey. Of the 232writers, editors, bloggers, and photojournalists imprisoned worldwide at the time of the report,45 were in Iran, and 15 were put behind bars in 2012 alone. Prison sentences are often lengthyand accompanied by professional bans. The crackdown has prompted an exodus of journalistsfrom the country. In February 2012, Mehdi Khazali, editor of the news website Baran and anoutspoken critic of the government’s human rights abuses, received a sentence of 14 years inprison, 10 years of internal exile, and 70 lashes. Khazali is the son of Ayatollah AbolghasemKhazali, a prominent member of the powerful Council of Guardians. Kouhyar Goudarzi, aveteran journalist with the Committee of Human Rights Reporters (CHRR) who had previouslybeen imprisoned in 2009, was arrested in July 2011 and spent six months in solitary confinementin Evin Prison, which is notorious for its harsh conditions. He was sentenced to five years inprison in March 2012, but was released on bail in April. Also in March 2012, reformist journalistNazanin Khosravani, who had been sentenced to six years in prison in 2011 for “assembly andcolluding to act against national security” and “propaganda against the regime,” began servingher sentence in Evin Prison. However, she received clemency in August in connection with theholy month of Ramadan. In September, blogger Shiva Nazar Ahari, a founder of the CHRR,began serving her sentence for moharebeh, “propaganda against the regime,” and “acting againstnational security” at Evin Prison. She had originally been sentenced to six years in prison in2010, but the sentence was reportedly reduced by an appeals court in 2011 to four years and 74209

lashes. The cases of four reformist journalists—Medhi Afsharnik, Ali Akrami, MohamedHeydari, and Mohsen Hakim—who were arrested in 2011 and released on bail were still pendingat the end of 2012.Numerous accounts of abuse in custody have been recorded, and many prisoners are saidto have been tortured to extract confessions. Blogger and political activist Hossein RonaghiMaleki, who was arrested in December 2009 and sentenced to 15 years in prison, has reportedlybeen subjected to severe abuse in prison. Reformist journalist Issa Saharkhiz, who has been inprison since 2009 and received a three-year sentence in 2010 for “insulting the supreme leader”and “propaganda against the regime,” was reportedly attacked by plainclothes agents in ahospital in March 2012, where he was receiving treatment for a heart condition. Moreover,authorities added 18 months to his sentence as his original term was expiring, despite a doctor’sdetermination that his poor health left him unable to endure more time in prison.Given the limited distribution of print media outside large cities, radio and televisionserve as the principal sources of news for many citizens, with more than 80 percent of residentsreceiving their news from television. Article 175 of the constitution forbids private broadcasting.The government maintains a monopoly on all domestic broadcast media and presents only theofficial political and religious viewpoints. The newspapers with the widest circulation andinfluence adhere to a conservative editorial position or are directly operated by the government.A state-run English-language satellite station, Press TV, was launched in 2007. The powerfulIslamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) largely controls the Fars News Agency. Anincreasing number of people own satellite dishes and access international news sources, thoughthis is technically forbidden. Since the 2009 presidential election, the government has tightenedits control over illicit satellite dishes, making a greater effort to confiscate them and fine theirowners. The IRGC reportedly has a budget of $10 million dedicated to jamming foreign satellitesignals for viewers in Tehran and other cities. Iran has repeatedly jammed the Persian televisionservice of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) since it was founded in 2009. Thechannel is considered such a threat that a website identical in design to that of BBC Persian hasbeen created to spread allegations against BBC employees. The fake site has a .ir domain name,which cannot be used without government permission. Reporting on BBC Persian has challengedgovernment portrayals of both the domestic political scene and Iran’s foreign relations. Iranianofficials often cite the work of the channel as evidence of a foreign plot against the regime.Throughout 2012, Iran-based relatives of BBC Persian employees were subjected tointimidation, harassment, and detention by authorities.According to a parliamentary commission investigating Iran’s privatization process, aprivate corporation linked to the IRGC bought 51 percent of the Telecommunications Companyof Iran in October 2009 with little outside competition. The government retains direct ownershipof the remaining portion. The transaction gave the IRGC control over Iran’s telephone systems—both the fixed-line network and the two mobile-phone carriers—as well as internet serviceproviders.Although subject to a range of threats and restrictions, the internet remains an importantsource of diverse news coverage and analysis. In an acknowledgment of its inability tocompletely silence online dissent, the regime has stepped up its efforts to hack sites—includingthose based abroad—that it cannot disable by other means, and to foster the large-scale creationof progovernment blogs, commentary, and news content. Approximately 26 percent of thepopulation had regular access to the internet in 2012.210

Throughout 2012, the government made progress toward launching a national intranet serviceknown as Halal Internet. According to the deputy minister for economic affairs, Ali AghaMohammadi, the Halal Internet would be extensively censored and monitored by the Iranianauthorities. Watchdog groups have expressed concern that the project is intended to cut offIranians from the global internet.IraqStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 23Political Environment: 28Economic Environment: 16Total Score: 67Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 69,NF 67,NF 65,NF 68,NF 69,NFJournalists in Iraq continued to face myriad challenges in 2012, the country’s first year without aU.S. troop presence since the 2003 invasion. While no reporters were killed on the job—a majormilestone after years in which the journalist death count had been among the world’s worst—four media workers were killed under suspicious circumstances, and journalists continued tosuffer threats and harassment amid poor legal protections for media freedom.Iraq’s constitution protects freedoms of speech and expression, but authorities continue touse the 1969 penal code to prosecute journalists for a variety of offenses, including libel anddefamation. In 2010, the Supreme Judicial Council created a special court to prosecutejournalists, despite a ban on the creation of special courts in Article 95 of the constitution. A newlaw passed in August 2011 established safeguards for free speech and provided benefits tojournalists who are killed or injured. The legislation also eliminated a stipulation that mediaworkers must belong to the journalists’ union to be entitled to legal protections. While the lawrepresented a positive step, media watchdog organizations criticized it for failing to includeconcrete penalties for authorities who violate its provisions. Throughout 2012, the parliamentdebated a draft cybercrime bill that would severely restrict media freedom. If passed, theInformation Technology Crimes Bill would impose harsh penalties, including life imprisonmentand large fines, for use of the internet to commit crimes that “affect … the unity of the country”or “its high economic, or political, or military, or security interests,” among other vaguelydefined offenses. A second draft bill under consideration at year’s end, the Law on Freedom ofExpression, Assembly, and Peaceful Protest, fails to protect the right to freedom of information,according to media watchdog groups.The Iraqi media environment is heavily politicized. Since political factions and ethnicgroups control many of the country’s news outlets, coverage of political events is often slantedtoward a particular group’s agenda or beliefs. Self-censorship is also common, as manyjournalists fear repercussions for publishing critical remarks, especially those related to thegovernment or political parties. In April 2012, the Communications and Media Commission—which oversees licensing of media outlets and may bar coverage deemed to be “an incitement toviolence”—ordered security forces to shut down 44 local and foreign news outlets. The order211

was not immediately enforced, but two outlets—Al-Baghdadiya TV and Radio Al-Mahaba—were forced to close in December amid allegations that they had violated unspecifiedtransmission rules and had not paid broadcasting fees. It was unclear whether those forcedclosures were related to the earlier order.While no journalists were murdered as a result of their work in 2012, four mediapersonnel were killed under circumstances that are still under investigation. In April, KamiranSalaheddin, a news presenter on an Iraqi current-affairs program and the head of a localjournalists’ union, was killed when a bomb hidden in his car exploded. Ghazwan Anas, also anews presenter for a local Iraqi television station, was shot to death in his home in July. InSeptember, veteran journalist Farqad Husseini, the editor in chief of Al-Adwa newspaper, waskilled in a car bomb explosion. In November, Samir al-Sheikh Ali, editor in chief of the daily Al-Jamahir al-Baghdadiya, was shot and killed by unidentified gunmen. Iraq topped the Committeeto Protect Journalists’ Impunity Index for the fifth year in a row, with more than 90 murders ofjournalists remaining unsolved. Journalists continued to face arbitrary arrest by security forces,detention without trial, beatings, and confiscation of equipment during the year.Security forces in the semiautonomous Kurdistan region arrested at least 50 journalistsand political rights activists in 2012. Many of the journalists were detained while covering thefirst anniversary of protests that erupted in the region in March 2011, or for criticizing regionalgovernment officials, and at least seven have been prosecuted for criminal defamation or insult.Authorities in the region do not always respect the Kurdistan Press Law, which protects the rightof journalists to obtain information “of importance to citizens” and “relevant to the publicinterest,” and requires officials to investigate and punish anyone who insults or injures ajournalist as a result of his work. In 2012, no members of Asayish, the region’s internal securityagency, were prosecuted for beating and detaining journalists. In October, independent journalistKarzam Karim was sentenced to two years in prison for reporting on suspected corruption inKurdistan’s security forces; he had allegedly been tortured and beaten in detention. InSeptember, a vaguely worded draft “Law to Protect Sanctities” was rejected by both the legaland the human rights committees in the regional parliament. The legislation had threatened topunish insults against religion or national symbols with up to 10 years in prison for individualsand the shutdown of offending media outlets. However, soon after the law was rejected, the topprosecutor reportedly asked officials to monitor media outlets for insults to religious or politicalleaders, and to report violations.Hundreds of privately owned television, radio, and print media outlets have opened since2003, producing content in Arabic, Kurdish, Syriac, Turkmen, and other languages. However,media are usually split along sectarian, ethnic, and political lines. Political parties and ethnicgroups fund most outlets, and journalists often blur the distinction between news and opinion.The government controls the Iraqi Media Network, which includes Al-Iraqiya television and thenewspaper Al-Sabah. The government also shapes the editorial content of some outlets bymanipulating public advertising or pressuring private advertisers. Advertising with no editorialdemands attached makes up only a small fraction of media outlets’ revenues. Satellite dishes arelegal, and a majority of Iraqis have access to satellite news channels, including Al-Sharqiya, anIraqi-owned station that broadcasts from Dubai; Qatar-based Al-Jazeera; and the Saudi-ownedAl-Arabiya.Just 7 percent of the Iraqi population had access to the internet in 2012. The internetoperates without government restriction, and usage has steadily increased since 2003, but poorinfrastructure and sporadic access to electricity have made Iraq’s penetration rate for terrestrial212

internet access one of the lowest in the region. Instead, the majority of Iraqis who use the internetaccess it through wireless technology.IrelandStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 5Political Environment: 6Economic Environment: 5Total Score: 16Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 15,F 15,F 15,F 16,F 16,FPress freedom is guaranteed in Ireland’s 1937 constitution and is generally respected in practice.However, archaic defamation laws continue to place the burden of proof on defendants. The2009 Defamation Act reduced the time frame for bringing legal action after a defamatorystatement is made from six years to one, and included the option for media outlets to issue anapology without admitting to libel. In a November 2012 settlement, the Irish Sun agreed to pay€500,000 ($640,000) in damages plus legal fees of some €175,000 ($225,000) for defamingLouis Walsh, a judge on the television show X Factor. During the case, Walsh’s lawyers allegedthat Joanne McElgunn, a crime writer for the Irish Sun, had paid an unemployed dance teacher€700 ($900) to falsely claim that Walsh had sexually assaulted him. The defamation case offormer cabinet minister Michael Lowry continued in 2012. In 2010, Lowry had accusedinvestigative journalist Sam Smyth of defamation, saying that Smyth’s assertions “portrayed himas corrupt, dishonest, and untrustworthy.” In October 2011, Smyth successfully defended himselfagainst the charge, with a judge ruling that Lowry should pay tens of thousands of euros in legalcosts to Smyth. In February 2012, Lowry lost an appeal to the High Court.New copyright legislation was passed into law in March 2012, despite significantopposition from internet freedom groups, which argued that it could result in injunctions againstsocial-media platforms like YouTube and Facebook if copyrighted materials are posted by users.The change was enacted through a ministerial order, not by the parliament, limiting public debateon the matter.The 1997 Freedom of Information Act and a 2003 amendment established fees foraccessing information held by public bodies. Records indicate that the 2003 amendment, whichintroduced fees for submitting the request itself, has led to a significant reduction in the use ofthe act by journalists. The government in 2012 announced that proposed reforms to the lawwould not be addressed until April 2013. The reforms would set a maximum fee of €500 ($640)for requests and expand the number of state agencies that must release information. Ireland is theonly country in Europe where the police are completely exempt from opening up files to thepublic, and the proposed legal changes would compel police to turn over administrative records,with some security exemptions.Under Ireland’s 2005 Garda Siochána Act, police can face fines of up to €75,000($96,400), lose their jobs, or receive up to seven years in prison for speaking with the mediawithout prior authorization. Investigative journalists claim to be routinely questioned by police213

when breaking stories that indicate use of a police source. In 2012, journalists reported that theirinvestigative work was compromised due to police queries about sources and police contacts, aswell as threats of arrest for failing to reveal sources. Journalists also reported that their mobiletelephoneconversations were being intercepted and monitored.Blasphemy is considered a criminal act under the 1937 constitution, but until 2009 therewere no legal means for prosecuting blasphemers. The 2009 Defamation Act establishedblasphemy as a punishable offense, with fines of up to €25,000 ($32,100). Article 36 of thestatute states that “a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if he or she publishes orutters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matter held sacred by any religion,thereby causing outrage among a substantial amount of the adherents of that religion, and he orshe intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.” Inearly December 2012, a constitutional convention was opened to discuss political reforms,including the removal of the blasphemy ban, but the statute remained on the books at year’s end.The Broadcasting Act of 2009 established the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, which ismandated to oversee the public-service broadcasters, allocate public funding, and promoteaccountability. This act expanded the role of the former Broadcasting Commission of Ireland,which had no responsibility for public-service broadcasting. In 2008, the Press Council ofIreland and the Office of the Press Ombudsman were set up to safeguard and promoteprofessional and ethical standards of newspapers and other periodicals, including through theestablishment of a mandatory Code of Practice for member organizations. The public can bringcomplaints against member publications to the Office of the Press Ombudsman, and appeals ofthe ombudsman’s decisions are adjudicated by the Press Council, which may also hearsignificant or complicated cases directly. Ireland’s Press Council is recognized by law under theDefamation Act of 2009, meaning those newspapers and magazines that choose to be regulatedby the Press Council have certain legal advantages. This statutory underpinning was establishedfollowing a consultative process between the National Union of Journalists, representatives ofnewspapers owners, and others within the media industry. Media organizations that opt out couldface difficulties in dealing with legal complaints, as they must satisfy the courts that they operateby the same standards.Journalists can generally report freely without harassment and without having to exerciseself-censorship. Physical attacks or harassment directed at journalists are rare. Eugene Moloney,a freelance journalist and former Irish News reporter who covered events in Northern Ireland atthe height of the ethnonationalist conflict in the 1970s and 1980s, was assaulted by two men inJune 2012 in Dublin and eventually died from his injuries. However, the attack was reported tobe unrelated to Moloney’s work.Ireland has strong and competitive print news media, led by the privately owned IrishIndependent and Irish Times. The public-service broadcaster RTÉ (Raidió Teilifís Éireann)dominates the radio and television sectors, but provides a comprehensive and balanced newsservice. RTÉ receives competition from both private and public British television. Ireland alsohas more than 50 licensed radio stations. Cross-ownership is allowed within certain limits, withpublishers allowed to own up to 25 percent of a broadcast outlet. The debate over theconcentration of media ownership and a lack of content diversity continued in 2012. TheO’Reilly family had directly controlled Ireland’s largest media company—Independent Newsand Media (INM)—for 39 years, until Gavin O’Reilly resigned as chief executive in 2012. DenisO’Brien, who owns Ireland’s two national commercial radio stations and is INM’s largest singleshareholder, was seeking control over the company. As he is Ireland’s richest man and has214

usiness interests in other industries, there were significant concerns that O’Brien would exertundue influence over content. A new bill to regulate media mergers was scheduled to be putforward by Communications Minister Pat Rabbitte, in an effort to introduce more public-interestcriteria and address the anticipated effect the merger would have on media plurality in terms ofboth content and ownership. The bill was still being drafted at year’s end.Approximately 96 percent of the Irish population accessed the internet in 2012, andinternet use is not restricted by the government.IsraelStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 7Political Environment: 15Economic Environment: 9Total Score: 31Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 28,F 31,PF 29,F 29,F 30,FStatus change explanation: Israel declined from Free to Partly Free to reflect the indictment ofjournalist Uri Blau for possession of state secrets, the first time this law had been used againstthe press in several decades, as well as instances of politicized interference with the content ofIsraeli Broadcasting Authority radio programs and concerns surrounding the license renewal oftelevision’s Channel 10. In addition, the economic impact of Israel Hayom, an owner-subsidizedfree newspaper and now the largest-circulation daily, threatened the sustainability of other papersand contributed to the collapse and buyout of the daily Maariv.Although Israel enjoys the freest press in the region, its vibrant media sector met with challengesin 2012, including a troubling legal case, evidence of increased interference in media content byboth official actors and private owners, and concern over the economic viability of newspapers.Legal protections for freedom of the press are robust, and the rights of journalists aregenerally respected in practice. The country’s Basic Law does not specifically address the issue,but the Supreme Court has affirmed that freedom of expression is an essential component ofhuman dignity. The legal standing of press freedom has also been reinforced by court rulingsciting principles laid out in Israel’s Declaration of Independence.Two notable Supreme Court decisions favored press freedom during 2012. In February,the court upheld the appeal of journalist Ilana Dayan, overturning a lower court ruling that forcedher to compensate and apologize to an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) officer who had been postednear the Gaza border and was involved in the death of a young Palestinian girl. The plaintiffclaimed that Dayan had portrayed him as a “killing animal” in a report on the incident that airedon Channel 2 in 2005. The Supreme Court decision created a new and extensive defense claimfor journalists in libel cases: If a reporter can show that she had a “journalistic responsibility” ina matter of public interest, she can be shielded from liability even if she cannot prove the truth ofwhat was published. Another Supreme Court judgment in November dealt with confidentiality ofjournalistic sources, which is not explicitly protected under Israeli law, but is recognized and215

espected by the courts. The Supreme Court ruled that journalistic privilege extends not only tothe confidential source itself but also to information that may reveal the identity of the source,and directed the Knesset to codify the journalist-source relationship by means of legislation.While the country’s legal framework is predominantly protective of press freedom, itdoes include a number of restrictive elements that are sometimes used against journalists. Hatespeech and publishing praise of violence are prohibited, and the 1948 Prevention of TerrorismOrdinance bans expressions of support for terrorist organizations or groups that call for thedestruction of Israel. The media continue to face the threat of libel suits. At the beginning of2011, journalist Raviv Druker of Channel 10 revealed an investigation of alleged corruptioninvolving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s personal expense account. Shortly after thereport appeared, Netanyahu and his wife initiated a $700,000 libel suit against Channel 10. InOctober 2012 the suit was withdrawn following a mediation process in which the station agreednot to harm the prime minister’s reputation in the future. The deal marked the second time withintwo years that Channel 10 was obliged to reach such an agreement. Separately, in May 2012,Haaretz reporter Uri Blau was indicted on charges of espionage—with a potential seven-yearprison term—for holding thousands of classified military documents he had received from AnatKam, who stole them in the course of her military service. The indictment represented the firsttime the law in question had been used against a journalist in several decades. Kam had alreadybeen convicted of leaking classified material and sentenced to four and a half years in prison inOctober 2011. In a July 2012 plea agreement, Blau admitted to holding classified documentswithout intention to harm national security, and was sentenced to four months of communityservice. The Supreme Court reduced Kam’s prison term by one year in December.Apart from the laws on the books, Knesset members have debated a series of proposalsover the past two years that would challenge press freedom in Israel. These included measuresthat sought to forbid the use of Nazi references and symbols; prohibit the publication ofdefamatory, antigovernment content; and ban objections to Israel’s existence as a Jewish anddemocratic state. There were also attempts to significantly raise compensation amounts in libelsuits, with a proposed amendment to that end making some headway in the Knesset. However,none of the above initiatives developed into actual law in 2012.Freedom of information has been protected by law since 1999, subject to exemptions forthe security services or any other body that handles issues related to intelligence, nationalsecurity, or foreign policy. The legal tools provided by the law are used by journalists andnongovernmental organizations to obtain official information, and the courts have given awidening interpretation of the public’s right to know.According to the British Mandate Press Ordinance of 1933, publishers are required toobtain a license from the Interior Ministry to operate a newspaper, while broadcasters arecovered by a separate regulatory regime. The Government Press Office (GPO) requiresjournalists operating in Israel to have proper accreditation in order to attend official pressconferences, gain permission to access government buildings, and pass through Israeli militarycheckpoints. Hundreds of foreign journalists are generally accredited. However, the GPO hasoccasionally refused to provide press cards—especially to Palestinians—citing national securityconcerns, thus preventing the affected reporters from entering Israel.During 2012, journalists were drawn into a series of legal battles to protect their laborrights. In January, a new journalists’ union was founded within the Histadrut labor federation,and hundreds of journalists soon joined. Among other cases, the union was involved in legal216

struggles to preserve the broadcasting license of Channel 10 and to protect employees’ rightsduring an ownership change at the daily newspaper Maariv.Due to Israel’s unresolved conflicts with Palestinian groups and neighboring countries,media outlets are subject to military censorship and journalists can face travel restrictions. Undera 1996 Censorship Agreement between the media and the military, the censor has the power—onthe grounds of national security—to penalize, shut down, or halt the printing of a newspaper. Inpractice, the censor’s role is quite limited and subject to strict judicial oversight. Journalists oftenevade restrictions by leaking a story to a foreign outlet and then republishing it. However, Israelisecurity authorities have begun to combat leaks to foreign media by issuing gag orders thatforbid quotations of foreign sources about the issue at hand. Digital media have added to thechallenge of enforcing the 1996 agreement, but in May 2012 the military censor announced anew surveillance tool aimed at tracking textual and visual information online, especially onsocial networks.A long-standing law forbidding Israeli citizens from traveling to “enemy states” such asLebanon and Syria without permission from the Interior Ministry has, on occasion, been appliedto journalists. Press freedom organizations have condemned the selective application of the law,as well as the potential effects of such travel restrictions on the diversity of news available to theIsraeli public. Although Israeli journalists are generally barred from entering the Palestinianterritories without explicit military approval, in practice the military frequently ignores thepresence of Israeli journalists in those territories. In November 2012, the IDF allowed foreignjournalists to enter Gaza during its “Pillar of Defense” military operation there. The GPO hasbeen known to impose obstacles, especially in airport security checks, for foreign journalists whoare suspected of an anti-Israel political orientation.Deliberate violence against or harassment of journalists is relatively rare in Israel, but itdoes occur. Although the principal targets have traditionally been Arab journalists—both foreignand local, often in and around Jerusalem—the year 2012 featured a higher rate of incidentsstemming from private or commercial conflicts (such as within the ultra-Orthodox and Israeli-Arab media sectors) and police harassment of journalists reporting from demonstrations on socialand economic matters. Due to ongoing protest-related violence, the police decided to issueidentification tags to journalists covering such events.Israelis are active news consumers. Mainstream Hebrew newspapers garner an estimatedone million daily readers out of a population of less than eight million. The pluralistic makeup ofIsraeli society is reflected in the press landscape, which includes 12 daily newspapers and a widerange of weekly newspapers and internet news sites, most of which are divided along religious,ethnic, and language lines. The major newspapers are privately owned, and some freely criticizegovernment policies and aggressively pursue cases of official corruption. However, thepopularity of the free newspaper Israel Hayom, which has captured about 40 percent of themarket and is now the largest-circulation daily, has placed financial pressure on othermainstream papers, as its business model has forced them to slash advertising rates, thusthreatening their sustainability. Israel Hayom is owned and subsidized by Sheldon Adelson, aprominent American businessman who is openly aligned with Netanyahu and the conservativeLikud Party. As a result of financial difficulties, the daily newspaper Maariv faced the threat ofclosure and was eventually sold in October 2012 to Shlomo Ben-Zvi, the owner of a smallerdaily, Makor Rishon. The anticipated merger of the two outlets will increase ownershipconcentration and leave the market more politically polarized, with two left-wing and two rightwingdaily newspapers representing the major print media.217

A diverse selection of broadcast media is available, although ownership concentrationamong private stations is a growing concern. The dominance of the state-run Israel BroadcastingAuthority (IBA) in the broadcast market has declined significantly in recent years due to morecompetition from private television and radio outlets, political interference, and poormanagement. In July 2012, political pressure resulted in the IBA placing a “balancing” journaliston every radio program hosted by Keren Neubach, a prominent journalist and outspoken critic ofthe government. Also during the year, the Knesset passed a significant reform plan that aims tomake the IBA economically viable, but does not address the issue of political involvement in thenetwork’s content. The IBA’s radio station, Kol Israel, and the military-operated Galei Tsahalremain popular throughout the country, and a broad range of local and commercial radio stationsalso operate, serving regional audiences as well as the country’s ultra-Orthodox, Russianspeaking,and Arabic-speaking communities. Most Israelis subscribe to cable, satellite, or digitalterrestrial television services that provide access to international stations. During 2012, the issueof a license renewal for the financially troubled private television station Channel 10—whosecoverage is often critical of the government and which faced possible closure at the end of2011—was resolved. The station’s losses and its inability to pay its debts to the government ledregulators to refuse to reissue its broadcasting license. However, after the direct involvement ofthe prime minister’s office in the protracted negotiations, repayment of the debt was spread overthe next few years, and the station’s license was renewed. Although Channel 10 avoided closure,the incident added to broader concerns about the ability of Israeli media outlets to maintain bothfinancial and editorial independence.Israel has the region’s highest rate of internet usage, at 73 percent in 2012. More than halfof all internet users are active on social-media sites. The government generally does not restrictinternet access, although blocking of certain data on applications like Google Maps, as well assurveillance of internet service providers and telecommunications services, is carried out,ostensibly for security purposes.[This rating and report reflect the state of press freedom within Israel proper. The West Bankand Gaza Strip are covered in a separate report.]ItalyStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 12Political Environment: 11Economic Environment: 10Total Score: 33Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 29,F 32,PF 33,PF 34,PF 33,PFFreedoms of speech and of the press are constitutionally guaranteed and generally respected inpractice, despite ongoing concerns regarding concentration of media ownership. The 2004Gasparri Law on broadcasting has been heavily criticized for provisions that had enabled former218

prime minister Silvio Berlusconi to maintain control of the private media market, largely throughhis ownership of the Mediaset Group, though Berlusconi’s resignation from the premiership inNovember 2011 curtailed his parallel influence over state media. In February 2011, theConstitutional Court struck down a law that effectively guaranteed Berlusconi immunity fromprosecution by allowing the prime minister to postpone any trial for up to 18 months. The rulingpaved the way for a number of court cases against him to proceed, including a tax fraud caseinvolving Mediaset. The former prime minister was sentenced to four years in prison over thecase in October 2012, but the decision was under appeal at the end of the year.In October 2011, the lower house of Parliament resumed discussion of a bill that wouldlimit the media’s use of information from law enforcement agencies’ wiretaps and force websitesto publish corrections automatically. The legislation prescribes heavy fines and up to 30 days injail for journalists who publish content from official wiretap recordings before the implicatedsuspect goes to trial. The bill was seen primarily as an effort to keep embarrassing informationabout politicians out of the news, and it was opposed by all of the major newspapers in Italy.Critics of the measure mounted a demonstration against it in October 2011, and the Italian site ofthe online encyclopedia Wikipedia temporarily hid all its pages by way of protest. The billremained on hold at the end of 2012.Although the internet is generally unrestricted, the government regulates certain websites,especially those offering gambling or child pornography. An antiterrorism law passed after the2005 bombings in London requires internet cafés to obtain a government license, allows internetsurveillance, and obliges internet café users to show photographic identification. Italy’s mediaregulator, AGCOM, was in the process in 2011 of reviewing a proposal that would give it morepower to block and remove websites determined to have violated copyright laws. The plan wascriticized for infringing on the freedom to receive and provide information, and critics also raisedthe possibility that internet operators would practice preventive self-censorship. The regulatorybody proposed the adoption of a modified version at the end of 2012.Defamation is a criminal offense in Italy, punishable by fines and imprisonment. In June2012, journalist Orfeo Donatini and his former director at the Bolzano newspaper Alto Adige,Tiziano Marson, were sentenced to four months in prison and a fine of €15,000 ($19,200) fordefamation. The journalist wrote in 2008 that a member of the provincial council hadparticipated in a neo-Nazi summit and had been investigated for possible ties to neo-Nazi groups.The information came from a confidential police report. The council member’s decision to lodgea criminal complaint was heavily criticized by the National Federation of the Italian Press (FNSI)for its potential chilling effect on the media. Separately, in September 2012, a court upheld a 14-month prison sentence for Alessandro Sallusti, former editor of the right-wing paper Libero, whohad originally been convicted in 2011 for allowing the publication of a pseudonymously writtencomment that called for the death of the doctor, the parents, and the judge involved inauthorizing an abortion procedure for a 13-year-old girl. The court’s decision, which cameshortly after a representative of Berlusconi’s party admitted to writing the comment, promptedthe country’s president and justice minister to issue a joint statement pledging bring Italian libellaws into line with decisions by the European Court of Human Rights. In November 2012, theItalian Senate rejected a legal amendment that would have allowed journalists convicted ofdefamation to be imprisoned for up to a year, while their editors would have faced fines of up to€50,000 ($64,000). Civil libel cases against journalists are also common in Italy.The right to access information is not included in the constitution, and Italy does not havea freedom of information law, relying instead on a patchwork of provisions scattered across219

different statutes. Implementation of these provisions is problematic, and journalists often haveto wait several years to obtain the requested documents. In 2012, an online initiative calledFOIA.it campaigned for the adoption of a comprehensive law on freedom of information.A 2010 report released by the Vienna-based International Press Institute noted a numberof other legal impediments to press freedom, including the lack of a proper law to deal withconflicts of interest, particularly between media ownership and holding political office, as wellas licensing procedures for journalists that can lead to official influence and limit opportunitiesfor foreign-born and freelance reporters. Journalists do not need a license to practice in general,but they do need one to work as a full-time professional with one of the major media outlets.Getting the license from the journalists’ association Ordine dei Giornalisti (ODG) is a lengthyand costly procedure. Working conditions have become difficult in recent years; those with afull-time contract constitute only 19 percent of the workforce, and there is a significant pay gapbetween salaried and freelance journalists.In a push for greater regulatory transparency, the lower house of Parliament, the Chamberof Deputies, delayed a vote on the membership of AGCOM in May 2012. The president of thechamber, Gianfranco Fini, along with UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression FrankLa Rue, called for a merit-based process for selecting AGCOM members, as opposed to theexisting system of political deal-making. The regulator has been severely criticized in the pastfor favoring Berlusconi’s media empire and other politically connected conglomerates. However,the newly appointed head, who was finally chosen in June, had been an aide to Prime MinisterMario Monti, while the other board members were nominated by parliamentary parties. Theselection procedure was denounced by Open Media Coalition, an Italian press freedom group,which had initiated a lawsuit over the process.The appointment procedure for the state broadcaster RAI—under which Parliament hasdirect control over the selection of most directors and some key staff positions, and politicalparties share out appointment privileges in a system known as lottizzazione, or dividing thespoils—has resulted in significant political control over the organization since the 1980s. WhenBerlusconi was prime minister, political interference was a key issue of concern, with instancesin which RAI journalists seen as critical of the government were removed from their positions,and RAI channels were barred from airing political discussions prior to elections. In 2012, aswith AGCOM, there were proposals to reform the appointment procedure for RAI. The planscalled for removing the Ministry of Economy as the majority public-service broadcastingshareholder and for the creation of a council to appoint RAI board members. However, in July,the old procedure was used to appoint Anna Maria Tarantola, former deputy director general atthe Bank of Italy, as president, and Luigi Gubitosi, a Bank of America executive, as generalmanager of RAI.Journalists occasionally face physical threats or attacks from organized crime networksand other political or social groups. Several journalists live under police protection due to theirwriting on organized crime, including Roberto Saviano, who wrote the best-selling 2006 bookGomorrah about the Neapolitan mafia, or Camorra. In 2012, an advocacy campaign called “MyName Is Giovanni Tizian” was launched. The initiative is named after a journalist and novelistwhose life is threatened by the Calabrian mafia, or ’Ndrangheta; it supports investigativejournalism and the fight against corruption.There are several newspapers and news magazines, most of them with regional bases.Newspapers are primarily run by political parties or owned by large media groups, but theycontinue to provide a range of political opinions, including those that are critical of the220

government. Direct and indirect subsidies for print media outlets, which had been high even byEuropean standards, were significantly cut by the new government that took power in late 2011.Newspaper owners claimed that the announced cutback from €170 million ($220 million) to €56million ($72 million) could lead to the eventual closure of up to 100 titles. While the print sectoris more diverse in both ownership and content, most Italians receive news and informationthrough the broadcast media. RAI, which consists of three analogue, 13 digital, and sevensatellite channels, also fell victim to the austerity efforts of the Monti government and had topush through significant cutbacks and layoffs in 2012.Italy suffers from an unusually high concentration of media ownership for its region.Berlusconi’s departure from office late in 2011 helped to reduce this concentration in de factoterms in 2012; when in power, he had indirect control over up to 90 percent of the country’sbroadcast media through the state-owned outlets and his own private media holdings. Berlusconistill controls a significant stake in the private media, as he is the main shareholder of Mediaset,which owns several television channels; the country’s largest magazine publisher, Mondadori;and Publitalia, Italy’s largest advertising company. Publitalia controls 65 percent of thetelevision advertising market, giving Berlusconi’s channels an advantage in attracting ads. Inaddition, one of the country’s major nationwide daily newspapers, Il Giornale, is owned byBerlusconi’s brother. Nevertheless, these outlets suffered considerable losses after Berlusconileft office. Mediaset’s profits were down 85 percent in the first quarter of 2012 compared withthe previous year.Approximately 58 percent of the population accessed the internet regularly in 2012.Blogs and social media have played a growing role in political debates and news dissemination.In May 2012, prominent blogger and comedian Beppe Grillo’s 5 Star Movement won themayoral elections in the town of Parma and a number of other smaller towns, running on ananticorruption platform that was disseminated largely through social-media tools like Facebookand Twitter.JamaicaStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 4Political Environment: 8Economic Environment: 6Total Score: 18Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 15,F 15,F 16,F 18,F 18,FThe constitution provides for freedoms of speech and the press, and the government generallyrespects these rights. In 2012, Jamaica maintained its free media environment and continued tomake progress toward reforming its criminal defamation laws. A committee was first appointedto review the laws in 2007, and a bill to repeal the Defamation Act and the Libel and Slander Actwas presented in the House of Representatives in November 2011, but it stalled due to a changein government. The bill was awaiting a final series of negotiations at the end of 2012. Aparliamentary committee also submitted recommendations in March 2011 to repeal the Official221

Secrets Act, which has served as an obstacle to the implementation of the 2002 Access toInformation Act and the 2011 Protected Disclosures Act, which protects whistle-blowers.Nevertheless, the Official Secrets Act remained on the books at the end of 2012. While thecriminal defamation laws have not been enforced in recent years, civil defamation cases oftenresult in excessive damages.Journalists and media outlets face occasional threats from both state and nonstate actors,and some practice self-censorship on sensitive topics, due in part to concerns over defamationsuits. There were a number of incidents in the lead-up to the December 2011 elections in whichmembers of the then ruling Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) allegedly criticized media workersduring election rallies and used veiled threats to intimidate them.Jamaica has two national daily newspapers and a daily afternoon tabloid. There are anumber of national and regional periodicals serving a variety of sectors and interests, as well asmore than 20 radio stations, 3 terrestrial television stations, and multiple cable channels. Themajority of media outlets are privately owned and provide a range of news and commentary. In a2012 report, the International Press Institute noted that Jamaican journalists are poorly paid andhave limited training in investigative reporting, leaving them overly reliant on government pressreleases.The authorities imposed no restrictions on the internet, which was accessed by nearly 47percent of the population in 2012. The December 2011 election campaign was notable for theincreased use of social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, by the main political parties.JapanStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 4Political Environment: 14Economic Environment: 6Total Score: 24Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 21,F 21,F 21,F 21,F 22,FPress freedom in Japan is constitutionally guaranteed and generally respected in practice.However, in December 2010, the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly approved Bill 156 to amend theYouth Healthy Development Ordinance, which authors and fans of Japan’s popular manga(comic books) criticized for limiting freedom of expression. Originally passed in 1964, theordinance aims to promote the healthy development of minors by restricting their access toharmful published material. The amendment allows for the expansion of the definition of“harmful publications” and authorizes the government to regulate images that are “considered tobe excessively disrupting of social order.” Japan has a freedom of information law, but it doesnot apply to the parliament or the judiciary.Some weaknesses in the country’s media environment have been highlighted in theaftermath of the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami, which caused serious damage andradiation leaks at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant north of Tokyo. In an unusual useof Japan’s defamation laws, nuclear industry entrepreneur Shiro Shirakawa filed a libel suit in222

May 2012 against a freelance investigative journalist, Minoru Tanaka, for an article in theweekly magazine Shukan Kinyobi on alleged connections between Shirakawa, nuclear plantconstruction companies, and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), which runs theFukushima Daiichi plant. Shirakawa demanded 67 million yen ($840,000) in damages andattorney fees from Tanaka. The case, which was ongoing at year’s end, marked the first time thata journalist, rather than the publisher, has been sued over an article. Despite its landmark status,the Tanaka case received little coverage or support from major media outlets, which critics haveattributed to the strength of the kisha kurabu (press clubs) system.The role of the kisha kurabu, combined with the financial clout of the power-supplyindustry, has greatly discouraged investigative reporting on the nuclear disaster. The press clubshave long been at the center of concerns regarding the lack of diversity and independence inJapanese news media, as they foster cozy relationships with bureaucrats and politicians in whichjournalists are granted access in exchange for refraining from writing critical stories. Meanwhile,freelance and foreign journalists face routine discrimination. Following the 2011 catastrophe, agroup of independent journalists who were fed up with the system launched the Free PressAssociation of Japan. It remains to be seen whether this group will have any influence.Members of kisha kurabu were among the few journalists admitted to official pressconferences in the wake of the 2011 tsunami, and they often avoided tough questions regardingthe situation at the crippled power plant. Freelance journalists and foreign and online media wereexcluded from reporting on the nuclear threat and were not allowed into official pressconferences. Only two independent reporters from Japan were included among the 40 journalistsinvited on the third media visit to the Fukushima Daiichi plant in May 2012, and they were notallowed to use still cameras or video equipment. In October, three freelance journalists—YuTerasawa, Michiyoshi Hatakeyama, and Yuichi Sato—filed a legal complaint stating that theyhad been trying unsuccessfully to enter the building of the parliamentary press club since June.Separately, in August 2012, Japanese authorities briefly detained two Chinese journalists fromHong Kong–based Phoenix TV who were reporting on a bid by protesters to reach the Senkaku(Diaoyu) Islands, which are claimed by both Japan and China.There were accusations of official censorship in the aftermath of the 2011 disaster, butthe Japanese government denied that it had attempted to withhold negative information. InMarch 2012, a year after the tsunami, Fukushima residents still lacked basic data and clearanswers regarding the level of radiation in their food and environment. Human Rights Watchreported that residents did not know whether their food was safe or their children had beenexposed to dangerous levels of radiation. In addition, mainstream media outlets have greatlymisrepresented disaster clean-up expenses, reporting figures that underestimated the actual costs.Japan has one of the highest print readerships in the world. Print outlets were hurt in theimmediate aftermath of the disaster, but the major news outlets recovered quickly. More thanhalf of the national newspaper market is controlled by three major papers: the Yomiuri Shimbun,the Asahi Shimbun, and the Mainichi Shimbun. There is considerable homogeneity in reports,which relate the news in a factual and neutral manner. Television news content, once dominatedby the public broadcaster NHK, has diversified considerably with the rising popularity of TVAsahi, Fuji TV, the Tokyo Broadcasting System, and satellite television. Japan also has roughly273 community radio stations. The internet remained a major source of news, and around 79percent of the population accessed the medium in 2012.The 2011 disaster highlighted the influence of TEPCO on Japan’s advertising industry. Thecompany reportedly spends 24.4 billion yen ($306 million) a year on advertising, a factor that223

likely contributed to the media’s conservative reporting on its handling of the nuclear crisis. InMay 2012, the Japanese government approved plans to take a controlling stake in TEPCO as partof a 1 trillion yen ($12.5 billion) taxpayer bailout. Moreover, many journalists have economiclinks to the nuclear industry. Reporters with the Nikkei and Mainichi Shimbun newspapers havereportedly gone on to work for pro-nuclear organizations and publications.JordanStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 21Political Environment: 23Economic Environment: 19Total Score: 63Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 63,NF 64,NF 63,NF 63,NF 63,NFThe constitution guarantees freedoms of speech and expression, but press laws contain vagueclauses that restrict media activity in practice. Journalists can be prosecuted under the penal codeor tried by the State Security Court (SSC) for offenses involving speech and association. A 2011law criminalized reporting on corruption, including news that defames someone or “impacts hisdignity.” The 1998 Press and Publications Law prescribes fines of almost $40,000 for speech thatdenigrates the government or religion. A 2010 amendment to the law established specializedcourts to prosecute press violations.Further changes to the Press and Publications Law were approved in September 2012,imposing restrictions on online news content and requiring news websites to obtain licenses tooperate. The amendments apply the law’s existing provisions to websites, making it unlawful foronline outlets to insult the royal family, harm “Arab-Islamic values,” or incite sectarian strife,among other prohibitions. Site owners are also responsible for patrolling reader comments toensure that they do not violate the law. The government can block foreign and domestic websitesthat fail to comply with the law without a court order. Some website owners have already refusedto obey the requirement to register and obtain a license. Media watchdog groups criticized thelegislation, which would impact about 400 websites, as a major step in the wrong direction for acountry that has maintained a freer press than many of its neighbors. Journalists and activistsheld a protest against the new amendments, carrying a coffin marked “internet freedom” throughthe streets in front of the parliament building.Criminal charges against journalists are often withdrawn before they get to trial, but thegovernment routinely uses the justice system to stifle dissent. In April 2012, journalist Jamal al-Muhtaseb was detained after publishing an article on the website Gerasa News in which healleged misconduct by the royal court. He was charged in the SSC with “opposing the rulingsystem,” according to news reports. The article had quoted an unidentified parliament memberwho said that the palace had directed the parliament not to refer a former minister for trial oncorruption charges.In September 2012, the Council of Ministers approved a draft law that would modify the2007 Right to Access Information Act. The proposed amendments, if passed by the parliament,224

would extend the right of access to foreigners, require officials to provide or refuse informationwithin 15 days, and grant the requester the right to appeal refusals. The amendments alsostipulate that the president of the press association will become a member of the Council ofInformation, currently staffed by government officials. According to the Amman-based Centerfor Defending Freedom of Journalists, implementation of the current law suffers from arbitraryclassification and distribution of information by the different ministries and state institutions.Journalists complain that while the outlets for news have increased, they are often blocked fromobtaining information on government policies and officials. The amendments had not passed byyear’s end.Print outlets must obtain licenses to operate, and journalists must belong to the JordanPress Association (JPA) to work legally. Those who are critical of the government havesometimes been excluded from JPA membership, and the organization does not admit journalistswho work for internet-based news outlets, leaving them with limited legal protections. Licensingresponsibilities for television and radio are shared between the Council of Ministers, the AudioVisual Commission (AVC), and the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC). TheCouncil of Ministers is responsible for granting, revoking, and renewing licenses, but does sobased on the recommendations of the AVC. The AVC also handles disputes betweenbroadcasters, issues directions on programming, and takes punitive action against broadcasterswho violate their licensing conditions. The TRC is responsible for allocating frequencies tobroadcasters, issuing telecommunications licenses, and managing information technologyservices.The government tolerates some level of criticism of officials and policies, and allowssome room for Islamist movements and other elements of the opposition to express their ideas.However, government attempts to influence editorial content occur regularly, with top officialsand security operatives contacting editors and warning them not to publish stories on politicallysensitive issues. Journalists routinely practice self-censorship and know which “red lines” not tocross, including that pertaining to negative reporting about the royal family.Journalists faced harassment, intimidation, and violence in 2012. In January, reporterswere assaulted while covering a protest in downtown Amman. In February, a masked assailantstabbed blogger Enass Musallam after she published criticism of recent remarks by PrinceHassan, the uncle of King Abdullah II. The assailant reportedly said his actions were “in thename of his royal majesty and the prince.” After she was released from the hospital, Musallamwas questioned by police for six hours. In April, member of parliament Yahya Saud corneredjournalist Eman Jaradat after she took his picture, then verbally abused her and forcibly deletedphotographs from her mobile telephone. In November, unidentified assailants attacked a crewfrom Sky News as they covered a protest, inflicting injuries and damaging equipment. Journalistsfrequently received verbal threats, in some cases from government officials.While some Jordanian news outlets are independent, the government has a majority stakein Al-Rai, a major daily, and a minority stake in Al-Dustour, a second large national newspaper.Bribery threatens independent reporting, and in 2012 dozens of media professionals wereaccused of accepting payments from the former director of the General Intelligence Department.The 2003 Audio Visual Law ended the government monopoly on terrestrial broadcasting, andthere has been an increase in the number of private radio stations in recent years—mainlyregional outlets that cater to a specific demographic, such as women or students. However,terrestrial television stations remain under state control; the country’s first privately ownedtelevision channel, launched as a pilot project in 2007, has since stalled. Satellite dishes are225

allowed, and pan-Arab news channels remain popular. About 41 percent of the population hadaccess to the internet in 2012. Jordanian blogs continued to flourish, and some became focalpoints for the organization of popular protests during the year.KazakhstanStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 29Political Environment: 32Economic Environment: 23Total Score: 84Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 78,NF 78,NF 78,NF 80,NF 81,NFThe Kazakh government’s media crackdown intensified in 2012, as nearly 40 opposition outletswere banned in December, and violent attacks on journalists increased. Throughout the year,journalists and media outlets remained subject to legal restrictions, prohibitive libel anddefamation judgments, self-censorship, and harassment.The constitution guarantees freedoms of speech and of the press, but the governmentseverely restricts these rights in practice. Despite authorities’ pledges during the year to worktoward decriminalization, libel remained a criminal offense, with higher penalties for defamingthe president, members of Parliament, and other state officials. Libel laws are regularly usedagainst independent and critical journalists; according to the press advocacy group Adil Soz,there were 16 criminal and 86 civil charges initiated in the first 10 months of 2012. Damages incivil libel suits can be substantial, potentially leading to self-censorship. Truth is not a defense inlibel cases, there is no statute of limitations, and the law automatically targets both the writer andthe newspaper in which the article was published. Ramazan Yesergepov, editor of theindependent newspaper Alma-Ata Info, was released from jail in January 2012 after completinghis three-year prison term for collecting and disseminating classified information—a charge thatwas widely believed to have been politically motivated. In July, a court in the western city ofUralsk ordered journalist Lukpan Akhmedyarov, who had founded the opposition newspaperUralskaya Nedelya, to pay a local official 5 million tenges ($33,000) in damages for defaminghim in an article about his connections to the family of former prime minister ImangaliTasmagambetov, the current mayor of Astana. The fine was upheld by an appeals court inOctober. In April, Akhmedyarov had been the victim of a brutal attack, during which he was shotand stabbed outside his home in Uralsk. At least two other journalists, Janbolat Mamai and IgorVinyavsky, were jailed briefly and released in 2012.Kazakhstan is one of the few member states of the Organization for Security andCooperation in Europe (OSCE) without a freedom of information law. Such a measure wasproposed in 2010, and it received the endorsement of the London-based freedom of expressiongroup Article 19. However, little progress on the bill had been made by the end of 2012. Rulesfor the accreditation of foreign journalists include vaguely worded restrictions barring hatespeech and speech that undermines national security and the constitutional order.226

In January 2012, President Nursultan Nazarbayev signed a law that requires foreignbroadcast media to register with the government, and all television and radio providers tobroadcast in digital format by 2015. In December, the upper house of Parliament adopted acontroversial new television and radio broadcast bill, despite warnings by OSCE media freedomrepresentative Dunja Mijatović that the bill would further extend government control overelectronic media and threaten broadcast pluralism.A 2009 law classified websites as mass media outlets, giving the authorities greaterlatitude to arbitrarily shut them down under vaguely worded extremism statutes or in the interestsof state security. A law that took effect in January 2012 required owners of internet cafés toobtain users’ names and monitor and record their activity, and to share their information with thesecurity services if requested. The blog-hosting platform LiveJournal was blocked by authoritiesin 2011 for allegedly containing “terrorism and religious extremism propaganda”; it wasunblocked for a short period in late 2011, but was inaccessible through most of 2012. Internetusers also experienced accessibility problems with other sites, such as Google or Facebook,throughout the year.In September 2012, Information Minister Darkhan Mynbai announced measures torevamp the ministry’s public alert system by 2015—efforts that officials described as an attemptto reduce “rumors.” The proposed measures would restrict the flow of information in“emergencies,” broadly defined as all exceptional events threatening public safety, fromtransport accidents to natural disasters. Journalists would be allowed to disseminate only officialinformation, and questioning or criticizing the government’s version of events would beprohibited. The measures were criticized for potentially limiting the flow of information aboutsensitive topics, such as the deadly December 2011 crackdown on striking oil workers andprotesters in Aktau and Zhanaozen. Following the episode, the government declared a state ofemergency and sealed the affected area for weeks. Authorities tightened their control over themedia, and journalists were obliged to obtain special permission to enter the region; independentreporters were generally denied permission, searched, and harassed.In March 2012, the first Zhanaozen trial was opened as 37 defendants accused of“participating in mass riots” appeared before the court; 34 of the 37 were convicted in June.Allegations of torture and forced confessions marred the proceedings, which were widelycondemned by human rights groups as unfair. During the trial, the prosecutor general referred toforeign correspondents as “evil” and alleged that they had helped incite the violence.In November, the Almaty city prosecutor sued key independent media outlets andopposition groups that had reported on the Zhanaozen protests, charging them with extremism.One month later, an Almaty court banned a number of major opposition media outlets in a legalproceeding described as a sham by media monitoring organizations. The banned outlets includedRespublika (8 different versions as well as 23 websites and social-networking sites that publishedthe newspaper’s content), Vsglyad, the Stan TV news website, and the satellite television stationK+. The prosecution said the media outlets had incited extremism during the trial of leadingopposition figure Vladimir Kozlov. However, the banned outlets were not invited to cover thetrial. The government also sued Google, Facebook, Twitter, and LiveJournal, demanding that thesites stop posting material from the opposition media. In December, the government suspendedthe opposition news website Guljan.org for three months.In addition to the cases related to Zhanaozen, journalists and media outlets that criticizedthe government continued to face harassment, physical attacks, and various other obstacles toreporting in 2012. At least 15 journalists who were known for covering sensitive issues were227

violently assaulted during the year. In August, opposition journalist Ularbek Baitailak wasattacked outside his home near Astana. After beating him, his assailants left him for dead andcovered his body with stones in a symbolic burial. A few days earlier, Maksim Kartashov, theeditor in chief of the sports magazine Hokkey Kazakhstana, was attacked at the entrance of hisapartment. He said the incident could have been connected to his reporting on corruption inKazakhstan’s ice hockey federation.Major broadcast media, especially national television networks, are partly or whollyowned by the state or by members or associates of the president’s family. According to thegovernment, there are 250 television and radio stations in the country. The president’s daughterDariga and her husband own the influential Khabar Agency, which runs several televisionchannels. Government oversight extends to the country’s broadcast transmission facilities.Kazakh law limits rebroadcasts of foreign-produced programming to 20 percent of a station’stotal airtime, overburdening smaller stations that are unable to develop their own programs.There are well over a thousand daily and weekly newspapers in Kazakhstan. As with thebroadcast media, many of them are either run by the government or controlled by groups orindividuals associated with the president, and do not carry critical content. The governmentcontrols all of the country’s printing presses, and with advertising revenue in short supply,private print media are often forced to rely on state subsidies.The internet was accessed by 53 percent of the population in 2012. The government has adoptedthe internet and social media for its own use, while moving to restrict internet freedom forindependent outlets. The government holds a majority stake in the largest service provider,Kazakhtelecom, which controls 70 percent of the internet market.KenyaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 16Political Environment: 20Economic Environment: 17Total Score: 53Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 60,PF 60,PF 57,PF 54,PF 52,PFIn 2012, the Kenyan media continued to live up to their traditional reputation for vibrant andcritical reporting, despite cases of threats and intimidation outside the capital, Nairobi. Articles33 and 34 of the 2010 constitution have been widely praised for expanding freedoms ofexpression and of the press, specifically by prohibiting the state from interfering with theeditorial independence of individual journalists as well as both state-owned and private mediaoutlets. The constitution binds Kenya to a series of international and regional legal instrumentsregarding free expression, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the AfricanCharter on Human and People’s Rights. While the constitution does contain potential curbs onpress freedom with regard to privacy, incitement, hate speech, and antigovernment propagandain times of war, they are not as severe as those in the previous constitution.Despite the adoption of the 2010 constitution, several anachronistic laws that curtail press228

freedom remain on the books. The 1967 Preservation of Public Security Act gives the presidentsweeping powers to censor, control, or prohibit information that is deemed a security risk. Thepenal code criminalizes defamation, although the majority of libel and defamation cases are triedunder civil law. Overall, the use of court injunctions and legal suits to silence the press decreasedin 2012. In one case filed during the year, Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta sued the Starnewspaper for defamation in February over an article that compared his potential victory in theupcoming presidential election to the rise of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler in Germany. The caseremained pending at the end of 2012.The Information Ministry’s 2007 draft freedom of information bill has yet to be presentedto the parliament, but access to information improved with the passage of the 2010 constitution.New rights guaranteed to the media effectively weakened laws such as the Official Secrets Act,which prevented the release of information on national security grounds.The 2007 Kenya Media Act established a statutory media regulatory body, the MediaCouncil of Kenya. The council is set up to ensure that neither the government nor media ownersenjoy full control over the body, although some journalists and media personalities haveexpressed doubts about the impartiality of any state-funded regulator.The Communications Commission of Kenya (CCK) is responsible for broadcast medialicensing and regulation. It also oversees and regulates the telecommunications sector, includingthe licensing of internet service providers (ISPs). In compliance with the new constitution, a billwas introduced in 2010 to establish an independent regulatory and oversight body for thebroadcasting sector, which would replace the existing commission. The legislation had notpassed by year’s end.Kenya’s leading media outlets, especially in the print sector, are often critical ofpoliticians and government actions. They remain pluralistic, rigorous, and bold in their reporting,although they also frequently pander to the interests of major advertisers and influentialpoliticians. As the March 2013 general elections—the first since disputed polls in 2007 led todeadly ethnic and political violence—drew closer, indications that media owners were aligningthemselves with certain political personalities became apparent. The concentration of mediaownership in a small number of hands, often with strong political affiliations, contributed to thispartisan reporting trend. Many local journalists admitted that their election coverage requiredself-censorship to accommodate the interests of their respective media houses. The governmentlaunched an initiative in 2012 to counter hate speech and incitement of ethnic violence as part ofthe preelection preparations.At least 28 journalists were threatened or attacked during the year, largely by localofficials and police in connection with coverage of corruption. Nearly half of all cases werereported in the western region of the country. In February, Standard reporter Sammy Jakaareceived death threats via mobile-telephone text message after exposing graft by Kenyan securityagents in the Ugandan-Kenyan border town of Malaba. In March, two journalists, Lucas Ngasikefrom the Standard and Rashid Ekeno from its sister broadcaster KTN, received death threats forexposing a food-aid scandal perpetrated by local officials in the western, drought-ridden Turkanadistrict. In September, guards at the Machakos courthouse assaulted cameraman Jonathan Mutisoof the state-controlled Kenya Broadcasting Corporation (KBC) for filming their attack on anescaped suspect. Mutiso was forced to erase his footage.Ethnic Somali journalists faced continued threats and intimidation in 2012 emanatingfrom Islamist militias based in neighboring Somalia as well as Kenyan security agents. Bothsides accused the journalists of supporting their opponents. Text and e-mail threats became229

particularly acute for some of these journalists after the Kenyan army invaded the town ofKismayo in southern Somalia in late September 2011 as part of a campaign to secure Kenya’sborders from attacks by the Somalian Islamist militia Al-Shabaab.There are four daily newspapers, one business daily, and several regional weeklynewspapers. In addition, a number of independent tabloids that are highly critical of thegovernment publish irregularly. The KBC remains dominant outside major urban centers, and itscoverage tends to favor the government. There are six private television broadcasters along witha myriad of private and community radio stations. There has been a significant expansion of FMradio in recent years, particularly ethnic stations, and their call-in shows have fostered increasingpublic participation as well as commentary that is critical of the government. Two privatecompanies, the Standard Media Group and the Nation Media Group, run independent televisionnetworks and respected newspapers. International news media, including the BritishBroadcasting Corporation and Radio France Internationale, are widely available in Kenya, alongwith new international media investors such as the Chinese government’s China CentralTelevision (CCTV).About 32 percent of Kenyans accessed the internet in 2012. Kenya is the leader in usagein East Africa, with more than twice as many users as any other country. Due to lack ofinfrastructure and electricity, internet availability is still limited in rural areas, though expandingmobile-phone usage has increased access.KiribatiStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 6Political Environment: 9Economic Environment: 12Total Score: 27Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 26,F 27,F 27,F 27,F 27,FKosovoStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 14Political Environment: 18Economic Environment: 17Total Score: 49Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status NA NA 53,PF 51,PF 49,PFWhile Kosovo’s constitution and legal framework provide for freedom of expression andfreedom of the press, the media environment continues to be affected by political interference,230

corruption, and financial pressure. A weak judiciary that is not considered to be fullyindependent and an underdeveloped civil society present further obstacles to media freedom.Defamation remained an offense in the provisional criminal code in 2012, though the penaltiesdid not include imprisonment and journalists have been infrequently targeted for prosecution. Adraft criminal code, initially passed in April 2012, would have held journalists liable fordefamation and other offenses “committed through the publication of information” in anymedium and for refusing to reveal their sources. In May, President Atifete Jahjaga rejected thebill, sending it back to the Assembly for revisions, but lawmakers adopted it without changes onJune 22. Immediately after the vote, Justice Minister Hajredin Kuçi announced his resignation inprotest. The resignation, however, was not accepted by the prime minister, and the contestedarticles were ultimately deleted from the criminal code in October. The new code, whichapparently did not include defamation as a criminal offense after the deletions, was set to takeeffect in 2013. There is a law on access to information, but journalists report that they are oftendenied access to public sources in practice.The media are governed by two independent regulators: the Independent MediaCommission (IMC), which handles broadcast licenses and promotes ethical, technical, andprofessional standards, and the Press Council of Kosovo, which is focused on print media andadvocates freedom of speech. While the IMC is considered to be largely independent, it does notenjoy full financial autonomy. The public broadcaster, Radio Television of Kosovo (RTK), alsolacks adequate financing and continues to draw funds directly from the state. The Law on theIndependent Media Commission and Broadcasting and the Law on Radio Television of Kosovo,adopted in March 2012, changed the way the two institutions appoint their board members andallowed RTK to receive 0.7 percent of the state budget—close to €9 million ($11.6 million) ayear—and establish a second channel in the Serbian language. While the changes werewelcomed by the international community, especially the European Union, the establishment ofthe second channel was criticized by several Serbian journalists. They claimed that the lawplaced decisions regarding the channel’s leadership and finances in the hands of the ethnicAlbanian majority.Political interference, direct and indirect, is a concern for both the public and privatemedia. In 2012, the Association of Professional Journalists of Kosovo (APJK) reported 24instances of government officials, business interests, or media owners abusing press freedom,including through verbal threats against journalists and their employers, pressure on outlets notto publish stories, and obstruction of reporters’ work. Journalists who criticize public officialsare often denounced, and at times accused of being traitors or Serbian sympathizers. Editorsfrequently bar their reporters from publishing or broadcasting stories that are critical of thegovernment or particular officials due to the outlets’ connections to, or preferences for, certainleaders. In some cases, editors have allegedly threatened to fire reporters if they continued toproduce such stories. Newspapers that are not aligned with the government or ruling parties aresubject to intimidation through tax investigations or blocked from accessing public information.Although there were no fatal crimes against journalists in 2012, a number of mediapersonnel were threatened and beaten. It remains difficult for both Kosovo-based and Serbiabasedmedia outlets to report in contested border areas, particularly in periods of heightenedtension and violence. In January, a Kosovo freelance photojournalist was allegedly struck by thepolice while covering clashes between the police and demonstrators near the Merdare bordercrossing into Serbia. The municipal authorities filed charges against a police officer in June, butthe case had not been prosecuted by year’s end. In March, several journalists from the Pristina-231

ased daily Express began receiving threats via telephone after the paper published an article onfuel quality and distribution. Also that month, the television crew of Justice in Kosovo, aprogram dealing with corruption and other legal topics, were allegedly threatened by the mayorof Prizren while trying to get an official statement from him regarding irregular financing ofpolitical parties and the apparent misuse of public tenders. In September, the APJK released astatement condemning threats against Adem Meta, a journalist working for the Kosovo dailyKoha Ditore. Meta and his family had allegedly been threatened several times by Skënderaj(Srbica) mayor Sami Lushtaku. In December, an employee of Kosovo 2.0 magazine was beatenwhen a group of 30 protesters entered and damaged property in the building where the magazinewas planning to hold a launch party for its latest issue, which focused on the LGBT (lesbian, gay,bisexual, and transgender) community. One person was arrested in connection with the incident,but police released him later that evening.Kosovo has a large number of media outlets, both in Pristina and in other parts of thecountry. There are around 10 daily newspapers, approximately 90 radio stations, and 22television stations. Newspaper readership is low, with about 35,000 copies sold daily. There arethree television broadcasters with national reach. Television remains overwhelmingly the topsource of information. About 21 percent of the population accessed the internet during 2012,according to Internet World Stats. Ownership structures, particularly for print media, remainunclear. Kosovo lacks a strong and private advertising industry that could support the growth ofprivate media. As a result, private broadcasters have been dependent on international donors.While some outlets have started to rely more on their own revenues from advertising, mostremain financially unstable, and very few are able to operate without support from thegovernment or businesses associated with public officials. Indirect economic pressure is hard toavoid given that the government is the country’s largest employer and public entities provide thelargest amount of advertising revenue. Cases of advertising being withdrawn from certain mediaoutlets have been noted in the recent past. Journalists have few professional rights, earn lowwages, and often work without contracts, leaving them vulnerable to corruption and prone toself-censorship.KuwaitStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 20Political Environment: 23Economic Environment: 16Total Score: 59Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 54,PF 55,PF 55,PF 57,PF 57,PFThroughout 2012, political crises and demonstrations led to government shutdowns of oppositionmedia outlets and Twitter microblog accounts, constraining Kuwait’s relatively open mediaenvironment. Freedoms of speech and the press are protected under Articles 36 and 37 of theconstitution, but only “in accordance with the conditions and in the circumstances defined bylaw.” Although the Press and Publications Law, revised in 2006, extends some important232

protections to the media, it prohibits the publication of material that insults God, the prophets, orIslam. It also forbids criticism of the emir, the disclosure of secret or private information, andstatements calling for the overthrow of the regime. Penalties for criticizing Islam were increasedunder the 2006 amendments, and the offense now draws up to one year in prison and fines of upto 20,000 dinars ($71,000). Violations are reported frequently, as any citizen may initiatecriminal charges against an individual who they believe has committed an offense under thepress law.The government actively enforced the press law during 2012, including for internetrelatedoffenses, and often in conjunction with other criminal charges. In February and March,during campaigning for parliamentary elections, the Shiite-oriented newspaper Al-Dar wasrepeatedly suspended for allegedly inciting sectarianism. The paper’s editor, Abdul Hussein al-Sultan, was fined and given a suspended six-month prison sentence. In April, Scope TV wasfined 500,000 dinars ($1.8 million) for airing content that was offensive to the ruling family.Defamation charges also continue to be used against journalists. Among other cases during theyear, writer Mohamed al-Melify was sentenced to seven years in prison for spreading false newsabout sectarian strife in Kuwait and for libeling member of parliament Ahmed Lari via Twitter,though an appellate court reduced the prison term to six months in May.Amendments to the press law proposed in 2011 would prescribe harsher penalties andimplement a tighter monitoring system for violations. The draft changes included a ban onattributing any act or statement to the emir or the crown prince without prior written permission.Under another provision, those engaged in broadcasting activities without permission would besubject to two-year prison sentences and possible fines of 100,000 to 300,000 dinars ($360,000to $1.1 million). In addition, the equipment used for broadcasting would be confiscated, and thebroadcasting facility would be shut down. Jail time and fines would also be imposed forincitement, undermining national unity, and causing internal strife. The draft amendments hadyet to be enacted at the end of 2012. Kuwait does not have any provisions guaranteeing the rightto access official information.All publishers are required to obtain an operating license from the Ministry ofInformation (MOI) to launch a daily newspaper. However, the MOI must issue the license orprovide an explanation for its refusal within 90 days of application, and refusals can be appealedin court. Media licenses may not be revoked without a court order. Despite the fact that the 2006press law requires capital of at least 250,000 dinars ($893,000) to establish a paper, thegovernment licensed six new daily Arabic-language newspapers in 2007. In September 2012, thenew opposition-affiliated television station El-Nahg was shut down 24 hours after its launch. InDecember, another opposition-affiliated television station, Al-Youm, was shut down and had itsbroadcasting permits revoked for “failing to meet administrative conditions.” Some activistsasserted that the shutdown was a result of the station’s coverage of corruption.The authorities monitor internet communications for defamation and security threats, andthe Ministry of Communications (MOC) blocks websites that are suspected of “inciting terrorismand instability.” In March 2012, the website for the nonpartisan weekly Al-Watan was blocked.An ongoing crackdown on Twitter users escalated further in 2012, with some reports indicatingthat over 600 users had been detained and over 150 charged with insulting the emir on theirTwitter accounts.The MOI can censor all books, films, and periodicals it deems morally offensive.However, in practice, it does not regularly interfere with or restrict access to news, and theKuwaiti media sector is considered more critical and outspoken than many in the rest of the233

egion. More in-depth reporting and a greater diversity of opinions appear in newspapers than inbroadcast media. Nevertheless, given the restrictions in the press law and an atmosphere ofincreased governmental intolerance toward critical reporting, journalists continue to practiceself-censorship, as failure to do so often results in reprisals. In addition to legal and regulatorypenalties, journalists and media outlets occasionally face physical harassment.International news is widely available, and a number of foreign media outlets maintainbureaus in Kuwait. News sources originating outside Kuwait must be reviewed by the MOIbefore circulation. The MOI screens all imported media for morally offensive content, andcontrols the publication and distribution of all materials classified as informational. Thegovernment closed the Kuwait City bureau of Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based satellite televisionchannel, in 2010. The closure was in reprisal for the station’s coverage of police brutality at anunauthorized demonstration against proposed amendments to the constitution, and for its airingof an interview with an opposition lawmaker. However, the bureau reopened in January 2012.Fourteen Arabic and three English-language newspapers circulate in Kuwait, all of whichare privately owned, largely independent, and diverse in their reporting. Private media haverelatively transparent ownership and their own presses, and they are free to set their own prices.The state owns nine local radio stations and five television stations. However, there are now 16privately owned television stations, and satellite dishes are common. Although the advertisingmarket remains limited, it continues to grow, thanks in part to an increase in advertisingagencies. Wage levels for journalists at both state and private media are not high enough todiscourage occasional bribery to influence coverage. Relatively low salaries have also dissuadedKuwaiti nationals from pursuing journalism as a profession, meaning many local media workersare noncitizens.About 79 percent of the population used the internet in 2012, and the governmentcontinued to debate how best to regulate this growing medium. The state requires all internetservice providers to install and operate systems to block websites carrying material that isdeemed anti-Islamic, extremist, or pornographic, as well as certain types of political websites.However, the blocking policies are not always clear or consistent. Internet café owners arerequired to record the identities of customers and turn over the information if requested by theMOC.KyrgyzstanStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 20Political Environment: 29Economic Environment: 20Total Score: 69Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 70,NF 72,NF 73,NF 70,NF 69,NFIn 2012, the Kyrgyz media environment featured both positive developments and setbacks as thecountry continued to recover from the violent overthrow of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev andethnic clashes in the southern region of Osh in 2010. Freedoms of speech and of the press are234

guaranteed in the Kyrgyz constitution and in the nation’s laws, but observance of those rights isinconsistent. Although libel was decriminalized in 2011, insult of public officials remains acriminal offense. In March 2012, legislator Irina Karamushkina used the insult law to file a caseagainst journalist Makhinur Niyazova of the 24.kg news agency. The case was pending as of theend of the year.In February 2012, ethnic Russian blogger and independent journalist Vladimir Farafonovwas charged with inciting ethnic hatred through the media—an offense that carries up to threeyears in jail. In his articles, Farafonov had criticized the state of Kyrgyz politics and the spreadof ethnic nationalism in the Kyrgyz-language media. He was convicted in July of “humiliation”of the Kyrgyz nation and spreading propaganda for ethnic discord, though the penalty waslimited to a fine of 50,000 som ($1,050). There have been allegations that prosecutions oncharges such as inciting hatred have focused almost exclusively on ethnic minority writers,despite the widespread appearance of inflammatory articles in Kyrgyz-language media.Access to public information is guaranteed by law. In 2012, Access Info Europe and theCentre for Law and Democracy rated Kyrgyzstan’s access to information law as relativelystrong. According to the organizations, the law’s weaknesses include overly broad exceptions tothe access regime and the lack of a public-interest override.In September 2012, a draft bill was introduced in the parliament that proposed restrictingaccess to certain “offensive content” online, ostensibly to protect children. According to thelegislation, images promoting violence as well as other “unhealthy lifestyles” and “nonstandardmoral values” could be targeted. Critics warned that the overly broad wording of the bill couldlead to widespread censorship and closing of websites. However, lawmakers were said to beworking with members of civil society to revise the measure.All media outlets must register with the Ministry of Justice to operate. The approvalprocess entails background checks on outlets’ owners and funding sources, including whetherthey receive funding from international donor organizations. In September 2012, Kyrgyzstanbegan a program to transition to digital broadcasting, and it stopped issuing licenses for analogtelevision stations.A law passed by the parliament under Bakiyev and implemented by the interimgovernment in 2010 converted the state television channel into a public-service broadcaster.Independent journalists and civil society representatives were appointed to a supervisory boardfor the station. However, in June 2011 the parliament empowered itself to dissolve theindependent board and name new board members. Nevertheless, the broadcaster was reported tohave aired some politically sensitive content during 2012. Separately, in September 2011 theparliament voted to override a presidential veto on legislation that converted Channel Five into aparliamentary television channel. The channel had previously been controlled by MaksimBakiyev, son of the former president.Access to a diversity of news sources, and particularly to minority-language media,continues to be a challenge in Kyrgyzstan, although there were openings in 2012. According to aJune report by the Bishkek-based Association of Journalists, before the 2010 violence there werethree Uzbek television stations and two Uzbek newspapers in the south, all owned by ethnicUzbeks. One station never reopened, while ethnic Kyrgyz took over the other four outlets. In2012, two government-owned Uzbek-language newspapers, Alam and Osh Shami, beganpublishing. In June, an ethnic Uzbek journalist started the Uzbek-language weekly Digest, whichprimarily published news articles translated from Kyrgyz, Russian, and English sources. InAugust, Yntymak Public Radio, started by the American nongovernmental organization235

Internews with U.S. government funding, began full-time broadcasts in Kyrgyz, Russian, andUzbek—the three main languages in the south. Finding qualified Uzbek-speaking journalistsremains a challenge for the station, however, as many Uzbeks fled the region after the 2010violence. Employees of Yntymak and the newspapers reportedly received threats during the year.Some cases of government censorship and interference in the media were reported in2012. Most significantly, state-controlled Kyrgyztelecom, the main internet service provider(ISP) in the country, blocked access to the popular Russian-language news website Ferghana inFebruary, acting on an earlier resolution from the parliament aimed at censoring allegedly criticalaccounts of the 2010 violence. Despite appeals by the site, Ferghana remained blocked by theISP at year’s end, though it was still accessible through other providers.In April 2012, the State Committee of National Security (GKNB) announced that itplanned to launch a new system in spring 2013 to monitor websites in the Kyrgyz language orwith the .kg country code for “hate speech.” Observers expressed concern that the measurewould lead to increased internet censorship and questioned the GKNB’s neutrality and suitabilityto the task, given its reputation for muzzling government critics.No journalists were killed in 2012. However, as in previous years, some cases ofintimidation, harassment, and assault were reported. Supporters of the opposition Ata-Jurt partyattacked journalists on several occasions during protests in September and October. In a numberof cases, police failed to intervene. Also in October, reporter Meerim Mambetova and acameraman from the NBT television channel were assaulted by GKNB personnel while filmingother officers storming a government building; their camera was destroyed. A brutal 2011 assaulton Shokhrukh Saipov—a well-known ethnic Uzbek journalist, editor of the UzPress newswebsite, and brother of slain journalist Alisher Saipov—remains unsolved. Journalists reportedreceiving threats for covering sensitive topics such as ethnic tensions and the June 2010 violencein the south. Many also admitted practicing self-censorship on these issues.In a positive step, Kyrgyzstan’s highest court overturned what was widely regarded as awrongful murder conviction in the case of Alisher Saipov, who was shot to death outside hisoffice in 2007. In 2009, authorities announced that they had caught Saipov’s killer, but a localcourt dismissed the evidence as insubstantial, and the alleged culprit insisted that he did notknow Saipov and had no reason to kill him. The victim’s father conducted his own investigationand told the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) that the imprisoned man was innocent. Manyactivists and analysts believe that Saipov, an ethnic Uzbek who was critical of Uzbekistan’sauthoritarian government, was killed by that country’s security services.Azimjon Askarov, an ethnic Uzbek independent journalist and human rights defender,remained in prison serving a life sentence on charges of inciting ethnic hatred and complicity inthe murder of an ethnic Kyrgyz police officer during the June 2010 violence. Askarov’sinvestigative reports had overturned convictions and cost several officials their jobs, and he waswidely believed to have been prosecuted in retribution for his reporting. Among thosechallenging his imprisonment was Kyrgyzstan’s human rights ombudsman. In June 2012, theKyrgyz ambassador to the United States agreed to present evidence of Askarov’s innocencecompiled by CPJ to the Kyrgyz government, with no apparent result by year’s end.Nearly 50 newspapers and magazines publish regularly with varying degrees ofindependence. Approximately 50 state-owned and private television stations and 50 radiostations operate in the country, with two television stations run by state-owned KTRKbroadcasting nationwide. An independent printing press run by the local nongovernmentalorganization Media Support Center surpassed the state-run printing house, Uchkun, as the236

country’s leading newspaper publisher several years ago. State-owned media outlets benefit fromgovernment subsidies. However, the ability of authorities to use advertising to influence mediacontent has receded as more private sources of advertising revenue become available.Approximately 22 percent of the population accessed the internet in 2012. Internet newssites such as Barakelde.org, Akipress.org, 24.kg, and Kloop.kg; blogging platforms such asLiveJournal and Twitter; and forums such as Diesel.kg provide lively alternative news sourcesfor those with access. However, internet access outside towns and cities remains limited. Aroundhalf of users reached the internet through the state-controlled Kyrgyztelecom, creating thepotential for government influence over the medium. A growing number of Kyrgyz citizensaccess the internet through their mobile telephones, and the new outlet Kush Kabar provides freenews via short-message service (SMS) on mobile phones.LaosStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 26Political Environment: 33Economic Environment: 25Total Score: 84Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 83,NF 86,NF 84,NF 85,NF 84,NFPress freedom in Laos remains highly restricted. Despite advances in telecommunicationsinfrastructure, government control of nearly all print and broadcast news prevents thedevelopment of a vibrant, independent press. Article 44 of the 1991 constitution guaranteesfreedom of the press. In collaboration with international donors, the country passed a new presslaw in 2008, but it has had little practical effect on conditions for journalists. Under the criminalcode, individuals may be jailed for up to one year for reporting news that “weakens the state” orimporting a publication that is “contrary to national culture.” Defamation and misinformation arecriminal offenses, carrying lengthy prison terms and even the possibility of execution. However,due to high levels of official censorship and self-censorship, legal cases against media personnelare extremely rare.The country’s media remain under the tight control of the ruling Lao People’sRevolutionary Party (LPRP). Media personnel are appointed mostly from within the LPRP, andpublications must be approved by the Ministry of Information, Culture, and Tourism (MICT).Officials review content in private publications, and have the power to censure outlets. As aresult, journalists write primarily about uncontroversial topics, though stories on social issuespreviously not broached have begun to appear in newspapers. On January 27, the MICT orderedOunkeo Souksavanh, host of the country’s first call-in radio show, “Wao Kao,” to cancel hisprogram. Ounkeo had discussed sensitive topics with callers to the show, including governmentland seizures. The program remained off the air at year’s end. Physical attacks and extralegalintimidation aimed at journalists are rare, as reporters avoid covering politically sensitive topics.Foreign journalists are usually permitted to enter and travel to cover specific stories, though theyface significant barriers in establishing a permanent presence in the country. However, in237

October the government denied several international journalists entrance to the country, ahead ofthe ninth Asia-Europe People’s Forum, and others reported intimidation and harassment for theircoverage of the event.The number of media outlets continues to grow. There are around 24 regularly printednewspapers, all government-affiliated. Privately owned magazines, primarily from Chinesebackedcompanies, covering general interest, health, and other nonpolitical issues, have emergedin recent years. Newspaper and other print media circulation figures remain extremely weak dueto low literacy rates and an insufficient distribution infrastructure outside the capital, Vientiane.The government is eager to boost Laos’s information and communication technologycapabilities, and advancements in this sector have resulted in an increase in television and radiostations. Nearly all 32 television stations and 44 radio stations are government run, thoughcompanies are increasingly permitted to buy airtime and run privately produced content. Chinaand Vietnam have provided much of the investment in the broadcast infrastructure. A fewcommunity radio programs, covering mostly local interest stories, have sprung up with the helpof international development organizations. Foreign television and radio services, such as Voiceof America and Radio Free Asia, broadcast in Laos without disruptions. A number of citizenswatch Thai television and radio, and wealthier individuals have access to satellite television.Nearly 11 percent of the population accessed the internet in 2012, and Lao-languagecontent, though minimal, is growing. Young Laotians are increasingly taking to social media todiscuss social issues. The state controls all internet service providers. The government’stechnical ability to monitor the internet is limited, though sporadic reports of blocking webactivity have surfaced. However, the government’s efforts to consolidate internet infrastructureto a single gateway, as well as other initiatives, signal interest in adopting the censorship policiesand technologies of its neighbors, Vietnam and China.LatviaStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 6Political Environment: 12Economic Environment: 10Total Score: 28Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 22,F 23,F 26,F 26,F 27,FLatvia’s constitution protects freedoms of speech and the press, and the government generallyupholds these rights in practice. Libel remains a criminal offense. While in previous yearsjournalists rarely faced criminal prosecution, European Parliament member Aleksandrs Mirskisaccused journalist Gunta Sloga of libel for publishing a 2009 report that questioned the merit ofhis military experience. After a lengthy legal process, Sloga was acquitted in July 2011, butMirskis appealed the judgment, and at the end of 2012 the case was pending before the SupremeCourt. Incitement to racial and ethnic hatred, as well as anti-Semitic speech, is prohibited. InApril 2012, the National Electronic Media Council (NEPLP) initiated an administrativeprocedure against Radio NABA over anti-Semitic comments that aired on one of its weekly238

shows. The program was temporarily suspended, and proceedings were ongoing at year’s end.Tolerance for varying opinions on controversial issues related to the Second World War is still achallenge.Although access to the internet is generally not restricted, in February 2011 the Ministryof Defense introduced amendments to a draft law on states of emergency that would allow thegovernment to block the internet and other data-transfer systems, including television and radiobroadcasts and postal correspondence, during declared states of emergency. The draft wasendorsed by the cabinet in July of that year, but Parliament had yet to pass it at the end of 2012.The Law on Freedom of Information provides detailed rules on access to publicinformation. A 2010 law on electronic mass media requires at least 65 percent of broadcastprogramming to be in Latvian, which is the country’s only official language despite the presenceof a large Russian-speaking minority. Beginning in 2012, members of the NEPLP are to beappointed by Parliament in consultation with various nongovernmental organizations. Mostcurrent NEPLP members, however, have links to the government. There is no self-regulatoryorganization, such as a press council, for journalists in Latvia.Political parties have been known to exert influence over the media. In June 2012, anNEPLP member threatened to restrict guests on state-run Latvijas Radio after several formerpolitical advisers appearing on one of its talk programs criticized the ruling party.Journalists and media outlets have occasionally been harassed or attacked. In March2012, two assailants severely beat Leonīds Jākobsons, owner of the online news outletKompromat, which covers organized crime and government corruption. The attackers have notbeen identified. In December 2011, Jākobsons had been detained without charge for two daysafter he published e-mail correspondence between Riga mayor Nils Ušakovs of the HarmonyCenter party and Aleksandr Hapilov of the Russian embassy, suggesting that the former wasengaging in corrupt activities and espionage. The 2010 murder of investigative journalistGrigorijs Ņemcovs, widely believed to have been a contract killing, remained unsolved at year’send.Latvian media are relatively diverse and competitive, offering a wide range of politicalviewpoints. The main national television stations include two public channels—LTV 1 and LTV7—and the commercial channels TV3 and LNT. A third major commercial channel, PBK,broadcasts programs in Russian. A number of privately owned radio and television outletsoperate on a regional basis. Programming for the country’s large Russian-speaking population isavailable on traditional and cable television networks. The print media, which include a largenumber of both Latvian- and Russian-language newspapers, are independent and privatelyowned. Many people in eastern Latvia cannot access Latvian television channels and primarilywatch broadcasts from Russia and Belarus. Those stations generally do not carry much newsabout events in Latvia. In April 2012, the NEPLP approved a government proposal to create anew public broadcaster; the existing entity continues to struggle with inadequate funding, whichaffects the quality of its programming and personnel. The plan is subject to approval by thecabinet. Parliament in October approved the temporary suspension of some of the country’smust-carry rules—which require cable operators to retransmit the content of free-to-air broadcaststations—because they had resulted in an unfair market situation for commercial broadcasters. In2012, approximately 74 percent of the population had access to the internet.Media ownership is becoming increasingly concentrated, raising concerns about thesector’s ability to act as an effective watchdog. Foreign companies, including Scandinavianfirms, own or control a considerable portion of Latvia’s print and broadcast media. Following a239

series of ownership changes, in 2012 Latvia’s three major Russian-language newspapers weremerged into a single publication. In June, TV3, which is controlled by Sweden’s Modern TimesGroup (MTG), took over LNT, which had seen a decline in market share in recent years. MTGnow holds more than 60 percent of the Latvian television advertising market. In response torecent scandals that have exposed Latvia’s inadequate legislation on media ownershiptransparency, in September 2011 Parliament had adopted an amendment to the Law on the Pressand Other Mass Media that requires full disclosure of the beneficiaries of media enterprises,including websites. Outlets must now list their beneficiaries in the Register of Enterprises.The media environment suffered from the effects of the economic downturn that startedin 2008, but it is beginning to recover, along with Latvia’s overall economy. Although televisionadvertising takes up almost half of the advertising market, the recovery in 2012 was drivenmostly by the internet.LebanonStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 18Political Environment: 21Economic Environment: 14Total Score: 53Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 55,PF 56,PF 55,PF 53,PF 51,PFLebanon’s media environment remained freer than those of most other Middle Eastern countriesin 2012, but there were several incidents in which officials attempted to curb freedoms of speechand expression. Attacks against journalists also increased as the conflict in Syria spilled over intoLebanon, heightening political and sectarian tensions.The constitution provides for freedom of the press, but vague laws prohibiting thepublication of news deemed to contravene “national ethics” or trample “religious feelings”remain on the books. Journalists are also prohibited from insulting the head of state or foreignleaders, and those charged with press offenses may be prosecuted in a special publications court.Lebanese journalists complain that the media laws are chaotic, contradictory, and broadlyworded. Provisions concerning the media can be found in the penal code, the Publications Law,the 1994 Audiovisual Media Law, and the military justice code, giving the governmentconsiderable leeway to prosecute journalists at will, though it rarely does so. The AudiovisualMedia Law prohibits broadcasting of political or religious gatherings that have not beenpreviously authorized. It also bans “commentary seeking to affect directly or indirectly the wellbeingof the nation’s economy and finances, material that is propagandistic or promotional, orpromotes a relationship with Israel.” A Lebanese media watchdog group has crafted legalamendments that would abolish prison sentences for crimes related to publishing, loosenrestrictions on electronic media, provide for greater transparency of media ownership andfinancing, and halt requirements for prior licensing of political publications. The proposals werepending at the end of 2012. Early in the year, the Ministry of Information (MOI) proposed the240

Lebanon Internet Regulation Act (LIRA), which would have allowed the government to restrictonline expression. The bill was scrapped after major public outcry.A draft law on access to information that was proposed in 2009 would allow citizens torequest documents and data held by public bodies. It was debated in the parliament in October2012, but was still awaiting approval at year’s end.The licensing of print media outlets is subject to quotas for different types of publicationsand restrictions on the number of days an outlet can publish. Broadcast licenses are allocated toensure that each of the country’s sectarian groups is represented in the media landscape. TheAudiovisual Media Law granted six new licenses to political and sectarian groups, and severaladditional television outlets with partisan and sectarian affiliations have been granted licensessince then. The MOI and the National Council for Audiovisual Media have the right not to renewlicenses for radio and television, and also require foreign publications to register for a licenseprior to distribution in the country. In 2012, the Audiovisual Workers’ Union was established,and the Journalists’ Union membership expanded, strengthening the professional supportnetwork for the media sector.The media environment in Lebanon is both vibrant and diverse, and outlets are able toexpress many different viewpoints and cover important events. However, most media outlets areaffiliated with political groups, which can impede those outlets’ ability to report from areascontrolled by rival factions.The Directorate of General Security (SG) is authorized to censor all foreign magazines,books, and films before they are distributed, as well as pornography and political or religiousmaterial that is deemed a threat to the national security of either Lebanon or Syria. Thegovernment sporadically investigated and detained journalists and attempted to censor news andinformation during 2012. In August, the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation International(LBCI) and the television station Al-Jadeed were accused by the MOI of provoking instabilitywith their coverage of kidnappings taking place in Lebanon and Syria as a result of the Syrianconflict. Local coverage of Syria-related events has also prompted cyberattacks on the websitesof journalists and media outlets. In January 2012, hackers struck the Facebook pages of FutureNews TV host Paula Yacoubian and the magazine Al-Jaras, as well as the Now Lebanon newswebsite. In September, the Lebanese civil society organization MARCH launched the VirtualMuseum of Censorship, an online database of censorship cases in the country since the 1940s.According to the database, there were at least 23 instances of censorship or attempted censorshipof books, movies, the press, and art in Lebanon in 2012. Cases included the banning of severalmovies and the book A Brief History of the Middle East, censorship of “immoral content” on Al-Jadeed, and the arrest of graffiti artists.Journalists in Lebanon continue to face violence, harassment, and intimidation due totensions inside the country as well as spillover from the worsening conflict in Syria. Thesethreats have led to increasing self-censorship. In April 2012, Ali Shaaban, a cameraman for Al-Jadeed, was killed by Syrian security forces while covering the conflict from a Lebanese townnear the border. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, nine journalists wereattacked in May and June while reporting on demonstrations and street violence, includingclashes between supporters and opponents of the Syrian government. In June, the Beirutheadquarters of Al-Jadeed was attacked by gunmen after it aired an interview with Ahmed al-Assir, a controversial Sunni cleric. In September, members of the Shiite militant groupHezbollah seized Rami Aysha, a Lebanese-Palestinian journalist reporting on arms smuggling241

into Syria, and handed him over to state security forces, which detained him for nearly a month.He reported being beaten by both the Hezbollah agents and military police officers.Lebanon was the first country in the Middle East to authorize private ownership of radioand television stations. It boasts a vibrant media industry that includes more than a dozenprivately owned daily newspapers in English, Arabic, and French, and more than 1,500 weeklyand monthly periodicals. The two largest Arabic-language dailies are As-Safir and An-Nahar,owned by Shiite Muslim and Maronite Christian families, respectively. There are nine televisionstations, two digital cable companies, and about 40 radio stations that are similarly linked toconfessional groups. News content typically reflects the political viewpoint of a given outlet’saffiliated ethnic or religious group. Politicians and influential families own most mediacompanies, and politicians also frequently sit on their boards.Access to satellite television has grown substantially over the last decade. In 2012, theMOI and the Telecommunications Ministry said they were preparing plans to launch a “SmartMedia City” project that would improve the telecommunications infrastructure and allowadditional satellite television stations and production studios to be set up.In 2012, 61 percent of the population had access to the internet. The TelecommunicationsMinistry controls the international gateway for internet traffic. The country lacks theinfrastructure necessary for high-quality broadband connections, and does not have a specialnetwork to transmit data, relying instead on existing landline telephone networks. Social-mediaplatforms including Twitter and Facebook are popular among Lebanon’s internet users.The advertising market in Lebanon is extremely limited, and is not able to sustain thebreadth of media outlets operating in the country. The Choueiri Group, one of the largest mediabrokerage firms in the Middle East, has long dominated the small market that does exist.According to the local business magazine Executive, it controls an estimated 70 percent ofLebanon’s ad spending.Financial setbacks and regional developments in 2012 affected employment forjournalists in Lebanon. LBCI TV laid off almost 400 of its staff. AWI, which owns Al-Balad, Al-Waseet, and the Layaleena magazine, laid off 50 employees. Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal—after winning a lengthy court battle in 2011 that allowed him to increase his holdings in LBCSAT, the satellite channel previously affiliated with LCBI, and its production arm, theProduction and Acquisition Company (PAC)—later liquidated PAC, leading to significantlayoffs in 2012.LesothoStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 14Political Environment: 19Economic Environment: 16Total Score: 49Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 46,PF 48,PF 48,PF 48,PF 49,PF242

The government generally respects freedoms of speech and the press. Although press freedom isnot directly mentioned, the constitution guarantees freedom of expression and informationalexchange. However, multiple laws, including the Sedition Proclamation (No. 44 of 1938) and theInternal Security (General) Act of 1984, prohibit criticism of the government, provide penaltiesfor seditious libel, and endanger reporters’ ability to protect the confidentiality of their sources.The 1967 Official Secrets Act and the 2005 Public Service Act prohibit civil servants fromdisclosing information, limiting the transparency of government institutions and making itdifficult for journalists to conduct investigations. The government has recently improved itsdisclosure practices, but access to information remains impeded, and the procedure forrequesting it is unclear. After 13 years of discussions between the government and mediaprofessionals, a package of media reforms came close to passing in 2010, but the cabinet decidedto refer the proposed policies back to the Ministry of Communications rather than send them toParliament for approval. The reforms would depoliticize government-owned media outlets,eliminate “national security” statutes that allow government censorship, and move many slanderand libel cases from the courts to an arbitration system. Despite three drafts by the ministry, thereforms had not been sent back to Parliament by the end of 2012. There were no reports that thegovernment used the restrictive laws to control the media during the year.Despite the existence of an active independent media, journalists often self-censorbecause of a history of punitive lawsuits lodged against critical media outlets by governmentofficials and private citizens. In recent years, the courts have handed down extremely high finesin libel cases against publications and radio stations known for criticizing the government,forcing some to the verge of closure. In September 2011, High Court judge ’Maseforo Mahaseinitiated an 8 million maloti ($980,000) defamation lawsuit against the radio station Harvest FMover comments on a talk show that accused her of taking a bribe to impose a prison sentence on asibling of two Harvest FM presenters; the case remained pending at the end of 2012. There wereno reported lawsuits brought against press outlets by government officials in 2012. However,Harvest FM was sued in August by a school rector for damages of 900,000 maloti ($110,000) inresponse to a radio program featuring a staff member who was critical of the school’s leadership.Media coverage of the May 2012 parliamentary elections was more professional andexpansive than reporting on previous elections. Nonetheless, the state-run Lesotho BroadcastingService allocated more radio and television airtime to the incumbent Democratic Congress (DC)party of Prime Minister Pakalitha Mosisili, while private broadcast coverage generally favoredopposition parties. Although the DC won the most seats in the elections, it was unable to form agovernment, and in June the former opposition All Basotho Congress (ABC) party formed agoverning coalition. In July, after Mosisili claimed that his party had won the May vote, the newgovernment barred the state media from covering DC rallies.In past years, journalists were occasionally assaulted, and more often threatened withassault, as a result of their work. There were no reports in 2012 of government authorities usingarrest, imprisonment, or physical attacks to stifle press freedom.There was no repeat in 2012 of a 2011 incident in which the broadcasts of four privateradio stations were interrupted after they provided live coverage of economic protests. The daybefore the outage, Harvest FM and at least one other station had allegedly been warned by aMinistry of Communications official and the head of the Lesotho Communication Authority tobroadcast “respectfully.”Several independent newspapers, none of them dailies, operate freely and routinelycriticize the government, while state-owned print and broadcast media mostly reflect the views243

of the ruling party. Although Lesotho has a printing press, many local newspapers are printed inSouth Africa and transported into the country to avoid the high cost of printing domestically.Because of high distribution costs and low literacy rates, especially in rural areas, radio is themost popular news medium. There are eight private and two state-run radio stations, and manySouth African and other foreign broadcasts reach Lesotho. The country’s only television stationis state run. Media development is constrained by inadequate funding and resources. The privatemedia are increasingly turning to private advertising to generate income, but many outlets, bothprint and broadcast, continue to rely heavily on state advertising, which allows the government totacitly reward those that provide more favorable coverage.The government did not restrict access to the internet in 2012, but due to a lack ofinfrastructure and high costs, the medium was used by just 5 percent of the population.LiberiaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 15Political Environment: 21Economic Environment: 20Total Score: 56Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 65,NF 63,NF 61,NF 59,PF 60,PFThe Liberian media environment improved in 2012 due to a decrease in libel cases, efforts torepeal defamation laws, and a reduction in violence against journalists. The constitution providesfor freedoms of speech and the press, and the government largely respected these rights. In July2012, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf became the second African head of state to endorse theDeclaration of Table Mountain, which calls on African governments to abolish criminaldefamation laws. The Press Union of Liberia submitted a draft bill to the parliament in lateNovember that would carry out such an abolition, but it had not been enacted at year’s end, andsome libel charges continued to be leveled against media houses during the year. In addition, thecompensation sought and imposed in civil cases is often excessive, leading to severe financialdifficulties for journalists and their outlets, and encouraging self-censorship in the media. InFebruary, former senator Nathaniel J. Williams filed a libel suit against the Independentnewspaper for an article alleging that he had been evicted from his rented home. Williamsclaimed damages of US$5 million. In March, Robert Sirleaf, the chairman of the board ofdirectors at the National Oil Company of Liberia and the president’s son, threatened a libel suitagainst the Independent if it did not retract an article claiming that he had seized national oilholdings for commercial use. Corruption and bribery in the judicial sector also contribute to alargely unfavorable environment for journalists. In February, three newspaper publishers wereordered to appear before the Supreme Court on possible charges of contempt following thepublication of an article that accused the judges of embezzling funds. At the hearing,representatives of two of the papers apologized to the court.In 2010, Liberia enacted West Africa’s first freedom of information law. Both journalistsand the general public have the right to access any public document, with exemptions for those244

elated to national security. However, implementation of the law, as well as public awarenessregarding how to use it, has remained weak.According to the Center for Media Studies and Peace Building (CEMESP), there are veryfew legal provisions to help guide media policy or offer protections to journalists in Liberia.Existing regulatory bodies are largely ineffective at implementing laws and regulationsgoverning the media, and self-regulatory mechanisms have not yet been developed. A 2008 billthat would establish an independent broadcast regulator with safeguards against governmentintervention is still waiting to be passed by the Senate. A draft law seeking to convert the statebroadcaster into a public-service broadcaster was also still pending at the end of 2012.Although Liberia’s media environment is not heavily polarized, outlets did openly exhibitpolitical loyalties—to either the incumbent Unity Party or the opposition Congress forDemocratic Change—in the period surrounding the 2011 presidential election. Many outletswere criticized for “yellow journalism,” politically biased reporting, and lack of accountability.In November 2011, four radio stations and three television stations were found guilty ofpropagating hate messages before the election. While an order to close the stations was quicklyrescinded, the argument presented in the case—that the government had the authority to shutdown media outlets based on their news content—has the potential to set a negative precedentregarding censorship. Radio Veritas, a Catholic-run station with critical news programming,closed indefinitely in October 2012, raising suspicions of political pressure from the government.The level of violence decreased in 2012, but journalists still faced threats andintimidation in the course of their work. In February, police attacked and threatened journalistEdwin Genoway of New Dawn after he attempted to photograph officers harassing motorists. InMarch, the acting mayor of Monrovia, Mary Broh, allegedly ordered the beating of journalistsFrancis Nyan and Charles Yates. The same month, Mae Azango, a journalist for FrontPageAfrica, received threats after publishing a story on Liberian tribes practicing female genitalmutilation (FGM) in rural areas. Azango went into hiding, saying she was not receiving adequateprotection from the police.The media sector includes both state-owned and private outlets. Although about a dozennewspapers publish with varying regularity, including the government-owned New Liberian,distribution is limited largely to the capital. Low literacy rates and the high price of newspapersand transportation make radio the primary source of information for most Liberians. Monrovia ishome to over 15 independent radio stations, at least two of which broadcast nationwide.Community radio has expanded to over 50 stations across the country, and television has grownto at least six stations. There were no reported cases in 2012 of the government or other partiesattempting to influence editorial content through the withholding of advertising. However,reporters commonly accept payment from individuals covered in their stories, and the placementof a story in a paper or radio show can often be bought or influenced by outside interests. Mostmedia outlets are not self-sustaining and rely heavily on financial support from politicians orinternational donors. According to the Liberia Media Center, most newspapers are owned andoperated by journalists, who are rarely trained in business management. Journalism training isalso limited, with CEMESP providing one of the only venues for training in journalistic ethics.Both the Press Union of Liberia and CEMESP offer assistance to journalists.In 2012, an estimated 4 percent of Liberians accessed the internet. There are no officialrestrictions on internet use, and there were no reports during the year of the governmentmonitoring online communications.245

LibyaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 15Political Environment: 27Economic Environment: 17Total Score: 59Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 94,NF 94,NF 94,NF 94,NF 60,PFFollowing the civil war and a dramatic opening in the political and media environments in 2011,conditions for press freedom remained stable in 2012. The National Transitional Council (NTC),formed soon after the start of the armed conflict in February 2011, steered the country to its firstdemocratic elections in July 2012. In August, the NTC disbanded after handing power to the newlegislative assembly, or General National Council (GNC). The GNC then selected a primeminister and cabinet. However, these accomplishments were marred by the failure of the newauthorities to establish security and rule of law in the country. Various semiautonomous militiascontrolled different parts of the country, and while some either disbanded or attached themselvesto the nascent national army, others became less formal proxies for the government or actedwithout any official oversight, contributing to an unstable operating environment for journalists.The GNC had yet to begin appointing a committee to draft a permanent constitution byyear’s end. The governing legal document during 2012 remained the Draft Constitutional Charterfor the Transitional Stage, adopted during the 2011 conflict, which guarantees severalfundamental human rights. For example, Article 13 stipulates “freedom of opinion forindividuals and groups, freedom of scientific research, freedom of communication, liberty ofpress, printing, publication and mass media.” While these provisions are a positive start, they donot fully reflect international standards for freedom of expression. The charter does not explicitlyabolish censorship or include the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas. It doesnot cover all types of expression and methods of communication, nor does it grant the rights inquestion to every person.In May 2012, the NTC introduced Law 37, which criminalized “false news andinformation” and “propaganda” that “endanger(s) national security, terrorize(s) the public orundermine(s) public morale.” Any comments counter to the 2011 revolution became criminaloffenses, including remarks glorifying ousted dictator Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi, his sons, or hisregime. Insults against the Libyan people, their flag, or Islam were also criminalized. Offensesunder the new law could be punished with a maximum sentence of life in prison. Law 37 causedpublic outrage and mobilized national human rights organizations to campaign for its repeal. Inits first review of a law passed by the NTC, the Supreme Court ruled in June that Law 37violated the Draft Constitutional Charter, and it was consequently nullified.Journalists face uncertainty regarding defamation charges, as there is no new legalframework for libel or slander. In the first high-profile defamation case involving a journalistsince the fall of the Qadhafi regime, Amara Abdallah al-Khitabi, editor of the newspaper Al-Umma, was detained in December 2012 for publishing a list of 84 judges who were allegedlyinvolved in corruption. He was still being held in Hudba Prison in Tripoli at year’s end.246

In the absence of clear rules regarding media licensing and regulation, responsibility forstate media passed through the hands of multiple institutions during the year. Supervision of statemedia assets was first transferred from the Ministry of Culture and Civil Society to a newlyformed body called the High Media Council. However, by the end of 2012, the GNC haddissolved both institutions and reestablished the Ministry of Information. Meanwhile, theAgency for Support and Encouragement of the Press was tasked with organizing and“supporting” state-owned media.Libyan journalists have organized a number of competing associations and unions, suchas the General Union for Libyan Journalists, which aims to become the main umbrella group forall media professionals, and the Libyan National Media Union, a Misrata-based organizationfounded in May 2012 with more than 140 members. Journalists who entered the professionduring or after the conflict complained that they were being treated unequally and excluded bythose who worked under the previous regime, and some new journalists were allegedly barredfrom joining the unions.Under the Qadhafi regime, journalists worked in a climate of fear and self-censorship.After the revolution, Libyan media experienced unprecedented freedom, without clearregulations or set “red lines.” The NTC declared that it would not attempt to control content—including criticism of its own performance—and access to officials has been less restricted thanunder the old system. There was pressure to self-censor and show a united front during the civilwar, but local media have since been free to produce more critical content.Although journalists are able to cover the news much more freely than under the Qadhafiregime, they still faced many challenges in 2012. There were restrictions on reporting ofparticular events and in sensitive locations, such as Bab al-Aziziya, the former compound ofMu’ammar al-Qadhafi in Tripoli. Many local journalists claimed that militias physically stoppedthem from filming or accessing certain areas, often without an official explanation. Journalistswere prevented by security forces from reporting on the destruction of Al-Sha’ab, one of theoldest mosques in Tripoli, during a campaign by a conservative Salafi Muslim group to destroySufi Muslim religious monuments that they deemed heretical. At least three journalists from theindependent television channel Al-Asema were detained. Meanwhile, international journalistsattempting to report in Libya complained about the unpredictable, cumbersome visa process,which often entailed long delays. Once inside the country, foreign journalists reported beingfollowed and observing security agents loitering in the lobby areas of their hotels.In contrast to 2011, no journalists were killed in Libya in 2012, according to theCommittee to Protect Journalists. However, there were several reported incidents of threats,intimidation, and extrajudicial detentions of reporters, both local and international. In February2012, two British freelance journalists working for Iran’s Press TV were detained in Tripoli by amilitia from Misrata. They were accused of being spies for either the Iranian or Israeligovernments. After much negotiation between the British government, the NTC (whichrepeatedly called for the journalists to be released), and the militia, the journalists were finallyrepatriated, having spent a month in captivity. In July, a British freelance filmmaker andjournalist was held for almost a week by Libya’s Supreme Security Committee after beingarrested while filming in a displacement camp for former residents of Tawergha. The inhabitantsof the town were driven out of their homes in 2011 as retribution for their purported support ofthe Qadhafi regime, and their forced displacement has been one of the main human rights abusesin post-Qadhafi Libya that the new authorities have failed to address.247

There was a proliferation of new print outlets in the wake of the revolution. As Libyadoes not have a recent history of independent media, the quality of the journalism has frequentlybeen criticized, and few newspapers have enough content to establish a daily edition. Many ofthe publications founded in 2011 have closed, mostly because wartime activists have returned totheir normal lives or their enterprises lacked equipment, funding, and experience in the mediaindustry. Nevertheless, a large number were still functioning in 2012. There are two publicdailies—the official state paper February and the state-sponsored Libya—along with nearly adozen prominent private weeklies and monthlies covering news and current events, published inTripoli, Benghazi, and Misrata. Over 50 smaller publications, including outlets focused on newsand special interests, were reportedly in print in 2012.Libyan Radio and Television operates the three main public radio stations, includingRadio Libya. Local councils fund various other radio stations, and there are over a dozen privatestations, including Egypt-based Libya FM. The state operates four television stations, one ofwhich, Libya al-Wataniyah, regularly broadcasts current events, news, and discussion shows aswell as GNC sessions and press conferences. There are five main private television news stationsand a number of smaller special-interest channels. In some cases, the ownership of these outletsremains unclear. One of the leading private stations, Libya al-Hurrah, was founded as a webbasedchannel during the 2011 revolution by Mohammed Nabbous, a citizen journalist who livestreamedthe beginning of the uprising in Benghazi before being killed while filming in March2011. After his death, Libya al-Hurrah expanded and now broadcasts live from several locationsin the country. Libya al-Ahrar, known as Libya TV, was launched in April 2011 with supportfrom the Qatari government and Libyan businessmen. Although it is a private channel, it isincreasingly seen as a mouthpiece of the government.The internet penetration rate remains relatively low, with about 20 percent of thepopulation accessing the medium in 2012. The telecommunications infrastructure inherited fromthe previous regime has yet to be refurbished, and internet users struggle to secure a reliable,high-speed connection. According to Akamai, a U.S.-based internet content delivery network,Libya touts the world’s lowest average connection speed at 0.5 megabits per second. Despite thisobstacle, social media have experienced constant growth. Libyans’ use of online social networks,microblogs, and video- and photo-sharing sites was instrumental in the dissemination ofinformation about the 2011 protests and ensuing conflict, and these platforms continue to be akey source of news for many residents. According to Social Bakers, which provides usagestatistics for social media, the number of Libyan users of the social-networking site Facebookreached 802,500 in 2012, or around 13 percent of the population. There were no reports in 2012of the resumption of internet filtering, which had been prevalent during the Qadhafi era.LiechtensteinStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 1Political Environment: 5Economic Environment: 8Total Score: 14Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012248

Total Score, Status 14,F 14,F 14,F 14,F 14,FLithuaniaStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 6Political Environment: 8Economic Environment: 10Total Score: 24Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 18,F 18,F 21,F 22,F 23,FLithuania’s constitution provides for freedoms of speech and the press, and those guarantees arerespected by the government. Libel and defamation are punishable by fines or imprisonment.While it is more common for lawmakers and business leaders to pursue cases against individualswho make allegedly defamatory statements than to target the news outlets that carry them,journalists are sometimes affected. In 2011, online journalist Gintaras Visockas was convicted oflibel and fined $12,400 for an article in which he suggested that a former presidential candidatewas controlled by the state security service during the Soviet period. He failed to pay the fine andwas sentenced to 40 days in jail. Visockas subsequently filed an appeal at the European Court ofHuman Rights (ECHR), which was still pending at the end of 2012. Separately, AlgirdasButkevičius, who became prime minister following October elections, pursued a defamation caseagainst a political opponent who insulted him in the media in March. A verdict was pending atyear’s end.Lithuanian law prohibits some categories of speech, including incitement to hatred anddenial of Soviet or Nazi crimes. In June 2012, a court in Vilnius, the capital, found journalist andSocialist People’s Front leader Algirdas Paleckis guilty of denying Soviet aggression againstLithuania, overturning an earlier acquittal. Paleckis’s supporters paid the $4,000 fine. He hasappealed both the fine and the conviction to the Supreme Court. Prosecutors appealed the verdictas well, calling for Paleckis to serve a year in jail. Online hate speech aimed at Jews and Romahas reportedly proliferated in recent years. However, according to the European JournalismCentre, inaction by law enforcement agencies has left local nongovernmental organizations—specifically the Tolerant Youth Association—with the task of referring online hate speech toofficials, who have prosecuted a number of cases.A freedom of information law obliges the government to help citizens access publicdocuments, but state authorities do not always respect it. The law was amended in April 2012 toimprove assistance for those requesting information. Media freedom advocates remain concernedabout a 2009 law that limits or bans a wide range of content considered harmful to young people.No prosecutions under the law have been reported.In November 2012, the private television station TV3 fired Ruta Janutiene after cancelingher documentary on the life of President Dalia Grybauskaitė. Janutiene criticized the move as anact of censorship, but TV3 officials said the program was inconsistent with the network’s code ofethics. There were no reports of attacks or threats against journalists in 2012.249

Kurier Wileński, a newspaper serving the ethnic Polish community, lost crucial publicfunding in 2008 after printing inflammatory statements about Lithuania in a 2007 article that thecountry’s journalism ethics ombudsman said represented an ethics violation. Officials from thestate-run Lithuanian Media, Radio, and TV Fund (LMRTF) have denied that the funding cutoffwas politically motivated. Kurier Wileński lost its domestic appeals of the decision, and in 2011took its case to the European Court of Human Rights, where a ruling was still pending at the endof 2012.Lithuania’s media freely criticize the government and express a wide variety of views. Inaddition to the public broadcast media, dozens of independent television and radio stations areavailable, including the main commercial television stations LNK, TV1, and BTV. More than300 privately owned newspapers publish in Lithuanian, Russian, and a few other languages.About 68 percent of Lithuanians used the internet in 2012, and the government does not limitaccess.Media ownership has undergone increased concentration over the last several years, withpurchases of outlets by both domestic firms and foreign companies, mainly from Scandinavia.Moreover, ownership is often less than transparent. Banks are barred by law from owning mediaoutlets, but many institutions work around those restrictions by maintaining media holdingsthrough intermediaries. Newspapers controlled by financial institutions demonstrate bias towardtheir owners. Amendments designed to keep banks from purchasing shares of media outletsindirectly were introduced in Parliament in November 2011, but they were not passed during2012. A number of politicians also maintain ownership stakes in media outlets, some of whichdemonstrate similar biases.The rapid decline in advertising revenues that followed the global financial crisis of late2008 has slowed, as the country’s economy slowly recovers. A U.S. diplomatic cable released bythe antisecrecy organization WikiLeaks in 2011 revealed new information on the extent ofcorruption in media advertising in Lithuania. Major newspapers such as Respublika and LietuvosRytas had allegedly threatened politicians with negative coverage to obtain advertising revenue,according to the document. The cable also indicated the ease with which politicians could buypositive press coverage. Respublika owner Vitas Tomkus sued Lithuanian Union of Journalistschairman Dainius Radzevičius for defamation in October 2011 after Radzevičius discussed theWikiLeaks cable on his blog. In June 2012, a court ordered that Radzevičius pay a $980 fine andnearly $3,800 in damages to Tomkus, but a higher court overturned the ruling in October.LuxembourgStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 2Political Environment: 4Economic Environment: 6Total Score: 12Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 12,F 12,F 12,F 12,F 12,F250

MacedoniaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 17Political Environment: 22Economic Environment: 17Total Score: 56Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 47,PF 47,PF 46,PF 48,PF 54,PFThe Macedonian constitution includes basic protections for freedom of the press and ofexpression, but government representatives do not uphold them impartially. The governmentcontinued to clash with the Constitutional Court in 2012 over the country’s lustration law, whichwas originally intended to identify public officials who had worked with the communist-erasecret police. In March, the court struck down a dozen provisions in the law, including one thatrequired journalists and variety of other professionals to swear that they had never served aspolice informants. However, a new version of the law, approved by the parliament in June,would effectively still allow investigations of journalists and other professionals by means ofindividual requests. The parliament voted in November to remove defamation from the penalcode, but a parallel change to the civil defamation law authorized fines of up to €27,000($34,000)—€2,000 for the reporter, €10,000 for the editor, and €15,000 for the outlet owner.Journalists were typically punished with fines rather than imprisonment under the old criminallaw, and the large number of cases has hindered freedom of expression and encouraged selfcensorship.Also in November, lawmakers enacted new rules for the accreditation of foreignjournalists, shifting responsibility for issuing permits from a low-level government press officeto the Foreign Ministry; the new law tightened the requirements for such permits and institutedpenalties for foreign journalists who worked without valid permits. For a foreign outlet tooperate a bureau in the country, its home government now must sign an agreement withMacedonian authorities.The law on open access to public information is unevenly and selectively enforced.Collection of fees used to finance the Broadcasting Council, which regulates television and radiooutlets, and Macedonian Radio and Television (MRTV), the public broadcaster, has improved inrecent years, but the two entities lack independence from the government in practice. A 2011legal change allowed government-controlled bodies to appoint six new members to theBroadcasting Council. Enforcement of media regulations is weak, and the licensing process issubject to undue political and economic influence. However, the Broadcasting Council in 2012set a September 30 deadline for compliance with a long-unenforced rule that bars public officialsand their immediate families from owning broadcast outlets, affecting Macedonia’s two toptelevision stations and a radio network. The individuals in question renounced their publicpositions or media assets, but the outlets reportedly remained in the hands of proxy owners.Most private media outlets are tied to political or business interests that influence theircontent, and state-owned media tend to support government positions. The government of PrimeMinister Nikola Gruevski and its media allies have shown growing hostility toward critical newsoutlets. The media landscape was drastically altered in the government’s favor by the 2011closure of four opposition-oriented outlets owned by Velija Ramkovski: A1 TV, then the251

country’s leading television station, and the popular newspapers Špic, Vreme, and Koha e Re.Their assets had been frozen in connection with a criminal case against Ramkovski, who wassentenced in March 2012 to 13 years in prison for tax evasion and money laundering. As manyas 18 codefendants received jail terms ranging from two years and three months to seven years.In June, the Broadcasting Council withdrew the license of A1’s sister channel, A2, on thegrounds that it did not air enough news content. In 2011, the station had been forced to switch tomore cost-effective music and entertainment programming after the accounts of Ramkovski’smedia outlets were frozen. In May 2012, A2 had announced plans to resume news content,leading press freedom organizations to criticize the regulator’s decision as unfair and politicized.Both A1 and A2 continued to operate as news websites, and a cable channel announced plans inSeptember to relaunch as A3, hiring a number of former A1 journalists.Journalists do not enjoy equal access to government officials, who typically speak only tofriendly outlets. In late December 2012, as the ruling coalition sought to pass budgetarylegislation over the vocal objections of the opposition, security personnel forcibly removedopposition lawmakers and journalists from the chamber, ostensibly to restore order. TheMacedonian Journalists’ Association later called on members to boycott government pressconferences. There have been occasional cases of physical harassment of journalists and mediaoutlets. Some reporters had their equipment damaged, received threats, or were slightly injuredduring anti-Albanian protests triggered by the murder of five ethnic Macedonian men in April.Past death threats and other forms of intimidation have not been prosecuted.Macedonia has a large number of broadcast and print outlets for its population, but theclosure of Ramkovski’s media group gave progovernment media—including the public MRTVand several private television stations and newspapers—a dominant position in the market. InJanuary 2012, the only significant foreign media investor in the country, Germany’s WAZ MediaGroup, sold its three dailies to local businessman Orce Kamcev, who has been described as closeto the government. Kamcev in turn sold 50 percent stakes in the papers to a Serbian online mediacompany in August. The former WAZ unit in Macedonia included the country’s largest printingfacility and distribution network, which enjoyed a virtual monopoly after the dismantling ofRamkovski’s media assets. Foreign media content is not restricted.The government is regularly criticized for its liberal use of promotional advertising,which increases the media’s financial dependence and allegedly favors progovernment outlets;the government is among the country’s largest advertisers. Journalists face low salaries, poor jobsecurity and working conditions, and editorial pressure from owners. In May 2012, theBroadcasting Council canceled the operating permit of the Serbian-owned Pink 15 TV afterworkers went eight months without wages.Access to the internet is restricted only by cost and infrastructural obstacles, with around57 percent of the population accessing the medium in 2012, according to Internet World Stats.Use of online social media is increasing, and news sites and blogs have expanded, but most newscontent reportedly originates in traditional media.MadagascarStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 20Political Environment: 30252

Economic Environment: 16Total Score: 66Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 48,PF 51,PF 61,NF 64,NF 63,NFAfter a coup swept Andry Nirina Rajoelina, the former mayor of the capital, Antananarivo, topower in 2009, the ensuing dismissal of the parliament, a virtual suspension of the constitution,and the end of any semblance of judicial independence ushered in a repressive and violent periodfor the media. The press environment remained extremely volatile in 2012, with high levels ofgovernment censorship and intimidation of journalists and media outlets, as political instabilitycontinued throughout the year.With the breakdown of democracy and constitutional governance since 2009, the lawsprotecting freedom of the press have been routinely ignored or selectively applied by the HighAuthority of the Transition (HAT), Rajoelina’s interim government. A number of prominentdefamation cases occurred in 2012. In May, two editors from the prominent opposition radiostation Free FM—Lalatiana Rakotondrazafy and Fidel Razara Pierre—were charged withdefamation after broadcasting reports that implicated media mogul and Rajoelina supporterMamy Ravatomanga in involvement in the illegal trafficking of precious woods. The editorswere released after 24 hours in custody. In November, the government prosecuted fourjournalists—Rocco Rasoanaivo of The Nation, Zo Rakotoseheno of Midi Madagasikara, andFidy Robson and Herivonjy Rajaonah of Gazetiko—for “defamation” and “complicity inspreading false news.” The case was also the result of a complaint filed by Ravatomanga.The increased corruption of the judiciary, and the lack of an elected parliament or anyindependent media regulatory bodies, has allowed the HAT to effectively rule by decree withoutchecks and balances. Attempts to strengthen constitutional and legal protections for journalistshave been delayed pending resolution of the political crisis. Despite attempts by several membersof the media to formally draft a code of ethics, no such code exists. The HAT’s CommunicationMinistry established an ethics commission for the media in late 2011, but it quickly collapsedwithout gains. In some cases, media bodies administer their own ethics criteria in lieu of nationalstandards. In January, a number of leading journalists launched an open membership union forthe protection of the profession and journalists’ interests.Censorship, harassment, and intimidation throughout the media sector continued in 2012.None of the approximately 80 radio and TV stations closed after the coup have reopened. Severalother media outlets either owned by or sympathetic to the opposition walked a tightrope betweenself-censorship and closure. Many television and radio stations have altered their formats, airinglive call-in shows to avoid editorial responsibility for the content. In July, Free FM was forced toshut down due to intimidation from the transitional government, after it had aired a messagefrom mutinying soldiers earlier that month. In response, officials and soldiers threatened thestations’ journalists and equipment. After suffering continued harassment from the government,Rakotondrazafy and Pierre, as well as a station technician, sought refuge at the South Africanembassy in August, and emerged in October after an agreement was reached between the SouthAfrican and Malagasy governments. In November, the two editors were sentenced to asuspended three-month prison sentence, but a few days later, the court added a three-yearsentence without the defendants being present. By year’s end, the sentences were being appealedand Free FM remained closed.253

More than 300 radio and television stations operated in 2012. The government retains amonopoly on nationwide broadcasting, and radio and television licenses are often suspendedarbitrarily. The government commonly justifies these suspensions, as well as arrests ofjournalists, by “national security” concerns. Thirteen private daily newspapers, and many morethat appear less frequently, are published throughout the country, but the number fluctuates dueto suspensions. Widespread poverty and illiteracy severely limit the penetration of television,print media, and the internet, making radio by far the most important medium in the country.Major political figures own several of the private media outlets. Ousted president MarcRavalomanana owns the Malagasy Broadcasting System, which operates television and radiostations, and Rajoelina owns the Viva television and radio networks. The state-owned mediainclude Television Malagasy and Malagasy National Radio.Only about 2 percent of the population used the internet in 2012, and access was limitedmainly to urban areas. There were no reports that the government restricted internet usage ormonitored e-mail in 2012. Given the extremely chaotic and restrictive media environment withinthe country, access to information from abroad via the internet took on added importance.Because many internet servers are located outside of the country and beyond the reach of theregime, the internet is seen as one of the most reliable sources of information. Political groupsand parties use the internet to share opinions and to criticize opposing parties.Prospects for rapid expansion of internet access from these low levels improved greatlywith the November 2009 inauguration of the Lower Indian Ocean Network (LION) submarinecable, a fiber-optic network connecting Madagascar and the nearby islands of Reunion andMauritius. The project, financed by a consortium made up of Orange Madagascar, MauritiusTelecom, and France Telecom S.A., made it possible for Madagascar to access broadbandinternet for the first time.MalawiStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 17Political Environment: 19Economic Environment: 17Total Score: 53Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 55,PF 56,PF 56,PF 55,PF 60,PFThe transfer of power to Vice President Joyce Banda after the sudden death of President Binguwa Mutharika in April 2012 resulted in the reversal of setbacks for media freedom that hadoccurred in the preceding year. However, the full impact of the Banda administration’s agendaon the media environment remained to be seen as of the end of 2012.Malawi has strong constitutional guarantees for freedom of the press, but there areseveral laws that restrict this freedom in practice, such as the 1967 Protected Flag, Emblems, andNames Act and the 1947 Printed Publications Act. In May 2012, the National Assembly votedalmost unanimously to repeal an amended version of Section 46 of the penal code that hadallowed the information minister to ban publications deemed “contrary to the public interest.”254

The amendment had been signed into law by Mutharika in January 2011. Although nopublications were banned while the measure was in effect, self-censorship reportedly increased,and the repeal was widely praised by journalists and press freedom groups.In October 2012, the Banda government introduced a bill setting out a legal frameworkfor regulating information and communication technologies (ICTs) that was criticized forpotentially limiting online freedom of expression. Among other provisions, the “E-Bill” wouldcompel editors of online public communication services to make available their names,addresses, and telephone and registration numbers. It would also allow the government toappoint so-called cyberinspectors to “monitor and inspect” websites and report “unlawfulactivity” to the regulator.The constitution guarantees access to information, but a draft bill to implement this righthas been stalled in the parliament since 2003. Access to government information remains aconsiderable challenge for reporters. Powerful individuals have also used court injunctions toprevent newspapers from publishing damaging articles about them. Libel is considered both acriminal and a civil offense. If prosecuted as a criminal violation, it is punishable with up to twoyears’ imprisonment. However, many libel cases are processed as civil matters or settled out ofcourt. In October 2012, Justice Mponda, a correspondent for the online publication MalawiVoice, was arrested in the southern city of Blantyre for allegedly insulting the president,publishing false information, and criminal libel. During his arrest, the authorities seizedcomputers and other equipment said to belong to the publication. He was released on bail a dayafter his arrest, having been formally charged with “publishing false news likely to cause publicfear.” Separately, Sunday Times journalist Clement Chinoko was arrested in May for writing astory about two women who had become engaged; same-sex relationships are illegal in Malawi.Chinoko was held without a court hearing for more than the lawful 48-hour period. Police saidthat he was arrested for “conduct likely to cause breach of peace,” and that the two women hadactually been shooting a film, not participating in an engagement ceremony. The case remainedpending at year’s end.The broadcast media are licensed by the Malawi Communications Regulatory Authority(MACRA), which is funded by the government and led by a presidential appointee. In August2012, Banda made new appointments to the board, including a chair who was a health rightsactivist with little experience in broadcasting.Under Mutharika, MACRA faced accusations of political bias in its operations. In July2011, it ordered two stations to halt coverage of widespread antigovernment protests. InNovember 2011, MACRA issued eight new broadcast licenses after an extended period ofaccepting applications; two of these went to Mutharika allies. Other applicants, most notably areligious group seen as hostile to the president, had their applications denied withoutexplanation. However, in July 2012, MACRA issued 15 new licenses to private and communityradio and television stations, drawing praise from the Malawi chapter of the Media Institute forSouthern Africa (MISA).In 2011, MACRA had attempted to implement a new “Consolidated ICT RegulatoryManagement System,” ostensibly to more effectively monitor the performance of mobiletelephonecompanies. The move generated privacy concerns given the capacity of the system toaccess the call records of users, and media professionals warned that their ability to keep sourcesconfidential could be compromised. Implementation of the system was temporarily suspended bythe courts in mid-2011, and in September 2012 the High Court issued a ruling that haltedimplementation.255

The Media Council of Malawi, a self-regulatory body, has been relatively dormant forabout two years due to funding problems.Violence and harassment of journalists had increased markedly in 2011, bringingcondemnation from international rights groups and foreign donors. By conservative estimates, atleast seven journalists were assaulted during antigovernment protests in July 2011, while severalothers were detained. The Mutharika government’s campaign of harassment continued into early2012. In March, the president’s office released a harshly worded statement that accused themedia and civil society of “inciting anarchy in the country.” The statement said journalists haddeliberately insulted the president, and warned that the government was monitoring socialnetworkingwebsites for “hostile” and “demeaning” comments about him. Days after thestatement was released, the head of MISA’s Malawi chapter, which had issued a strongcondemnation of the remarks, began receiving threatening text messages.After Banda took office in April 2012, these types of threats were significantly reduced,and the climate of fear lifted. The new president took steps to engage with MISA and othergroups on press freedom issues, including the establishment of a commission of inquiry toinvestigate the mysterious September 2011 death of Robert Chasowa, a political activist andblogger who had criticized Mutharika. In October 2012, the commission found that Chasowa hadnot committed suicide, as the authorities had originally claimed, but had been murdered. Twoweeks after the commission released its report, six suspects were arrested, including a policeofficer and a former aide to Mutharika.Malawi’s print sector consists mainly of eight independent newspapers, including twodailies and six weeklies. However, print readership is quite low. Most newspapers and magazinesremain inaccessible due to their relatively high costs and their publication in English, which isread by only around 1 percent of the population. The majority of the population speaksChichewa, the official language. The biweekly Fuko Nation is published in Chichewa andTumbuka and targets rural readers. While there are numerous private and community radiostations that air a diverse array of opinions, government-controlled outlets continue to dominatethe broadcast market. Radio remains the primary source of information for most people, and thestate-controlled Malawi Broadcast Corporation (MBC) is the only station with national reach.Most privately owned stations are located in large urban centers in the south and do notbroadcast to more rural sections of the country, while the 14 active community radio stations—which broadcast in local languages—lack financial security. Although there are four televisionstations, only MBC broadcasts nationally. State-run outlets are strongly biased in favor of thegovernment and have been accused of serving as little more than propaganda tools.Advertising revenue, including government advertising, is critical to the survival ofMalawi’s press, which operates under tenuous economic conditions. A ban on advertising in oneof the most reputable dailies, the Nation, was lifted by Banda soon after she took office in April.In June, the Banda government also removed the 16.5 percent value-added tax on newsprint andnewspapers that had been imposed by Mutharika the previous year.There are no government restrictions on the internet, although only 4 percent of thepopulation used the medium in 2012 due to lack of access to computers and high subscriptioncosts. The majority of Malawians who access the internet do so through their mobile phones;about a quarter of the population had a mobile-phone subscription in 2012.Malaysia256

Status: Not FreeLegal Environment: 24Political Environment: 23Economic Environment: 17Total Score: 64Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 65,NF 65,NF 64,NF 64,NF 63,NFPress freedom remained restricted in Malaysia in 2012, with both positive and negativedevelopments in the legal sphere and a number of attacks on journalists who attempted todocument large protests. The ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition made minor improvementsto two existing laws affecting the press, but it also passed an amendment to another law thatexpanded liability for illegal internet content.The constitution guarantees freedom of expression under Article 10, but allows for a hostof limitations to this right. The Sedition Act and harsh criminal defamation laws are regularlyused to impose restrictions on the press and other critics of the government. Violations of theselaws are punishable by several years in prison. In August 2012, a blogger and oppositionpolitician was sentenced to three months in jail for contempt of court in connection with articlesthat were deemed to have defamed a government minister. An amendment (114A) to theEvidence Act that took effect in July drew particular criticism from media freedom activists, as itmade those who own, host, edit, or administer websites, blogs, and online forums liable forcontent published through their services, including seditious comments. Opposition to theamendment led to the designation of August 14, 2012, as “Internet Blackout Day,” in which ahost of news websites, bloggers, and civil society organizations, including the highly respectedMalaysian Bar Council, pledged to either take down their websites for the day or support a popupwindow to promote the Stop 114A campaign.In July 2012, Prime Minister Najib Razak kept a promise made in the wake of a July2011 rally for free and fair elections to repeal the Internal Security Act (ISA), which alloweddetention without trial and had been used in the past against members of the press and oppositionfigures. However, the ruling BN replaced the ISA with the new Security Offenses (SpecialMeasures) Act (SOSMA). The new law grants suspects the right to a fair trial, but it neverthelesspermits 28 days of initial police detention, after which the attorney general must decide whetherto prosecute.Although the opposition-controlled states of Selangor and Penang passed freedom ofinformation laws in 2011, Malaysia has no federal law with such guarantees, and officials remainreluctant to share even innocuous information with journalists—including the content of bills tobe tabled—for fear of being charged under the Official Secrets Act (OSA). In July 2012, bloggerSyed Abdullah Hussein al-Attas was detained under the OSA after a group of 30 peoplecomplained about his controversial posts on the sultan of Johor. Some of the posts includeddocuments supporting the blogger’s claim that part of the fortune left by the late Sultan Iskandar,who died in 2010, was embezzled.In keeping with another promise by the prime minister, the BN reviewed existing medialicensing and censorship laws in 2012. An amendment to the 1984 Printing Presses andPublications Act (PPPA) that took effect in July repealed a provision that had required all257

publishers and printing firms to obtain an annual operating permit. However, the revision left allother restrictions in place, including the government’s authority to grant or deny licenseapplications and to revoke the required licenses at any time without judicial review. The HomeAffairs Ministry may likewise continue to issue “show cause” letters, which require newspapersto explain certain articles or face suspension or revocation of their permits. In February, theministry issued such a letter to the Star, an English-language daily, for publishing a photographof singer Erykah Badu that included a tattoo of the Arabic word Allah. The letter was issueddespite the fact that the paper had already removed the photograph from its website andapologized. Two editors were indefinitely suspended as a result, and the singer’s concert wascanceled. The 1988 Broadcasting Act allows the Information Ministry to decide who can own abroadcast station and what type of television service is suitable for the Malaysian public, leadingto considerable self-censorship among broadcast journalists.In October, a Malaysian High Court ruled against the Home Affairs Ministry’s refusal toissue a publishing license to the news website Malaysiakini, in effect giving the outletpermission to publish a daily print edition. The ministry had argued that the license was “aprivilege,” not a right, but High Court judge Abang Iskandar ruled that the ministry’s decisionwas “improper and irrational” and exceeded the limits of its jurisdiction. The judge also notedthat the right to a permit was a freedom of expression issue and as such was “a fundamentalliberty enshrined in the constitution.” Malaysiakini’s attorney called the decision “very, verysignificant,” adding that the ruling will make it more difficult for the government to refuselicense applications, as officials will be required to show that a proposed publication would beimmoral or a threat to public order or national security. The ministry appealed the ruling.Physical harassment and intimidation are usually less of a danger for journalists inMalaysia than arbitrary arrest or threats of legal action. However, several instances of physicalharassment were noted in 2012, including attacks on two journalists in Penang who werecovering a public protest against the construction of a rare-earth-metals plant in the state ofPahang by Australian mining company Lynas Corporation. Adam Chew and Lee Hong Chun ofthe local Chinese-language daily Kwong Wah Yit Poh were both injured in anti-Lynasdemonstrations held in February. Another journalist was attacked while covering a protest on thesame issue in November. The Center for Independent Journalism (CIJ) noted that during an April28 rally by Bersih, the opposition-backed coalition calling for clean and fair elections, journalistsappeared to be targeted by the police, and counted 12 cases of assault. One of these, an attack onRadzi Razak of the Sun newspaper, resulted in hospitalization. Wong Onn Kin, a photographerfor the Chinese-language newspaper Guang Ming Daily, had his camera confiscated and wasbeaten and briefly arrested by security forces. Also during the Bersih protest, Harry Fawcett ofQatar’s Al-Jazeera television network reported that police assaulted his camera crew anddamaged its equipment, while Koh Jun Lin, a photojournalist with Malaysiakini, was temporarilydetained.Although the media industry is for the most part not under outright state control, themajority of both print and broadcast outlets are controlled either by political parties in the rulingcoalition or by businesses with political connections. The largest media conglomerate, MediaPrima, which owns half of the Malay and English-language newspapers as well as manytelevision channels, is believed to be closely linked to the United Malays National Organization(UMNO), the leading party of the BN. Huaren Management, which is associated with anotherBN member, the Malaysian Chinese Association, monopolizes Chinese-language newspapers.Despite the BN’s insistence that mainstream newspapers are impartial, owners’ political and258

usiness interests often lead to self-censorship by journalists. Foreign print media areoccasionally censored or banned.The internet remains a bright spot in the media landscape, with the government formallycommitted to a policy of refraining from direct online censorship, through Section 3(3) of theCommunications and Multimedia Act (CMA) and the Multimedia Bill of Guarantees. Witharound 66 percent of the population accessing the internet in 2012, Malaysia is home to manynews websites and blogs that offer competing points of view. Although not all of these internetnews organizations are politically independent—many have suspected affiliations withpoliticians from either the opposition or the ruling coalition—they nevertheless offer an array ofpolitical opinions that cannot be found in the traditional media, and play a growing role in themedia landscape. Social-networking sites such as Facebook continued to flourish in 2012,hosting vigorous debates on political issues and government policies. The internet has also beena place to challenge corruption and other human rights concerns, though existing laws requirebloggers to tread carefully.MaldivesStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 18Political Environment: 21Economic Environment: 16Total Score: 55Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 66,NF 56,PF 50,PF 50,PF 51,PFThe media environment deteriorated in 2012, due in part to severe political and social unrestresulting from the forcible removal of President Mohamed Nasheed in February and thesuccession of his vice president, Mohammed Waheed Hassan Manik. Harassment and violenceagainst journalists increased considerably, and media outlets faced attacks and closures.The 2008 constitution protects freedom of expression, but it also places restrictions onspeech deemed “contrary to the tenets of Islam.” The overall legal framework protecting freeexpression remained weak in 2012, with many proposed reform bills still awaiting passage. InNovember 2011, the Maldives Broadcasting Commission (MBC), the legal entity assigned toregulate broadcast media, drafted new regulations that would curtail the power and reach of thecountry’s broadcasters through high licensing fees and ownership rules favoring internationalcompanies over locally owned stations. While these changes have yet to be implemented, theypose a potential threat to Maldivian media. In December 2012, the parliament passed theFreedom of Peaceful Assembly Act, which set out a number of limitations on journalists,including a requirement for accreditation by the MBC. Freedom of information (FOI) has beenregulated by presidential decree since 2009. An FOI bill was submitted to the parliament thatyear, but it has been stalled in committee since then.A 2008 law called for the establishment of the Maldives Media Council (MMC), anindependent body consisting of eight media workers and seven members of the public, taskedwith developing a code of conduct for journalists and investigating complaints from the public259

against both print and broadcast outlets. While advocacy groups warned about the potential forgovernment influence (the minister of information nominates the public candidates) and notedthat self-regulation was preferable to statutory regulation, they cautiously welcomed theformation of the council and an end to formal control over media content by the InformationMinistry. After a considerable delay, elections to the council were held in 2010. The electionprocess was criticized for not being sufficiently transparent, and former members of politicalparties were nominated as candidates to the council.The Maldives Journalist Association (MJA), formed in 2009, regularly made statementsregarding media freedom issues and journalists’ rights during the year, accusing the governmentand political leaders of interference with the private media in a number of cases. Followingreports of corruption within the MMC, the MJA joined other media watchdog organizations incalling for the creation of a separate and independent regulatory body.Over the previous few years, greater media diversity had led to improved coverage ofmajor political events and issues, such as the May 2009 parliamentary elections. However,throughout 2012 the media faced limitations on accessing official information and resistance tocoverage of certain topics, such as religious freedom. While there is legal protection forjournalists to maintain confidentiality of sources, it has become regular practice for the police tosummon journalists for interrogation about their sources and the authenticity of news reports.Censorship of web-based content is a growing concern. Opposition websites remainedaccessible in 2012, though sites considered to be anti-Islamic or pornographic are often blockedby the Communication Authority of the Maldives (CAM) at the request of the Ministry ofIslamic Affairs. In December, a criminal court granted police a warrant to obtain the e-mail andinternet protocol (IP) addresses of a user accused of “violating Islamic principles” on thecomment board of Minivan News, an independent English-language news website. Theindividual’s username, “Maai Allah” (Holy Allah), provoked the charges. This marked the firsttime police have sought out the identity of an internet user on religious grounds.Journalists and media outlets endured a sharp increase in violence in 2012, includingassaults, raids, arrests, and harassment. The most prominent case involved blogger Ismail“Hilath” Rasheed, one of the country’s best-known journalists. In January, Rasheed was releasedfrom prison for his involvement in a “silent protest” to promote religious tolerance. The arrestfollowed the blocking of his blog by the CAM on the grounds that it contained anti-Islamicmaterial. In June, unidentified men stabbed Rasheed in the neck outside his home. Fearing for hissafety, he fled the country in July. Journalists faced numerous assaults by demonstrators andarrests while covering political protests during the year. In February, riot police stormed theoffices of the Maldives National Broadcasting Corporation (MNBC), taking over the stationhours before the coerced resignation of President Nasheed. The raid was reportedly ordered byVice President Waheed. Assailants attacked three additional media outlets—DhiTV, VTV, andRaajje TV—in 2012, injuring journalists and destroying equipment. In August, Raajje TV suedthe police for targeting and harassing its reporters.Private print media present a fairly wide diversity of viewpoints. However, somepublications are owned by allies of former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom or other politicalactors, who exercise considerable control over content. Following the transfer of power inFebruary 2012, a parliament-created state broadcaster assumed control of all government-ownedmedia in accordance with a prior court order. Opponents have been critical of the move, arguingthat the ostensibly autonomous entity violates its mandate as a public-service broadcaster byignoring opposition voices and favoring the ruling party. The number of private radio stations260

has increased to at least six in recent years, while the country’s first private television channels,DhiTV and VTV, began operating in 2008 and compete with the state-run broadcaster. Privateoutlets are authorized through individual agreements with the government rather than newbroadcasting legislation, limiting their legal protections. Moreover, broadcasters remain subjectto high annual licensing fees and must be relicensed every year. Most newspapers are notprofitable and rely on financial backing from businessmen with strong political interests. Privatemedia have been under significant financial pressure since 2009, when the government beganpublishing its advertisements in the weekly official gazette instead of private outlets.The internet was accessed by about 39 percent of the population in 2012, and the numberof web-based news outlets has greatly expanded.MaliStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 13Political Environment: 21Economic Environment: 12Total Score: 46Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 27,F 26,F 25,F 24,F 24,FStatus change explanation: Mali declined from Free to Partly Free due to the repression of themedia in the south as a result of the March military coup, and the near-complete suppression offreedom of the press in the north, which was taken over by Islamist militants for most of 2012.This included a temporary suspension of the constitution, arbitrary arrests of journalists, thetakeover of the state broadcaster, and restrictions on reporting on the coup in the south; theclosure or takeover of nearly all outlets and the imposition of Islamic law in the north; andharassment and attacks on journalists in both regions.Mali’s political and media environments have long been among the freest in Africa. This statuswas severely damaged in 2012 due to the combined effects of a militant takeover of the north ofthe country beginning in January, followed two months later by a military coup that overthrew itsdemocratically elected government based in the south. In January, a predominantly Tuareg rebelgroup, the National Movement for the Liberation of the Azawad (NMLA), and local and foreignIslamist groups—Ansar Dine and the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO),respectively—took control of the towns in the north and declared the region’s independencefrom the government in the capital, Bamako. In March, soldiers led by Captain Amadou Sanogo,accusing President Amadou Toumani Touré of mishandling the northern rebellion, led a coupdeposing the president just one month before the next scheduled election. Meanwhile, theIslamist groups gained the upper hand in the north and imposed Sharia (Islamic law). Theseevents had a devastating impact on Mali’s traditionally free press, bringing reporting restrictions,intimidation and arrests of journalists, and the closure of several outlets. By the end of 2012, the10 percent of Mali’s population living in the north remained under a severely restricted media261

environment, while the ability of journalists to practice freely in the rest of the country wasgradually returning to pre-coup levels, although some problems remained.The right to free speech is guaranteed under Article 4 of Mali’s 1992 constitution.Despite severe criminal punishments for libel that still exist under a 1993 law, no journalistshave been prosecuted under the law since 2007. Sanogo temporarily suspended the constitutionfollowing the coup in March; however, in response to local and regional pressure, he reinstated ita few weeks later. Sanogo pledged that the move would make way for democratic elections, butno vote had been held by the end of 2012. In the north, the constitution remained suspended atyear’s end.Mali has never had legislation guaranteeing access to information. In the monthsfollowing the coup, information was particularly difficult to obtain in the south, as Sanogo andhis supporters maintained restrictions on news and banned interviews with the deposed president.Despite Mali’s low level of internet penetration, these restrictions prompted Bamako residents,as well as local and international journalists, to turn to Twitter, particularly in the first few daysafter the coup, to post and obtain updates on the political situation.The two existing bodies tasked with regulating the media—the High CommunicationsCouncil (HCC) and the Committee for Equal Access to the State Media—have long lacked thecapacity to mediate press affairs due to insufficient funding. In 2009, the government invested inbuilding a Maison de la Presse, an umbrella for existing press unions, providing journalists withfacilities to work, training centers, and a body to help centralize the protection of journalists’rights. Journalism training, led mainly by regional and international nongovernmentalorganizations such as the Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) and International MediaSupport (IMS), was stepped up in 2011 to help journalists prepare for the planned election in2012. However, the coup in March destabilized the delicate new Maison de la Presse, resulting ina leadership crisis as heads of the various smaller journalism unions vied for power. This led tostagnation in the agency’s activities and restrictions in its ability to represent the interests ofjournalists. There were also reported increases in unprofessional behavior among journalists inthe south, with some inciting hatred against Tuareg ethnic groups in Bamako.One of the first targets of the coup leaders was the office of the state broadcaster, theMalian Office of Radio and Television Broadcasting (ORTM), which was seriously damaged onthe day of the coup and, for three months, transformed into the headquarters of the military.During the coup itself, on March 22, it was taken off the air, and allowed to play only musicwhen it resumed broadcasting a few hours later. Sanogo and his supporters used the station tobroadcast their first post-coup messages. ORTM employees were permitted to return to workthree weeks later, but operations remained under the authority of the military.From 2008 to 2011, there had been virtually no reports of journalists being harassed inthe course of their work in Mali. After the March 2012 coup, a number of journalists, particularlynewspaper editors, were arrested, detained, and abused by security officials in Bamako. In June,Habi Baby, the editor of the weekly Caravane, was detained for nearly two weeks after he wasaccused of links to the separatist rebels in the north. In July, publisher Saouti Labass Haïdara ofL’Indépendant newspaper, was seized by gunman who had stormed the paper’s offices inBamako; he was later treated for injuries at a local hospital. The paper had recently printedstories critical of the interim government’s handling of the situation in the north. Numerous suchincidents, frequently involving physical abuse and confiscation of equipment and materials,occurred in Bamako in the first half of 2012; however; all were eventually released withoutcharge and no such incidents were reported after August. Local journalists alleged that such262

incidents indicated an intentional effort on the part of the military to monitor the operations ofjournalists, including wiretapping, in the months directly following the coup. Entry visas to Maliwere hard to come by, though this was primarily due to the breakdown of the bureaucraticsystem of the state.The state of the media in the north was drastically different from the rest of the country in2012 following the rebellion in January. The media were directly targeted by the NMLA and theIslamists throughout the year, leading to a near-complete shutdown of all independent outlets inthe region. Radio—the most important medium of information in the region due to its isolationand high illiteracy rate—was specifically targeted, with both private stations in the cities andlocal community radio stations destroyed, forcibly closed, or co-opted by the militants. In April,there was only one privately owned radio station in the north’s largest town, Timbuktu, that wasoperating with a semblance of independence. The state broadcaster, the most widely listened toradio station in the region, came under the complete control of the militants, though it hadpreviously functioned primarily as a government mouthpiece. The few cybercafés that existed inthe north were shut down, and terrestrial TV was largely inaccessible. Those journalists who didnot flee were either physically harassed and intimidated into silence or co-opted by bribes—allegedly as high as one year’s salary for a month’s work—to become part of the movement’spropaganda network. In one example, MUJAO militants in August attacked radio journalistMalick Aliou Maïga and ordered that his station, Radio Adar Khoïma, be taken off the air in thetown of Gao. While the north has long been difficult to access due to the poor state of the roads,travel to and from the region was further restricted in 2012 by both the militants and the militaryleadership in the south, making mobile phones the only reliable way of getting information aboutthe situation in the region. In December, a reporter and a cameraman from Qatari-based satellitenetwork Al-Jazeera were detained while attempting to cross into the north. At the end of 2012,the region’s media remained under severe restrictions, with limited freedom of speech and accessto information.Mali has long boasted a diverse media environment, and at the beginning of 2012 therewere some 300 FM radio stations operating throughout the country, as well as 40 newspapersand magazines that published on a regular basis, though few other than the state-owned L’Essorboasted circulations that exceeded 1,000 copies. Following the coup, numerous newspapers inthe capital ceased distribution, largely due to poor infrastructure and a lack of access tonewsprint; by the end of the year, only 30 dailies and weeklies were reportedly in operation. Theonly domestic television station with national reach is the state broadcaster, ORTM, whichnormally broadcasts progovernment programming. ORTM remained under the control of themilitary in the south and closed in the north at the end of the year. Plans announced in 2011 tolaunch a new public channel targeting youth were curtailed and the station was never launched.Radio stations in the south were largely able to operate as usual by the end of 2012, though withincreased self-censorship due to the military’s increased monitoring and harassment.Only 2 percent of Malians were able to access the internet in 2012, one of the lowestlevels in West Africa. However, with the attention that Twitter received in the wake of the coupand the reliance on mobile phones for transmitting information in the north, new technologies areincreasingly shaping the media environment in Mali.Malta263

Status: FreeLegal Environment: 4Political Environment: 9Economic Environment: 9Total Score: 22Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 20,F 22,F 22,F 22,F 22,FMalta’s constitution guarantees freedoms of speech and of the press, but it limits these rightsunder a variety of circumstances. Laws against “vilification” of or “giving offense” to the RomanCatholic faith, the country’s official religion, have led to restrictions on expression. Maltese lawstrongly defends public morality by criminalizing obscene speech, acts, and gestures. In June2012, the criminal code and the Press Act were amended to include gender identity and sexualorientation, in addition to race, as prohibited grounds for hate speech.Defamation is a criminal offense, and perceived victims have a legal right to reply. Civillibel cases are also common, with news outlets occasionally ordered to pay exorbitant damages.In July 2012, a court instructed Malta Today to pay €18,000 ($23,100) for a series of articles onthe business dealings of Peter Fenech, a lawyer and chairman of the government-ownedMediterranean Conference Center. The court found that Fenech could not be considered a publicfigure in the case. In October, the Times of Malta was ordered to pay €11,500 ($14,790) to theMalta Union of Midwives and Nurses for a 2010 article. Both newspapers were appealing thedecisions, but no further rulings had been issued by year’s end. There were also victories fordefendants during the year. In February, a writer and an editor of the university publicationRealtà were acquitted of publishing lewd material in 2009, while in October, editor of theopposition Labour Party paper Kullhadd, Felix Agius, was cleared of libeling the director generalof the Malta Communications and Consumer Affairs Authority.In September, Malta’s 2008 Freedom of Information Act went into full effect, allowingany resident of the country or citizen of the European Union to submit a request for publicinformation. The government website states that requests will receive a response withinapproximately one month.The Broadcasting Authority regulates and monitors all radio and television broadcasts. Itsmembers are appointed by the president on the advice of the prime minister. However, theprocess has been criticized in the past for being overly political. In February 2012, a court ruledthat the Broadcasting Authority had not been acting impartially when it imposed sanctions,because the institution is responsible for both charging alleged violators and adjudicating theircases. The authority appealed the decision. In October, Malta’s Public Broadcasting Services(PBS) objected to the Broadcasting Authority’s ruling that the Labour Party could decide whichparty member would be sent to appear on programs rather than allowing stations to invite theirown guests. Conversely, PBS came under fire in September for forcing out popular talk-showhost Claudette Pace after she announced her intention to run for office on the Nationalist Partyticket.The government does not restrict the internet. In October 2012, a proposal was submittedto entrench digital rights in the Maltese constitution. Malta is a physically safe environment forjournalists, with no reported cases of threats or harassment in 2012.264

The active independent media sector is free to convey a variety of opinions, with at leastfive daily and two weekly newspapers publishing in both Maltese and English. Political parties,private businesses, and the Catholic Church all have direct investments in broadcasting and printmedia, and these outlets openly express partisan views. The only national television broadcasteris PBS’s TVM, though the country also has access to Italian television, which many Maltesewatch. The internet was regularly accessed by 70 percent of the population in 2012.Marshall IslandsStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 2Political Environment: 6Economic Environment: 9Total Score: 17Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 17,F 17,F 17,F 17,F 17,FMauritaniaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 14Political Environment: 17Economic Environment: 16Total Score: 47Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 56,PF 58,PF 56,PF 53,PF 52,PFMauritania’s media environment continued to open in 2012, despite a history of dictatorship andthe 2008 ouster of the first democratically elected president by an army general, MohammedOuld Abdel Aziz. Abdel Aziz subsequently contested and won elections held in 2009. Sincethen, his administration has passed a number of reforms to improve media freedom in thecountry.Article 10 of the 1991 constitution guarantees freedom of opinion, of thought, and ofexpression. Legal and regulatory reforms enacted in 2006 eliminated prepublication governmentapproval for newspapers, established journalists’ legal right to protect sources, and created theHigh Authority for the Press and Audiovisual Sector (HAPA). The authority’s board membersare appointed in consultation with media associations and journalist groups, a departure from theprevious practice of presidential appointments. In addition to its regulatory role, HAPA isresponsible for nominating the heads of public media outlets and the Mauritanian News Agency.The appointment of Salka Mint Sneid, the president of the association of women journalists, aschair of an advisory board created by HAPA in September 2012 reflected the increasing presenceof practicing female journalists. In 2011, the parliament had approved amendments to the 2006265

Press Freedom Law that abolished prison sentences for slander and defamation, including ofheads of state, though fines can still be imposed for these offenses. Mauritania has no legislationguaranteeing access to information. A growing focus on the promotion and empowerment offemale journalists led to over 60 women benefiting from various types of journalistic trainingduring 2012.Though the media express a variety of views, journalists practice a degree of selfcensorshipin their coverage of issues such as the military, foreign diplomatic missions,corruption, and Sharia (Islamic law). Nevertheless, journalists were able to report freely on 2012events such as the accidental shooting of the president in October and political turmoil in Libya.Extralegal violence and intimidation toward journalists has decreased over the past several years,but there were reports in 2012 of security forces attacking and detaining reporters for theircoverage of sensitive topics, including antigovernment protests and slavery, and journalists wereassaulted by both police and protesters while covering student demonstrations early in the year.In April, authorities arrested journalist and activist Obeid Ould Amegn for his participation in anews program on the Dubai-based satellite station Al-Arabiya that addressed the controversialburning of religious books. Also in April, police assaulted and arrested the editor of the Frenchversion of the online news site Al-Akhbar, Abou Ould Abdoul Kader, as he attempted to cover ayouth demonstration. In August, members of the presidential guard attacked and confiscated theequipment of two journalists covering youth protests that erupted during a speech by PresidentAbdel Aziz in the northwestern city of Atar. In December, police detained two journalists fromthe television station El-Sahal who were covering a sit-in protest by teachers. Both journalistswere released without charge.The print sector features both state-run and private outlets. The government owns twodaily newspapers, the French-language Horizons and the Arabic Chaab, and dozens ofindependent print outlets are active. HAPA provides subsidies to several independentnewspapers, and most papers have access to the state’s printing press. Mauritania has one publicand at least two private television stations, as well as one public and at least one private radiostation. A public television station that began broadcasting in 2008 carries programs in thecountry’s minority languages—Pular, Soninke, and Wolof. The number of private outletsapplying for licenses has been growing since November 2011, when HAPA announced that twonew independent television stations and five independent radio stations would be allowed tobegin operating, ending the government’s monopoly on domestic broadcast media. In November2012, Sahara Media FM became one of the first new stations to go on air. Some oppositionmembers maintained that the allocation of permits favored progovernment interests. RadioFrance Internationale rebroadcasts locally, and Mauritanians have access to international satellitetelevision. In October, the government distributed 40 million ouguiyas ($135,000) to 62independent press institutions to cover journalists’ salaries, internal training, and printingsubsidies. In December, the Mauritanian Union of Journalists (LSU), in collaboration with theU.S. embassy in Nouakchott, distributed media vests and photography and recording equipmentto journalists in national press institutions.Internet access is not generally restricted by the government, but penetration was justover 5 percent in 2012. Mobile-telephone subscriptions are within the reach of more than 93percent of the population. The impact of online media has grown in recent years, but existinglegislation does not address the emergence of internet-based journalism.266

MauritiusStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 7Political Environment: 10Economic Environment: 13Total Score: 30Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 26,F 26,F 27,F 28,F 29,FMexicoStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 16Political Environment: 31Economic Environment: 14Total Score: 61Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 51,PF 55,PF 60,PF 62,NF 62,NFMexico continued to be one of the most dangerous places in the world for journalists in 2012,with widespread violence and impunity plaguing the media environment. Experts lauded theJune passage of a constitutional amendment making crimes against journalists a federal offense,but urged Congress to pass enacting statutes in order to ensure successful implementation.Freedom of expression in Mexico is established in Articles 6 and 7 of the constitution.Mexico decriminalized defamation on the federal level in 2007, and a number of states haveeliminated their own criminal defamation statutes, including, in 2012, the state of Mexico—thecountry’s most populous. Nevertheless, state criminal and civil codes continue to be used tointimidate journalists. In October, the government of Puebla state sued two journalists foropinions that the government claimed “morally damaged” the reputation of public officials. Thesuits were filed hours after a list of 19 journalists who were being monitored by the authoritieswas leaked. State Governor Rafael Moreno Valle’s press agent wrote on Twitter that otherlawsuits would follow, and that all press “excesses” were under review.In 2011, two journalists were arrested on terrorism charges in Veracruz after transmittingunconfirmed information about a school attack on Twitter. Although charges were dropped afteran outcry, the state passed a law criminalizing the dissemination of rumors that resulted in a“disturbance of public order.” Activists took the case to the Supreme Court, which had not issueda decision as of the end of 2012; in November, the Veracruz state legislature altered the law tospecify that penalties would target those who “knowingly” spread false rumors.In 2002, Mexico passed a Freedom of Information Law, and a 2007 amendment toArticle 6 of the constitution stated that all levels of government would be required to make theirinformation public. However, that information can be temporarily withheld if it is in the publicinterest to do so, and accessing information is often a time-consuming and difficult process.267

Mexico is among the most unsafe environments in the world for journalists due to theexpansion of Mexican drug cartels, the government’s decision to fight the cartels with the armedforces, criminal organizations’ turf battles, and the weaknesses of Mexico’s public securityinstitutions. As in previous years, journalists faced threats from several actors. Politicalauthorities and police forces—mostly local, but also state and federal—were responsible for thelargest share of attacks, but criminal organizations were primarily behind the most chillingincidents.The National Center of Social Communication (Cencos), a Mexican nongovernmentalorganization, reported that eight journalists or news company employees were killed in 2012,while four disappeared and nine media installations were attacked with incendiary devices. TheCommittee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reported that one journalist was killed as a result of hiswork in 2012, and five others were killed but the motive could not be confirmed. The reporteddeath tolls varied in large part due to doubts about the integrity of police investigations, makingit difficult to document which reporters were targeted as a result of their work. Advocacy groupArticle 19 recorded a 20 percent increase in attacks against journalists from the previous year,with acts of violence occurring in 25 of the 32 Mexican states. The organization reported thatviolent acts against journalists in Mexico City rose an alarming 64 percent in 2012.The state of Veracruz, disputed territory among the cartels, was a highly dangerous placefor journalists in 2012. According to Cencos, coverage of public security, organized crime, andcorruption was behind the May murders of Veracruz photojournalists Gabriel Huge Córdoba,Guillermo Luna Varela, Esteban Rodríguez Rodríguez, and Víctor Manuel Báez Chino, as wellas newspaper advertising department employee Ana Irasema Becerra. The dismembered bodiesof Córdoba, Luna, Rodríguez, and Becerra were found near the town of Boca del Río; Báez waskidnapped, killed, and his body dumped the next day in the state capital, Xalapa. Veracruzauthorities claimed that members of a cartel had confessed to the murders. However, federalauthorities told CPJ that they had serious concerns about the state’s evidence in the case.Veracruz was also the site of the April beating and strangulation of Regina Martínez Pérez, arespected political correspondent for the national newsmagazine Proceso. State authoritiesinitially said Martínez had been killed in a “crime of passion,” but changed the motive to theftafter arresting two suspects. Press organizations, however, cast doubt on the state’s case andcalled on federal authorities to take control of all investigations of attacks on journalists inVeracruz.Other deaths and disappearances in 2012 included the May murder of Marco AntonioÁvila García, a police reporter with the newspapers El Regional de Sonora and El Diario deSonora, who was found strangled near Guaymas, Sonora. The state attorney general said awritten note linking the death to organized crime had been left with the body, althoughcolleagues stated that Ávila had not reported on drug trafficking in depth. Also in May, freelancecrime photographer Zane Alejandro Plemmons Rosales, a dual U.S.-Mexican citizen working forEl Debate de Mazatlán, disappeared in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, after leaving his hotel tocover a shootout. In November, local freelance crime reporter Adrián Silva Moreno was shot andkilled in Tehuacán, Puebla. Silva had been collecting evidence related to a gasoline theft from agovernment petroleum company, and reportedly had witnessed a confrontation between soldiersand gunmen just prior to his murder.Broader pressures on the press were also documented in 2012. One was “forceddisplacement,” involving journalists who fled their home states, primarily to Mexico City, due tointimidation or threats. The newspaper El Universal reported that 18 journalists had sought aid268

from the Mexico City Human Rights Commission in 2012, up from 5 in 2010 and 10 in 2011.Officials estimate that the total number of journalists who have relocated to the capital is higher,since not all journalists register with city authorities. In addition, some journalists have goneabroad to escape threats.Journalists covering certain sensitive issues—such as the drug war, and ties betweenpoliticians, the police, and organized crime—routinely practice self-censorship, deprivingcitizens of basic information about the country’s endemic violence and corruption, as well as theextent of criminal penetration of state institutions. Research also emerged in 2012 documentingthe psychological toll of violence on Mexican journalists as well as the gendered dynamic ofattacks. A study by researchers at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM)found that 35 percent of Mexico’s press corps experienced the symptoms of posttraumatic stressdisorder, with the level significantly higher for those who directly covered the drug war. TheWomen’s Communication and Information Association (CIMAC) found that while femalejournalists were killed and disappeared like their male coworkers, they also faced threats directedtoward their children and personal smear attacks based on traditional moral and gender codes.Social media has become an alternative means for journalists and citizens to discussissues related to drug violence. However, bloggers and social-media users have themselvesbecome targets of criminal organizations. In August, Luis Gustavo Hernández Bocanegra, theadministrator of the popular “narcoblog” Mundo Narco, was shot to death in his home inCuliacán, Sinaloa. Drug gangs have sought to exert control over the content of online messageboards, engaging in verbal sniping at their adversaries and threatening both users who postsensitive information as well as reporters and editors who delete comments related to the gangs’online sparring.Impunity is pervasive in Mexico, with little progress in the prosecution of cases ofmurders and intimidation of media workers. In 2006, a special prosecutor’s office wasestablished to combat crimes against journalists, but it has been largely ineffective, achievingonly one conviction since its inception. The office is hampered by jurisdictional weaknesses, aninsufficient number of investigators, the need to draw upon the resources of several rivalagencies, and a lack of transparency. A unit for the protection of journalists has been similarlycriticized as being underfunded and underutilized. Journalists may be unwilling to use theprogram because of their distrust of the government: politicians and police officers are oftenamong those threatening them. Article 19 reported that agents of the state were responsible for astartling 44 percent of crimes against journalists in 2012. In 2012, however, the federalgovernment took steps toward providing better protection for journalists. After several years ofdiscussion, in June the Congress and a majority of state legislatures passed a constitutionalamendment giving federal prosecutors the authority to take charge of investigations andprosecutions of attacks on journalists and media installations. Press advocates considered the lawan advance, but were awaiting the passage of enacting legislation and final implementationbefore declaring the new initiative a success.Coverage of the July 2012 presidential election—which was won by Enrique Peña Nietoof the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI)—was relatively free. In general, political reportingis much more pluralistic and balanced than it was in the past, with widespread coverage of thecompeting political parties, which also have direct access to significant broadcast time. In June,less than a month before the election, Britain’s Guardian newspaper published a report claimingthat Peña Nieto had purchased favorable news coverage from Televisa, the country’s dominantbroadcaster. Televisa denied the accusation, questioning the authenticity of the documents the269

Guardian had offered as proof. In August, Mexico’s Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) rejected acomplaint by the opposition Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) that included charges ofpolitical bias by Televisa stemming from the Guardian’s investigation. During Peña Nieto’sinauguration in December, two photographers were roughed up, arrested, and heldincommunicado for eight days while taking pictures of protests. The photographers were arrestedalong with 69 other people, 56 of whom were later released.The Televisa controversy, and the protests it had ignited among university students overthe network’s perceived support of Peña Nieto, helped to place broadcast ownershipconcentration on the campaign agenda. After winning, Peña Nieto promised to license two moreopen-air networks during his term and improve broadband access by opening the market toincreased competition. Mexico’s broadcasting system is highly concentrated, especially intelevision, where two networks—Televisa and TV Azteca—control 85 percent of the stations.These stations are the only networks with national reach, while about a dozen family-ownedcompanies control radio. There was no movement in 2012 by the Mexican Congress orexecutive-based regulatory bodies to legalize and support community broadcasters or act ondemands to diversify ownership of the broadcast spectrum, and only a handful of communityradio operators have been awarded licenses. There are numerous privately owned newspapers,and diversity is fairly broad in the urban print media.In 2012, 38 percent of the Mexican population accessed the internet. Though content isnot limited by the state, telecommunications ownership is also concentrated, resulting in poorinfrastructure and high access costs.MicronesiaStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 2Political Environment: 8Economic Environment: 11Total Score: 21Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 21,F 21,F 21,F 21,F 21,FMoldovaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 16Political Environment: 18Economic Environment: 19Total Score: 53Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 66,NF 67,NF 65,NF 55,PF 54,PF270

Press freedom remained stable in 2012 as the center-right ruling coalition, the Alliance forEuropean Integration (AIE), was hampered by internal disagreements and devoted less attentionto media reforms. In March, Parliament broke a nearly three-year deadlock and elected a newpresident—63-year-old judge Nicolae Timofti—after three lawmakers defected from theopposition Communist Party and voted for the nominee. The election stabilized the government,but politics remained highly polarized, with 70,000 Communist Party supporters protestingTimofti’s inauguration and refusing to recognize him as the head of state. Throughout the year,the government made limited efforts to continue reforming the public broadcaster, TeleradioMoldova (TRM); struggled to implement defamation reforms; and was lenient in prosecutingcorrupt media regulators. However, the ruling coalition did invite media freedom groups totestify in Parliament for the first time and made some improvements in the regulation ofbroadcast media, and physical attacks against journalists continued to decline.The constitution and laws provide for freedom of expression and of the press, but theserights are often limited by other laws and in practice. Moldova decriminalized defamation in2009, but various groups continued to file civil defamation cases against media outlets in thecourts, which have a reputation for being extremely corrupt. Many judges in 2012 were notimplementing the defamation-related reforms of the 2010 Law on Freedom of Expression, whichhad strengthened the position of journalists, and in May the Supreme Court issued a draftdocument for judges to clarify how the legal changes should be applied. In July, two formerconvicts filed defamation cases against the Chisinau newspaper Ziarul de Gardă, seeking100,000 lei ($8,200) and 300,000 lei ($24,800), respectively, after the newspaper published anarticle questioning why the country’s acting president in 2011 had pardoned two women whohad engaged in multiple fraud schemes. Both cases were pending at the end of the year. Localpress freedom groups could not assess how many defamation cases were filed against the mediabecause some courts either refuse to provide the information or lack qualified personnel torespond to the requests.The AIE-led Parliament passed two notable legislative measures during the year. In July,it amended the Law on Freedom of Expression to ban Communist symbols and the promotion oftotalitarian ideologies. The Communist Party, which still uses the hammer-and-sickle emblem,said it would not comply with the law. In November, Parliament also amended the criminal codeto forbid censoring public media and punish those who obstruct, threaten, or assault journalistswith a fine of up to 2,000 lei ($165). Anyone exploiting an official position to commit suchoffenses can lose their right to hold that position for up to five years.Reporters in the capital were able to obtain a greater amount of public information due toincreased compliance with the Access to Information Law, but compliance remained poor insmaller cities and towns, according to a study conducted by Access-Info, a localnongovernmental organization. Some politicians continued to blame the media for exposingcredible allegations of government corruption. In November 2012, two senior Democratic Partyofficials strongly criticized Ziarul de Gardă after it published an investigative story on thepersonal wealth of an anticorruption official.The Audiovisual Coordinating Council (CCA) has been criticized in the past for itspoliticized, nontransparent decision making, but in 2012 the agency was commended by theIndependent Journalism Center (IJC) for making more professional and transparent judgments.In April, the CCA shuttered the pro-Communist television station NIT after it exhausted otheroptions to reprimand the station for its propagandistic programming, leaving journalists andmedia advocacy groups divided about the propriety of the decision. NIT appealed the ruling in271

court, and the case was pending at the end of the year. Authorities were lenient with two seniorCCA officials being prosecuted for bribery: the junior official was convicted in April andsentenced to four years’ probation, while the charges against the senior official were dropped inAugust after he retired and became seriously ill. The Electronic Broadcasters’ Association(APEL) had prepared a draft broadcast law in 2011 that would limit media concentration andimprove transparency regarding media ownership, but in 2012 Parliament passed only threenarrow amendments to the old broadcast law that primarily focused on strengthening advertisingrelatedregulations.Media pluralism and the volume of locally produced programming continued to expandin 2012 in response to the improved legal and political environment that the AIE began fosteringin 2010. The CCA issued new licenses to eight television stations and five radio stations, while10 new magazines and newspapers were registered with the Ministry of Justice. However, thegrowing number of bloggers on websites like Blogosfera.md and Voxreport.unimedia.md remainexcluded from reporting on the government because they are not officially recognized asjournalists and cannot receive accreditation.Intimidation of journalists continued to decline during 2012, in part due to aggressivereporting by media outlets like Publika TV, and local media freedom organizations reported noserious physical attacks. Government officials generally interacted more carefully with reporters,but remained sensitive to reporting on allegations of government corruption, leaving journalistsand media outlets vulnerable to threats and attacks. In April, the broadcasting equipment of atelevision network in central Moldova, Rezina-based Elita TV, was largely destroyed or stolenafter the station’s owners refused to sell it to a group of local politicians and continued reportingon a politically sensitive lawsuit. In August, Jurnal TV reporter Victoria Ocară was hospitalizedwith a head injury after being struck by stones while covering confrontations in the northern cityof Bălţi between advocates and opponents of union with Romania. Police officers often fail toproperly investigate attacks in such cases, but were reported to have identified suspects in bothincidents.In the separatist Transnistria region, media outlets are highly restricted and politicized.Most of the local broadcast media are controlled by the Transnistrian authorities in the selfdeclaredcapital of Tiraspol, or by companies like Sheriff Enterprises that are linked to theseparatist regime. Print media are required to register with the separatist Ministry of Informationin Tiraspol rather than the internationally recognized Moldovan government in Chişinău. Mediapluralism is extremely limited, as any critical information regarding the authorities is promptlysuppressed and the journalists responsible harassed, resulting in pervasive self-censorship.Residents increasingly use social-networking websites to anonymously discuss politicallysensitive issues with their counterparts in the rest of Moldova, but users were often unable toaccess websites reporting on Transnistria in 2012—including Dniester.ru, Tiras.ru, andSafronovpmr.com—because they were blocked by authorities in Tiraspol or experiencedfrequent cyberattacks. The election of Yevgeny Shevchuk to the separatist presidency inDecember 2011 polarized the local media, leading to the creation of more websites and pressservices for separatist agencies, as well as reduced access to public information as agenciesrequired that all requests be made in writing.There is a mix of private and public media in Moldova, but ownership transparency isstill lacking, with many outlets employed to advance the business or political interests of theirsecretive owners. TRM managers appointed by the AIE government have been commended forthe broadcaster’s balanced news coverage, but the departure of two senior executives in early272

2012 and the nine-month search to replace them, along with a two-year delay in appointing threemembers to the TRM Supervisory Board, effectively stalled the public broadcaster’s internalreforms during the year. The AIE made limited progress in reorganizing, privatizing, orshuttering some 40 state-owned local newspapers. Due to the global economic downturn, privatemedia remained highly dependent on financial subsidies and advertising revenue from affiliatedbusinesses and political groups, rather than market-driven advertising and circulation revenue.Economic pressures continued to force media outlets to cut costs and intensified the shift fromprint to online operations.An underdeveloped telecommunications infrastructure, coupled with high fees forinternet connections, has resulted in limited internet usage, though access is generally notrestricted by the authorities. Approximately 43 percent of the population had access to theinternet in 2012. News portals and social-networking sites have become popular, with some onemillion users registered on the Russian site Odnoklassniki and some 200,000 on Facebook,according to the IJC.MonacoStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 3Political Environment: 7Economic Environment: 6Total Score: 16Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 16,F 16,F 16,F 16,F 16,FMongoliaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 13Political Environment: 12Economic Environment: 12Total Score: 37Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 38,PF 41,PF 39,PF 39,PF 37,PFFreedom of speech and freedom of the press are protected under Mongolian law, and thegovernment generally respects both of these rights in practice. However, press freedomcontinued to be compromised in 2012 by legal harassment of journalists, political influence overnews outlets, and financial difficulties faced by media workers.Officials frequently file criminal and civil defamation suits in response to critical articles,with a quarter of journalists reportedly affected. In July 2012, criminal defamation charges werefiled against a reporter from the Uls Turiin Toim daily newspaper over an article claiming the273

existence of a secret election plan by a member of the Mongolian government. The journalistwas ordered to pay $7,350 in compensation. In August 2011, criminal defamation charges weredismissed against reporter D. Bolormaa of the Zuunii Medee daily newspaper over articles thatimplicated a notable businessman in the trafficking of virgin teenagers. However, following anappeal by the claimant, the journalist was ordered to pay $6,200 in compensation in October2012. To avoid being sued for libel, many independent publications are forced to practice someform of self-censorship.Journalists are also susceptible to other forms of legal intimidation. In an unusual case,Dolgor Chuluunbaatar, editor in chief of the Ulaanbaatar Times, was jailed in 2011 on chargesof illegally privatizing a newspaper. During his imprisonment, Chuluunbaatar faced intimidationand threats by investigators seeking to determine who else was involved in his alleged actions. InAugust 2012, Chuluunbaatar was convicted of causing “huge damage” to state property and theillegal purchasing of a newspaper and its offices, and was sentenced to a five-year prison term;he will have to spend two years in jail.Censorship of public information is banned under the 1998 Media Freedom Law, but a1995 state secrets law severely limits access to government information, as many archivedrecords have been given classified status and can retain such status for an indefinite amount oftime. After an eight-year campaign by activists, the parliament passed the Law on InformationTransparency and Right to Information in June 2011, with the legislation taking effect inDecember 2011. The government routinely monitors broadcast and print media for compliancewith restrictions on violent, pornographic, and alcohol-related content. Internet users remainconcerned about a February 2011 regulation by the Communications Regulatory Commission(CRC) that restricts obscene and inappropriate content without explicitly defining it and requirespopular websites to make their users’ IP addresses publicly visible.There is no official censorship by the government. However, journalists frequentlycomplain of harassment and intimidation as well as pressure from the authorities to revealconfidential sources. According to a local media freedom organization, Globe International,many journalists continue to face verbal threats or pressure against either themselves or theirfamily members. In January 2012, a local television reporter and cameraman were assaultedwhile attempting to cover a dispute at a mining company in the province of Bayankhongor. InJuly, several journalists were beaten at the office of Sky Television while airing parliamentaryelection results. The attacks were carried out by a disgruntled investor in the company, B.Ganzorig, and six others upset that the station’s coverage was detrimental to Ganzorig’s politicalcampaign. The assailants were convicted in December and Ganzorig was sentenced to a prisonterm of three and half years.Although independent print media outlets are common and popular in cities, the mainsource of news in the vast countryside is Radio Mongolia. Under the 2005 Law on the PublicRadio and Television, state-run radio and television broadcasting outlets like Radio Mongolia aretransforming into public service broadcasters, but progress remains slow. Both state and publicmedia still frequently experience political pressure, and most provincial media outlets continueto be controlled by local authorities. Low wages for journalists have created a secondary marketfor purchasing coverage. Mongolians have access to local, privately owned television stations,English-language broadcasts of the British Broadcasting Corporation and Voice of America onprivate FM stations, and, in Ulaanbaatar, foreign television programming via cable and satellitesystems. In October 2012, Bloomberg television launched Bloomberg TV Mongolia, the firstinternational broadcast news organization headquartered in Mongolia, which intends to deliver274

international business and finance news alongside coverage of local Mongolian news. Thelaunch of Bloomberg TV Mongolia coincides with a growing trend of more robust and diversenews coverage. Owing to widespread poverty in Mongolia, the internet has yet to serve as asignificant source of news and information; only about 16 percent of the population accessed themedium in 2012.MontenegroStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 9Political Environment: 17Economic Environment: 10Total Score: 36Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 38,PF 37,PF 37,PF 37,PF 35,PFFreedom of the press is guaranteed by the constitution and generally respected in practice,though the media environment is affected by problems including editorial bias and the physicalintimidation of journalists. The threat of legal pressure was reduced in 2011, when Montenegrofully decriminalized defamation, relegating it to civil suits with monetary compensation as theonly possible sanction. In addition, the Supreme Court has adopted guidelines regulating thelevel of compensation in cases filed against the media. Despite the reforms, a court in April 2012reinstated a four-month jail sentence against journalist Petar Komnenić, who had been convictedof criminal libel in 2011 over a 2007 article in the independent Monitor magazine, in which healleged that the government had been improperly monitoring top judges. Press freedomorganizations and the European Union harshly criticized the ruling. Consequently, on May 23,the parliament adopted a law that granted amnesty to those convicted of defamation, and thejudiciary formally pardoned Komnenić based on the law in December. The EuropeanCommission reported a decrease in the number of defamation cases after decriminalization; theamount of damages awarded also declined slightly. Nevertheless, as of May 2012 there were areported 15 open court cases against Montenegrin journalists.The right to access information is guaranteed in the constitution, and journalists canrequest public information via a 2005 freedom of information law. However, implementation ofthe law has been problematic, resulting in dozens of court cases over the years. In July 2012, theparliament passed a law requiring government agencies to proactively publish some information.The country’s media regulators are not financially independent and have inadequatemonitoring capacity. Licensing and registration are handled by two agencies, the Agency forElectronic Media and the Agency for Electronic Communications and Postal Services (EKIP). Acode of ethics for journalists was adopted in 2003, but Montenegrin journalists have struggled toestablish a common self-regulatory body since then. In March 2012, the existing self-regulatorybody was reconstituted, with 19 news outlets participating. Some independent media outletsdeclined to join the process and established two separate press councils instead.Independent journalists continue to face pressure from business leaders and thegovernment. Reporting by both private and state-owned media outlets frequently lacks275

objectivity. The public broadcaster is accused of favoring the government in its news coverage,and in the absence of strong opposition parties, some private media play the role of politicalopposition. While the 2010–12 government of Prime Minister Igor Lukšić made some efforts toincrease protections for media freedom and independence, Lukšić was replaced in October 2012by Milo Đukanović, who had served as prime minister or president for most of the previous twodecades. In April, Đukanović had criticized independent media outlets and civil societyorganizations, suggesting that they receive a disproportionately large amount of foreign fundsinvested in Montenegro. He added that the arrest of “media tycoons” could speed upMontenegro’s European integration. His remarks prompted the independent Vijesti dailynewspaper to compare Đukanović’s rule to that of the late Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milošević.There were a number of attacks against journalists in Montenegro in 2012. In February,an editor and a photographer for the daily Dan were assaulted; legal proceedings have sincebegun against the suspected attackers. In October, a journalist from Vijesti and another from Danwere assaulted at a preelection rally. The most serious case of violence occurred in March, whenVijesti journalist Olivera Lakić was beaten near her home. She had previously received severalthreats because of her articles detailing the alleged involvement of police officials in the illegalcigarette trade. A court in July found 29-year-old Ivan Bušković guilty of carrying out the attackand sentenced him to nine months in jail; however, authorities were still investigating whether hewas acting under someone else’s orders. Also in July, a Podgorica court handed down a sixmonthsuspended jail sentence to the son of the city’s mayor for a 2009 attack on two Vijestiemployees. Rights groups criticized the sentence as too lenient. Many previous cases of violenceagainst journalists remained unsolved at year’s end.The media environment is diverse for such a small country, with about 23 televisionstations, 53 radio stations, 4 daily print outlets, 3 weeklies, and 30 monthlies operating. Access tothe internet is not restricted, and approximately 57 percent of the population had access in 2012.Content is significantly influenced by the business and political interests of media owners, andmedia ownership is not transparent. In the print sector, major private newspapers such as Vijestiand Dan compete with Pobjeda, a state-owned newspaper with national circulation. At the end of2012, the state still held a majority stake in Pobjeda, despite a 2002 law requiring thegovernment to sell its shares. Fahrudin Radončić, a Montenegrin-born Bosnian politician withclose links to Đukanović, offered to buy the paper in late 2011, but abandoned the bid in April2012. Private media outlets allege that Pobjeda carries the most advertisements by state-ownedcompanies and organizations, even though it has the lowest circulation of Montenegro’s majordailies.The global financial crisis exacerbated the financial problems of Montenegro’s mediaenvironment, in which a large number of broadcast and print media compete for a smalladvertising pool. The weekly Monitor reported that two new daily newspapers with cut-rate issueprices were launched in 2012, and suggested that investors were seeking to drive downMontenegrin newspaper prices in an effort to undermine independent dailies. Journalists are nothighly paid, and combined with poor training and political and business influence, this oftenleads to biased coverage.MoroccoStatus: Not Free276

Legal Environment: 24Political Environment: 24Economic Environment: 18Total Score: 66Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 64,NF 64,NF 66,NF 68,NF 68,NFThe Moroccan government promised a campaign to improve press freedom in 2012 as part of itspost–Arab Spring political reform agenda. These pledges were not fulfilled in practice, however,as unofficial but clear restrictions remained in place during the year, discouraging coverage ofpolitically and socially sensitive subjects.Morocco’s new constitution, passed in 2011, guarantees freedom of the press, but itsvague language enables great latitude for interpretation and hinders enforcement of mediaprotections. The press law prohibits criticism of the monarchy and Islam and effectively barsindependent coverage of certain taboo subjects, including the royal family and the status ofWestern Sahara. Libel remains a criminal offense that can result in prison terms and exorbitantfines. Legal cases are a primary method of repressing critical expression. In February 2012,Walid Bahomane, a teenage student, was sentenced to 18 months in prison after posting acaricature of the king on the social-networking site Facebook. Also that month, Abdul-Samad al-Haidour was sentenced to three years in prison for criticizing royal policies and calling the king a“dog” in a recording posted on the video-sharing site YouTube.Journalists are sometimes imprisoned on trumped-up criminal charges, as opposed toexplicitly press-related offenses. For example, blogger Mohamed Sokrate was arrested in May2012 and later sentenced to two years in prison on drug possession and trafficking charges. Pressfreedom advocates alleged that Sokrate was in fact imprisoned because of his reporting on theking and other sensitive topics. Mohamed al-Dawas, a freelance journalist who reported criticallyon the government, had been similarly imprisoned in 2011 on charges of drug trafficking. Heremained in jail in 2012.King Mohamed VI and his government wield considerable control over the editorialcontent of domestic broadcast media. Government oversight includes the authority to appoint theheads of all public radio and television stations. The government also appoints the president andfour of eight board members at the High Authority for Audio-Visual Communication, whichissues broadcast licenses and monitors content to ensure compliance with licensing requirements.The prime minister appoints two additional board members, and the presidents of the twochambers of parliament each appoint one of the remaining members.The government sporadically blocks certain websites and online tools, including newssites, Google Earth, and blogging platforms. In 2012, the government began developingguidelines to regulate online content. The authorities monitor blogs and other websites, and therehas been an increase in progovernment activism online, which some claim is instigated bygovernment agents. The state occasionally cracks down on those who produce critical onlinecontent. This practice intensified with the rise of the February 20 protest movement followingthe eruption of prodemocracy uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa in early 2011.Self-censorship is widespread, and journalists tend to stay within unofficial red lines toavoid heavy fines, prison sentences, or extralegal intimidation and physical violence inretribution for their stories. Some journalists continue to push the boundaries of permissible277

coverage and report on sensitive subjects such as the military, national security, religion, andsexuality, but many have moved outside Morocco to escape government harassment andsurveillance.Foreign publications are widely available in Morocco, but the foreign media are notimmune from government repression. Authorities rescinded accreditation for all journalistsworking in Morocco for Qatar’s Al-Jazeera satellite television network in 2010, effectivelysuspending the network’s reporting in the country. The government was in talks with Al-Jazeerain 2012, but its Moroccan bureau remained closed during the year. Foreign publications are alsooccasionally banned or censored. The Spanish daily El País was banned twice in 2012, first forpublishing a cartoon of the king and later for coverage of a book that was critical of the monarch.Physical attacks on journalists are less common than legal actions, though there werereports of harassment and intimidation in 2012. Ali Lmrabet, who runs an online news portal,was beaten and robbed by unidentified men in August. He alleged that the assailants wereplainclothes policemen and said some of them had also broken into his house earlier in themonth. In August, police attacked Agence France-Presse journalist Omar Brouksy while he wasreporting on demonstrations outside the parliament building. Brouksy was targeted again inOctober, after describing a candidate as “close to the king” in an article about legislativeelections. The government characterized the article as “an unprofessional dispatch” because itimplied that that king was not politically neutral, and rescinded Brouksy’s press accreditation.According to the constitution, the press in Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara is free,but this is not the case in practice. There is little in the way of independent Sahrawi media.Moroccan authorities are sensitive to any reporting that is not in line with the state’s officialposition on the territory’s status, and they continue to expel, detain, or harass Sahrawi,Moroccan, and foreign reporters who write critically on the issue. Alternative viewpoints andresources such as online media or independent broadcasts from abroad are not easily accessibleto the population.There are almost 20 daily and more than 80 weekly publications in circulation inMorocco, and it is estimated that more than 70 percent of these are privately owned. Broadcastmedia are still dominated by the state, and FM radio stations are largely prohibited from airingprograms of a political nature. However, residents can access critical reports through pan-Araband other satellite television channels. The regime uses advertising and subsidies, as well asaggressive financial harassment, to repress critical media coverage. Approximately 55 percent ofthe population regularly accessed the internet in 2012, the highest penetration rate on the Africancontinent.MozambiqueStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 13Political Environment: 14Economic Environment: 15Total Score: 42Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 40,PF 41,PF 42,PF 44,PF 43,PF278

Mozambique’s revised 2004 constitution guarantees freedom of the press, explicitly protectingjournalists and granting them the right not to reveal their sources. However, the 1991 Press Lawcontains some limitations on these rights, particularly on national security grounds. In addition,defamation of the president or other high-ranking officials is illegal, and general criminal libeland defamation laws deter journalists from writing freely. Libel and defamation cases, which arecommon, can lead to fines, prison terms of up to two years, and suspension of the media outlet inquestion. In July 2012, Falume Chabane, a former editor of the online newspaper O Autarca, wasconvicted of libel after a closed-door trial for publishing a series of articles in 2011 on thealleged mistreatment of a disabled student by the Beira International Primary School. Chabanewas given a suspended 16-month prison sentence and ordered to pay a fine of 150,000 meticais($5,280), though an appeal was pending at year’s end. Bloggers and community radio ornewspaper journalists, who often work on a voluntary or part-time basis, may not be equallyprotected under Mozambican press laws, though this has yet to be tested in a court case.Journalists face difficulties accessing public information and official documents. Thelocal chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) presented a draft freedom ofinformation bill to the parliament in 2005, but despite moves in recent years to debate themeasure, no further legislative action was taken in 2012. The current regulatory framework formedia, administered by the Government Information Bureau (GABINFO), is in need of updatingand vulnerable to political influence. According to MISA, radio stations were subjected to overlybureaucratic procedures to obtain operating licenses. However, there is also an independentmedia regulatory body, the Supreme Mass Media Council, that is tasked with guaranteeing pressfreedom and the public’s right to information.A number of websites have posted criticisms of the government without encounteringcensorship, but there have been reports of government intelligence agents monitoring the e-mailof members of opposition political parties. Self-censorship by journalists is pervasive, especiallyin rural areas outside the capital. Independent media often release potentially sensitive stories atthe same time in an effort to counter self-censorship and deter reprisals from the government.This strategy was successful during a 2011 corruption scandal implicating the president of theconstitutional court, Luis Mondlane, who eventually resigned because of wide-ranging mediacoverage of his case.There were few reports of physical attacks, harassment, or intimidation of journalists in2012, an improvement over previous years. In September, a journalist was forced by policeofficers to delete photographs he took of the attempted lynching of an alleged thief; the reporterwas taken to the police station and then released. A police spokesperson later announced that thetwo officers involved would be subject to disciplinary action.Although progress has been made in the development of a strong and free press inMozambique, the country continues to be dominated by state-controlled media outlets.Independent media are often underfunded and are generally found only in major cities. The stateruntelevision station, Televisão de Moçambique (TVM), is still the only domestic televisionchannel with national reach and has the largest audience. The state provides about 70 percent ofthe station’s operating budget, and news reporting from TVM is often biased in favor of thegovernment, offering little opportunity for the political opposition to weigh in. The privatechannel Soico TV, Portuguese state television’s African service (RTP Africa), and BrazilianownedTV Miramar also have large audiences.279

Radio continues to be a key source of information for the majority of Mozambicans.Compared with television, there is far more opportunity for private radio stations to open andoperate. Numerous private FM stations are based in rural areas and broadcast to small audiences.Many of the 70 community stations currently operating were started by and receive their fundingfrom the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) or otherinternational aid organizations, but they face serious problems of management and sustainability,as they rely on volunteers. Despite the prevalence of privately owned radio stations, state-runRádio Moçambique has the largest audience and is by far the most influential media outlet in thecountry, offering programming in at least 18 languages. Rádio Moçambique receives about 50percent of its operating budget from the government. While the station is known for presentingcritical political debates and policy issues on its broadcasts, it most frequently invites guests whoare sympathetic to the government. Community radio stations may also be vulnerable to localpolitical pressures. In November 2012, a district administrator and his staff forced FurancungoPlateau Community Radio to shut down due to alleged mismanagement. The station’scoordinator refuted the allegations and argued that its critical reporting on the local governmenthad made it a target.Newspapers and print media in general have a far smaller audience than both radio andtelevision. This is mainly because the print media are published only in Portuguese, which isspoken by about 11 percent of the population. The high cost of newspapers relative to totalincome, as well as poor distribution networks and a 44 percent illiteracy rate, also contribute tolow readership. The government has a majority stake in Notícias, the most-read daily newspaperin the country, which rarely prints stories critical of the government, while O País is the leadingprivately owned daily. Import taxes on newsprint remain high, leading to high production costsfor newspapers. The largest source of advertising revenue for local media comes fromgovernment ministries and businesses under state control, and some journalists have accused thegovernment and ruling party of allocating advertising according to political concerns and offavoring friendly outlets.Internet access is unrestricted, but penetration is extremely low. Less than 5 percent ofthe population had access to the internet in 2012, and most usage is confined to major cities.NamibiaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 9Political Environment: 12Economic Environment: 10Total Score: 31Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 30,F 30,F 34,PF 34,PF 32,PFThe constitution guarantees freedom of the media, and Namibia’s press has enjoyed a relativelyopen environment. However, constitutional provisions relating to the protection of nationalsecurity, public order, and public morality provide legal mechanisms for restricting mediafreedom. There is no law to ensure access to information, and the 1982 Protection of Information280

Act serves to limit the information that can be disclosed by government officials. In August2012, Information Minister Joel Kaapanda gave encouraging signals that the government wasmoving toward adopting an access to information law. His statement coincided with the launchof a civil society campaign to push for the passage of such legislation.Defamation is a criminal offense under common law. In April 2012, a High Court judgeawarded compensatory damages to investigative journalist John Grobler in a civil defamationsuit filed against the ruling party, the South West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO), overan article on the SWAPO website that accused him of once belonging to a notorious SouthAfrican military unit. It was the first time that SWAPO, rather than one of its officials, had beenheld legally responsible for defamatory statements, as well as the first time that content postedonline led to a defamation finding in a Namibian court. In November, a Windhoek High Courtjudge dismissed a N$300,000 (US$38,000) defamation suit filed by former Walvis Baymunicipal chief executive Augustinus Katiti against the Namibian, the leading independent daily,for an article published in 2007.Self-regulation of the media sector has developed slowly, with a media ombudsmanestablished in 2009 to hear complaints against media practitioners. This ombudsman continues toact independently of the government and resolved 10 of 14 total complaints in 2012. There areno restrictions on internet content, and many publications and organizations have websites thatare critical of the government. However, the 2009 Communication Act includes a clause thatallows for the interception of e-mail, text messages, internet banking transactions, and telephonecalls without a warrant.In previous years, government and party leaders issued harsh criticism and even threatsagainst the independent press, and called for the establishment of an official council to regulatethe activities and operations of the media. Fewer such incidents were reported in 2012. InJanuary, Youth Minister Kazenambo Kazenambo hurled racial insults and threatened to assaultjournalist Tileni Mongudhi during an interview (Mongudhi is a member of Namibia’s ethnicOwambo majority, while Kazenambo is a minority Herero). In the case of a violent attack in2010 against Grobler, allegedly by four prominent businessmen with ties to SWAPO (including ason-in-law of former president Sam Nujoma), the charges against two of the men were droppeddue to lack of evidence in March 2012, while the trial of the other two was ongoing at year’send. Some journalists and editors, especially at the state-run media, practice a degree of selfcensorship.Namibia features five daily national newspapers—including the state-owned New Era—as well as five independent weeklies, one biweekly, and about a dozen monthly magazines.There are more than 20 private and community radio stations and three television stations.Private broadcasters and independent newspapers usually operate without official interference.The state-owned National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) is the dominant player in thebroadcast sector and has come under increasing political pressure in recent years. In April 2012,prominent SWAPO members, including Kaapanda and party secretary general Pendukeni Iivula-Ithana, threatened to delay or halt funding for the NBC and New Era, claiming that the outletswere not adequately supporting the government’s agenda. Community radio remainsunderdeveloped, and high costs for television licenses limit the expansion of that medium.Meanwhile, printing and distribution costs for print media also remain relatively high. In apositive development in 2011, the government lifted its 10-year ban on advertising in theNamibian, which had been put in effect because of the paper’s alleged bias against thegovernment. Approximately 13 percent of the population accessed the internet in 2012.281

NauruStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 4Political Environment: 11Economic Environment: 13Total Score: 28Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 28,F 28,F 28,F 28,F 28,FNepalStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 16Political Environment: 27Economic Environment: 15Total Score: 58Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 57,PF 57,PF 59,PF 59,PF 55,PFThe Nepali media environment deteriorated in 2012, with increased violence and threats beingissued against journalists across the country. The 2007 interim constitution guarantees freedomof the press, opinion, and expression. However, it has been criticized for failing to meetinternational standards, and the government has struggled to uphold freedom of the press inpractice. According to the constitution, freedom of expression can be restricted in cases ofdefamation and incitement, as well as in the interest of promoting sovereignty, public decency ormorality, and harmonious relations between different communities. Nepal’s draft permanentconstitution contains clauses with opaque and malleable language. For example, Clause 2awithin Article 2 grants every citizen freedom of opinion and expression, but goes on to state thatauthorities have the right to place “reasonable restrictions” on free speech. Article 12 promisescitizens the right to access information, but stipulates that “any matter about whichconfidentiality is to be maintained according to law” shall be excluded from this provision.Article 4, on the other hand, could prove to be a positive addition, as it provides a special charterof rights specifically for the mass media. However, the Constituent Assembly failed topromulgate the new constitution on time, after being given a final deadline of May 28, 2012.Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai dissolved the assembly the same day, leaving the country in alegal vacuum at year’s end. Although defamation can be treated as a criminal offense, the chargeis rarely employed against journalists.The right to information in Nepal came under threat when the government issued adirective listing 140 categories of information that should not be made available to the public.This was a drastic increase over the 2007 Right to Information Act, which listed only fivecategories. New categories added to the list included political party financing, development282

projects, and parliamentary decisions. After a widespread public outcry, the Supreme Courtissued a stay order temporarily halting implementation of the new directive. The Right toInformation Act, though generally welcomed by press freedom groups, has itself been criticizedfor its requirement that applicants furnish reasons for their requests.The Nepali media are not generally subject to direct censorship. The Nepal Press Counciland the Federation of Nepali Journalists (FNJ) have a code of ethical conduct, but it lackseffective enforcement mechanisms and support from media stakeholders. There is noindependent regulatory body to oversee the broadcasting sector. Under the current arrangement,the government is the official licensing organization—a point of contention among independentand community broadcasters. In January 2012, the Ministry of Information and Communicationspublished a draft Media Policy on its website. The ministry was criticized for failing to involvekey players—including the FNJ—in the process, as well as for substantive content gaps in thepolicy, including the failure to address the need for independent regulation of broadcasting andfreedom on the internet. Despite the criticisms, the government was poised to adopt the policy asof December 2012.Nepal continues to be a dangerous country for journalists, and in 2012 the country saw thedeath of one journalist and one media owner, as well as the disappearance of a radio journalist.In April, Yadav Poudel was killed in the Jhapa district of Nepal. Poudel was an editor for theMechi Times regional daily, and covered eastern Nepal for the Kathmandu-based AvenuesTelevision and Rajdhani national daily. In July, Santosh Gupta, managing director of theBirganj-based Bindas FM, was found dead in Musouriya village in Bihar, a state in neighboringIndia. In both cases, the murders were investigated but it remained unclear if they were a resultof the victims’ work. Finally, Madan Poudel, a journalist with Radio Tamor in Taplejung,Eastern Region, went missing in September 2012. A high-level taskforce comprising policeofficers from Nepal’s Eastern Regional Police Office and Central Investigation Bureau (CIB)was formed to search for him, but no concrete leads had emerged by year’s end. Impunity forattacks on journalists has long been a problem in Nepal, and little action was taken in 2012 topunish perpetrators of past crimes, including the cases of Dekendra Thapa, a journalist killed in2004 by Maoists, and of Prakash Thakuri, killed in 2007. Bhattarai stated in 2011 that“politically motivated cases” would be pardoned, which could lead to the release of individualsconvicted of human rights violations. The remarks have prompted serious concern from mediagroups.In addition, journalists were subject to a greater number of attacks by both state andnonstate actors, including political parties, government employees, and police and securityforces, compared to 2011. Journalists also faced frequent death threats as a result of theirreporting. Many were threatened or had their equipment seized or burned as they attempted tocover street protests and other events, or as a consequence of their work. In January 2012,journalists were threatened by a member of the Constituent Assembly, Bal Krishna Dhungel. InMay, one week before the deadline for the promulgation of the new constitution, there werewidespread attacks on reporters and cases of vandalism. Ethnic and religious groups stagedprotests to press for their demands in the new constitution and attacked approximately 50journalists over the span of two weeks, in a bid to pressure them to write favorable reports. InJune, Bhattarai personally questioned the state-run Nepal Television (NTV) management forbroadcasting live a program involving 22 opposition parties. In December, members of the ShivaSena Nepal political party broke into and vandalized the offices of Nepal Republic Media inKathmandu.283

The government owns several of the major English-language and Nepali dailies, as well asthe influential Radio Nepal and Nepal Television Corporation. There are several hundred dailies,many of which are based in the central regions of Nepal and the Kathmandu Valley, according tothe Nepal Press Council. An increasing share of newspapers are owned by political parties,specifically the ruling Communist Party of Nepal/United Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML). Theparty has started to publish newspapers in almost every region and district of Nepal, and theoutlets are often heavily influenced by the CPN-UML’s political views. Media ownership oftenlacks sufficient transparency, and it is not unusual for the selection of editors at nationalnewspapers to be governed by dubious political deals and bargaining.Because there are few barriers to market entry, radio remains the most popular newsmedium. At least 350 FM radio stations and 19 television channels were operating in 2012, andmany more had acquired licenses. Community radio stations have become more common, partlyas a means of protecting local cultures and languages from the dominance of Nepali-languagemedia. However, community radio stations have difficulty competing with commercial stationsfor resources while paying the same fees and royalties. In July 2012, the government announcedits intention to increase broadcast royalties to 2 percent of a station’s income, or 10 percent of itsnet profit, sparking concerns that community radio stations would be the worst affected. Despitethe large number of outlets, the Nepali mainstream media lack effective cultural diversity andoften either ignore or are heavily biased against the interests of Dalits, Madhesis, indigenouspeoples, and Muslims, who collectively form around 70 percent of the population.Many workers at Nepal’s news outlets do not receive professional training, are informallyemployed, and are paid well below prescribed minimum wages. Since the government is a majorsource of advertising, journalists are often forced to self-censor their reporting in order to avoidconflict with the ruling party.There are some government restrictions on the internet, to which 11 percent of thepopulation had access in 2012. Conditions of operation for internet service providers include thefiltering of pornographic content and of any material that “incites racial and religious hatred andis against the national interest.”NetherlandsStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 1Political Environment: 6Economic Environment: 4Total Score: 11Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 13,F 13,F 14,F 14,F 12,FFreedom of expression is safeguarded under Article 7 of the constitution, and free andindependent media operate throughout the country. The Netherlands still lacks specific nationallegislation ensuring the right of journalists to protect their sources, despite a landmark 2010European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling that media premises are exempt from policesearches, and that police may not seize journalistic materials unless they obtain a warrant. In284

November 2012, the ECHR reinforced this principle with a ruling that the Netherlands hadviolated the European Convention on Human Rights when police used coercion to force twojournalists to surrender documents in 2006. Also in November, the parliament voted to repeal thecountry’s blasphemy laws, though insulting the police and the monarch remain illegal. Criminaldefamation laws have seldom been used in recent years.Article 110 of the constitution stipulates that the government must observe the principleof transparency and requires government agencies to publish information. Under the 1991Government Information (Public Access) Act, any person is allowed to demand informationpertaining to an administrative matter. If the information is located in documents belonging to apublic body or a private company conducting work for a public entity, the authorities mustrespond within a period of two weeks.The internet is not censored or restricted by the government. In 2012, despite publicoutrage and a parliamentary motion denouncing a racist website run by the radical right-wingParty for Freedom (PVV), the site remained online throughout the year. In May, a district courtordered internet providers to block the illegal downloading site Pirate Bay or pay a fine of€10,000 ($13,000) per day. The government pushed for legislation that would ban unauthorizeddownloads of copyrighted material, but the proposal was rejected by the parliament inDecember.Journalists in the Netherlands practice some degree of self-censorship, particularly onsensitive issues such as immigration and religion. This has increased since the 2004 murder ofthe controversial filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Muslim extremist. Physical attacks andintimidation directed against journalists are rare. In March 2012, the Rotterdam offices of theTurkish newspaper Zaman were attacked by five disguised men. The attack was still underinvestigation at year’s end.Newspaper ownership is highly concentrated in the Netherlands, with three companiesowning more than 90 percent of paid newspapers. A decreasing number of independent regionalnewspapers are available. Moreover, three public broadcasters—NPS, Teleac, and RVU—merged in 2010. Despite high ownership concentration, a variety of opinions are expressed in themedia. The state allocates public radio and television programming to political, religious, andsocial groups according to their size. While every province has at least one public televisionchannel, public broadcasting has faced stiff competition from commercial stations since theybecame legal in 1988.The internet was used by 93 percent of the population in 2012. In 2011, the parliamentadopted the first “net neutrality” law in Europe and only the second in the world after Chile,barring telecommunications companies from obstructing or charging users extra for certain dataintensiveonline services, such as Skype.New ZealandStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 3Political Environment: 7Economic Environment: 6Total Score: 16285

Survey Edition 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 13,F 14,F 14,F 15,F 17,FPress freedom in New Zealand is guaranteed by convention and statute rather than constitutionalright, and it is supplemented by freedom of information legislation passed in 1982. Seditionlegislation was abolished in 2007. The media are generally regarded as free and independent, andconcerns about press freedom in the country eased during 2012 after a relatively troubled 2011.However, in March 2012 the parliament passed the controversial Search and Surveillance Act,which forces journalists to answer police questions, identify sources, and hand over notes andother documents. Breaches of the law carry penalties of up to one year in jail. While JusticeMinister Judith Collins insisted that the law was necessary to bring “order, certainty, clarity, andconsistency” to outdated laws, opponents derided it as a step toward a police state. Theopposition Labor Party said it would seek to repeal provisions in the law that allowed thepolice’s Serious Fraud Office to raid media offices without a warrant.The New Zealand Law Commission released two reports in December 2011 and June2012 that made preliminary suggestions for reform of the regulatory environment for the media,including extending the legal rights and responsibilities of news media to online outlets. Thecommission proposed replacing the statutory Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA), whichcurrently regulates all traditional broadcasters, and the industry-based Press Council (NZPC),which regulates print media, with a new regulator that would cover all forms of media, includingonline outlets, and would be independent of both the government and the media industry. At theend of 2012, New Zealand media were preparing to preempt the recommendations byestablishing an online media self-regulator, the Online Media Standards Authority (OMSA).Journalists are generally able to cover the news freely, and physical attacks or threatsagainst the media are rare. There were no reports of physical harassment or assault againstjournalists during 2012. However, several incidents in 2011 had raised concerns about politicalinterference with media content, including searches at multiple media offices for a controversialrecording of a meeting involving Prime Minister John Key, considerable political pressure on aninvestigative reporter for his work on New Zealand troops handing over prisoners to U.S. forcesin Afghanistan, and a 10-day ban on a newspaper’s use of its press office in the parliamentarycomplex after it published a photograph of a protester in the public gallery, in violation ofstanding parliamentary rules.New Zealand has two state-owned broadcasting corporations, Television New Zealand(TVNZ) and Radio New Zealand, but the vast majority of print and broadcast media ownershipis private. Australian-owned companies control a substantial portion of the print sector. FairfaxMedia Limited boasts almost 48 percent of daily newspaper circulation. The country’s largestand most influential daily newspaper, the New Zealand Herald, and a string of smaller provincialand suburban newspapers are owned by another Australian firm, APN News & Media. TVNZhas promoted increasing collaboration with the subscription network Sky TV and its free-to-airchannel, Prime TV. Another rival, the MediaWorks group, which owns TV3, was given acontroversial preferential payment arrangement in 2011 for NZ$43 million (US$34.9 million) inradio frequency fees. Meanwhile, the government-funded Māori Television continues to developstrongly, with its second channel, Te Reo, broadcasting in the indigenous Māori language. In2011, the New Zealand Press Association cooperative closed after 132 years as the national newsagency. However, publishers such as APN and Fairfax have launched a number of new services286

in an attempt to fill the gap. There are no government restrictions on the internet, which wasaccessed by nearly 90 percent of the population in 2012.NicaraguaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 14Political Environment: 20Economic Environment: 17Total Score: 51Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 43,PF 45,PF 47,PF 47,PF 49,PFThe constitution provides for freedom of the press, but in practice the government places notablerestrictions on the media’s ability to inform the public. In 2012, President Daniel Ortega and hisSandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) continued policies that have been in place sincethey took power in 2007, including preferential treatment for the progovernment media anddenial of official advertising to the independent and opposition press.Defamation and libel remain criminalized, with violations punishable by substantial fines.While the number of legal cases against the press has decreased, the drop has largely stemmedfrom self-censorship among journalists as independent voices avoid confronting the authorities.Cases of judicial intimidation have also been reported; judges are often aligned with politicalparties, and some have barred journalists from covering certain stories. In March 2012, accordingto local news reports, pro-Sandinista government officials in the municipality of Somoto, in thenorth of the country, ordered the Telecommunications and Mail Institute (TELCOR) to shutdown Channel 13, which was carried by Concas, the local cable company. Juan Carlos Pineda,director of the shuttered station, said the request to TELCOR was made because the station hadaccused the local Sandinista government of corruption.A 2007 law established the right to access public information. However, the Ortegaadministration is highly secretive, and the president has given no press conferences since takingoffice in 2007, according to local reports. Journalists who are loyal to the ruling party receivefavorable treatment, including exclusive access to official press briefings—at which no questionsare generally taken by administration officials—and government events. In addition, theadministration makes near-daily use of a law, intended to facilitate the delivery of emergencymessages, that allows the government to interrupt regular programming to broadcast officialstatements.In 2012, media organizations continued to report occasional incidents of threats,harassment, and physical violence against their employees and installations, carried out by bothgovernmental and private actors. La Prensa, a leading independent newspaper, claimed that itsjournalists were repeatedly intimidated by government officials and supporters. In March, LuisEduardo Martínez, a correspondent for La Prensa in Matagalpa, suffered a smear campaign airedon a local television station owned by Nelson Artola, a high-ranking government official. Thecampaign followed publication of a La Prensa story that scrutinized Artola’s political career.Separately, Silvia Gonzáles, a correspondent for the daily El Nuevo Día in Jinotega, remained in287

exile due to death threats she received in 2011 from a government sympathizer, which the policehave failed to investigate.There are more than 100 radio stations in the country, which serve as the population’smain source of news. Print media represent diverse political opinions, with several daily paperspresenting both progovernment and critical perspectives. Newspaper ownership was traditionallyconcentrated in the hands of various factions of the politically influential Chamorro family.However, in May 2011, El Nuevo Diario, the second-largest newspaper in Nicaragua, underwentan ownership change that led to the ouster of its news director, Francisco Chamorro, overeditorial differences, raising doubts about the future of its previously critical editorial stance.Nicaraguan television is dominated by two ownership groups that control eight of the nine freeto-airstations in the country. Mexican media mogul Ángel González controls channels 2, 9, 10,and 11, which garner high ratings by prioritizing entertainment and light news over public debateor investigative journalism. González, who also owns media outlets in several other LatinAmerican countries, is considered to be on friendly terms with Ortega. The other televisionconglomerate is controlled by the president’s family, which owns channels 4, 8, and 13, whilethe public Channel 6 is used to broadcast government propaganda. In addition, at year’s end theruling party owned Radio Ya, Radio Sandino, Radio La Primerísima, and Radio Nicaragua. Thepresident or the FSLN also control news websites such as El 19 Digital and Nicaragua Triunfa.Newspaper owners and press freedom organizations have repeatedly decried enforcementof the “Arce Law,” which imposes high tariffs on necessary imported printing materialsincluding ink and paper, stifling independent journalism. The administration also influencesmedia content by steering its substantial official publicity budget toward the Ortega family’sholdings or compliant independent outlets.There are no government restrictions on the internet, which was accessed byapproximately 14 percent of the population in 2012. Although the penetration rate remainsrelatively low, the internet has had a significant impact on the Nicaraguan media landscape. Thenumber of users of the social-networking site Facebook increased from 150,000 to over 700,000between 2011 and 2012, and many Nicaraguans are now using the internet as a primary sourcefor their news.NigerStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 15Political Environment: 18Economic Environment: 17Total Score: 50Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 63,NF 64,NF 68,NF 59,PF 49,PFMedia freedom, which improved dramatically in 2011, remained stable in 2012 under thegovernment of President Mahamadou Issoufou. Article 23 of the Nigerien constitutionguarantees the right to freedom of thought, opinion, and expression, and these rights aregenerally upheld. In 2010, the transitional government decriminalized media offenses and288

eplaced prison sentences with fines as punishments for libel and publication of falseinformation. In 2011, Issoufou became the first head of state to sign the Declaration of TableMountain, which calls for the repeal of criminal defamation and insult laws, as well as a pressenvironment in Africa that is free from government, political, and economic control. However,legal actions against journalists still occasionally take place. In July 2012, Marcus IssakaLawson, the director of Jeunesse Infos, was sentenced to nine months in prison for forgery afterpublishing an article falsely attributed to a judge and former general secretary.In 2011, the transitional government approved the Charter on Access to PublicInformation and Administrative Documents, which aimed to improve transparency and thepublic’s access to information. However, implementation of the law remains inadequate, and inpractice access remains somewhat difficult.The National Observatory on Communication (ONC), the state-run media regulatorybody, and the Niger Independent Monitoring Center for Media Ethics and Conduct monitorbroadcasts and publications, and occasionally censure outlets as a result of their content. TheONC played a critical role in ensuring media fairness during the 2011 election campaign, passingtwo resolutions that standardized the production and distribution of messages from candidatesand parties and overseeing a code of conduct. In July 2012, the newspaper Le Mandat wasbanned indefinitely by the ONC for publishing false information, privacy violations, andignoring an earlier warning to correct its editorial policy. Le Visionnaire newspaper was issued awarning by the ONC in the same month for publishing an article containing false information.Although other types of content censorship were not reported in either the traditional oronline media, some journalists, particularly those working for public media outlets, do practiceself-censorship. Physical attacks against members of the media were very rare in 2012. Areporter with the British Broadcasting Corporation was allegedly attacked in August bysupporters of the ruling coalition for her reporting on the high cost of living in Niger; theperpetrators were not pursued. There were no reports that the government inhibited the work offoreign journalists, including while they were covering politically sensitive events in the north ofthe country.Several dozen private newspapers compete with a state-run daily in the print mediamarket and provide some criticism of the government. The state continues to dominate thebroadcasting landscape, though there are a number of private radio stations that broadcast inFrench and local languages. Some stations air programming from foreign services, includingVoice of America and Deutsche Welle. Radio is the most widely accessible source of news.Three private television stations operate alongside two state-run stations. A heavy tax on privatemedia outlets continues to hinder the development of the private media sector, and public mediaalso receive the bulk of advertising from state-owned companies. In addition, considerableeconomic uncertainty has contributed to corruption within the media sector, leading to unethicalbehavior by journalists that can affect the quality and accuracy of news content. However, thegovernment has doubled official press subsidies to 200 million CFA francs ($400,000), with thestated aim of encouraging the public service and democracy promotion functions of the press.Only 1 percent of the population accessed the internet in 2012. There are no official restrictionson access.Nigeria289

Status: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 13Political Environment: 23Economic Environment: 15Total Score: 51Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 53,PF 54,PF 54,PF 52,PF 50,PFIn 2012, Nigeria’s vibrant and active media sector continued to face numerous attempts by stateand nonstate actors to stifle political criticism and intimidate journalists into silence. The 1999constitution guarantees freedom of expression and of the press, but other legal provisions createvarious press and speech offenses, including sedition, criminal defamation, and publication offalse news. Several journalists have been charged with criminal defamation in recent years. InSeptember 2012, the Ogun State governor, Ibikunle Amosun, filed a libel case against theNigerian Compass newspaper for an article that accused him of “frivolous spending.” In aseparate case in April, a court threw out a 1 billion naira ($6.4 million) defamation suit filed byformer Ekiti State governor Ayo Fayose against TheNews magazine. Sharia (Islamic law) courts,which operate in 12 northern states, demonstrate antagonism toward free expression, and Shariastatutes impose severe penalties for alleged press offenses. However, federal courts haveattempted to extend legal protections for journalists. In October 2012, a high court ruled thatpolice had violated the fundamental human rights of Desmond Utomwen, a correspondent forTheNews and PM News, when they assaulted and detained him as he attempted to cover apeaceful protest outside a private bank in Abuja in 2009. The court awarded Utomwen 100million naira ($638,000), the largest legal settlement in any Nigerian case involving a journalist.The 2011 Freedom of Information (FOI) Act guarantees citizens’ right to publicinformation and has put pressure on government agencies to release records in response topetitions by media and activist groups. Some state governors have balked at complying with thelaw, arguing that the federal legislation has no impact on state compliance. Until the passage ofthe law, access to official information remained restricted by provisions in the 1962 OfficialSecrets Act and the criminal code.The National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) is responsible for licensing broadcastmedia and upholding the broadcast code. Some critics allege that the commission’s processesand decisions can be opaque and politically biased. In 2010, President Goodluck Jonathanannounced that the government was giving the NBC full authority to consider and issue licenses,including those for community radio, without obtaining final approval from the presidency,provided applications “have met all the conditions stipulated by law.” Despite the announcement,there has been no indication that an amendment to the law establishing the NBC and its charter,to support the change in the commission’s mandate, is pending before the National Assembly. InAugust 2012, the federal cabinet approved the merger of the NBC with the NigerianCommunications Commission (NCC), the independent telecommunications regulatory body. Inprinciple, the unification would create a more powerful information and communicationtechnologies (ICT) agency, but new legislation is still required for the move to be implemented.The Nigerian Press Council was created by a military government in 1992 to regulate awide range of media policy, including ownership, registration, and journalistic practice. A 1998amendment to the decree retained provisions that prescribed fines and possible jail sentences for290

noncompliant journalists. The council’s board consisted of 19 appointed members with fewmedia representatives, as industry groups refused to cooperate in the nomination process. Withthe return to civilian rule in 1999, local media advocacy groups challenged the constitutionalityof the repressive decree, and in 2010 a federal high court duly nullified key sections of theNigerian Press Council Act as unconstitutional, rendering it powerless.There were no reports that the government restricted internet access or monitored e-mailduring the year. The influence of social-media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, andYouTube proved critical in providing alternative sources of news, information, and viewpointsduring the massive nationwide protests sparked by Jonathan’s January 2012 announcement thatthe government was withdrawing a key fuel subsidy, leading to historic price hikes. Civil societyactivists used social media and mobile-telephone text messaging to counter governmentpropaganda that was designed to justify the subsidy decision. The protesters also used socialmedia to mobilize supporters to occupy state-owned television outlets, forcing the stations tobroadcast the demands of the protesters live.Nigeria remains a dangerous place to practice journalism. In two separate incidents, thebody of murdered editor Nansoh Sallah of Highland FM was found on a roadside in January2012, and journalist Chuks Ogu of Independent TV was killed by unidentified gunmen in April.The assailants remained at large during the year, and no motive was known in either case. Theescalation of a violent campaign by the militant Islamist sect Boko Haram, which has claimedhundreds of lives during the past two years, has only heightened the feeling of vulnerabilityamong news practitioners. During 2012, the group was responsible for numerous incidents ofintimidation toward journalists and media outlets, as well as the January assassination of reporterEnenche Godwin Akogwu of Channels TV in the northern city of Kano. In April, Boko Haramsimultaneously bombed the offices of three media outlets in Abuja and Kaduna—the Daily Sun,ThisDay, and the Moment—killing at least eight people. The recent spike in unsolved killings ofjournalists earned Nigeria a place on the Committee to Protect Journalists’ Impunity Index forthe first time in 2012.Security forces also engaged in acts of obstruction, intimidation, and violence againstjournalists during the year. Among a number of other cases, in February authorities locked over60 journalists out of the press center at the Lagos airport and withheld their equipment as amatter of “national security.” In October, journalist Bamigbola Gbolagunte of the Daily Sun wasarrested on the orders of a local police commissioner, who demanded the retraction of anallegedly offensive report. In December, state security service agents invaded the homes ofreporters Musa Mohamed Awwal and Aliyu Saleh of the Hausa-language Al-Mizan newspaper.They were assaulted, detained, and had their mobile phones and laptops confiscated. Also inDecember, security officials prevented reporter Ozioma Ubabukoh of the Punch from writingabout the status of a governor who had not been seen in public for several months.There are more than 100 national and local publications, the most influential of which areprivately owned. However, a number of state and local governments own print and broadcastmedia, as do individuals directly involved in politics. The print sector is generally vibrant andoutspoken in its criticism of unpopular government policies. There are 15 major privately owneddaily newspapers, one government-owned daily with national reach, and a number of other stateowneddailies that tend to be poorly produced and require large advertising subsidies.Radio tends to be the main source of information for Nigerians, while television is usedmostly in urban areas and by more affluent citizens. Private television stations must ensure that60 percent of their programming is produced locally, while private radio must ensure that 80291

percent is produced locally. The state’s history of monopolizing broadcast communications hasprevented the development of community radio, although an advocacy movement begun in 2003has resulted in signs of support from the government. Licensing fees and taxes for broadcastmedia remain high, and many outlets experience financial difficulties, limiting their viability.The only two nationwide broadcast networks are state-owned: the Federal Radio Corporation ofNigeria and the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA). However, in 2010 the NBC awarded thefirst private radio and television network license to Silverbird Communications, which hadoutbid two other private competitors for the licenses. A 2004 NBC ban on the live broadcast offoreign programs, including news, on domestic stations remains in force. Nevertheless, foreignbroadcasters, particularly Voice of America and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), arekey providers of news in the country.The internet has also become an increasingly important news source in recent years, andapproximately 33 percent of the population accessed the medium in 2012.Bribery and corruption remain problems in the media industry, particularly in the form of“brown envelopes,” or small cash gifts that sources give journalists. A 2009 survey of 184 mediaprofessionals in Lagos found that 61 percent of them habitually received brown envelopes whileon reporting assignments. However, 74 percent of the respondents disagreed that the gifts led tobiased coverage, perhaps because the practice is so common.North KoreaStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 30Political Environment: 37Economic Environment: 29Total Score: 96Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 98,NF 98,NF 99,NF 97,NF 97,NFNorth Korea remained one of the most repressive media environments in the world in 2012. Theone-party regime owns all domestic news outlets, attempts to regulate all communication, andrigorously limits the ability of the North Korean people to access outside information. Althoughthe constitution theoretically guarantees freedom of speech, constitutional provisions calling foradherence to a “collective spirit” restrict in practice all reporting that is not sanctioned by thegovernment. All domestic journalists are members of the ruling party, and all media outlets serveas mouthpieces for the regime. The North Korean media have continued to focus their attentionon consolidating national unity around Kim Jong-un, who assumed the country’s leadership afterthe death of his father and predecessor, Kim Jong-il, in December 2011.Under the penal code, listening to unauthorized foreign broadcasts and possessingdissident publications are considered “crimes against the state” that carry serious punishments,including hard labor, prison sentences, and the death penalty. North Koreans have been arrestedfor possessing or watching television programs acquired on the black market. Nevertheless, inrecent years there has been an increase in the flow of news and information into the country viaforeign radio stations and nongovernmental organizations that send multimedia content across292

the border. Since 2009, Reporters Without Borders has been supporting Seoul-based radiostations such as Free North Korea Radio, Radio Free Chosun, and Open Radio for North Korea.Operating since the mid-2000s, these are the first radio stations run by North Korean refugees tobroadcast to the population in the North, where they serve as the main available sources ofindependent news and information. With the growing popularity of DVD players in the country,smuggled foreign DVDs have become an important source for information about life outsideNorth Korea. Although televisions are required to be fixed to official channels, nearly one-thirdof the population—mainly those living along the Chinese and South Korean borders—reportedaccessing foreign television broadcasts, according to a May 2012 report by InterMedia.In 2007, a Japanese journalist and several North Korean refugees launched Rimjingang,the first newsmagazine to be based on independent reporting from inside the country. Thereporting is conducted by specially trained North Koreans—most of them refugees along theborder with China—who have agreed to go back into the country and operate as undercoverjournalists using hidden cameras. A number of other news outlets based outside the country,including Daily NK, also provide reporting about North Korea and rely to some extent on sourcesbased inside the country. Although reports from these outlets are easily accessible for peopleoutside North Korea, within the country most citizens still rely primarily on state-ownedbroadcasting agencies for news.Official North Korean media portray all dissidents and foreign journalists as liarsattempting to destabilize the government, and authorities sharply curtail the ability of foreignjournalists to gather information by seizing their mobile telephones upon arrival, preventingthem from talking to people on the street, and constantly monitoring their movements. In March2009, two U.S. journalists, Euna Lee and Laura Ling, were arrested at the Chinese border andincarcerated in North Korea for committing “hostile acts.” They were sentenced in June 2009 to12 years in a labor camp but were freed in early August 2009 after former U.S. president BillClinton traveled to Pyongyang to negotiate their release. The regime does on occasion invite theforeign press, both individually and as a group, to cover festivals, parades, or other events thatshed a favorable light on the state. In April 2012, foreign correspondents were invited to observethe launch of what officials said was a weather satellite timed to celebrate the centenary of thedeceased North Korean founder Kim Il-sung.State-owned outlets dominate the media landscape. They include the Korea Central NewsAgency (KCNA); Rodong Sinmun, the newspaper of the ruling Workers’ Party; the party’sKorean Central TV; and, on the radio, the Korean Central Broadcasting Station. In a recentopening for Western media, North Korea agreed to allow the Associated Press (AP) to establishits first full-time and all-format news bureau in the country. The AP bureau officially opened inJanuary 2012 after weeks of delay following the death of Kim Jong-il. It is located inside theheadquarters of the KCNA in Pyongyang. Although AP had maintained a video bureau in NorthKorea since 2006, the new full-time news bureau allowed its photographers and journalists towork in the country on a regular basis, albeit under heavy restrictions.There are currently no accurate statistics measuring the rate of internet penetration in thecountry. However, the online presence of North Korean official media has increased in recentyears. Rodong Sinmun launched a new website in February 2011, while the KCNA website hasimproved since debuting in 2010. The website of the Korean Friendship Association, a majorchannel for promoting propaganda abroad, offers multimedia content, including videos. NorthKorea maintains YouTube and Twitter accounts under the name Uriminzokkiri (Our Nation).These new connections, however, have little significance for most citizens. Global internet293

access is still restricted to a handful of high-level officials who have received state approval, andto foreigners living in Pyongyang. Increasing numbers of academic scientists and students arealso permitted limited internet access. Ordinary citizens are granted access only to a nationalintranet that does not link to foreign sites. The Korea Computer Center, a governmentinformation-technology research center, controls the information that can be downloaded fromthe intranet. As personal computers are highly uncommon in homes, most access occurs viaterminals in libraries or offices. However, the use of USB flash drives smuggled from China hasimproved the flow of outside information into North Korea.NorwayStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 3Political Environment: 3Economic Environment: 4Total Score: 10Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 10,F 10,F 10,F 11,F 10,FFreedom of expression, media freedom, and the right to access government information areguaranteed under Article 100 of Norway’s constitution. There are laws that prohibit hatefulexpression, but no related court cases were reported during 2012. In 2011, several media outletsbrought a joint suit against the government in order to gain access to newly surfaced documentsand recordings related to a famous 1985 espionage case against Norwegian diplomat ArneTreholt. The Norwegian Police Security Service had refused to release the documents, citingnational security concerns. The case went to the Supreme Court, with a final ruling expected in2013.Threats against journalists and media outlets are rare. In July 2010, three Muslimimmigrants were arrested in Norway for planning to attack the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten,which in 2005 had published cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that sparked a controversyacross Europe and the Muslim world. Their trial began in November 2011, and in January 2012two of the men were convicted on terrorism charges and sentenced to seven years and three and ahalf years in prison, respectively. An appeals court upheld the sentences in September.The public broadcaster NRK, financed by license fees, is dominant in both radio andtelevision, but there is considerable competition from private broadcasters such as the televisionstation TV2. The public-access television channel Frikanalen lost its government funding in2012 on the grounds that the internet provided many readily available alternatives. Frikanalenhad been launched in 2008 as a channel for nonprofit organizations, partly as a response to aruling by the European Court of Human Rights that a government ban on political commercials,designed to ensure equal access to the media for all electoral candidates regardless of varyingresources, violated the freedom of expression clause in the European Convention on HumanRights.Norway has one of the highest newspaper readership rates in the world, with more than200 newspapers that express a diversity of opinions. Media concentration is a concern, with three294

major companies dominating the print sector. Many of the leading papers, including VG,Aftenposten, Bergens Tidende, Stavanger Aftenblad, and Fædrelandsvennen, are owned bySchibsted Norge. Competition is still strong, even though the global economic downturn has hurtthe advertising market. The government does not restrict use of the internet, which is accessed bynearly 95 percent of the population.OmanStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 25Political Environment: 27Economic Environment: 19Total Score: 71Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 71,NF 71,NF 71,NF 71,NF 71,NFOman’s 1984 Press and Publications Law is one of the most restrictive statutes of its kind in theArab world, and serves to create a highly censored and subdued media environment. Articles 29,30, and 31 of the 1996 Basic Law guarantee freedom of expression and freedom of the press, butthese rights are abridged in practice. Libel is treated as a criminal offense, and journalists can befined or imprisoned for voicing criticism of the sultan or printing material that leads to “publicdiscord, violates the security of the state, or abuses a person’s dignity or rights.” Youssef al-Hajand Ibrahim Ma’mari, two journalists for the newspaper Al-Zaman, were convicted ofdefamation in 2011 after writing a story that alleged corruption in the Ministry of Justice. InJanuary 2012, their five-month prison sentences were upheld but suspended by an appellatecourt. A one-month suspension of Al-Zaman was also upheld.The Telecommunications Act allows the authorities to prosecute individuals for anymessage—sent through any means of communication—that violates public order and morals.The already repressive media environment was further constrained in June 2012 when, inresponse to growing criticism of the government’s lack of progress in fulfilling promisedeconomic and political reforms, Oman’s Department of Public Prosecution issued a statementsaying that it would take all appropriate legal action against those who publish any content in themedia or online that was found to be “offensive” or “inciting others to actions.” In 2012, 32activists and bloggers were fined and sentenced to at least six months in prison for insulting thesultan or other public officials, often in online forums.Journalists are required to obtain licenses to practice, and since 2005 they have beenobliged to reapply each year as an employee of a specific media outlet, effectively excluding thepractice of freelance journalism. Journalists may have their licenses revoked at any time forviolating press laws. The government also retains the right to close down any media outlet at anytime.The Ministry of Information may legally censor any material regarded as politically,culturally, or sexually offensive in both domestic and foreign media, and it has blacklistedseveral authors and specific books that were deemed controversial. While information and newsare widely available, there is a basic lack of coverage of local topics, such as the economy,295

unemployment, and minority and migrant issues. Reporters have been jailed in the past forcoverage of colleagues’ arrests, and self-censorship is widespread. As a result, physical attacksand intimidation directed at journalists are rare. However, since the Arab Spring uprisings of2011, the government has cracked down forcefully against public demonstrations and otherexpressions of dissent. During 2012, 12 activists, writers, and bloggers were sentenced to oneyear in prison and fined roughly $2,600 for participating in peaceful protests against libel andinsult convictions. In an unprecedented move in July, the Oman News Agency published theunaltered photographs and names of six activists in prison uniforms as they were being sentencedfor insulting the sultan.The government exercises considerable control over the internet. The Internet ServiceManual stipulates a lengthy list of prohibited content, including defamation of the ruling familyand the spread of false data or rumors. The government routinely blocks websites deemedsexually offensive or politically controversial. Some bloggers have been able to use virtualprivate networks (VPNs) to bypass the censorship of local internet service providers, but in 2010the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (TRA) proposed a new law that would ban theuse of VPNs and subject violators to fines of 500 rials ($1,300). The proposed law has yet to beenacted, but VPN access has been widely blocked. Popular web forums for voicing dissent, suchas Farrq, Al-Harah, and Al-Sabla, have also been subject to temporary shutdowns. Privatecommunications including mobile-telephone calls, e-mail, and exchanges in internet chat roomsare monitored.In addition to the two major state-owned newspapers, the government owns four radio stationsand two television stations. There are eight privately run newspapers currently operating inOman. Private newspapers are able to sustain themselves largely on local and internationaladvertising revenues rather than sales, and many no longer need state subsidies. There is oneprivately owned satellite network that refrains from broadcasting politically controversialcontent. Foreign broadcasts are accessible via satellite in urban areas. About 60 percent of thepopulation used the internet in 2012. Oman’s internet and telecommunications sector wasmonopolized by the state-run Oman Telecommunications Company until 2008, when thegovernment allowed a privately owned competitor, Nawras, to begin providing internet service.PakistanStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 19Political Environment: 29Economic Environment: 16Total Score: 64Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 66,NF 62,NF 61,NF 61,NF 63,NFMedia freedoms remained restricted in 2012 as journalists continued to face a high level ofviolence and threats from a range of sources, including the military, intelligence services, andmilitant groups. The constitution and other legislation, such as the Official Secrets Act, authorizethe government to curb freedom of speech on subjects including the constitution itself, the armed296

forces, the judiciary, and religion. Harsh blasphemy laws have occasionally been used tosuppress the media. There were some calls to reform the blasphemy laws in early 2011, butseveral prominent politicians who spoke out in favor of reform were threatened or killed byextremists, which had a major chilling effect on discussion of the issue. Under the 2004Defamation Act, offenders can face minimum fines of 100,000 rupees ($1,100) and prisonsentences of up to five years, but the legislation has not yet been used to convict journalists. The2008 Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance criminalized cyberterrorism—broadly definedas using or accessing a computer, network, or electronic device for the purposes of frightening,harming, or carrying out an act of violence against any segment of the population or thegovernment—and provided for harsh penalties in cases resulting in a death. Since 2010, broadlydefined contempt laws have increasingly been used by the judiciary to curb reporting onparticular cases or judges, and a number of print and television outlets were threatened orcharged with contempt during 2012. In November, a Lahore court charged chief executive HajiJan Mohammad of the private television channel ARY with contempt following the broadcast ofa program that was critical of the judiciary. The court went on to issue stay orders banning allprogramming deemed “antijudiciary” or “intended to scandalize” the judiciary.Accessing official information remains difficult, and existing provisions for access toinformation are ineffective. In 2011, the government directed public employees to refrain fromgiving “embarrassing” information to the media. In July 2012, the Senate formed asubcommittee tasked with developing new freedom of information (FOI) legislation alongsidethe Information Ministry. In December, it was announced that a draft FOI bill would soon bepresented to the parliament. If passed, it would replace the 2002 Ordinance on Freedom ofInformation with the aim of disclosing more information to the public. The provincialgovernment of Punjab also prepared a draft FOI bill, but it faced criticism for its large number ofexemptions. Neither bill had been approved at year’s end.After almost a decade, the Press Council of Pakistan (PCP), officially established througha 2002 ordinance and comprising a mix of industry representatives and nominated members fromvarious societal groups, started functioning in late 2011, with the mission of hearing complaintsagainst the media and promoting journalistic ethics. In December 2012, the PCP approved ajournalistic code of ethics for coverage of the 2013 general elections. Broadcast media areregulated by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA). Officials continuedto engage in sporadic efforts to temporarily suspend certain broadcasts or programs under othermedia regulations, including an official code of conduct, or through the ad hoc banning ofbroadcast rights or blockage of transmissions around sensitive events. In May 2012, PEMRAissued final notices to television stations deemed to be involved in character assassinationthrough the airing of “derogatory, humiliating programmes” disguised as satire. PEMRA alsowarned stations not to exceed the limit on foreign broadcasting, set at 10 percent of total airtimein a 24-hour period. The same month, PEMRA issued a media advisory to all broadcasters thatbanned coverage of 40 organizations. While the vast majority were militant groups, a number ofreligious groups were also included on the list.Political actors, government officials, and military and intelligence officers regularlycomplain about critical coverage, and some have attempted to exert control over media contentthrough unofficial “guidance” to newspaper editors on placement of front-page stories andpermissible topics of coverage. Fear of reprisals has caused some journalists to refrain frombeing overly critical or overstepping unspoken boundaries, particularly concerning military orintelligence operations. Self-censorship also occurs with regard to coverage of sensitive social or297

eligious issues and certain militant groups and political parties. Cable operators occasionallypressure media outlets to censor views that could conflict with their business interests.Censorship of digital content is a growing concern. While websites and blogs addressingsensitive subjects, particularly Balochi separatism, are routinely blocked, the government movedto block “blasphemous” material as well beginning in 2010. This trend continued in 2012, withattempts to censor websites and mobile-telephone content. On three separate occasions, thegovernment temporarily shut down mobile service in Balochistan, ostensibly in the interest ofnational security. In February, the government called for proposals for a filtering and blockingsystem with the ability to block up to 50 million URLs simultaneously. A global network ofnongovernmental organizations (NGOs) campaigned against the creation of such censorshipinfrastructure, and as a result, a number of prominent international corporations publicly agreednot to pursue the contract. In March it was reported that the project had been abandoned, and inApril Pakistan’s High Court ruled that such site blocking must desist as it was in violation of dueprocess and constitutional protections for free expression. Nevertheless, the government brieflyblocked the microblogging service Twitter in May due to user messages that were considered“offensive to Islam.” In September, the government blocked the video-sharing site YouTube inresponse to unrest surrounding a controversial anti-Islam film; it remained blocked at year’s end.Separately, a cyberattack shut down the website of the Friday Times weekly in April, followingcritical articles on the role of the military and its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency inpolitics. The e-mail accounts of some journalists are reportedly monitored.The physical safety of journalists remains a key concern. Intimidation by intelligenceagencies and the security forces—including physical attacks and arbitrary, incommunicadodetention—continues to take place. In 2011, Syed Saleem Shahzad, an investigative reporter andauthor whose work focused on Islamist militancy, was abducted, tortured, and killed, allegedlyby the ISI; Shahzad had previously received threats from the agency. Amid an outcry followinghis death, an official commission was established to investigate the murder. In its January 2012final report, the panel failed to identify those responsible and acknowledged that police did noteven question members of the ISI. No arrests were made in the case.Radical Islamists, mercenaries hired by feudal landlords or local politicians, partyactivists, security forces, and police have been known to harass journalists and attack mediaoffices. Reporters regularly face physical and verbal intimidation. In response to scathingcoverage of an October 2012 attack on teenage education activist Malala Yousafzai by Talibanmilitants, Taliban leaders called for the targeting of media organizations and journalists acrossthe country. In June, gunmen fired on the offices of the private Urdu-language television outletAaj TV, inflicting injuries on security personnel. In November, a bomb was discovered under thecar of news anchor Hamid Mir. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), at leastseven journalists were murdered in connection with their work in 2012, making Pakistan one ofthe world’s deadliest countries for members of the press. While some of these reporters weredeliberately assassinated, others were killed as they attempted to cover unfolding political eventsor bombings. In January, two Taliban gunmen killed journalist Mukarram Khan Aatif of Voiceof America’s Pashto-language service at a mosque north of Peshawar in retaliation for his anti-Taliban reporting. In May, the senior editor and head of magazines at Dawn Media Group,Murtaza Razvi, was found strangled to death in a wealthy area of Karachi. In October, journalistMushtaq Khand of Dharti Television Network was one of six people killed when gunmen openedfire on a political rally. In November, photographer Saqib Khan of the Urdu-language paperUmmat was killed in Karachi by a remote-detonated bomb while covering a prior explosion that298

targeted Shiite Muslims. No arrests were made in any of these cases. Impunity is the norm forsuch crimes, with many murder cases from previous years remaining unsolved. In November,gunmen killed the last surviving witness set to testify in the case of the 2011 murder of GeoNews TV reporter Wali Khan. All six witnesses who agreed to testify have been killed.Conditions for reporters covering the ongoing conflict in the Federally AdministeredTribal Areas (FATA) and parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province remained difficult in 2012, asa number of correspondents were detained, threatened, expelled, kidnapped, or otherwiseprevented from working, either by Taliban militants and local tribal groups or by the army andintelligence services. Journalists’ ability to cover military operations in these areas is hampered,as they can gain access only if they agree to become “embedded” with military units, whichmeans that any reporting is subject to potential censorship. Media remain much more tightlyrestricted in the FATA than elsewhere in Pakistan. Independent radio is allowed only withpermission from the FATA secretariat, and no newspapers are published there. In PakistaniadministeredKashmir, publications need special permission from the regional government tooperate, and publications that support independence for Kashmir are generally prohibited.Increasing civil conflict in Karachi in the last several years has made reporting in that city morehazardous. In all of these regions, threats to journalists limited the news and information that wasavailable to the general public.Reporters in the restive Balochistan Province face pressure and harassment from Balochinationalists, Islamist groups, and the government. In 2012, conditions for journalists inBalochistan remained extremely dangerous, and several were killed or fled into exile afterreceiving repeated threats. In May, the Baloch Liberation Front (BLF), an armed separatistgroup, killed journalist Abdul Qadir Hajizai, claiming he was a government informant. The samemonth, local reporter Razzaq Gul of Express News TV was abducted, tortured, and murdered. InSeptember, Abdul Haq Baloch, the secretary general of the Khuzdar press club and acorrespondent for ARY, was also killed in Balochistan, leading to the closure of the press club.He had received prior threats from a progovernment militant group, the Baloch Musalah DiffaArmy. In November, reporter Rehmatullah Abid of the Urdu-language television channel DunyaNews was shot dead by gunmen on a motorcycle in Panjgur district. Separately, in August,British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) correspondent Ayub Tareen fled Balochistan afterreceiving threats from the BLF for what they deemed partisan reporting. Concerns with safetyhave led many newspapers in Balochistan to stop publishing editorials or opinion articles.A wide range of privately owned daily and weekly newspapers and magazines providediverse and critical coverage of national affairs. Pakistan has 252 daily, 130 weekly, and 279monthly news publications. The government continues to control Pakistan Television and RadioPakistan, the only free-to-air broadcast outlets with a national reach; their staff receive directivesfrom the Information Ministry, and their coverage supports official viewpoints. Private radiostations operate in some major cities but are prohibited from carrying news programming, andPEMRA imposes a maximum broadcast radius of 50 kilometers on private FM transmitters. Inrural regions such as the FATA, illegal extremist radio is prominent, with radical Islamistsbroadcasting unchallenged propaganda. However, in a dramatic opening of the media landscapein recent years, Pakistan now boasts several dozen all-news cable and satellite televisionchannels—some of which broadcast from outside the country—that provide live domestic newscoverage, commentary, and call-in talk shows, informing viewers and shaping public opinion oncurrent events. International television and radio broadcasts are usually available, with theexception of news channels based in India. In November 2011, cable operators blocked access to299

the BBC in response to the airing of a documentary, but the BBC’s World News channel wasback on the air by March 2012. The internet is not widely used, with about 10 percent of thepopulation accessing the medium in 2012. However, blogs are growing in popularity, and manytraditional news outlets provide content over the internet.Provincial and national authorities have used advertising and other types of boycotts toput economic pressure on media outlets that fail to heed unofficial directives. A ban on officialadvertisements with the Jang Group, whose Geo television station and various newspapers areknown for their increasingly antigovernment editorial line, remained in effect in 2012. Both stateand private interests, including the powerful intelligence agencies, reportedly pay for favorablepress coverage, a practice that is exacerbated by the low salary levels of many journalists.PalauStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 1Political Environment: 6Economic Environment: 9Total Score: 16Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 14,F 14,F 14,F 14,F 16,FPanamaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 17Political Environment: 19Economic Environment: 12Total Score: 48Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 44,PF 44,PF 44,PF 44,PF 46,PFPanamanian press freedom continued to be threatened in 2012 by both the judicial branch andstate agencies under the direct supervision of President Ricardo Martinelli, with the risk of legalrepercussions encouraging self-censorship among journalists. Freedoms of speech and of thepress are protected by the constitution, but the law allows for the prosecution of journalists forvaguely defined offenses related to the exposure of private information, and prescribes severepenalties for leaking government information to the press. A copyright law passed in September2012 could threaten internet freedom by providing financial incentives for officials in a newGeneral Copyright Directorate to levy fines against individuals, including those who sharecontent online, with minimal safeguards for due process.Although there has been discussion about repeal, journalists are still subject to desacato(disrespect) laws that are meant to protect government officials from public criticism. Since300

2008, libel and slander against high-ranking public officials have not been subject to penalsanctions, but they remain criminal offenses. Cases occur regularly—at least nine remained inprocess at the end of 2012—and often take years to move through the legal system. In July, acriminal circuit court acquitted TVN television journalists Siria Miranda, Kelyneth Pérez, andEduardo Lim Yueng of defamation charges. The three had been sued for their 2009 broadcast ofimages from a security camera that allegedly showed a police officer accepting a bribe.In September 2012, another court upheld a 2009 decision in a civil suit brought byWinston Spadafora, a former judge on the Supreme Court of Justice, against the Editora PanamáAmérica (EPASA) media group and two of its journalists. EPASA was deemed culpable for“moral damages” caused by a 2001 article that revealed the financial windfall Spadafora hadcollected from a highway project while he was minister of government and justice. The courtawarded him a total of $25,000 in compensation and legal costs.Despite the existence of transparency legislation, access to public information remainslimited, and government officials sometimes refuse to release information, especially in casesinvolving corruption.The press encountered instances of censorship during 2012. In a particularly egregiouscase, the Public Utilities Authority, under instructions from the National Security Council,assisted police efforts to suppress February protests by the Ngobe Bugle indigenous group bycutting off mobile-telephone and internet services in Veraguas and Chiriquí Provinces for fivedays. The media also encountered harassment and attempts at censorship from the private sector.In Panama City in August, about 30 trucks from Transcaribe Trading (TCT), a local constructioncompany, surrounded the facilities of the daily La Prensa during the night, preventing thepaper’s trucks from leaving the premises. The move was presumed to be retaliation for LaPrensa’s investigative reporting on favorable contracts between TCT and the Ministry of PublicWorks. Despite a police presence, the blockade continued for several hours, until Martinellihimself arrived at the scene and called for the trucks to leave.Journalists in Panama remain fairly safe compared with colleagues in some neighboringcountries. However, an increase in the number of verbal and physical attacks against independentnews outlets and journalists in 2012 continued a trend from the previous two years. TheJournalists’ Union of Panama reported 60 press freedom violations in 2012, a sharp rise from 16cases in 2011 and 12 in 2010. Government officials in particular have exhibited hostility towardthe media, and according to a poll by the Journalists’ Forum, 82 percent of journalists in Panamabelieve that press freedom has been curtailed by the Martinelli administration’s behavior. Noarrests were made during the year for the November 2011 murder of Darío Fernández Jaén, theowner and program director of Radio Mi Favorita, who was critical of the Martinelliadministration and had reported on corrupt links between land speculators and governmentofficials.During the opening of a session of the National Assembly in January 2012, Martinellialleged that the media “only like bad news” and accused owners of using their outlets “toblackmail and scare presidents and ministers.” In April, hundreds of journalists and civil societyleaders marched in the streets to demand respect and freedom of expression after Martinelli, in apress conference, verbally harassed reporter Hugo Enrique Famanía, who was investigating acorruption scandal involving preferential treatment of Italian firms in the construction ofPanamanian prisons. During a series of protests in Panama City in June, journalist MilagroCórdova and cameraman Jermaine Cumberbatch of the Telemetro television network weredetained by police officers who seized their phones and reporting equipment. In August, agents301

of the Institutional Protection Service detained journalist Rafaela Sánchez and a cameramanwith the RPC television network while they were reporting a story about a water purificationplant.All Panamanian media outlets are privately owned, with the exception of one state-ownedtelevision network and one radio station. There are at least five daily papers, around 100 radiostations, and several national television networks. Cross-ownership between print and broadcastmedia is prohibited. The government has been accused of distributing official advertisingaccording to political criteria. There are no government restrictions on the internet, which wasaccessed by 45 percent of the population in 2012.Papua New GuineaStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 6Political Environment: 12Economic Environment: 10Total Score: 28Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 28,F 26,F 24,F 25,F 27,FNews media in Papua New Guinea (PNG) have traditionally been among the strongest and mostindependent in the South Pacific, but press freedoms eroded following political turmoil in 2011that left the country with two prime ministers and two administrations. The crisis was resolved in2012 with the reelection of Peter O’Neill as prime minister. He pledged to protect and enhancemedia freedom, but critics argued that the media environment continued to deteriorate.Freedoms of speech, the press, and information are guaranteed under Section 46 of theconstitution. Journalists can be sued for defamation in civil cases, but it is not a criminal offense.In November 2011, the Malaysian timber company Rimbunan Hijau, which runs the singlelargest logging operator in PNG and owns the country’s top-selling daily newspaper, theNational, filed a major defamation suit against that paper’s rival, the Post-Courier, over itscoverage of an official investigation into the company’s logging interests in the Pomio District ofEast New Britain Province. In November 2012, the Post-Courier ran an apology that retracted its“incorrect accusation” that the logging operation in the area was in violation of a court order.PNG does not have an access to information law. The Media Council of Papua NewGuinea (MCPNG) serves as a buffer against government pressure by lobbying for mediafreedom, managing a complaints process, and undertaking media research. The council also has awell-developed code of ethics, which member journalists follow. However, the MCPNG’sexecutive director, Nimo Kama, was suspended in June 2011 after an independent audit ofAustralian government funding to the organization found evidence of fraud. The future of thecouncil remained in limbo in 2012.Threats and harassment against journalists and attempts to interfere with their work occuroccasionally, particularly in reprisal for investigative reporting on corruption issues. At least fourmajor assaults on journalists were reported in 2012, some of which were committed by securityforces with apparent impunity. In January, soldiers threatened to shoot journalist Tauna George302

of PNGFM radio when he requested an interview at the Murray Military Barracks in PortMoresby after hearing shots fired inside. In March, Patrick Talu, the business editor of the Post-Courier, was threatened with a grenade by an armed policeman and ordered to leave a park in asuburb of Port Moresby where angry landowners were meeting politicians to discuss acontroversial gas pipeline project. In April, police officers attacked and broke the nose of MarkKayok, a police reporter with the National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC), over “negative”reporting. In October, another Post-Courier reporter, Michael Koma, was cornered by four menat the home of a relative and assaulted over a news story that questioned the appointment ofseveral district administrators in the province of Chimbu. The Post-Courier later identified theattackers as supporters of newly appointed administrator Francis Aiwa and his deputy.Both of the country’s daily newspapers are foreign owned. The Post-Courier is owned byan Australian subsidiary of the U.S.-based News Corporation, while the National, which now hasa larger circulation than its older rival, is owned by Rimbunan Hijau. Broadcast media consist ofthe main public broadcaster, the NBC; several major commercial radio networks, such as NauFM and FM 100; and the main private television station, EMTV. A number of private outlets areowned by Fiji-based companies. Radio is an important source of news due to the country’sisolated settlements and low literacy rates. According to a media monitoring website, radio newsservices in PNG are seen as leading the fight against endemic corruption, whereas newspapersare alleged to have been compromised by corporate interests. The government does not restrictaccess to the internet, but lack of infrastructure limited penetration to just over 2 percent of thepopulation in 2012.ParaguayStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 18Political Environment: 25Economic Environment: 18Total Score: 61Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 60,PF 59,PF 59,PF 60,PF 60,PFStatus change explanation: Paraguay’s status declined from Partly Free to Not Free due tonegative effects on the media environment after the parliament’s controversial ouster ofPresident Fernando Lugo in June 2012. Under new president Federico Franco, a number ofjournalists lost their jobs at state-owned outlets, and there were attempts to influence certainoutlets’ editorial content.In 2012, incidents of media intimidation increased along with the general level of tension in thecountry following President Fernando Lugo’s controversial impeachment by the legislature inJune. Paraguay’s constitution and other laws guarantee freedom of the press. As in the previousyear, legal developments for the media in 2012 centered on threats of lawsuits against journalists,renewed demands for an access to information law, and the impact of the controversial newTelecommunications Law. Defamation is a criminal offense. In September, Nilza Ferreira, a303

eporter with the daily La Nación, was threatened with a lawsuit by new president FedericoFranco’s brother, Senator Julio César Franco, when she questioned him about his maid’spresence on a superior court payroll. In October, President Franco threatened legal action againstnewspaper ABC Color following a series of articles that linked his wife, lower house memberEmilia Alfaro, to irregularities in the awarding of transportation contracts.The constitution is vague with respect to the right of access to information, and thecountry is one of the few in the Americas that still lack statutory legislation guaranteeing suchaccess. A right to information bill failed to pass the Senate in 2006, but two courts of appeal haverecognized the right, and an ongoing Supreme Court case, Vargas Telles v. City of San Lorenzo,provides the first opportunity for the high court to apply jurisprudence by the Inter-AmericanCourt of Human Rights and set a binding precedent on the issue. In the absence of an access toinformation law, the Senate approved Resolution 519 in December 2011, which requires priorauthorization from the chamber’s president before any Senate documents can be turned over tothe press. Organizations such as the Access to Information Advocacy Group (GIAI) criticized theresolution, calling it arbitrary and an attack on fundamental human rights. ABC Color reportedthat month that when it tried to obtain a copy of a bill, authorities said the resolution preventedthem from handing it over. In defense of the resolution, Senate president Jorge Oviedo Mattocontended that the body is not a “neighborhood grocery store” where just anyone can requestinformation.Congress ratified the Telecommunications Law in March 2011, overriding Lugo’sNovember 2010 veto. The law limits community radio stations’ broadcasting power to 50 wattsand prohibits them from carrying advertising. It also recognizes the NationalTelecommunications Commission (CONATEL) as an independent entity empowered to grant ordeny licenses, but fails to guarantee the agency’s autonomy. Freedom of expression advocacyorganizations like the World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters and theOrganization of American States’ Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expressionhave argued that the law violates international standards for freedom of expression and is a stepbackward for human rights.After Lugo’s removal, relations between the new Franco government and the mediadeteriorated, and journalists faced ongoing harassment by public officials through the end of theyear. Immediately after Lugo’s ouster, there were reports that representatives of the newgovernment attempted to censor state-owned TV Pública’s reporting on the events, promptingthe station’s director, Marcelo Martinessi, to resign. In July, eight media workers were dismissedfrom state outlets and the government-owned news agency, and in September an additional 27TV Pública journalists who had openly opposed Lugo’s removal from office were dismissed.The information minister cited the expiration of an agreement with funders for the dismissals,while the journalists alleged that the move was politically motivated. Later in September, theRadio Nacional program Redpública was suspended and journalist Carlos Goncalves’s contractterminated; Radio Nacional’s Ape ha Pepe and TV Pública’s Micrófono Abierto were suspendedas well.Paraguayan journalists continued to confront physical threats and attacks in 2012, andseveral media workers have been under police protection for years. According to the ParaguayanUnion of Journalists (SPP), the situation worsened with the approach of the 2013 elections. InFebruary, unknown attackers damaged the antenna of radio station Babilonia in Paso Yobai,Guariá Department, temporarily forcing the station off the air. A similar attack in November2011 had cost the station 20 million guarani ($4,400). In October 2012, two bombs left by the304

Paraguayan People’s Army (EPP) guerrilla group exploded in a radio station in ConcepciónDepartment. The attackers cited the station’s critical coverage of EPP activities; press advocacygroups stated that the incident illustrated the need for greater protection for media workersreporting from unstable parts of the country. The “tri-border” area where Paraguay meets Braziland Argentina remains a region of particular concern regarding journalists’ safety and ability toreport without violence and pressure from organized crime or politicians. The region’s drugtrafficking, organized crime, official corruption, and impunity mean that journalists often engagein self-censorship to avoid reprisals. In addition, journalists in the regional hub of Ciudad delEste are occasionally censored, threatened, or fired as a result of pressure from governmentofficials.The government owns and operates Radio Nacional and TV Pública, both launched inAugust 2011 following a campaign pledge by Lugo to create public media. TV Pública is thefirst public-service television station of its kind in Paraguay and had developed, according toReporters Without Borders, “an independent and pluralistic editorial line” in its first year ofoperation, prior to the resignation of its director and the dismissal of many of its journalists.Radio remains the dominant medium, and the vast majority of the radio spectrum is controlled byeither commercial or state-owned stations, despite attempts by community stations to increasetheir presence. Although some progress was made in 2011, with the creation of numerousindigenous community radio stations in the Western Chaco region, much remains to be done todiversify the airwaves.Paraguay does not place legal limits on media concentration, and three privately ownedmedia groups have significant market share: Editorial Azeta S.A., which publishes the influentialdaily ABC Color; Grupo Vierci, whose holdings include the newspaper Ultima Hora, television’sTelefuturo (Canal 4), and TV and Radio Monumental; and the Holding de Radio company,which owns the popular Radio Ñandutí, among others. According to a 2012 report byTransparency International, these outlets tend to set the national media agenda.Approximately 27 percent of the population used the internet in 2012, and there were noreports of government restrictions on access. Ease of access has dramatically increased over thepast several years. While use of social media is growing, only about 7 percent of Paraguayanswere active on such platforms in 2012.PeruStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 14Political Environment: 18Economic Environment: 11Total Score: 43Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 44,PF 44,PF 44,PF 43,PF 44,PFFreedom of the press is guaranteed by the 1993 constitution, but local and international mediaorganizations continued to express concern about the harassment of reporters by both state andnonstate actors in 2012.305

Politicians frequently react to criticism, particularly corruption allegations, by suingjournalists, press outlets, and activists. Defamation remains a criminal offense that can result inimprisonment, though suspended sentences are more common. In response to pressure fromnational and international media freedom organizations, Peru’s Congress passed a bill in July2011 that would eliminate jail terms for defamation and impose only fines and communityservice. While President Ollanta Humala expressed support for the decriminalization of libelbefore he was elected in 2011, as of the end of 2012 his administration had yet to take concretesteps to finalize the law. In June 2012, a court in Lima convicted Diario 16 editor Juan CarlosTafur and reporter Roberto More Chávez of defaming a retired general by linking him to drugtraffickers in a 2011 article. Each journalist received a two-year suspended sentence and a fine of$22,200. In a positive development in March, an appeals court overturned a defamation verdictagainst radio journalist Teobaldo Meléndez Fachín for a 2011 story about local governmentcorruption in the town of Yurimaguas.Several laws passed or under consideration in 2012 could limit freedom of expression inPeru. A modification of the penal code that Humala signed into law in January criminalizes thedissemination of information obtained from the illegal interception of communications, a tacticthat journalists have historically used to expose official corruption. In August, Humala proposedthe “Law on Denialism” (negacionismo), which would criminalize the expression of opinionsthat “approve, justify, deny, or minimize crimes committed by members of terroristorganizations,” and make them punishable by four to eight years in prison. In addition, aproposed Cybercrime Law under consideration in Congress during 2012 has alarmed activistsbecause it would allow police to access users’ personal information without a court order.Despite the existence of access to information laws, adherence to transparency norms isinconsistent, particularly at the regional and local levels. Peru suffered a serious setback in itsfreedom of information laws in December 2012, when the government published a legislativedecree denying the public access to any information related to national security and defense. Anyperson who reveals such information could be charged with a criminal offense and punished withup to 15 years in prison.There is no independent media regulatory body in Peru; under the 2004 Radio andTelevision Law, broadcast licensing is the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport andCommunications.Physical attacks and threats against media workers continue to create a hostile climate forthe press, though there was a decrease in the number of attacks in 2012, and no reporters weremurdered. The National Association of Peruvian Journalists registered 132 press freedomviolations in 2012, including physical and verbal attacks, threats and harassment, administrativeand judicial pressure, and impediments to practicing journalism. Topics such as corruption andmisuse of state resources, drug trafficking, and mining-related social conflict are consideredparticularly dangerous to cover. Tensions related to the country’s most controversial miningproject, in the Cajamarca region of northern Peru, were linked to over a dozen episodes ofbeatings or threats in 2012 alone. In April, a radio journalist was kidnapped and briefly held bymembers of a rural self-defense group in Cajamarca, and five journalists were beaten by policeduring antimining demonstrations in the region in July. In June, television journalist JaimeAlfredo Núñez del Prado was attacked and seriously injured while airing a report on allegedcorruption involving the mayor of Calca in the Cuzco region.Impunity for perpetrators of attacks on journalists continues to be a problem. In April2012, the prosecutor leading the investigation of the 2011 murder of journalist Pedro Flores Silva306

was himself murdered. In May, a court in Lima ended eight years of trials and retrials byacquitting a former mayor and his municipal administrator of the 2004 murder of journalistAlberto Rivera Fernández, citing insufficient evidence.The government owns one television network and two radio stations, and operates theprint news agency Andina. However, private outlets dominate the media industry, and theaudience for state-run media is relatively small. Radio is an important news medium, especiallyin the countryside, and many incidents of harassment, intimidation, and censorship by mediaowners are related to coverage of local issues on the radio. The media corruption that wasendemic during Alberto Fujimori’s presidency in the 1990s continues to some extent, withjournalists occasionally accepting bribes in exchange for slanted coverage. Media outlets oftenexperience pressure from both political officials and business interests to censor or limitcoverage of sensitive topics.In 2012, 38 percent of Peruvians had access to the internet, with no reported governmentrestrictions on users’ activity.PhilippinesStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 13Political Environment: 20Economic Environment: 10Total Score: 43Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 45,PF 45,PF 48,PF 46,PF 42,PFThe environment for media freedom in the Philippines remained largely stable in 2012, despitecontinued inertia in dealing with the ongoing issue of impunity in cases of violence againstjournalists, as well as the introduction of potentially restrictive internet legislation.The constitution guarantees freedom of speech and of expression. There are no restrictivelicensing requirements for newspapers or journalists, and few legal limitations such as privacy orobscenity laws. National security legislation introduced in 2007 can be used to limit journalists’traditional rights and access to sources. Also that year, then president Gloria Macapagal Arroyoissued Executive Order 608 creating the National Security Clearance System, which wasdesigned to “protect and ensure the integrity and sanctity” of classified information against“enemies of the state,” and national security discourse is regularly employed in obstructing thepublic’s access to government information.The country’s penal code makes libel a criminal offense punishable by a prison term and,in some cases, large fines. In late 2011, the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) released adeclaration stating that the criminal sanction for libel in the Philippines is “excessive” and inviolation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which thePhilippines is a signatory. Nevertheless, defamation and libel suits continued in 2012 againstthose who criticized authorities. In April 2012, the mayor of Lal-lo in Cagayan province filed alibel case against broadcaster Rogelio Sending Jr. for an interview that linked the mayor to thesuppression of anti-mining demonstrations. The same month, two journalists from The News307

Today—Junep Ocampo and Manuel “Boy” Mejorada—were arrested after the mayor of IloiloCity filed a defamation suit following the publication of an article accusing him of corruption.A troubling development during the year was the introduction of the CybercrimePrevention Act of 2012, enacted without any input from journalists or journalist organizations,which would have extended criminal libel to the web, with penalties surpassing those for printand broadcast. The act came into effect on October 3; six days later, the Supreme Courtsuspended the law’s implementation for 120 days following public demonstrations. In protest ofthe law, activists popularized the hashtag #NoToCyberCrimeLaw on Twitter, blackened theirprofile pictures on Facebook and Twitter, and questioned the constitutionality of the law in 15separate petitions to the Supreme Court. An analyst with the advocacy group the Center forMedia Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) called the law “the worst assault on free expressionsince Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law 40 years ago.” At year’s end, the law remainedtemporarily suspended.In February 2012, the government for the first time forwarded a draft Freedom ofInformation (FOI) bill to the House of Representatives for discussion and possible enactment.But throughout the year, President Benigno Aquino failed to prioritize the passage of the FOIbill, despite his vaunted platform to end corruption and promote greater transparency ingovernment. Legislators and politicians reportedly lobbied to include provisions that would limitany FOI law’s retroactivity, while Aquino himself reportedly favored a national securityexemption. In addition, some congressmen have tried to pass a separate right of reply (ROR) billor include an ROR rider in the FOI bill. Nevertheless, civil society advocates see the bill as agenuine step forward and continue to lobby for its passage, which had not occurred by year’send.Although a censorship board has the power to edit or ban content for both television andfilm, government censorship does not typically affect political material. Both the private mediaand the country’s many publicly owned television and radio stations address numerouscontroversial topics, including alleged election fraud, ongoing counterinsurgency campaigns, andhigh-level corruption cases.The year 2012 saw an increase in killings of journalists compared to 2011, but acontinued improvement from 2009, when the Philippines was the world’s most deadlyenvironment. That year, 29 journalists and three media workers were killed in the Ampatuanmassacre. However, violence and threats against journalists continue. The numbers vary,depending on how advocacy groups define whether attacks are related to journalistic duties.According to CMFR, four journalists were killed in 2012: Aldion Layao, a host for DXRP Radioin Davao City, and Rommel Palma of DXMC-Bombo Radyo of Koronadal City were killed inApril; announcer Nestor Libaton of DXHM Radio in Davao-Oriental was killed in May; andradio host and commentator Julius Cauzo of DWJJ in Cabanatuan City was killed in November.Journalists are also frequently subject to violence and harassment. During the year, 6 journalistswere assaulted, and 12 were threatened.Impunity remains a serious issue. In 2012, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)again ranked the Philippines third, after Iraq and Somalia, in its impunity index, which tracks theworst records for solving murders of journalists. Those advocating for an end to impunity havecalled for a strengthening of the country’s witness protection program, enhancement of thepolice’s ability to investigate cases, and the reformation of the antiquated court rules that havedelayed trials in the Ampatuan massacre and other cases. The Arroyo administration had madesome efforts to address impunity, such as establishing in 2006 Task Force USIG, a special police308

unit, as well as the Melo Commission to Investigate Media and Activist Killings. The law on thewrit of amparo, instituted in October 2007, protects the right to “life, liberty and security” incases pertaining to extralegal killings, enforced disappearances, or threats of such acts. In 2008,the Supreme Court granted the first writ of amparo, which ordered the protection of a journalistwho was targeted in a murder plot. The government and judiciary hoped the new tool would helpstem the rise in journalist killings; while a positive measure, it has proven limited in effect. InMay 2010, Aquino pledged to end the killings and impunity, asserting that justice would beachieved and that half of the cases of extrajudicial killings were on their way to being resolved.Nevertheless, while the trials in the Ampatuan massacre continued during 2012, theywere bogged down by judicial technicalities and a slow-moving court process, as well as bystalling tactics such as motions and petitions used by some defendants to stonewall the process.In March, the mutilated body of a key witness to the massacre, Esmail Amil Enog, wasdiscovered; he was the third witness in the case to have been murdered since the beginning of thetrial. In November, the Philippine Supreme Court upheld the indictments of two primarysuspects in the massacre—Anwar Ampatuan Sr. and Zaldy Ampatuan, former governor of theAutonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao.Most print and internet-based media outlets in the country are privately owned, and whilethe government owns some television and radio stations, they present a wide variety of views.The Philippine media scene is characterized by large, elite, and often family-ownedconglomerates with interests in media and other large sectors of the economy. The elite who ownmedia often use them to further their business or political interests. While the private pressincludes hundreds of newspaper titles, television ownership is more concentrated, with the twolargest broadcast networks (ABS-CBN and GMA-7) controlled by wealthy families who ownother media and non-media holdings and whose major TV networks dominate audience shareand advertising. Often criticized for lacking journalistic ethics, media outlets tend to reflect thepolitical or economic orientations of their owners and patrons. The practice of using bribes orstrategic “favors” to elicit positive coverage is widespread but also openly debated andchallenged by journalist ethics trainings conducted by media groups and reform advocates. Newsreports are often rooted in sensationalism and innuendo in order to boost circulation. The natureof advertising and the prevalence in radio broadcasting of “block timing”—buying airtime forpolitical or partisan purposes—contribute to sensational reporting and violence against itspractitioners.In 2012, 36 percent of the population accessed the internet. Internet use in the Philippinesis not restricted, and social-media sites such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, as well asinternational blog-hosting services, have remained openly available, with penetration rates forthese sites among the highest in the region. Mobile phones remain the most widely usedtechnology in the country, with nearly 95 million subscribers in 2012, many of whom access theinternet through their mobile phones.PolandStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 9Political Environment: 10Economic Environment: 7309

Total Score: 26Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 24,F 24,F 24,F 25,F 25,FAlthough the constitution protects freedom of speech and the press, libel and some forms ofinsult—including defamation of public officials or the state, and statements that offend religiousbeliefs—are criminal offenses punishable by fines and prison sentences. In January 2012, popstar Dorota “Doda” Rabczewska received a fine of 5,000 zloty ($1,500) for violating Poland’sblasphemy law during a 2009 interview. Adam Darski, a musician accused of offending religiousfeelings during a concert in 2007, was acquitted in August 2011. However, the acquittal wasappealed and brought before the Supreme Court, which ruled in October 2012 that a person maybe found guilty of offending religious sensibilities even if the defendant did not “directly” intendto do so. Darski’s case was returned to a district court for reexamination.In September 2012, Robert Frycz, the creator of a website dedicated to satirizingPresident Bronisław Komorowski, was sentenced to 15 months of restricted liberty and 600hours of community service under an article of the penal code that forbids defamation of thepresident. The website includes several versions of a game in which players throw objects,including darts and feces, at the president. The sentence, which Frycz said he would appeal, hadnot been imposed at the end of 2012. In the meantime, the court’s ruling was criticized by theOrganization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Polish branch of the HelsinkiFoundation for Human Rights, and the Polish Association of Free Speech.Defamation suits brought by public officials and others against the news media remaincommon. In October 2012, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Polish authorities hadinfringed on the right to free speech in two cases by penalizing journalists for allegeddefamation. In one case, two journalists had been fined after a court found them guilty ofdefaming a local official in a series of articles published in the TEMI weekly newspaper. In thesecond, a journalist had been ordered to publish an apology and pay court costs after a prominentarchitect claimed defamation in a critical article published by the daily newspaper GazetaWyborcza.In an attempt to harmonize Polish legislation with European Union rules, the Polishparliament revised a law regulating public access to information in September 2011. Oneelement of the bill drew extensive criticism from nongovernmental organizations and oppositionlegislators for giving state bodies the right to limit or deny access to information when protecting“important state interests.” The provision was removed from the original bill by the Sejm (lowerhouse of parliament), then reinserted by Senator Marek Rocki as it made its way through theupper house. Shortly after signing the bill, Komorowski responded to public criticism of the socalledRocki amendment by submitting it to the Constitutional Tribunal (TK) for review. Thecourt ruled in April 2012 that the manner in which the provision had been added wasunconstitutional, repealing that section of the law, though it did not offer an opinion on thecontent of the provision.The National Broadcasting Council (KRRiT), whose members are selected by thepresident, the Sejm, and the Senate, has the power to regulate programming, allocatesubscription revenues to public media, distribute broadcasting frequencies and licenses, andimpose financial penalties on broadcasters. Although KRRiT members are required to suspendtheir membership in political parties, the council has always been a highly politicized body. In310

January 2012, the KRRiT refused to grant a digital broadcasting license to TV Trwam, anultraconservative television station linked to the opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party, citingconcerns about the transparency of its funding. Polish ombudsman Irena Lipowicz declared thatthe decision was arbitrary and based on unconstitutional regulations, and she subsequently askedthe TK to assess the case. The TK had not ruled on the matter at year’s end.Standards accepted by professional associations emphasize objectivity in reporting, butthe culture of journalism in Poland remains highly partisan. In October 2012, the well-knownconservative daily Rzeczpospolita published a front-page article on the 2010 plane crash thatkilled President Lech Kaczyński and scores of Polish dignitaries near Smolensk, Russia. Thearticle was titled “TNT in the Wreckage of the Tupolev.” Though military prosecutors shortlyafter the article’s publication reaffirmed their previous finding that no explosive material hadbeen discovered at the scene of the crash, and that the crash had not been an assassination, thestory nonetheless provoked an immediate and widespread reaction; opposition leader JarosławKaczyński, the late president’s brother, called for the resignation of the government. In the daysthat followed, Rzeczpospolita’s owner, Grzegorz Hajdarowicz, fired the paper’s editor in chief,its internal affairs editor, and the author of the article. This move was criticized by the EuropeanFederation of Journalists as a violation of the rights of media workers. Hajdarowicz is also anowner of Uważam Rze, a popular right-wing weekly. That paper’s editor in chief was also firedafter he criticized Hajdarowicz for politicizing Rzeczpospolita and refused to ban theRzeczpospolita article’s author, Cezary Gmyz, from contributing to Uważam Rze. As a result, anumber of journalists left both Uważam Rze and Rzeczpospolita to form a new weekly, called WSieci.Polish print media and radio outlets are predominantly private and highly diversified.According to the European Journalism Centre, German and other foreign owners controlapproximately 80 percent of the Polish media market. The only major domestic competitor isAgora SA. The public television broadcaster TVP, which runs a number of terrestrial andsatellite channels, remains an important source of information for most citizens. It has beenreported that only one in three households actually pays the mandatory subscription fee collectedfrom radio and television owners to support public broadcasting. Following the emergence of theEuropean sovereign-debt crisis in 2009, many media companies were forced to cut spending andlay off employees due to financial constraints. Poland’s television advertising market remainedweak in 2012, but digital advertising continued to grow and bring income to media companies.Roughly 65 percent of the population had regular internet access in 2012, and the medium is notrestricted by the government.PortugalStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 5Political Environment: 6Economic Environment: 6Total Score: 17Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 16,F 16,F 16,F 17,F 17,F311

Freedom of the press is guaranteed by the constitution, and laws against insulting thegovernment or the armed forces are rarely used against journalists. A 2007 revision of theJournalist Statute allows courts investigating criminal cases to order journalists to divulge theirconfidential sources. Lawmakers argued that the identity of sources would, in many instances, betoo difficult to procure through other means, but journalists asserted that the revision wouldeffectively allow judges to make them carry out police work. The rule has not been used to date.Portugal passed an access to information law in 2003, adding to the 1993 Law of Accessto Administrative Documents. Much government information is freely accessible in practice,although laws prohibit news coverage or commentary on ongoing judicial investigations andtrials.The media are generally free from political interference. However, in late January 2012Este Tempo, a morning current-affairs program on the public radio station Antena 1, wasunexpectedly taken off the air. The show’s editors claimed the decision was linked to a reportbroadcast earlier in January that had criticized the portrayal of Portuguese-Angolan relations in aprogram on the public television channel RTP1.Cases of physical harassment or intimidation of journalists are rare. In March 2012, whilecovering street protests against austerity measures in Lisbon, Agence France-Presse (AFP)photojournalist Patricia Melo was struck by a police officer. In June, a court in Lisbon finedmember of parliament Ricardo Rodrigues €4,950 ($6,400) for stealing the recording devices oftwo journalists during an interview in 2010.Portugal has six main national newspapers: four dailies and two weeklies. State-run andstate-financed media outlets are considered to be editorially independent. There are around 300local and regional private radio stations; Rádio Renascença, which is run by the Roman CatholicChurch, commands a wide audience. Commercial television has been making gains in recentyears, providing serious competition for the underfunded public broadcasting channels. Theinternet in Portugal is unrestricted, and about 64 percent of the population accessed it in 2012.Many prominent journalists and politicians contribute to social media and blogs.As in many countries, the media in Portugal have felt the impact of the ongoing economiccrisis, suffering from advertising losses and shrinking print circulation. There has also been asignificant influx of Angolan money into the media sector, raising concerns over ownership andindependence. The lack of job security for many younger journalists makes them morevulnerable to self-censorship and pressure regarding content. In October 2012, workers atPortugal’s national news agency, Lusa, went on strike—causing a news blackout for four days—after the government announced a plan to cut its state funding by 30 percent. In its 2013 budgetproposal, the government also released plans to privatize Rádio e Televisão de Portugal (RTP),the country’s public broadcaster, causing an outcry from media advocacy organizations. It alsoproposed drastically cutting RTP’s budget and reducing services.QatarStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 20Political Environment: 25Economic Environment: 22312

Total Score: 67Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 64,NF 65,NF 66,NF 66,NF 67,NFWhile Qatar’s flagship satellite television channel, Al-Jazeera, is permitted to air critical reportson foreign countries and leaders, journalists are subject to prosecution for criticizing the Qatarigovernment, the ruling family, or Islam. Article 47 of the constitution “assures” freedom ofexpression “according to circumstances and conditions” prescribed by law. The 1979 Press andPublications Law is administered by the criminal courts and assigns jail sentences for libel.Broadly framed antiterrorism legislation can also be used to restrict freedom of expression.The Advisory Council, Qatar’s appointed legislative body, drafted a new press law in2011 that would eliminate the jailing of journalists for defamation, prohibit officials fromquestioning journalists without a court order, and permit journalists to keep their sourcesconfidential unless instructed otherwise by a court. Multiple provisions would regulate onlinemedia. A revised version of the draft was approved by the Advisory Council in June 2012. Theadded provisions would abolish criminal charges for media law offenses and criticism of theQatari rulers. However, stiff financial penalties would be imposed for the broadcasting orpublication of any news or information that criticizes the Qatari government or its allies, harmsnational interests, or offends the ruling family. The revised draft law had not yet been approvedby the emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, at year’s end.All publications are subject to government licensing. The government, the Qatar Radioand Television Corporation, and customs officers are authorized to censor domestic and foreignpublications and broadcast media for religious, political, and sexual content prior to distribution.Online content is censored through the country’s sole internet service provider, which is stateowned. Users are directed to a proxy server that maintains a list of banned websites and blocksmaterial deemed inconsistent with the religious, cultural, political, and moral values of thecountry.Self-censorship is also reportedly widespread. The Qatari media largely ignored a May2012 fire in the popular Villagio shopping center in Doha that killed 19 people, including 13children. Local outlets were reportedly ordered by a court to refrain from covering the trial ofthose held responsible for the blaze; the accused included a member of the ruling family, SheikhAli bin Jassim al-Thani, who owned the day care center where many victims became trapped,and his wife, who managed the center. Cases of physical harassment of journalists and bloggersare rare, and although some have been subject to detention without charge as a consequence oftheir work, no such cases occurred in 2012.Foreigners make up a majority of the media workers in the country, and there is adisparity in the authorities’ treatment of Qatari and non-Qatari journalists. While local reportersoften receive warnings and threats when they push the limits of permissible coverage,noncitizens employed by Qatari media outlets risk harsher repercussions, including termination,deportation, and imprisonment. All foreign journalists working in the country must be accreditedby the Qatar Foreign Information Agency and sponsored by a local institution or the InformationMinistry. However, journalists in compliance with these rules can still be barred from enteringthe country, and on occasion they have been subject to harassment and arrest after engaging injournalistic activities within Qatar, although no cases of this were reported in 2012.313

Qatar has seven newspapers that publish in either Arabic or English, all of which areowned by members of the ruling family or their business associates. The state owns and operatesall broadcast media, and there are only two television networks in the country, Qatar TV and Al-Jazeera. While Qatar TV broadcasts mostly official news and progovernment perspectives, Al-Jazeera focuses its coverage on regional and global news, providing only sparse and uncriticalreports on local issues. Programming on local radio stations is more accommodating to criticismof government services and operations. The concentration of media ownership within the rulingfamily and the high financial costs and citizenship requirements for obtaining media licensescontinue to hinder the expansion and freedom of the press. Approximately 88 percent of thepopulation used the internet in 2012, with 70 percent of users relying on the web as their primarysource of news and information.RomaniaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 12Political Environment: 16Economic Environment: 14Total Score: 42Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 44,PF 44,PF 43,PF 42,PF 41,PFPress freedom is protected by the constitution but weakened in practice by financial insecurityand overriding political and business interests. A series of political crises during 2012 placedadditional pressures on journalists and media outlets. After a lengthy period of legal ambiguity,libel was effectively decriminalized by a 2010 Supreme Court ruling. No major civil cases werereported in 2012. Journalists use Romania’s freedom of information law with decreasingfrequency as cash-strapped outlets’ commitment to investigative journalism dwindles, andofficials sometimes obstruct access to information on corruption or other sensitive topics.Appointments to the National Audiovisual Council (CNA) are politicized, and its capacity isinadequate, resulting in biased decision-making and ineffective regulation. The current council isseen as leaning toward the center-right opposition Democratic Liberal Party (PDL) and PresidentTraian Băsescu. An emergency decree by the government two weeks before the December 2012elections hampered the CNA’s ability to punish media violations, suspending its rulings untilthey could be confirmed by the courts.The public television broadcaster, Televiziunea Română (TVR), continued to suffer frompolitical contestation and financial trouble in 2012. In May, shortly after a PDL-led governmentcollapsed and Victor Ponta of the Social Liberal Union (USL) was named prime minister, aUSL-backed TVR board member led a vote to fire the station’s editorial director, Dan Radu.Parliament approved a new board in June that did not include any representatives of the PDL;journalist Claudiu Săftoiu, a former intelligence chief, was appointed to lead the station. TheNational Liberal Party, part of the USL coalition, had nominated him for the post. TVR was deepin debt and announced plans in August to fire nearly a third of its staff, raising concerns aboutpoliticized dismissals.314

The private media sector is dominated by powerful Romanian businessmen with politicalinterests and holdings in other industries. Most major outlets display a strong bias toward one ofthe country’s main political blocs. During July and August 2012, as Ponta and the USL soughtunsuccessfully to oust Băsescu in a contentious impeachment referendum, government officialsand their media allies publicly smeared a number of journalists who worked for foreign outlets.The correspondents, who included both foreign citizens and Romanians, were accused ofspreading negative misinformation about Romania abroad and of being paid agents of Băsescu.Senate leader Crin Antonescu, serving as interim president during the impeachment process,threatened to use the external intelligence service to investigate what he described as anorganized effort to damage the country’s image through the media.Reporters sometimes face physical altercations in the course of their work. Manyprofessional and citizen journalists were threatened or assaulted by both police and protestersduring antigovernment demonstrations in January 2012. Separately, investigative reporter DanBucura of Realitatea TV was beaten by two assailants outside his home in May, with one of theattackers allegedly indicating that the attack was linked to Bucura’s work.In addition to the public broadcaster, a large number of private broadcast and print outletsoperate in Romania. While the print sector has suffered severely since the economic downturn oflate 2008, television news channels have continued to expand as political leaders and theirbusiness allies jockey for influence in the dominant medium. Romania’s leading televisionstations include Pro TV, owned by the Bermuda-based Central European Media Enterprises(CME), and Antena 1, owned by politician Dan Voiculescu. Another notable politician andbusiness magnate, Dan Diaconescu, controls the controversial tabloid-style station OTV. Someof the larger private media conglomerates have been shaken by the perennial legal and financialdifficulties of their owners in recent years. For example, although tycoon Dinu Patriciu wascleared of fraud and money-laundering charges in August 2012, his insolvent Adevărul groupwas sold to businessman Cristian Burci a few weeks later. The Adevărul newspaper had helpeddrive many other papers out of business thanks to heavy subsidies from its owner, but it shrankrapidly after the financial support from Patriciu ended in 2011. Foreign media conglomeratesmaintain a presence in the country, though some have withdrawn due to the difficult economicenvironment. Individual journalists suffer from low pay and are susceptible to various forms offinancial and editorial pressure from owners and advertisers.Close to 50 percent of the population used the internet in 2012. Access is widelyavailable, with no reports of government interference. However, online news outlets often lackthe revenue needed to conduct original reporting.RussiaStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 25Political Environment: 32Economic Environment: 24Total Score: 81Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 78,NF 80,NF 81,NF 81,NF 80,NF315

The already repressive press freedom environment in Russia declined even further with VladimirPutin’s return to the presidency in 2012, as authorities relied on both crude and sophisticatedforms of media management to distract the public from terrorist attacks, economic troubles, andantigovernment protests. The government maintained its grip on key television outlets andtightened controls over the internet during the year, and most state and privately owned massmedia engaged in blatant propaganda that glorified the country’s national leaders and fostered animage of political pluralism—especially in the months ahead of Putin’s victory in the Marchpresidential election.Although the constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press, officials haveused the country’s politicized and corrupt court system to harass the few remaining independentjournalists who dare to criticize widespread abuses by the authorities. The constitution and a2009 law provide for freedom of information, but accessing information related to governmentbodies, the judiciary, or via government websites is extremely difficult in practice. Russian lawcontains a broad definition of extremism that authorities frequently use to silence governmentcritics, including journalists; the enforcement of this and other restrictive legal provisions hasencouraged self-censorship.In the summer and fall of 2012, Putin and the parliament—controlled by his UnitedRussia party—approved a series of repressive, vaguely worded measures that significantlyexpanded the array of regulatory tools available to stifle legitimate news reporting on politicallyembarrassing issues and limit the work of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) on mediamatters. A law passed in July reintroduced criminal defamation, with fines of up to five millionrubles ($153,000) or up to 12 weeks of forced correctional labor. The year’s other new measuresincluded a law that increased fines for participation in unsanctioned rallies from a maximum of300 rubles ($9.15) to 300,000 rubles ($9,150); a law requiring NGOs with foreign funding toregister with the Justice Ministry as “foreign agents”; an expansion of the legal definition oftreason to include cooperating with international organizations “against the security of Russia”;and the expulsion of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) from Russia.In addition, a vague, restrictive law that came into force in November granted the statetelecommunications regulator Roskomnadzor broad authority to shutter websites, ostensibly toprotect children from harmful information. In the first month of the law’s implementation,Roskomnadzor blocked 4,640 websites for allegedly containing “offensive content” related todrugs and pornography. Internet service providers were already required to block content on agovernment-maintained list of “extremist materials.” Critics of the restrictions alleged that thegrowing role of the internet as an alternative source of news had prompted the authorities toexpand their control over web-based content.Prosecutors in 2012 charged a number of government critics—including journalists,media outlets, ordinary citizens, and whistle-blowing civil servants—with defamation,extremism, and other trumped-up offenses in an effort to limit their activities. In a major ongoingcase, Aleksey Navalny, one of Russia’s most prominent bloggers, posted embarrassingallegations of corrupt financial practices among senior government officials on his blog. Inretaliation, he was detained, smeared in the pro-Kremlin media, and had three criminal fraudinvestigations launched against him by the end of the year. Separately, in April a court inKemerovo convicted blogger Dmitry Shipilov of “insulting a state official in public” for twoposts that had mocked the region’s governor, Aman Tuleyev. Shipilov was sentenced to 11months of community service, with 10 percent of his earnings garnished. In May, Maksim316

Yefimov, a blogger and opposition activist from the northwestern Karelia region, fled to Estoniaafter being charged with “inciting religious hatred” for criticizing the Russian OrthodoxChurch’s close ties to the Kremlin.A wave of antigovernment protests in response to widespread fraud in the December2011 parliamentary elections led authorities to intensify verbal and legal harassment of mediaoutlets covering the demonstrations in the months ahead of the March 2012 presidential vote. InJanuary, Putin publically accused Moscow-based liberal radio station Ekho Moskvy ofcontinually “pouring diarrhea” on him. The next month, prosecutors briefly subpoenaed EkhoMoskvy’s editor in chief, Aleksey Venediktov, for an alleged labor code violation, while theradio station’s owner—Gazprom-Media, an arm of the state-owned natural gas monopolyGazprom—abruptly announced a change in the board of directors that included the removal oftwo independent members. In response, Venediktov resigned from the board, but remained editorin chief. Also in February, police and security officers, as well as more than 100 financialauditors, raided the headquarters and 19 branches of National Reserve Bank, whose owner,Aleksandr Lebedev, partly owns the prominent independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta.Separately during the year, the authorities used legal technicalities to harass foreigncorrespondents whose reporting embarrassed the Kremlin. In February, Federal MigrationService officials in Vladimir, east of Moscow, detained French journalist Anne Nivat,interrogated her for four hours, canceled her business visa, and expelled her from the country inretaliation for her interviews with opposition activists.According to media monitoring by the Organization for Security and Cooperation inEurope (OSCE), more than 25 documentaries praising Putin were aired in the weeks ahead of theMarch presidential election, while private broadcasters virtually disregarded the campaignactivities of other candidates. The media were largely filled with either apolitical entertainmentor pro-Kremlin propaganda, avoiding coverage of protests by members of a rising urban middleclass who demanded better public services and less corruption. In March and October,Gazprom’s national television channel, NTV, broadcast a two-part pseudodocumentary, Anatomyof a Protest, in an effort to smear increasingly popular activists such as Navalny and SergeyUdaltsov, a leftist opposition leader.Although the internet remains freer than other media and provides a wider diversity ofnews and opinion, the authorities are aware that its growing popularity is undermining thedominance of state-controlled outlets and have been responding with more aggressiveintimidation of independent-minded bloggers, content removal, and manipulation of onlineexpression. Kremlin allies have purchased several independent online newspapers or createdtheir own progovernment news websites, and they are reportedly cultivating a network ofbloggers and computer hackers who are paid to produce pro-Kremlin propaganda and disableindependent news and blogging sites. The websites of prominent independent media includingthe newspapers Novaya Gazeta and Kommersant, Ekho Moskvy, the internet-based televisionstation Dozhd, and the news aggregator Slon.ru all experienced denial-of-service attacks in 2012,especially surrounding the presidential election and anti-Putin protests in Moscow in June. TheFederal Security Service (FSB) and the Interior Ministry engage in widespread surveillance of e-mail, blogs, online bulletin boards, and websites. Using upgraded technology, the FSB hasexpanded its ability to monitor all telephone and internet communications of perceived politicalopponents. Roskomnadzor developed an automated monitoring system that was activated in timefor the December 2011 and March 2012 elections to improve its detection of “extremist” contenton the web.317

Journalists in 2012 faced the threat of intimidation or physical attack when coveringsensitive topics such as the situation in the restive North Caucasus, government corruption,organized crime, police torture, electoral violations, and opposition activities and protests.Widespread lawlessness allows politicians, security agents, and criminals to silence journalistswith impunity. During postelection protests in Lubyanka Square in Moscow in March, policeofficers used violence to arrest three journalists. An officer struck Kommersant FM radioreporter Ulyana Malashenko on the head with a baton, causing injuries that requiredhospitalization. In addition, police arrested two journalists and a leading opposition blogger at ademonstration in Moscow’s Pushkin Square on the same day. In April, Elena Milashina, aspecial correspondent for Novaya Gazeta covering rights abuses in the North Caucasus region,was repeatedly beaten by two men in the Moscow suburb of Balashikha. In June, Russia’s chieffederal investigator, Aleksandr Bastrykin, took Novaya Gazeta deputy editor Sergey Sokolov bycar to a forest outside of Moscow, asked his guards to leave them, and allegedly threatened theeditor with death, after Sokolov refused to apologize for the content of an article documentingalleged misconduct by Bastrykin and other law enforcement officers in a criminal case.Bastrykin reportedly apologized the next day. In July, the Elektron radio and television station inthe southwestern city of Krymsk was besieged by a variety of government inspectors after itaired complaints about the abysmal assistance that flood victims were receiving from localauthorities.According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, one journalist was killed in retaliationfor his work in 2012. Kazbek Gekkiyev, a 28-year-old news anchor for a local affiliate of thestate broadcaster VGTRK in Nalchik, capital of the North Caucasus republic of Kabardino-Balkaria, was shot in the head and killed in December after Muslim separatist fighters in theregion had posted death threats online against journalists working for state media. Investigatorssaid the assailants had asked Gekkiyev if he was a news anchor before shooting him. Theauthorities have failed to investigate or solve the vast majority of crimes against journalists inrecent years. Suspects who are identified rarely receive serious punishments and are often lowlevelcriminals involved in attacks ordered by others. In December, relatives and colleagues ofAnna Politkovskaya, a prominent Novaya Gazeta journalist who was murdered in Moscow in2006, denounced a closed two-day trial of former police officer Dmitry Pavlyuchenkov, who wasoriginally charged with organizing her murder. Pavlyuchenkov had struck a plea deal withprosecutors that resulted in him being charged only as an accomplice in the killing, receiving an11-year sentence, and paying three million rubles ($99,000) in compensation to Politkovskaya’sfamily; he was not compelled to publicly identify the mastermind of the killing.The authorities exert significant influence over the information landscape through a vaststate-owned media empire. The state owns, either directly or through proxies, all six of thenational television networks, two national radio networks, two of the 14 national newspapers,more than 60 percent of the roughly 45,000 registered local newspapers and periodicals, and twonational news agencies. Government-controlled television is still the primary source of news formost Russians. Media diversity continued to decline in 2012 as private companies loyal to theKremlin and regional authorities purchased additional outlets, and most other media outletsremained dependent on state subsidies as well as on government printing, distribution, andtransmission facilities. Lively if cautious political debate was mostly limited to glossy weeklymagazines, news websites, and Ekho Moskvy, all of whose audiences were composed largely ofurban, educated, and affluent Russians. The country’s ongoing economic crisis has led to adecline in advertising revenue for the few remaining independent media outlets, forcing some to318

tone down their news coverage in pursuit of advertising contracts from government agencies. InAugust, a state-run television channel led by a council of pro-Kremlin Muslim clerics beganbroadcasting progovernment programs on Islamic themes.International radio and television broadcasting is restricted. Most private FM radiostations have been pressured to stop rebroadcasting news programs from the British BroadcastingCorporation, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), and Voice of America, relegatingthose services to less accessible short- and medium-wave frequencies. In November 2012,RFE/RL lost its medium-wave local broadcasting license due to the implementation of a 2011law prohibiting foreign ownership of broadcast media.Online media have developed rapidly, and an estimated 53 percent of the populationaccessed the internet in 2012. In one sign of the changing environment, the market research firmTNS reported that in April 2012, Russia’s leading search engine, Yandex, drew more visitors perday—19 million—than the popular state-controlled Channel One television station attractedviewers. Also during the year, journalists widely utilized online news sites, blogs, social media,and smartphone images and videos from citizens to expose election violations and othergovernment abuses.RwandaStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 24Political Environment: 32Economic Environment: 24Total Score: 80Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 84,NF 85,NF 83,NF 84,NF 82,NFArticle 34 of Rwanda’s constitution stipulates that “freedom of the press and freedom ofinformation are recognized and guaranteed by the state,” but other clauses broadly definecircumstances under which these rights can be restricted, and in practice the media remain underthe tight control of the government. The country’s 2009 media law sets out strict regulations,accreditation requirements, and licensing procedures, as well as requirements for journalists toreveal their sources to the government for the purposes of criminal investigations andproceedings. The law prohibits the propagation of ideas based on “ethnic, regional, racial,religious, language, or other divisive characteristics.” Public incitement to “divisionism” ispunishable by up to five years in prison and fines of up to 5 million Rwandan francs ($8,100).Statutes in the penal code forbid defamation of the head of state or other public officials, whichcan carry up to five years in prison and fines of up to 10,000 Rwandan francs ($16). These lawsare generally seen as vague and sweeping in breadth. In August 2012, Parliament passedamendments to the 2008 Law Relating to the Interception of Communications that empower thepolice, army, and intelligence services to listen to and read private communications, both onlineand offline, in order to protect “public security.” The law requires all communications serviceproviders to have the technical capability to enable interception upon request.319

Continuing arrests and prosecution of journalists during 2012 helped to make selfcensorshippervasive. In April, Huguka community radio presenter Epaphrodite Habarugira wasdetained on a charge of “minimizing” the 1994 genocide and “spreading genocide ideology.” Hewas arrested for mixing up the Kinyarwanda words for “victims” and “survivors” while reading areport about ceremonies marking the 18th anniversary of the genocide on a news broadcast. Hisemployers fired him, and he was arrested the next day, though his colleagues said his error wasjust a slip of the tongue. The Muhanga district court ruled that the charges against him werewithout foundation, and he was released after spending three months in jail. In July, IdrissGasana Byiringiro, a journalism student and reporter for Chronicles newspaper, was held bypolice for more than 72 hours on charges of trying to “deceive the intelligence services” andfabricating lies in an article that alleged he was kidnapped by armed men. Byiringiro wasarrested when he went to the police station to make a statement. After being held for three dayshe issued a statement to certain news media in which he confessed to fabricating the abductionstory. He was then released pending trial, whereupon he maintained that he had indeed beenkidnapped. He was later detained for 30 days on the orders of the public prosecutor to allow timeto prepare a case against him. In November, Stanley Gatera, editor of the newspaper Umusingi,was sentenced to one year in jail and a fine of 30,000 Rwandan francs ($50) for “incitingdivisionism and gender discrimination” in an opinion column he wrote in June. The stateprosecutor claimed that the article broke Rwanda’s laws about referring to ethnic identities.Despite such cases, the judiciary showed somewhat more independence than in the past.In April 2012, for example, the Supreme Court reduced the long jail sentences being served byAgnes Uwimana Nkusi, editor of the bimonthly Umurabyo, and Saidati Mukakibibi, a reporterwith the same newspaper. Nkusi’s combined 17-year sentence on charges of “attacking statesecurity” and defaming President Paul Kagame was cut to four years. Mukakibibi’s seven-yearsentence for “attacking state security” was cut to three years. In addition, both women’sconvictions on charges of “minimizing the genocide” and “inciting divisions” were quashed. Thepair had been convicted in 2011 for opinion pieces published in 2010 that criticized governmentofficials and challenged the official interpretation of the 1994 genocide. Prosecutors hadrequested a 33-year sentence for Nkusi and 12 years for Mukakibibi.The state introduced progressive amendments to the 2009 media law during the year,though some problematic clauses were left unchanged. The state would retain its control over themedia by determining rules for their operation and defining journalists’ professional standards.Furthermore, the minister in charge of information and communication technologies (ICTs)would have unlimited powers to set the requirements for establishing media outlets andconditions for allowing foreign audiovisual media companies to operate in Rwanda. However,the proposed amendments would remove the requirement for journalists to hold particularacademic qualifications, ease the process for acquiring press cards, and reduce the grounds onwhich authorities can refuse to provide information. Other restrictions on journalists would alsobe lifted, including bans on the use of “unlawful methods to obtain or to disseminateinformation” and “distorting ideas contained in an information or a text.”A revised Access to Information bill, initially drafted by the Media High Council in 2009to set new standards for public access to information and to protect whistleblowers, was adoptedby the cabinet in June 2011. However, the bill had yet to be enacted at the end of 2012.Although access to internet content is generally unobstructed, government censorship hasincreased in recent years. Since 2010, the independent newspaper Umuvugizi has frequentlyfaced website blackouts, and opposition parties have also reported instances of online censorship.320

No murders were reported during 2012, but more than a dozen journalists have fled thecountry over the past several years to escape prosecution or extralegal threats, and a numberremain in exile. Reporters also face violence and harassment when attempting to cover newsstories. In June 2012, police assaulted journalist Norbert Niyuzurugero of Kigali Today while hewas photographing long lines that resulted from a lack of minibuses. The same month, policebeat Radio Flash journalist Anonciata Tumusiime unconscious outside of Parliament, ostensiblyfor breaching security, though other reports claimed that the reporter was attacked for allegedlydisrespecting the police commissioner.The Rwandan media, which disseminate information in English, French, andKinyarwanda, are dominated by progovernment newspapers and radio stations. There wereseveral dozen print publications registered with the government in 2012, though only about 10 ofthem published regularly. Six of the country’s 25 radio stations are government owned. Inaddition to the main government-run television station, two private stations opened in July 2012,the first private television channels to operate since 1994. However, the state-owned media reachthe largest audience, and most private outlets do not engage in overly confrontational coverage,although some criticism of government policies can be found on the call-in shows of privateradio stations. Market entry remains expensive, but the government has eliminated taxes onimported media equipment and removed the sales tax on domestic media materials in order todecrease costs and spur future investment. The only affordable printing facility is owned by thegovernment, and it frequently denies service to critical newspapers. Low pay for journalists,especially in the private media, can lead to corruption, and journalists often suppress damagingstories in exchange for money and gifts. Media outlets face pressure to provide favorablecoverage to large investors, and the government withholds state advertising from outlets that areconsidered critical of the regime.Approximately 8 percent of the population had access to the internet in 2012, and the vastmajority of users reach the medium via mobile devices. The government has made ICTs apriority and invested heavily in their development, including the expansion of broadband access.There are 10 internet service providers and three telephone operators, with mobile penetration at52 percent in December 2012. Despite increased government pressure, the online atmosphereremains generally open, and the websites of most news outlets are freely available. Social mediaplatforms such as Facebook and Twitter can also be accessed without interference.St. Kitts and NevisStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 4Political Environment: 9Economic Environment: 7Total Score: 20Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 19,F 19,F 20,F 20,F 20,FSt. Lucia321

Status: FreeLegal Environment: 3Political Environment: 8Economic Environment: 4Total Score: 15Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 16,F 15,F 15,F 15,F 15,FSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 4Political Environment: 7Economic Environment: 6Total Score: 17Survey Edition 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Total Score, Status 17,F 17,F 17,F 17,F 17,FSamoaStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 7Political Environment: 13Economic Environment: 9Total Score: 29Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 29,F 29,F 29,F 30,F 29,FSan MarinoStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 4Political Environment: 5Economic Environment: 7Total Score: 16Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 17,F 17,F 17,F 17,F 17,F322

Sao Tome and PrincipeStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 4Political Environment: 11Economic Environment: 13Total Score: 28Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 28,F 28,F 28,F 29,F 29,FSaudi ArabiaStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 29Political Environment: 30Economic Environment: 25Total Score: 84Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 81,NF 82,NF 83,NF 83,NF 84,NFThe media environment in Saudi Arabia remained among the most repressive in the world in2012. Article 39 of the Basic Law of 1992 does not guarantee freedom of the press, and certainprovisions of the law allow authorities to exercise broad powers to prevent any act that may leadto disunity or sedition. It also prohibits publishing materials that harm national security or that“detract from a man’s dignity.” The 2000 Press and Publications Act governs the establishmentof media outlets and stipulates penalties for press violations, such as fines and imprisonment.Under Royal Decree 1700/Mim Ba, issued in March 2005, jurisdiction over the media wastransferred from the court system to the Ministry of Culture and Information, which is authorizedto shut down any media outlet that it finds to have violated the press law. In April 2011, asuprisings across the Middle East and North Africa gained momentum, the monarchy issued adecree banning the reporting of news that contradicts Sharia (Islamic law), undermines nationalsecurity, promotes foreign interests, or slanders religious leaders. The decree also amendedseveral articles of the 2000 press law, allowing authorities to impose lifetime professional banson journalists and levy fines of up to $133,000 for violations of the law. Other amendmentsbarred publication of anything harmful to the state or covering trials without first obtainingpermission from judicial authorities. An antiterrorism bill proposed in July 2011 included aminimum 10-year prison sentence for “questioning the integrity” of the king or crown prince.The bill was still pending at the end of 2012.Defamation is a criminal offense. Furthermore, any form of expression that insults orblasphemes Islam is punishable by death, as is the crime of apostasy. In February 2012, 23-yearoldSaudi journalist and blogger Hamza Kashgari was deported to Saudi Arabia from Malaysia toface trial and a potential death sentence over microblog posts that allegedly insulted the prophetMuhammad. Kashgari remained in prison and his case was still pending at year’s end.323

According to the official media policy, the press should be a tool to educate the masses,propagate government views, and promote national unity. The government has been known todirectly censor both local and international media, and journalists routinely practice selfcensorshipand avoid criticism of the royal family, Islam, or religious authorities. Nevertheless,journalists have increasingly tested the boundaries of permissible reporting.Many Saudis have turned to the internet to express political opinions and exposegovernment corruption. However, the government is able to monitor and block websites withrelative ease, since all internet traffic is routed through a proxy located in the state-run KingAbdulaziz City for Science & Technology. The government aggressively blocks websites itconsiders “immoral,” the majority of which are pornographic, as well as sites deemed critical ofthe government by the Interior Ministry. Other politically sensitive websites are routinelyblocked, including those associated with the country’s disadvantaged Shiite Muslim minority.Several websites sympathetic to Shiites were shut down in February 2012. Habib Ali al-Maatiqand Hussein Malik al-Salam were arrested and held without charge after the news website theymanaged, Al-Fajr Cultural Network, covered protests by demonstrators calling for reform in thepredominantly Shiite Eastern Province. The website was shut down by the authorities. Al-Awamia, another news site that provided coverage of demonstrations in Eastern Province, wassimilarly shut down, and its editor, Jalal Mohamed al-Jamal, was arrested without charge. Alsoin February, Saudi Arabia blocked the official website of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah AliKhamenei. The government routinely censors online expression that it views as blasphemous. InSeptember, following regionwide protests against the anti-Islam film The Innocence of Muslims,the U.S.-based video-sharing site YouTube granted a request by the Saudi government to blockaccess to the film in the kingdom.In October, the Saudi government petitioned the UN World Telecommunications PolicyForum to create a new international body tasked with regulating the internet, stating, “There is acrying need for international collaboration to address ‘freedom of expression’ which clearlydisregards public order.” At year’s end, the United Nations had not responded to the Saudirequest.There were relatively few cases of physical harassment of journalists in 2012. However,reporters frequently face difficulty covering the news, especially when trying to access EasternProvince, where protests and arrests are frequent and no local or foreign journalists are allowedto enter. In April, human rights activist and writer Mikhlif bin Daham al-Shammari was bannedfrom leaving the country for 10 years after publishing an article that criticized what he assertedwas prejudice by Sunni Muslim religious scholars against members of the Shiite minority andtheir beliefs. At year’s end, al-Shammari was still on trial for a range of charges, includingattempting to harm the reputation of the kingdom in international media, communicating withsuspect organizations, and accusing state organs of corruption.There are 13 daily newspapers in Saudi Arabia. All are privately owned but controlled byindividuals affiliated with the royal family. Members of the royal family also control two popularLondon-based dailies, Asharq al-Aswat and Al-Hayat, that serve a wider Arab audience.Broadcast media are controlled by the government, which owns and operates all terrestrialtelevision and radio stations. Since 2011, the government has required all online newspapers andbloggers to obtain a special license from the Ministry of Culture and Information. Althoughsatellite dishes are illegal, satellite television has become widespread and is an important sourceof foreign news. However, key regional satellite channels, including the popular Al-Arabiyanews channel, are controlled by Saudi investors and adhere to local media norms.324

Internet penetration in Saudi Arabia was about 54 percent in 2012. The country wasranked first globally in the proportion of mobile telephone users, with a phone-to-populationratio of 188 percent, according to a report by the UN Conference on Trade and Development.Saudi Arabia also ranked first in the total number of daily YouTube views, according to Google,the site’s owner.SenegalStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 20Political Environment: 18Economic Environment: 14Total Score: 52Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 49,PF 53,PF 57,PF 54,PF 55,PFPolitical tensions rose in Senegal in the run-up to the February 2012 presidential election, inwhich incumbent Abdoulaye Wade ran for a constitutionally questionable third term. Wade’sattempt to remain in power beyond a two-term limit gave rise to a rejuvenated oppositionmovement led by civil society groups, journalists, and popular musicians. The governmentresponded with increased attempts to silence criticism, ranging from clampdowns on protests toarrests and harassment of activists and journalists. Despite this unrest, the February election wasdeemed free and fair, and Wade unexpectedly and quickly conceded defeat to oppositioncandidate Macky Sall, leading to some improvements in the media environment by year’s end.Article 8 of the 2001 constitution ostensibly protects freedoms of expression and thepress, and Article 10 guarantees the “right to express opinions freely, in words, in writing, inimages, [and] by peaceful marching.” However, these freedoms have been limited in practice,particularly under the Wade administration, which used provisions of the 1977 penal code—including Article 80, which criminalizes vaguely defined threats to national security—to harass,prosecute, fine, and incarcerate critical journalists. Defamation, libel, and insult are criminaloffenses, and such charges are occasionally brought against journalists to block or punish criticalreporting or commentary. Fewer cases were brought against journalists in 2012 than in previousyears. In January, editor Mamadou Biaye and reporter Mamadou Ticko Diatta of the privatedaily Le Quotidien were convicted of criminal libel and received suspended three-month prisonterms for alleging that a deputy mayor in the south had ties to armed insurgents in the region. Atthe annual African Media Leaders Forum in November, President Sall expressed his support foran independent and pluralistic press, as well as his intention to decriminalize defamation.Nevertheless, El Malick Seck, editor of the weekly newsmagazine L’Exclusif, was convicted inDecember of criminal defamation for a story that was critical of Sidy Lamine Niasse, head of theWalfadjri media group. Seck was sentenced to a suspended six-month prison term and ordered topay 100 million CFA francs ($196,000) in damages, while publication of L’Exclusif wassuspended. The threat of legal action has led to an increase in self-censorship among somejournalists in recent years. Still, many media outlets continue to publish and broadcast stridentantigovernment views and reports.325

Following a seminar with civil society leaders and journalists in June 2011, legislatorsand the minister of communication made a commitment to adopt access to informationlegislation. However, no such law was passed by the end of 2012.Journalists occasionally face harassment, detention, and assault, mainly by theauthorities. These problems increased in late 2011 and early 2012 in the run-up to the Februaryelection. The Committee to Protect Journalists documented at least 12 incidents in whichjournalists reporting on the presidential campaign or its results were either threatened or harmed.In January, one reporter for Agence France-Presse and two from the Senegalese daily LePopulaire were beaten by police officers while reporting on protests in Dakar, despite identifyingthemselves as journalists. Several other journalists were threatened or assaulted by securityofficers or ruling party members for their coverage of election-related events outside the capital.Following the election, attacks and harassment aimed at journalists began to wane in the moreopen media environment fostered by Sall.Many private, independent print publications and three government-affiliated newspaperspublish regularly in the capital, though their distribution in rural areas is irregular at best. Radiois the most important source of news due to high illiteracy rates, and a number of community,private, and public radio stations operate across the country, with more than 80 radio frequenciesallocated to date. The five private television channels that now operate carry mostlyentertainment programming. The only national television station, state-owned RadiodiffusionTélévision Sénégalaise (RTS), generally favors the government in its news coverage. UnderWade, the government had also been accused of selectively granting or withholding statesubsidies to influence media outlets; it remains to be seen whether these practices will continueunder Sall. Foreign satellite television and radio stations, including Radio France Internationaleand the British Broadcasting Corporation, are available and unrestricted. The internet is alsounrestricted, and access continues to grow, with 19 percent of the population using the mediumin 2012.SerbiaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 9Political Environment: 16Economic Environment: 11Total Score: 36Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 39,PF 39,PF 35,PF 33,PF 35,PFFreedom of the press is protected under Serbia’s constitution and legal system. However, themedia operate in a highly politicized environment, and journalists continue to face physical andverbal attacks. Following presidential, parliamentary, and local elections in May 2012, a newgovernment led by Prime Minister Ivica Dačić did little to reform the Serbian media landscape,which remains constrained by pervasive corruption, regulatory setbacks, and economicdifficulties. Some laws pose a threat to media freedom. Journalists are subject to prosecutionunder the Data Secrecy Act, which protects information of interest to national security, public326

safety, and foreign affairs, among other categories. Although the internet remains unrestricted,the 2010 Law on Electronic Communications requires telecommunications providers to keeprecords on the source and destination of all electronic communications for one year for potentialgovernment use.In 2011, the government adopted a long-awaited media strategy, which aims to increasethe independence of media outlets and protect them from improper influences. The strategy is thefirst step toward the passage of legislative changes to that effect. However, despite ongoinglegislative reforms, mostly under European Union guidance, implementation of the mediastrategy has lagged. A working group was formed by the new Ministry of Culture, Media, andInformation in 2012, though it is unclear whether the group will focus on revising the mediastrategy or implementing the key media laws proposed in the document. In December, theparliament adopted an amendment to the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, but it did notsolve the problem of high fees that are threatening to cripple the country’s broadcasters. Also inDecember, the parliament adopted the Law on Public Companies, which—contrary to the mediastrategy—would create the possibility of establishing new state-owned companies in the field ofinformation. Amendments to the criminal code passed in the same month established morestringent protections for journalists who are threatened in the course of their work, though themaximum punishment was lowered from eight years to five years in prison.The criminal code amendments also eliminated defamation as a criminal offense, but ithad been punishable only by fines since 2006, and articles criminalizing similar reputationrelatedoffenses like insult apparently remained in force. Earlier, in July, press freedomorganizations harshly criticized Serbia for imprisoning journalist László Sas after he was unableto pay a 150,000 dinar ($1,700) fine for insulting a far-right politician. Two weeks into his 150-day prison sentence, however, President Tomislav Nikolić pardoned him, allowing his release.Civil defamation is also an issue in the country. In May, Nikolić—then running as a presidentialcandidate—filed lawsuits against the dailies Kurir and Blic, demanding 200 million dinars ($2.3million) from each. Other journalists and outlets have faced lawsuits and civil damages forallegedly publishing false information.Media outlets and journalists continue to face partisan and government pressure overeditorial policies. Information of public importance is often withheld, and public officials havebeen known to grant interviews or give statements only to select journalists. According to areport by the Association of Independent Electronic Media (ANEM), a watchdog organization,journalists encountered increased political coercion during the campaign for presidential andparliamentary elections in May 2012. A media survey conducted by the Social Research Bureaushowed that media coverage during the campaign lacked critical analysis and in some cases evenamounted to political advertising. In March, the Timočka television and radio station in Zaječarwas harassed by the authorities. It received a subpoena for an alleged illegally installedtransmitter, which had been in the same location for 17 years. The editorial team was alsoinstructed to vacate their business premises. A week later, the station’s signal was removed fromthe package offered by a cable provider. According to ANEM, activists from a political party hadbeen petitioning against Timočka, and the decisions against it were politically motivated.Threats and physical attacks against journalists were a significant concern in 2012. InFebruary, a Studio B television crew was attacked by a man in downtown Belgrade whilereporting about public transportation in the city. The man was arrested and later faced charges. InMarch, a city councilor from Sremska Mitrovica insulted a journalist who had inquired as towhether or not the councilor was resigning. In a separate incident a day later, the president of327

Žagubica’s city council allegedly struck the camera of a local television broadcaster and barred itfrom filming at a municipal gathering. In May, the director of a weekly magazine,Bačkopalanački Nedeljnik, was threatened by the mayor of Bačka Palanka, who allegedly toldhim that if his publication were to write anything more about him, he would throw a bomb intothe journalist’s house and the magazine’s offices. In June, the owner of Kurir received athreatening text message from the president of the United Regions of Serbia political party.Several journalists were targets of explosive devices during the year, although at year’send it was unclear whether the incidents were linked to their work. Tanja Janković, a B92journalist in Vranje, had an explosive device planted in her backyard in October. A monthearlier, she had been attacked at a relative’s wedding, reportedly with the involvement of a policeinspector. Also in October, Molotov cocktails were thrown at the houses of Biljana Vujović, apresenter with TV Kopernikus, and Damir Dragić, the director of the Belgrade-based tabloidInformer. No one was injured in the attacks, and police were investigating them at year’s end.A number of investigative journalists in Serbia live under 24-hour police protection, asthey face threats from mafia-like organizations. Traveling abroad has been a concern for thesejournalists, as their police guards cannot travel armed, whereas criminal organizations operatebeyond Serbia’s borders. Local press organizations argue that when police and the courts identifythe perpetrators of crimes against the media, they often fail to investigate the motives. Themurder cases of three journalists remain unsolved. However, in December 2012 the governmentannounced the establishment of a commission to investigate unsolved killings of journalists.Judicial and political treatment of attacks on journalists did not improve in 2012, with culpritsgenerally receiving mild punishments when their cases were brought to court.The broadcast market is dominated by the public RTS1, but print media are numerousand highly diverse. There are more than 500 print outlets, including around 20 dailies. Inaddition, some 48 percent of Serbians accessed the internet in 2012. In total, Serbia has morethan 1,000 media organizations for just 7.2 million people, meaning most outlets are notfinancially sustainable. Ownership of the print media remains problematic and in some casesunclear, particularly for daily tabloids. Prior to his arrest on embezzlement charges in December2012, it was discovered that businessman Miroslav Mišković, the owner of Serbia’s largestprivately held company, Delta Holding, owned 50 percent—the largest individual stake—in thedaily newspaper Press. The government still has major stakes in the dailies Politika and VečernjeNovosti, and in Belgrade’s municipal broadcaster, RTV Studio B. Under the recently adoptedmedia strategy, the government committed itself to selling its stakes in media organizations byMarch 2015 at the latest, but no such steps had been taken by the end of 2012. Like the mediamarket in general, the television market is oversaturated, and high broadcasting fees pose achallenge to the viability of many stations. The switchover from analog to digital broadcasting,originally scheduled for April 2012, was postponed until June 2015.The economic environment remains a significant constraint in Serbia. The media are nowmore heavily dependent on advertising contracts and government subsidies to survivefinancially, and every year millions of euros are allocated to state and progovernment media atthe expense of other media. A number of outlets have faced closure over the past several years.In 2012, nearly 15 percent of electronic media with valid broadcasting licenses were facingshutdown because of nonpayment of regulatory fees. In September and October, the regulatorybody for broadcasting, the Republic Broadcasting Agency (RBA), initiated 67 procedures torevoke licenses for failure to pay broadcasting fees. In November, RTV 5, a top-rated regionalmedia company, stopped broadcasting after 18 years of operation due to financial difficulties that328

esulted in its license being revoked over unpaid fees. Other economic pressures on journalistsand the media include payment defaults, termination of cooperation and contracts, changes tobusiness contracts, unreasonably high fees for copyrights and related rights, and financialinspections. The economic crisis has exacerbated self-censorship, with media organizationsreporting a significant decrease in investigative journalism.SeychellesStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 17Political Environment: 20Economic Environment: 19Total Score: 56Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 59,PF 59,PF 58,PF 56,PF 56,PFThe media environment in Seychelles over the past decade has been characterized bygovernment monopolization of radio and television, draconian libel laws that have been usedliberally against opposition newspapers, occasional attacks against and harassment of mediaworkers, and extensive self-censorship. The constitution provides for freedom of speech, but alsorestricts this right by protecting the reputation, rights, and privacy of citizens as well as the“interest of defense, public safety, public order, public morality, or public health.” It grants theminister of information the power to prohibit the broadcast of any material deemed contradictoryto “national interest.” Since the court of appeals in 2007 overturned a libel conviction against theopposition weekly Regar, which had forced it to close temporarily, the filing of libel charges, aswell as libel convictions, has diminished. Nevertheless, civil libel suits can still be used againstjournalists. In October 2012, the editor of opposition newspaper Le Nouveau Seychelles Weekly,Ralph Volcere, was found guilty of contempt of court under section 114 (1) of the penal code foran article challenging the neutrality of a sitting judge. Volcere was required to either publish anapology or pay a fine of 10,000 rupees ($730). Volcere planned to appeal the case.The state has a de facto monopoly over the widely consumed broadcast media (both radioand television), and private broadcasters have been slow to develop because of restrictivelicensing fees of more than 800,000 rupees ($60,000) per year. Following one opposition party’sefforts to raise enough money for a radio license, the National Assembly in 2006 passed anamendment to the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Act prohibiting politically affiliatedgroups from obtaining a license. Two licenses for independent radio stations were granted in2012. In 2009, a report by two independent consultants recommended the formation of a mediacouncil, media association, and joint consultation committee, as well as the amendment of thelibel laws. In late 2009, the Seychelles Media Association, a grouping of media professionals,was reconstituted after a 10-year hiatus. In 2010, the National Assembly approved the SeychellesMedia Commission Act 2010, setting up an independent media arbitration body; however,questions have been raised about its neutrality.A new Seychelles Broadcasting Corporation Act was passed in 2011, replacinglegislation from 1992. The act was intended to make the Seychelles Broadcasting Corporation329

(SBC), which runs the nation’s only television station and two radio stations, more independent.However, the period surrounding the campaign for the May 2011 presidential electionhighlighted the continued bias of the SBC in favor of the ruling Parti Lepep and its candidate,President James Michel, who won reelection. SBC media coverage is still overwhelminglydominated by the government, giving opposition parties only limited access.There have been reports of the government monitoring e-mail, chat rooms, and blogs, andopposition activists alleged that access to their party websites have been blocked by authorities.Individuals are commonly detained, arrested, and eventually released for critical comments aboutgovernment officials posted on social-networking websites. In September, police arrested anddetained blogger Michael Sabadin after he posted on Facebook a picture of a soldier who hadbeen beaten by security personal hired on police contract; Sabadin was later released withoutcharge.Incidents involving attacks or harassment of journalists are uncommon. However, in July2012 police confiscated a camera from the editor of the critical weekly Le Seychellois Hebdowhile he was covering an antinarcotics operation, and deleted the photos he had taken. InNovember 2012, police restricted journalists from interviewing demonstrators taking part in aconstruction strike.The three daily newspapers, including the state-owned Seychelles Nation, rarely publish storiescritical of the government. The weekly Le Seychellois Hebdo, which began publishing in 2011,has taken a more critical stance toward the government. Three other weekly newspapers—Regar,the People, and Le Nouveau Seychelles Weekly—are affiliated with political parties. Along withoperating the government-owned television and radio stations, the SBC also relays foreignstations. In 2012, Seychelles was connected to the Eastern Africa Submarine Cable System,providing the country with higher bandwidth. About 47 percent of the population accessed theinternet in 2012. Telecommunications companies must submit subscriber information to thegovernment, though the law was not enforced in 2012.Sierra LeoneStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 14Political Environment: 19Economic Environment: 16Total Score: 49Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 59,PF 56,PF 55,PF 53,PF 49,PFSierra Leone’s constitution guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, and respect for pressfreedom and tolerance of opposition criticism appear to be gaining a foothold under PresidentErnest Bai Koroma. However, despite improvements in the general climate, the Public Order Actof 1965 still assigns prison terms of three to seven years for criminal libel and up to one year forthe separate crime of publishing false news. Criminal libel charges apply in some cases evenwhen the defendant can prove the published information to be true, and defendants charged withpublication of false news must prove that they took reasonable measures to verify the330

information’s accuracy. The Sierra Leone Association of Journalists (SLAJ) challenged theconstitutionality of the act in 2009, but the Supreme Court upheld it. SLAJ has neverthelesscontinued to lobby against criminal libel.Discussions on a freedom of information bill have been ongoing for several years. In2009, Koroma and other government figures pledged their support for draft legislation. In June2010, after slightly weakening the draft, the cabinet approved the bill, and by October 2011 ithad gone through several parliamentary and committee readings. However, progress on themeasure has since stalled.The media in Sierra Leone are regulated by the Independent Media Commission (IMC),whose members are appointed by the president “acting on the advice of SLAJ and subject to theapproval of parliament,” according to the Independent Media Commission (Amendment) Act of2006. The IMC provides an alternative to pressing charges under the Public Order Act;aggrieved parties can register complaints with the commission, which grants them a hearing. Ifthe IMC agrees that a complaint of libel, defamation, or falsehood is valid, it can request that theoffending media outlet publish a retraction and an apology, or it can levy a fine on the outlet. TheIMC can also summon editors at its own discretion. The body has generally demonstratedindependence from the government. In September 2012, the IMC imposed one-monthsuspensions and fines of 2 million leones ($460) each against three privately ownednewspapers—the Independent Observer, the Senator, and Awareness Times—for violating themedia code of practice. However, the Senator and the Awareness Times refused to comply withthe ruling.Koroma has generally refused to let ruling party supporters crack down on the press andstifle opposition criticism. However, journalists are occasionally subject to attacks orintimidation. In January 2012, police assaulted and briefly detained Allieu Sesay of RadioDemocracy while he was covering the arrest of an opposition politician. In March, cameramanJerry Cole of the public-service Sierra Leone Broadcasting Corporation (SLBC) was attacked byopposition supporters while recording an interview with leading opposition figures. Also thatmonth, the community radio station Radio Wanjei, in the southern town of Pujehun, wastemporarily forced off the air by a local politician who stormed the station and seized equipmentbecause he felt the staff had treated him unprofessionally. In July, the independent communityradio station Radio Gbath was similarly attacked by a local politician and his supporters inretaliation for the station’s alleged disrespect of the politician. In addition to physical violencetoward the moderators, equipment was stolen and vandalized. In August, soldiers in uniformattacked reporter Poindexter Sama and graphic designer Alie Turay of the daily AwokoNewspaper outside their offices in Freetown after the journalists photographed the soldierstraveling to a protest rally. The soldiers assaulted the journalists and confiscated their mobiletelephones and memory sticks. At the end of 2012, the murder trial for eight suspects in thebrutal 2011 killing of journalist Ibrahim Foday of the daily Exclusive was still ongoing. Thecrime was the first murder of a journalist in Sierra Leone since 2005.Sierra Leone has 58 newspapers, about 40 radio stations, and 13 television stations. Mostnewspapers are independent, though some are associated with political parties, and the printmedia routinely criticize both the government and opposition parties. All Sierra Leoneannewspapers are printed in English, a language spoken by only about a third of the population. Alow literacy rate coupled with the high cost of newspapers and televisions make radio the mostimportant and widely available medium for obtaining information. Poverty and illiteracy are alsofactors behind the low internet penetration rate, which stood at just over 1 percent in 2012,331

though the government imposes no restrictions on access. The SLBC operates a televisionservice and a radio network. Television and radio programming is available in both English andlocal languages. The number of community radio stations has proliferated in recent years, butmany are not sustainable due to their dependence on foreign grants and the difficulty of meetinghigh operational expenses, including for electricity, especially in rural areas. International mediaoperate freely, though foreign outlets are required to register with the government.Due to Sierra Leone’s poverty, advertising rates are among the lowest in the world, andthe business management and operational structures of media outlets are not always efficient.Few news providers can afford to station reporters outside the capital, and printing presses andother materials are scarce and unreliable. Journalists’ pay is generally very low, and many workwithout pay, taking second jobs that can cause conflicts of interest. Economic insecurity leavesjournalists more vulnerable to editorial pressure from owners, advertisers, and other businesses.SingaporeStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 24Political Environment: 22Economic Environment: 21Total Score: 67Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 69,NF 68,NF 68,NF 68,NF 67,NFThe media environment in Singapore remained unchanged in 2012, with few developments inthe areas of freedom of the press or expression that attracted international attention. Social mediasites and other internet-based sources of news continued to grow but also drew scrutiny fromgovernment authorities, with several bloggers forced to retract postings and one jailed forinciting violence.Freedoms of speech and expression are guaranteed by Article 14 of the constitution, butthere are restrictions on these rights. The Newspapers and Printing Presses Act, the DefamationAct, the Internal Security Act (ISA), and articles in the penal code allow the authorities to blockthe circulation of news deemed to incite violence, arouse racial or religious tensions, interfere indomestic politics, or threaten public order, the national interest, or national security. The SeditionAct, in effect since the colonial period, outlaws seditious speech, the distribution of seditiousmaterials, and acts with “seditious tendency.” In September 2012, 36-year-old Gary Yue MunYew was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment for inciting violence under article 267C of thepenal code—the first time this article had been used—for a comment posted on the Facebookwall of the Temasek Review blog in connection with 2010 National Day celebrations.Singapore’s Parliament has been dominated by the People’s Action Party (PAP) since1959, and ruling party members are quick to use harsh civil and criminal defamation laws tosilence and bankrupt political opponents and critical media outlets. With bloggers and discussiongroups increasingly offering alternative views and a virtual channel for expressing dissent, thegovernment has begun to crack down on postings it deems offensive. A comment made on theTemasek Review website led three members of Singapore’s ruling Lee family (Prime Minister332

Lee Hsien Loong, his wife, Ho Ching, and his brother, Lee Hsien Yang) to demand an apologyfor allegations that they had filled top government positions with family members. In February2012, Temasek Review took down the posting and apologized, but on February 17, Singaporemedia outlets reported that Parliament had pushed through an amendment to the Evidence Actallowing courts to admit deleted online posts as evidence. The amendment, according to the NewPaper, gives the courts “the discretion to consider relevant evidence by widening theadmissibility of several categories. Among them are changes to the computer output evidence—which means computer printouts and sound and video recordings can be treated just like otherevidence in Singapore courts.”The judiciary lacks independence and systematically returns verdicts in the government’sfavor. Journalists and other commentators who raise questions regarding judicial impartiality aresubject to being charged with contempt of court. Singapore has no freedom of information lawand attempts by opposition legislators to introduce legislation have not been well-received.Annual licensing requirements for all media outlets and internet service providers havebeen used to inhibit criticism of the government. Websites offering political or religious contentare required to register with the Media Development Authority, and a website’s owners andeditors are criminally liable for any content that the government finds objectionable. In August2012, a proposed Code of Conduct for bloggers was discarded by the government in favor of aMedia Literacy Council, which was tasked with promoting public education on media literacyand cyber wellness. Critics questioned the lack of transparency in appointing council members,expressing concern that it might become just another internet censorship tool. Foreign media arealso subject to pressures and restrictive laws such as the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act,and are required by the Ministry of Information, Communications, and the Arts to post bond andappoint a local legal representative if they wish to publish in Singapore.Films, television programs, music, books, and magazines are sometimes censored; allfilms with a political purpose are banned unless sponsored by the government. The majority ofprint and broadcast journalists practice self-censorship to avoid defamation charges or other legalrepercussions. A recently published book, OB Markers: My Straits Times Story, by Cheong YipSeng, the former editor in chief of Singapore Press Holdings, documents some of these practices,as well as the ever-shifting markers of what is “OB” or “Out of Bounds.” However, coverage ofsensitive socioeconomic and political topics is more widespread on the internet. Journalists cangenerally gather news freely and without harassment. Cases of physical attacks against membersof the press are extremely rare, and none were reported in 2012.Nearly all print and broadcast media outlets, internet service providers, and cabletelevision services are owned or controlled by the state or by companies with close ties to thePAP. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) World Service is the only completelyindependent radio station available in the country. Satellite television is forbidden. A substantialvariety of foreign newspapers and magazines are distributed uncensored, but the government isauthorized to limit the circulation of print editions.Internet use is widespread in Singapore, accessed by about 74 percent of the populationin 2012. It is believed to have played a significant role in informing voters ahead of the 2011parliamentary elections, in which the ruling PAP received its lowest vote share since thecountry’s independence, as well as providing a space for alternative or dissenting views.Slovakia333

Status: FreeLegal Environment: 6Political Environment: 9Economic Environment: 7Total Score: 22Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 22,F 23,F 23,F 22,F 21,FPress freedom in Slovakia is constitutionally guaranteed and generally respected, andindependent media outlets freely disseminate diverse views. Defamation is not a criminaloffense, though some types of expression—such as Holocaust denial—are subject to criminalprosecution. Civil defamation suits brought by members of the judiciary and political andbusiness elites, many of which claim exorbitant damages, remain a concern. The 2006–10administration of Prime Minister Robert Fico, head of the center-left Smer–Social Democracyparty (Smer-SD), was widely considered hostile to the media. A short-lived coalition headed byIveta Radičová, which took power in 2010, rolled back some constraints on the media before itcollapsed in October 2011. Smer-SD won an overwhelming victory in snap elections held inMarch 2012, and Fico returned as prime minister. In September, Fico dropped his libel suitagainst the weekly Plus 7 Dni after reaching an out-of-court settlement, and gave his first cordialinterview to the newspaper in years. Separately, at year’s end he was still pursuing a suit over acritical 2009 political cartoon by Martin Šútovec, known as Shooty, having filed an appeal withthe Supreme Court after losing in the district and regional courts. Fico and controversialSupreme Court chairman Štefan Harabin have each collected hundreds of thousands of dollarsfrom successful libel lawsuits over the past several years.In September 2012, reports emerged that Harabin had threatened to sue the publicbroadcaster, Radio and Television of Slovakia (RTVS), and a psychiatrist who had criticized himon the air for as much as €400,000 ($514,000) in damages. The psychiatrist had claimed that twojudges had died—one of a heart attack and another of suicide—as a result of persecution byHarabin. Also in September, the Constitutional Court overturned a ruling that had awardedHarabin €16,666 ($21,400) in another libel lawsuit. In what could prove to be a curb onHarabin’s litigious practices, Jana Dubovcová, a former judge and a vocal critic of the SupremeCourt chairman, was sworn in as Slovakia’s new ombudswoman in March 2012. The post camewith the power to file disciplinary complaints against judges, and Dubovcová signaled inNovember that she was prepared to do so. Separately, it was reported in November that HelenaKožíková, the former head of a district court in Bratislava, the capital, had filed a case againstZuzana Piussi, the director of a documentary that was critical of the judiciary, over allegationsthat Piussi had violated her privacy. Piussi faces up to two years in prison if convicted. Kožíkováalso sued RTVS for €30,000 ($39,000) in damages for airing Piussi’s documentary.The 2000 Act on Free Access to Information allows anyone to request information fromstate agencies and receive an answer within 10 days, with noncompliant officials subject topotential fines. In October 2012, the government amended the act with the aim of bringing it intoline with European Union (EU) regulations.In late 2011, it was revealed that the military counterintelligence service had installedwiretaps on telephones belonging to several journalists. Deputy prosecutor general Dobroslav334

Trnka announced in February 2012 that a number of unidentified officials, including top militaryintelligence officers, would face charges of abuse of power and violating citizens’ rights inconnection with the wiretaps. Another scandal that came to light at the end of 2011, nicknamed“Gorilla,” centered on the leak of several files purportedly documenting recordings taken by theSlovak Intelligence Service (SIS) in 2005–06. According to the files, the recordings had revealedcorrupt behavior by associates of the country’s largest private equity firm, Penta, and seniorpoliticians during former prime minister Mikuláš Dzurinda’s second term . In early 2012, JaroslavHaščák , a co-owner of Penta, unsuccessfully sought court injunctions against several websitesthat published the files, including the social-networking website Facebook. Haščák also soughtan injunction against a book about the scandal, written by the Canadian-Slovakian investigativejournalist Tom Nicholson. In February, a preliminary injunction against the book was granted,prompting complaints from rights organizations. A Bratislava court in June ruled that the bookcould be published, and stores began stocking it shortly thereafter. Haščák appealed that decisionto the Supreme Court in August. It was reported in November that former economy ministerJirko Malchárek, who was also implicated in the Gorilla files, had sued Nicholson for libel. Boththat case and Haščák’s appeal remained open at year’s end.Following Smer-SD’s victory in the March 2012 elections, a proposal to dismiss RTVShead Miloslava Zemková before the end of her term was introduced in the parliament. Themeasure claimed that Zemková, who had been elected to the position in 2011 under Radičová’sgovernment, had mishandled a public tender. The move drew complaints from press freedomorganizations and the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), whose director called the proposal“alarming” and a clear sign of political interference. The parliament nonetheless passed themeasure in late June in a vote boycotted by the opposition. Zemková then filed a complaint withthe Constitutional Court, saying her dismissal had been politically motivated. Meanwhile, theparliament in August elected a new director, with opposition lawmakers again boycotting thevote. The Constitutional Court in December dismissed Zemková’s complaint, finding that it wasunsubstantiated and that the court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the issue.Most Slovak media outlets, including all major print outlets, are privately owned. Lack oftransparency in media ownership remains a concern, as does inadequate enforcement ofregulations on cross-ownership of outlets. Print media ownership is concentrated in three majorhouses: Ringier Axel Springer, based in Switzerland, and Spoločnosť 7 Plus and Petit Press, bothbased in Bratislava. Slovakia’s leading financial group, J&T, in recent years has acquired thecountry’s second-most-popular daily newspaper, Pravda, as well as TV Joj, Slovakia’s secondlargesttelevision network. In December 2011, the national transmission company Towercomwas awarded an 18-year license to operate Slovakia’s fourth digital terrestrial televisionmultiplex—the only such broadcasting system it did not already control. The main operators inthe radio market are Radio Expres, which is privately owned, and the public Slovak Radio.Slovaks enjoy growing access to the internet, which the government does not restrict;approximately 80 percent of the population had access in 2012.The economic outlook of RTVS remained uncertain in 2012. The broadcaster came intobeing at the start of 2011, after the dire financial position and dwindling audience of the existingpublic-service broadcasters prompted the government in 2010 to approve legislation outliningthe merger of public television and radio networks into a single entity. The two-year mergerprocess—which was designed to rescue both broadcasters from financial collapse, but did notrelieve them of their massive debts—generally went according to schedule in 2012, though theorganization had yet to establish a shared headquarters. To counter its financial difficulties, the335

newly elected RTVS director in October announced plans to lay off at least a fifth of thebroadcaster’s employees. Private media outlets have also faced increasing financial pressure inrecent years.SloveniaStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 6Political Environment: 11Economic Environment: 7Total Score: 24Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 23,F 24,F 25,F 25,F 25,FSlovenia’s constitution and legal system guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. However,the law bars hate speech and incitement to intolerance or violence, and defamation remains acriminal offense that can result in imprisonment. Media outlets for the most part operate withoutpolitical interference. At times, however, they have faced lawsuits after reporting oncontroversies involving powerful political figures.In December 2012, the Ljubljana Higher Court annulled the Ljubljana District Court’s2011 order that Finnish journalist Magnus Berglund and the Finnish public broadcaster, YLE,pay €15,000 ($19,300) in damages to Janez Janša, Slovenia’s prime minister and the head of theSlovenian Democratic Party (SDS). Janša had sued Berglund, YLE, and several other individualsfor defamation in 2010 over a 2008 YLE documentary, produced by Berglund, that accusedJanša of receiving kickbacks from arms deals between Slovenia and the Finnish defensecontractor Patria. Separately, in November 2012, the Ljubljana District Court ordered thenewspaper Delo to pay €10,000 ($13,000) in damages and publicly apologize to the SDS fordamaging its reputation in a 2009 article. Citing Finnish investigators, the report claimed that theSDS had improperly accepted money from Patria. In July 2012, the same court threw out a libelsuit brought by Ljubljana mayor Zoran Janković of the opposition Positive Slovenia party. Hehad sought €30,000 ($39,000) in damages from the business daily Finance over a series of 2010articles that had implicated him and members of his family in illicit real-estate transactions.The 2003 Access to Information of Public Character Act ensures free access toinformation. The Office of the Information Commissioner, an independent body established in2005, is tasked with handling freedom of information requests and supervising the protection ofpersonal data. The commissioner is nominated by the president and subject to approval by theNational Assembly, Slovenia’s lower house of parliament. The current director enjoys a highlevel of public trust.The Mass Media Act of 2006 established the “right of correction,” according to whichanyone offended or insulted by information published in the media, even truthful information,can demand a “correction” published in the same space as the offending article. The governmentand large companies have utilized this law to demand corrections that in some cases have beenlonger than the original article. The texts hinder editorial independence and journalists’ freedomto publish critical articles. The Ministry of Culture is the main regulatory body for the print336

media and supervises the implementation of the Mass Media Act. It also handles complaintsagainst the media from the public. Electronic media are regulated by the Post and ElectronicCommunications Agency. The agency’s responsibilities include monitoring the content of radioand television broadcasts and stimulating competition within the broadcasting industry.Janša, who had previously served as prime minister from 2004 to 2008, returned to powerin 2012 following December 2011 elections. Events since then have signaled the new Janšagovernment’s growing influence over the media. In July, four members of the supervisory boardof the public broadcaster, Radio-Television Slovenia (RTV Slovenia), who had been appointedin January 2010 by the previous government were dismissed before the end of their four-yearterms, prompting criticism from media advocacy groups. The dismissed members filed a lawsuitalleging that their ouster had been illegal, but Slovenia’s Administrative Court rejected the casein September. Later that month, Janša’s government removed an additional five members fromthe board, leaving it with just two supervisors out of the usual eleven. In November, Planet TV, anew commercial television station owned by the state-run Telekom Slovenije, made its debut.Critics noted that the launch was contrary to Slovenian law, according to which atelecommunications company cannot own a television station, and claimed that Janša’sadministration had established the channel in order to promote progovernment views.There are very few cases of threats and physical harassment against journalists, andreporters are generally able to cover the news without fear of violence.A wide variety of media outlets operate in Slovenia. There are eight daily and a numberof weekly newspapers; many of the weeklies report on local and regional issues and enjoysignificant readership within the communities they cover. The country’s major newspapers areprivately owned, while the broadcasting sector includes both public and private stations. RTVSlovenia is required by law to air radio and television broadcasts that cater to the country’sItalian and Hungarian ethnic minorities. The government-operated Slovene Press Agency (STA)publishes news in Slovenian and English and has permanent offices in several European cities aswell as in the United States. Internet penetration reached approximately 70 percent of thepopulation in 2012. The government does not restrict access to the internet.A transition to digital broadcasting has proceeded rapidly, and Slovenia now boasts thesecond-highest internet protocol television (IPTV) penetration rate in Europe. The digitization ofmedia has resulted in substantial declines in print media readership and revenues, and outletshave sought to cope by experimenting with online pay walls. At the beginning of 2012, a projectfrom Slovakia, called Piano, united eight major Slovenian publishers behind a pay wall. Thefinancial situation of print media was also threatened in late 2012 by a government proposal toraise the value-added tax (VAT) on certain items, including periodicals, from 8.5 to 20 percent.However, the bill was withdrawn from the parliament in November. In a highly criticized movein August, the Janša government announced plans to reduce the public broadcaster’s fundingfrom license fees by 10 percent. The cut was halved to 5 percent after RTV Slovenia publiclycampaigned against the move.Media concentration is high, and ownership of media outlets changes often, making themarket unstable and difficult to monitor. Two foreign companies decided to leave the Slovenianbroadcasting market in 2012, arguing that it was uncompetitive and inadequately regulated.Newspapers that are critical of the government sometimes face difficulty securing advertisers,and self-censorship is reportedly common among journalists who want to avoid problems withtheir employers.337

Solomon IslandsStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 6Political Environment: 11Economic Environment: 11Total Score: 28Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 30,F 30,F 29,F 29,F 28,FArticle 12 of the Solomon Islands’ constitution guarantees freedom of expression and freedom ofinformation, and the government generally respects these rights. However, defamation is acriminal offense, and authorities have in the past filed or threatened charges or civil suits againstthe press. In 2011, the Island Sun newspaper was threatened with a SI$75,000 (US$10,000)compensation demand by supporters of legislator Namson Tram, following a front-page reportabout Tram’s alleged purchase and private registration of his government vehicle. No defamationcases against journalists were reported in 2012. There is currently no freedom of information lawin the Solomon Islands. In an unfortunate rebuff to access to government officials, formerparliamentarian and cabinet minister Jimmy Lusibaea banned his wife Vika, who wassuccessfully elected for the North Malaita seat in August 2012 and who became the only womanin the National Parliament, from speaking to the foreign news media.While the political and news media environment remained fairly stable and diverse,pressure from politicians trying to limit public debate is still a problem, especially for somefledgling news outlets that are attempting to contribute to a plurality of voices. Due to thecountry’s volatile history, some journalists are prone to self-censorship. However, as the countryhas recovered from the 1998–2003 ethnic conflict, journalists have generally been able to coverthe news more freely, without harassment. In 2008, the multinational assistance mission to thecountry launched the Solomon Islands Media Strengthening Scheme, which continues to trainjournalists and give them technical support. Attacks against media workers are rare, and nonewere reported in 2012.The Solomon Star daily dominates the print sector, but there are a number of weeklypapers. The Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation operates the national public stationRadio Happy Isles as well as Wantok FM and the provincial stations Radio Happy Lagoon andRadio Temotu. Paoa FM leads the commercial radio sector. One Television, a relatively recentaddition to the media landscape, has proven to be an innovative broadcaster, adding acompetitive and challenging edge to the industry. Due to low literacy levels, broadcast mediareach a much broader swathe of the population than print outlets. There are no restrictions oninternet access, but high costs and a lack of infrastructure limited internet penetration to 7percent of the population in 2012.SomaliaStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 27338

Political Environment: 35Economic Environment: 22Total Score: 84Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 84,NF 84,NF 84,NF 84,NF 84,NFThe media environment in Somalia varies significantly from region to region, with differentconditions in unstable south-central Somalia, semiautonomous Puntland in the northeast, and thebreakaway territory of Somaliland in the northwest. The year 2012 was one of the deadliest onrecord for journalists in Somalia, with 12 killed across the country, according to the Committeeto Protect Journalists (CPJ). This is a significant increase from 2011, when two journalists werekilled. The security situation remains challenging despite political progress in south-centralSomalia. A draft constitution was passed in August, and a new president, Hassan SheikhMohamud, was elected in September. Nevertheless, the Transitional Federal Government (TFG)and the new government that succeeded it, both backed by African Union (AU) troops, continuedto battle with the Shabaab, a militant Islamist group, and other local militias for control of areasoutside Mogadishu.Somalia’s new provisional federal constitution, adopted by the National ConstituentAssembly in August 2012, provides for freedoms of speech and of the press. However, due topervasive violence across much of the country, journalists continue to face restrictions on theirreporting in practice. There is no freedom of information law to guarantee access to publicinformation, and defamation is a criminal offense, although many cases are resolved outside theformal court system, either according to xeer (customary law) or in Sharia (Islamic law) courts.At the end of the year the government was debating new legislative initiatives, including atelecommunications bill, a revised media law approved by the Transitional Federal Assembly(TFA) in late 2007, and a Communications Act. There was significant international support formedia law reform, and an intensive effort to undertake such changes was expected in early 2013.However, given the government’s inability to impose its authority over much of Somalia, thepractical implications of any new laws remained unclear.The ongoing violence has dramatically affected the media environment in south-centralSomalia. Numerous journalists have been killed in recent years, either for their perceivedpolitical affiliations or as accidental casualties in armed clashes. Media outlets have alignedthemselves with political factions as a means of survival, making neutral or objective reporting ararity. In October 2012, Jamal Osman wrote an article in Britain’s Guardian newspaper in whichhe noted that Somali journalists were “dying from corruption as much as conflict.” The articlesparked a broad debate and was met with protest and condemnation by the media, despite thefact that such corruption had been documented before by journalist groups, including theNational Union for Somali Journalists (NUSOJ). While there is self-censorship, it is often alongpolitical or clan lines. Concerns about safety also make journalists who gain access to militantleaders reluctant to conduct critical interviews or edit the resulting products. Direct censorshipalso remained a problem in 2012, as armed factions took over some broadcast stations and forcedothers to close.Somalia remains one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists andother media workers. Several journalists from the Shabelle Media Network were killed duringthe year. In January, the director, Hassan Osman Abdi, was shot dead as he was entering his339

home in Mogadishu. This was followed by the April murder of correspondent Mahad SaladAdan in Beledweyne, central Somalia, after he reported on a conflict between the Shabaab andthe progovernment militia Ahlu Sunnah Waljamaa; the May murder of presenter Ahmed AddowAnshur; and the October murder of Shabelle’s web editor, Mohamed Mohamud Turyare.Shabelle was one of south-central Somalia’s most important media outlets, and the repeatedattacks on its journalists have seriously degraded its operations. In addition, three journalists—Abdirahman Yasin Ali, director of Radio Hamar (“Voice of Democracy”); Abdisatar DaherSabriye, head of news for Radio Mogadishu; and Liban Ali Nur, head of news for SomaliNational TV—were killed in a September suicide bombing at a Mogadishu café frequented bymedia workers and civil servants.Despite the violence, dozens of radio stations continued to broadcast in Mogadishu andother parts of the country. The government supports Radio Mogadishu, which carries officialnews and information and provides space for a variety of groups and individuals to voice theiropinions. The joint UN-AU radio station Radio Bar Kulan began shifting its operations fromNairobi, Kenya, to Mogadishu in 2012, reflecting both the improved environment in Somalia anda planned transformation into a public-service broadcaster. Like Radio Mogadishu, the stationhas sought to offer a platform for voices that may be critical of the extremists and moresympathetic to the government and AU forces. Many Somalis also access news via foreign radiotransmissions, including the Somali services of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) andVoice of America.The advertising sector is weak, and advertising revenue is often not enough to sustainmedia houses. This leads some outlets to depend on financial support from wealthy owners orpoliticians, which compromises editorial independence. Journalists in all regions of Somaliareceive low or even no pay and rely on trainings, corruption, or blackmail for additional income.Many media outlets also prefer to hire cheaper, less-skilled workers or even relatives over moreexperienced journalists. Because there is an abundance of journalists, those who complain aboutlow wages usually face threats of dismissal and replacement.The status of press freedom is somewhat better in Puntland, a self-declaredsemiautonomous region. Puntland’s interim constitution provides for press freedom as long asjournalists demonstrate “respect” for the law, but the region recognizes the Somali federalgovernment. A 2010 Puntland counterterrorism law includes a provision that prohibits mediaoutlets from reporting on the Shabaab. In 2012, journalists also faced threats, attacks, andharassment from security forces and militias, who usually enjoyed impunity for their actions.Despite Puntland president Abdirahman Mohamud Farole’s stated commitment to greateropenness, restrictions remained harsh, and coverage of political and security issues continued tobe particularly dangerous for journalists. Two journalists in the city of Galkayo were killed in2012: Farhan Jeemis Abdulle, who worked for Simba Radio and Radio Daljir and was shot byunidentified gunmen in May, and Ali Ahmed Abdi, a freelance journalist who was gunned downby Shabaab militants for supporting the Puntland government. The government also put pressureon the media, forcing the private radio station Horseed FM to close and allegedly blocking itswebsite in some cities, according to Reporters Without Borders.In 2012, the autonomous government of Somaliland—whose claims of independencehave not been internationally recognized—continued to tolerate a relatively free media sectorcompared with the rest of Somalia, although the relationship between the government and themedia was tense. The Somaliland constitution guarantees freedoms of speech and of the press.Defamation is not a criminal offense, and libel cases are sometimes settled through the clan340

system of arbitration, although judges are inclined to use criminal law in media cases. There isno access to information law in Somaliland, and public officials often choose not to divulgeinformation unless it is favorable to the government.In a pattern that began in the run-up to the 2010 elections, many journalists and mediaoutlets are aligned with or financially supported by political parties. The Somaliland governmentunder President Ahmed Mohamed Mahamoud Silanyo has been accused of dealing harshly withthe media, often summoning journalists for questioning at the Central Investigations Department,closing media outlets, or arresting journalists. The government has a history of suspendingbroadcasts by the satellite television stations Universal TV and Horn Cable TV. In early 2012,the president called Horn Cable TV a “nation destructor” and ordered it closed. Eight of thestation’s journalists were arrested while protesting the closure; when 13 of their colleagues fromvarious outlets protested the detentions, they too were arrested. In December, editor MohamudAbdi Jama of the newspaper Waheen was arrested after he quoted a report by a participant in ahuman rights conference that alleged corruption by the president’s son-in-law. Also inDecember, the editor of the weekly newspaper Yool went into hiding due to fears of arrest afterhe reported his predictions regarding the outcome of local elections held the previous month. Asin years past, several Somaliland journalists received threatening text messages and harassmentfrom the Shabaab. In October, Ahmed Saakin Farah Ilyas, a journalist with Universal TV, waskilled in the northern Sool region by unidentified gunmen. Fearing retaliation, some outlets haverefrained from openly reporting and condemning the activities of the Shabaab.There are about 10 newspapers in Somaliland, although this number fluctuates, as somepublish intermittently. Most local outlets are not economically sustainable and are heavilysubsidized by the diaspora as well as by political parties and businesses. While they tend to bealigned with particular political or individual interests, Somaliland media largely share aproindependence agenda. Newspaper reporting is often critical of the government but has limitedreach due the relatively high cost of papers and low levels of literacy.Radio remains the most accessible and widespread medium for news in Somaliland. Theestablishment of independent radio stations is banned, and the region’s government has beenreluctant to liberalize the sector, citing the danger that stations could instigate clan violence;some Somalilanders support this argument. Government-owned Radio Hargeisa remains the onlyFM station, although the BBC is available in the capital. There has been a small but notablegrowth in internet-based radio stations operating both within Somaliland and from the diaspora.There is one government-owned television station, Somaliland National Television. A number ofSomali-language satellite stations, such as Horn Cable TV and Universal TV, broadcast from theMiddle East and London, and they are accessible and highly influential. The advertising sector isgradually growing but remains small.The Somali diaspora in Europe, North America, and the Persian Gulf states hasestablished a rich internet presence. Internet service is available in large cities in Somalia, andusers enjoy a relatively fast and inexpensive connection, including through mobile devices.Around 7 percent of Somalis owned a mobile phone, and 1.4 percent accessed the internet in2012. Although there were no reports of consistent government restrictions on the internet, somefactions reportedly monitored internet activity.South Africa341

Status: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 10Political Environment: 15Economic Environment: 10Total Score: 35Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 28,F 30,F 32,PF 33,PF 34,PFFreedoms of expression and of the press are protected in the constitution and generally respectedin practice, and South Africa is home to vibrant journalists’ and press freedom advocacyorganizations that regularly and effectively push back against government encroachments.However, several apartheid-era laws and a 2004 Law on Antiterrorism permit authorities torestrict reporting on the security forces, prisons, and mental institutions. In September 2012, theConstitutional Court upheld a 2011 Gauteng High Court judgment that the controversial 2009Film and Publications Amendment Act was unconstitutional. The legislation, ostensibly passedto protect against child pornography and hate speech, was widely criticized by press freedomadvocates as a potential means of prepublication censorship. It required any publisher notrecognized by the press ombudsman to submit potentially “pornographic” or “violence-inciting”materials to a government board for approval, and imposed criminal penalties fornoncompliance.Journalists and media houses are occasionally threatened with legal action or charged as aresult of their work. In November 2011, lawyers for presidential spokesman and AfricanNational Congress (ANC) party stalwart Mac Maharaj threatened the independent weekly andonline daily Mail & Guardian with criminal prosecution for alleging that Maharaj lied to theanticorruption agency regarding his involvement in an arms-deal scandal from the late 1990s,leading the newspaper to censor most of the article in question. Maharaj later filed criminalcomplaints against the two reporters responsible for the story, accusing them of stealing recordsfrom the government’s investigation. An inquiry into that claim was ongoing at the end of 2012.In November, the current police minister conceded that journalist Mzilikazi wa Afrika had beenwrongfully arrested in 2010 for stories alleging corruption by former police chief Bheki Cele.Wa Afrika won personal damages and compensation for the Sunday Times, which published thearticles. Libel is not criminalized in South Africa, but civil cases, sometimes involving largefines, continue to be brought against members of the press. President Jacob Zuma has himselfsued local media outlets 11 times for defamation. However, in November 2012 he dropped a R5million ($610,000) defamation lawsuit against Sunday Times cartoonist Jonathan Shapiro—alsoknown as “Zapiro”—over a controversial 2008 political cartoon.The constitution protects the right of access to information, and the Promotion of Accessto Information Act (PAIA) is designed to implement this guarantee. However, there has been astark increase in the use of court interdictions and gag orders by both governmental andnongovernmental actors in recent years, and enforcement of existing disclosure rules issometimes less than adequate.In late 2011, the National Assembly (NA), the lower house of Parliament, passed thecontroversial Protection of State Information Bill, which would allow state agencies to classify awide range of information—including “all matters relating to the advancement of the publicgood” and “the survival and security of the state”—as being in the “national interest” and thus342

subject to significant restrictions on publication and potential prison terms for violations.Vociferous objections from civic groups and opposition parties forced the government to amendthe legislation. In November 2012, the National Council of Provinces, the upper house ofParliament, passed a revised version that marginally narrowed the definition of national security,included a limited public-interest exception, maintained the integrity of PAIA andconstitutionally mandated oversight commissions, and removed most commercial informationfrom the bill’s purview, among other changes. Nevertheless, the bill still criminalized thepossession and disclosure of classified information, with potential prison sentences ranging from5 to 25 years. Opponents vowed to challenge the bill before the Constitutional Court on thegrounds of its incompatibility with PAIA, as well as its lack of a public-domain defense and itslimited public-interest defense. At year’s end, the amended bill was awaiting passage by the NA.The ANC in 2010 revived a plan to replace the self-regulating Press Council (PCSA) andpress ombudsman with a state-run media tribunal that would hear complaints against the press,hand out stiff punishments for violating privacy and for defamation, and force the media to issueretractions and apologies. In July 2011, responding to the ANC’s proposal, the South AfricanNational Editors’ Forum (SANEF) and Print Media South Africa (PMSA) established anindependent body of individuals, the Press Freedom Commission (PFC), to identify the mostefficient and effective regulatory system for South African media. In April 2012, the PFCrejected the idea of a statutory media tribunal, recommending instead a system of “independentco-regulation” between the public and the press, but without government representation.Additional recommendations included the expansion of the definition of complainant to includenot just those directly affected by a story, but also public advocates; a clearer hierarchy ofsanctions for violations; and a ban on hate speech and “harmful” coverage of children. InOctober, the PCSA announced a comprehensive set of reforms, embracing independent coregulationand restructuring itself to include equal public and media representation under thechairmanship of a retired judge. The overhaul also provides the public greater legal redress, suchas the ability to appeal directly to ordinary courts. The ANC voiced its approval of the newprovisions, and no further steps were taken toward the establishment of the proposed mediatribunal during the year.Journalists are occasionally harassed and threatened by both government officials andnongovernmental actors over the content of their reporting. In addition, reporters sometimes facephysical attacks when attempting to cover sensitive news stories. For example, journalists’coverage of wildcat mining strikes in August and September 2012 were inhibited by securityforces. Journalists are also unable to access areas deemed of interest to national security underthe apartheid-era National Key Points Act, and in recent years there has been an increase in thenumber of locations thus designated under the act. In 2012, the government invoked thelegislation to prevent admittance to or disclosure of information regarding Zuma’s Nkandlahomestead during a controversial remodeling that was estimated to cost over $200 million.A number of private newspapers and magazines—including the Mail & Guardian, theCape Times, and the Sunday Times—are sharply critical of the government, political parties, andother societal actors. The print media continue to be dominated by four groups: Ayusa,Independent Newspapers, Media24m, and Caxton/CTP. Access to print media is alsoconcentrated among more urban, wealthier South Africans. As a result, the majority of SouthAfricans receive news via radio and television outlets. The state-run South African BroadcastingCorporation (SABC) is the prevailing force in both sectors, though there is a greater diversity ofradio outlets in urban areas. While officially editorially independent, the SABC has come under343

fire for displaying a pro-ANC bias, reflecting internal ANC rifts in its management struggles,financial maladministration, and practicing self-censorship. In December 2012, editors at theSABC radio station Metro FM quashed an interview about the ANC national conference withthree political journalists because no ANC representative was present.The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) is involved inefforts to expand the number and broadcasting range of community radio stations. However, theprocess is slowed by lack of bandwidth and bureaucratic delays. The SABC’s three stationsclaim most of the television market, but the country’s two commercial television stations, e.tvand M-Net, are reaching growing proportions of the population. International broadcasts areunrestricted.In 2011, the Zuma government announced a R1 million ($122,000), cabinet-approvedadvertising budget that will be directed toward newspapers that “assist the government in gettingits message across”; the government’s media advertising operations were also consolidatedwithin the Ministry of Communications. New Age, a daily newspaper launched in late 2010, isowned by interests with close ties to Zuma and has been explicitly endorsed by the governmentas a “supportive” publication. The paper has hosted a growing number of high-priced “businessbreakfasts” with senior ANC officials and business leaders, drawing accusations of a conflict ofinterest.Internet access is unrestricted, although state monitoring of telecommunications systemsis authorized. In 2012, 41 percent of the South African population had access to the internet.Access is expanding rapidly, and more people are able to reach the medium from mobile devicesthan from computers. However, the majority of the population is unable to benefit from internetaccess due to high costs and the fact that most content is in English, an obstacle for those whospeak one of the country’s 10 other official languages. There is some content in local languages,especially on social-networking platforms.South KoreaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 9Political Environment: 13Economic Environment: 9Total Score: 31Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 30,F 30,F 30,F 32,PF 32,PFSouth Korea’s media environment has experienced some setbacks since President Lee Myungbaktook office in 2008, and the Lee administration’s attempts to censor online content andrestrict access to news from North Korea under its strict interpretation of the 1948 NationalSecurity Law continued to raise concerns among domestic and international media advocacygroups during 2012. However, these issues drew increased attention during the run-up to theDecember 2012 presidential election, with political parties and candidates proposing newinitiatives to strengthen press freedom. Park Geun-hye of the conservative Saenuri Party won thecontest, becoming the first female president in the country’s history.344

While freedom of the press is guaranteed by the constitution and generally respected inpractice, Article 7 of the National Security Law prescribes imprisonment for praising orexpressing sympathy for North Korea. Defamation is a criminal offense, and charges areoccasionally threatened or brought against reporters or commentators who criticize thegovernment. Chung Bong-ju, one of South Korea’s most popular political commentators, serveda one-year jail term after being convicted in late 2011 of spreading false rumors about Lee’sconnection to alleged stock fraud.Due to rising political tensions with North Korea, as well as the death of North Koreanleader Kim Jong-il in December 2011, the Lee administration appeared to grow more concernedabout the expression of pro–North Korean sentiment, particularly online. According to the KoreaCommunications Standards Commission (KCSC), an official body responsible for monitoringonline content, the number of South Korean websites or social media accounts shut down forpro–North Korean content rose from 10 in 2009 to 304 in 2011, and then decreased slightly to267 in 2012. About 14,430 web posts were deleted by the police in 2009 for “threateningnational security by praising North Korea, and denouncing the U.S. and the (South Korean)government.” That number increased to over 67,000 in 2011, and then decreased to 12,921 in2012. In January 2012, Park Jung-geun, a 24-year-old photographer and blogger who repostedmessages from the North Korean government’s Twitter account, was arrested on charges ofviolating the National Security Law. While Park said his Twitter posts were meant to lampoonthe North Korean regime, prosecutors charged that, regardless of his intention, his account hadserved as a vehicle for spreading the North’s propaganda. Park was given a 10-month suspendedjail sentence in November 2012.The Lee government was accused of inappropriately seeking to extend its influence overseveral state-controlled broadcast media companies. Former presidential aides and advisers werealso appointed to key positions at a number of private media companies during Lee’s tenure,despite the objections of journalists seeking to maintain the broadcasters’ editorial independence.More than 180 journalists have been penalized since 2008 for writing critical reports aboutgovernment policies, as well as for advocating press freedom. At the end of January 2012, over700 employees from the privately owned Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) went onstrike, claiming that the network president had interfered with fair reporting. The strike expandedto other networks with similar management concerns, including approximately 650 employees atSouth Korea’s largest station, the public Korea Broadcasting System (KBS). The strike officiallyended in July, though journalists at both MBC and KBS remained in talks regardingmanagement’s political interference in reporting.South Korea has a vibrant and diverse media sector, with numerous cable, terrestrial, andsatellite television stations and more than 100 daily newspapers in Korean and English. Manynewspapers are controlled by large industrial conglomerates and depend on major corporationsfor their advertising revenue. The television and radio sectors feature both public and privateoutlets, including an American Forces Network for the U.S. military. Five new cable televisionchannels—four general-programming stations and one all-news channel—were launched inDecember 2011, two and a half years after the government revised a set of media laws to allowinvestment by conglomerates and newspaper companies in the broadcasting sector. These newchannels are expected to affect the market dominance of KBS, MBC, and Seoul BroadcastingSystem (SBS), all of which had previously held exclusive rights to offer general programming,ranging from news and documentaries to sports and entertainment shows.345

Approximately 84 percent of the population accessed the internet in 2012, and asignificant number of young people get their news exclusively from online sources. SouthKorean online media are especially vigorous and innovative. Aside from pro–North Koreancontent, the internet is generally unrestricted, but the government requires all website operatorsto indicate whether their sites might be harmful to youth.South SudanStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 16Political Environment: 27Economic Environment: 17Total Score: 60Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status NA NA NA NA 59Hopes for improvements in the media environment in South Sudan in 2012 were subdued afterauspicious media bills, first introduced in 2007, were not passed during the year. Working in alegal vacuum, many South Sudanese journalists describe an increasingly intolerant stance byauthorities toward the media.The new constitution, ratified upon independence and considered one of the mostprogressive charters in Africa, guarantees press freedom and ensures that all levels ofgovernment uphold this principle. Three progressive media bills were introduced in 2007 but hadnot been enacted by the end of 2012, leaving journalists without comprehensive legal protectionsand the media sector without a regulatory framework. The bills were designed to facilitate accessto information, set up a public broadcaster, and establish an independent press ombudsman.While Information Minister Barnaba Marial Benjamin claimed that the delay in the bills’ passagewas due to a glut of legislation in the parliament, local journalists voiced suspicions thatindividuals within the government opposed their adoption. Local journalists and editors also fearthat the draft media bills have been altered in ways detrimental to press freedom and withoutconsultation with the local press during the nearly six-year interval. For instance, the latestversion of the draft Broadcasting Corporation Bill, designed to create a public broadcaster,differed from its original draft by giving the executive branch, rather than the legislature, powerover board appointments.Legal measures were rarely used against the press, although a handful of high-profiledefamation cases did occur. In March 2012, Pagan Amum, secretary general of the ruling SudanPeoples’ Liberation Movement (SPLM), was acquitted in court on corruption charges linked toan alleged $30 million payment in 2006. Amum then successfully sued two newspapers, TheCitizen and Al-Masir, for $37,000 each in a libel suit; the papers were also required to publish anapology. A draft freedom of information bill was under consideration by the Council ofMinisters in 2012, but no legislation had been introduced by year’s end. Access to interviews andofficial information largely depends on journalists’ personal connections.It is relatively easy to acquire accreditation and licenses to work as a journalist in SouthSudan. Although there is no official censorship, journalists have no effective legal protection346

from harassment by state officials, and many self-censor to avoid repercussions for theirreporting. In certain cases, authorities have visited media outlets and ordered publishers to stoppublishing stories about sensitive issues. In June 2012, publishers were warned about printingstories on corruption, while an alleged military coup attempt in August prompted more visits.Also in June, authorities suspended the Arabic-language newspaper Al-Khabar for an articlecriticizing the government’s capacity to rule effectively.Security officials and individuals within the government rely on extrajudicial means tosilence the private media, and journalists and media outlets were regularly subjected tointimidation and physical attacks. Police and security personnel physically assaulted andarbitrarily detained journalists without charges throughout the year. As media outlets expandedtheir reach from Juba to regions further afield, more cases of security personnel harassingjournalists trickled in from around the country. In December, security agents arrested RadioTamazuj journalist Assad Al Tahir in Wau without explanation, releasing him only on conditionthat he not report on political and ethnic tensions in the town. Also in December, threats againstthe hosts of two political programs on Bakhita Radio forced suspension of the programs, whichremained off the air at year’s end. The most tragic event of 2012 occurred when unidentifiedmen shot dead Isaiah Diing Abraham Chan Awuol, a prominent columnist and blogger, in Jubain December. Relatives and colleagues linked his death directly to his reporting. Notably, anarticle Abraham published calling for President Salva Kiir’s resignation had resulted in hisinterrogation by security forces a few weeks prior to his death. Investigation into the murder ledto the arrest of two suspects late in the year.As border disputes between Sudan and South Sudan continued in 2012, journalists wereoften caught in the middle. Soldiers detained Sudan Tribune correspondent Bonifacio Taban forthree days in June and questioned him repeatedly over a story concerning 500 soldiers’ widowswho complained of poor compensation. In addition to the story’s main subject, the sheer numberof widows implicitly challenged the lower casualty figures reported by the military. Foreigncorrespondents also faced harassment. In August, McClatchy reporter Alan Boswell was publiclyaccused of being a spy for Sudan after publishing a story suggesting U.S.–South Sudan relationswere under strain due to false statements made by Kiir to U.S. President Barack Obama. InOctober, Al-Jazeera correspondent Anna Cavell’s camera was seized by a group of men whoalso threatened her with arrest while she filmed in Juba’s Custom Market area. Officials do notpermit photography in many urban areas, and occasionally also restrict the movement ofreporters.Print media in South Sudan are burdened with small staffs and budgets, low advertisingrevenue, and a national illiteracy rate of 74 percent. Newspapers are largely concentrated inurban areas because of the high cost of transportation and a lack of reliable infrastructure.Newsprint is very expensive, and because the country has only one printing press, a majority ofthe printing is done in Uganda or Sudan. A number of private dailies and weeklies publishregularly, though individuals within the SPLM own the majority of titles. There is a general lackof diversity of viewpoints, as reporters are either employed by progovernment media owners orfear reprisals from state authorities. Papers allied with the ruling party are favored in terms ofwinning advertising revenue. Government-owned Southern Sudan Television is the soletelevision station operating in the country. Journalists working at the station complain of selfcensorshipand lack of professional integrity among their superiors. Radio remains the mainsource of news for most citizens, with several dozen stations in operation across the country;however, many remote areas remain outside the reach of FM broadcasts. There are no reliable347

statistics regarding internet use in South Sudan during 2012. Penetration is low, as most of thecountry lacks online access because of a lack of electricity and infrastructure. However, there areno reports of the government restricting access to or the content of the internet, and the lack ofofficial restrictions on online news has allowed several professional, critical websites to emerge,including Sudan Tribune, Sudan Votes, and Gurtong.SpainStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 5Political Environment: 14Economic Environment: 8Total Score: 27Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 23,F 24,F 24,F 23,F 24,FPress freedom in Spain suffered in 2012 due to the effects of the European economic crisis.Media outlets were forced to close or cut staff as the advertising market contracted, leading to adecline in media diversity. Also during the year, journalists who challenged the austerity policiesof the ruling Popular Party were removed from their positions at the state-owned broadcaster.Freedom of expression is guaranteed in Section 20 of the constitution, and press freedomis generally respected in practice, though the media face legal threats including defamation suits.The country launched a first-of-its-kind “Right To Be Forgotten” campaign against the searchenginegiant Google in 2011. The effort began as a libel suit in January, when the Spanish DataProtection Agency ordered Google to remove articles on roughly 90 citizens who wanted oldpersonal information to be deleted. In March 2012, Spain referred the case to the European Courtof Justice to clarify whether European or U.S. data protection standards apply, and whetherGoogle could be instructed to remove content from its search engine, even if it was not thecreator of that content. The case remained pending at year’s end.In October 2012, two journalists were found guilty of defamation and ordered to pay€10,000 ($12,800) in damages for accusing a health official of theft in a video that was posted onYouTube. The video discussed corruption in the region’s health care industry. The authoritiesmonitor websites that publish hate speech and advocate anti-Semitism. In addition, thegovernment in March 2012 began enforcing the so-called Sinde Law, a new measure that allowsfor the blocking of websites containing copyrighted content that has been used withoutpermission. According to reports from the Ministry of Culture, the law resulted in more than 300complaints, including 79 website takedown requests, in its first month.Spain does not have freedom of information legislation. However, broad concerns overcorruption and mismanagement of the country’s finances have led to a popular push for greatergovernment transparency. In March 2012, the cabinet presented the parliament with a draftTransparency, Access to Information, and Governance Law, which would provide informationabout the salaries of civil servants and government contracts and create a process for requestingadditional data. However, the bill was heavily criticized by civil society and the Organization for348

Security and Cooperation in Europe’s representative on freedom of the media for not meetinginternational standards. It had not been passed by year’s end.In April 2012, Pilar Velasco, a journalist with the Madrid-based radio station SER, wascharged with violating privacy because she refused to reveal the source of a video that she hadposted on YouTube three years earlier. The footage, which showed a Madrid official on a trip toColombia, was allegedly recorded with hidden cameras as part of a spying effort by rival Spanishpoliticians. In October, Access Info Europe, an organization that campaigns for governmenttransparency, was fined €3,000 ($3,850) for requesting information from the Spanishgovernment about anticorruption measures. The fine was reportedly levied because the requestwas a demand for “explanations” and not just data.Since 2006, the head of state-run Radio y Televisión Española (RTVE) has been electedby a two-thirds majority vote in the parliament. This process was originally developed to ensurethe institution’s independence, but it often resulted in political standoffs. The government ofPrime Minister Mariano Rajoy and the ruling Popular Party reformed the process in May 2012and introduced an absolute majority vote. They also reduced the number of management boardmembers, allocated seats on the board according to each party’s parliamentary representation,and appointed Leopoldo González-Echenique as RTVE president. According to critics, thesedevelopments resulted in growing government influence at the outlet. In July and August 2012,RTVE removed several journalists who had questioned the Rajoy government’s austerityprogram.Unlike in 2011, when several media workers were assaulted while covering protests,there were no reports of attacks against journalists in 2012. However, journalists continued tocomplain that political leaders were limiting or banning questions during press conferences, andorganized a social-media campaign against the practice.Spain has a free and diverse media sector, including both public and private print andbroadcast outlets. The country’s more than 100 newspapers cover a wide range of perspectives,although their ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few large companies. RTVE runspublic radio and television channels, and regional and local stations operate throughout thecountry. The government relaxed media ownership rules in 2009, allowing a single entity to owna stake in more than one major broadcaster. However, safeguards include a mandate for themarket to include at least three distinct broadcasting companies, and a ban on mergers betweenthe two leading companies.The economic crisis, coupled with a series of government austerity measures, hasseverely affected the media industry. Since 2008, 57 outlets have closed, around one-sixth of thecountry’s journalists have lost their jobs, and those who remain receive only about half of theirprecrisis salary. Público, a left-leaning daily aimed at younger readers, stopped printing andbecame an online-only publication in February 2012. This left the market with only one leftwingnational newspaper, El País, compared with four right-wing dailies. Newspaper advertisingplummeted by 50 percent between 2007 and 2011, and total advertising spending also dropped,registering a 12 percent fall in 2012. In June 2012, the government lifted a ban on advertisingsexual services in print due to the downturn in the economy. The explicit advertisements bring inover €40 million ($51 million) annually for the newspaper industry. Many papers receive largegovernment subsidies, which can encourage self-censorship.Approximately 72 percent of the population had access to the internet in 2012. In thewake of the decline of traditional media, Spain has experienced a rapid increase in the use of349

digital media, which has benefited social minorities and supported political pluralism and digitalactivism.Sri LankaStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 23Political Environment: 32Economic Environment: 19Total Score: 74Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 67,NF 70,NF 72,NF 71,NF 72,NFMedia freedom remained restricted in Sri Lanka in 2012, with journalists subject to myriadforms of legal harassment and physical intimidation. Although the government included severalitems related to media freedom in its July 2012 National Action Plan on national reconciliation—including the passage of freedom of information legislation, enhanced efforts to investigate andprosecute past cases of attacks on journalists, and increased physical access for reporters to thenorth and east of the country—little progress was made on any of these recommendations byyear’s end.The constitution provides for freedom of expression, but it and other laws and regulationsplace significant limits on the exercise of this right. The 1979 Prevention of Terrorism Actcontains extremely broad restrictions, such as a prohibition on bringing the government intocontempt. The decades-old Official Secrets Act bans reporting on classified information, andthose convicted of gathering secret information can be sentenced to up to 14 years in prison.Although no journalists have ever been charged under the law, it is used as a threat. Journalistsare also occasionally threatened with contempt-of-court charges or questioned regarding theirsources.The 1973 Press Council Act, which prohibits disclosure of certain fiscal, defense, andsecurity information, was revived in 2009, having not been enforced in more than a decade. Thegovernment nominates all seven council members under the act, and violations of its provisionscan draw prison terms and other punitive measures. In July 2012, the government announced itsintention to extend the act’s application to electronic and web-based media, and to introduceregistration fees of 100,000 rupees ($780), with annual renewal fees of 50,000 rupees forwebsites. These figures were revised downward in August to 25,000 rupees and 10,000 rupeesrespectively. In 2006, unofficial prepublication censorship on issues of “national security anddefense” was imposed by a new Media Center for National Security (MCNS), which assumedthe authority to disseminate all information related to these issues to the media and the public. InMarch 2012, the MCNS issued a directive extending this provision to news services distributedvia mobile-telephone text messaging.There is no enforceable right to information in the constitution or separate legislation. Infact, the Establishments Code, the formal administrative code governing civil servants, activelydiscourages access to information even on public-interest grounds. An attempt by the oppositionto introduce a right to information bill in Parliament in 2011 was defeated by the governing350

majority, in violation of its previous campaign promises, and an additional attempt in May 2012was also stymied by the speaker of Parliament.The broadcasting authority is not independent, and licensing decisions sometimes appearto be arbitrary and politically influenced. Under new rules announced in November 2011regarding licensing for any websites that host news content related to Sri Lanka, only 27 of the80 websites that attempted to register were successful, according to international advocacywatchdog Article 19.Local press freedom advocacy groups, such as the Free Media Movement and the SriLanka Journalists’ Association, face smear campaigns in state-controlled media, and their staffoperate under considerable threat.In response to the greater role of web-based media, the government has stepped up effortsto censor the internet, imposing blocks on access to a number of independent news websites,including some based overseas. A petition challenging this practice was rejected by the SupremeCourt in May 2012. Levels of self-censorship in the broader news media are high, with the vastmajority of journalists avoiding coverage that is critical of President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s familyor administration. Journalists also tend to abstain from coverage of the alleged war crimessurrounding the defeat of the Tamil Tiger rebel movement in 2009. Many journalists assume thattheir phone calls and online communications are monitored.Journalists throughout Sri Lanka, particularly those who cover human rights or militaryissues, face regular intimidation and pressure from government officials at all levels. Officialrhetoric is markedly hostile toward critical or “unpatriotic” journalists and media outlets, withprominent leaders, including Defense Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, often making statementsthat equate any form of criticism with treason. State-controlled media and the Defense Ministrywebsite have been used to smear and threaten individual journalists, activists, and media freedomorganizations. These attacks increased in 2012, including harsh denunciations of journalists whoappeared before the UN Human Rights Council or supported its move in March to press for aninvestigation of alleged war crimes.In addition to verbal and physical attacks from official sources, journalists and pressadvocacy groups that are perceived as supportive of ethnic Tamil interests have drawn the ire ofSinhalese nationalist vigilante groups. While Tamil journalists no longer face the tightrestrictions imposed by the Tamil Tigers, they generally refrain from strident criticism of thegovernment, the military, or progovernment Tamil political factions. A number of journalistsreceived death threats during 2012, and others were subject to attempted or actual kidnappingand assaults. In July, journalist Shantha Wijesooriya was the target of an attempted abduction inColombo. Management at the Sunday Leader continued to face harassment and verbal attacks.Editor Frederica Jansz received a torrent of verbal abuse and threats to her life from GotabhayaRajapaksa in July, when she called to get his response to an investigative story. Jansz fled intoexile with her family later in the year, after being ousted as editor. Following attacks in 2011,key personnel at the independent Uthayan newspaper in Jaffna also fled the country in 2012.Dozens of journalists and media freedom activists have gone into exile over the past severalyears, leaving the sector without many of its most experienced professionals. Even exiledjournalists were subject to official threats in 2012. On a number of occasions during the year,reporters attempting to cover sensitive news stories were roughed up by police in the course oftheir work. In June, police raided the offices of two news websites linked to the oppositionUnited National Party, detaining staff and impounding equipment. Reporters continued toencounter difficulties accessing former war zones and internment camps and in covering the351

esettlement process in the north and east.Past attacks on journalists and media outlets, such as the 2009 murder of LasanthaWickrematunga, then editor of the Sunday Leader, and the January 2010 disappearance ofcartoonist Prageeth Eknaligoda, have not been adequately investigated, leading to a climate ofcomplete impunity. In January 2012, a trial concerning the 2005 murder of journalistDharmaratnam Sivaram was postponed after a number of key witnesses failed to appear in court.A shrinking number of privately owned newspapers and broadcasters continue toscrutinize government policies and provide diverse views, but most do not engage in overtcriticism or investigative reporting. Media outlets have also become extremely polarized,shrinking the space for balanced coverage. The Free Media Movement has noted that state-runmedia—including Sri Lanka’s largest newspaper chain, two major television stations, and a radiostation—are heavily influenced by the government, citing cases of pressure on editors, severalunwarranted dismissals of high-level staff, and biased coverage. In recent years, ownership hasgrown more concentrated, with many private outlets now held by government officials or theirclose associates as part of an overall strategy to further tame the press. Ownership changes at theSunday Leader, where a business investor who is close to the ruling family assumed a majoritystake, led to the removal of Jansz as the paper’s editor in September 2012 after she refused toalter her critical style. Business and political interests exercise some control over media contentthrough selective advertising and bribery, and the government’s share of the advertising marketis expanding. Those publishing opposition print media occasionally face difficulties in printingand distribution. While the government has built a new transmission tower in the north of thecountry, it has restricted the construction of towers by private companies. Access to the internetand to foreign media has occasionally been restricted.Approximately 18 percent of the population accessed the internet in 2012, with manyresidents deterred by the high costs involved, although mobile-phone usage continued to increaserapidly. Web-based media and blogs have taken on a growing role in the overall mediaenvironment, with outlets such as Groundviews and Vikalpa providing news and a range ofcommentary, even on sensitive stories and events that are barely covered by the mainstreammedia.SudanStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 26Political Environment: 32Economic Environment: 22Total Score: 80Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 78,NF 78,NF 76,NF 78,NF 78,NFSudanese authorities tightened their grip on the media in 2012, in the wake of an outbreak ofviolence between Sudan and South Sudan over a disputed border region in April and widespreadantigovernment protests in June. Freedom of the press and expression are nominally protectedunder Article 39 of the 2005 Interim National Constitution—adopted as part of the 2005352

Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the Khartoum government and the theninsurgent Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM)—though a permanent constitution iscurrently being drafted following the independence of South Sudan in 2011. While the CPAcreated somewhat greater space for journalists to report more freely and initially reduced thecommon practice of censoring newspapers prior to publication, the legal environment for mediahas remained largely unfavorable. In 2009, the government replaced the highly restrictive 2004Press and Printed Press Materials Law with a revised version, which media freedomorganizations criticized as falling far short of international standards. The 2009 law allows forrestrictions on the press in the interests of national security and public order, contains looselydefined provisions related to bans on the encouragement of ethnic and religious disturbances andthe incitement of violence, and holds editors in chief criminally liable for all content published intheir newspapers. The law also gives the National Council for Press and Publications (NCPP) theauthority to shut down newspapers for three days without a court order. Several other laws arealso regularly used against the press, including elements of the 1991 penal code, the 2010National Security Forces Act, and the emergency law applied in the western region of Darfur.Defamation is a criminal offense under the penal code, and there is no freedom ofinformation law, making access to public information difficult. The Ministry of Informationmanages broadcast licensing in a highly politicized manner, allowing progovernment stations toacquire licenses more easily than independent outlets. The NCPP, a large proportion of whosemembers are appointed by the president, regulates the journalism profession and entry into thefield. Journalists are required to pass a test prior to receiving accreditation and a license.Throughout 2012, authorities in Khartoum maintained a tight grip on the media sector.While direct prepublication censorship was officially lifted in 2009, the practice continued tooccur in 2012, particularly on issues related to the April border conflict. In addition to priorcensorship, the National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS) gave daily instructions tonewspaper editors on prohibited topics, frequently called editors to deliver censorship directives,and insisted that certain journalists be banned from writing, with suspension of publication thepenalty for noncompliant outlets.Monitoring and censorship of online content intensified in 2012. The governmentmonitors the internet, including e-mail correspondence, through the NationalTelecommunications Corporation (NTC). Websites and proxy servers judged to have violatednorms of public morality are blocked, while YouTube and the popular forum Sudanese-Onlinewere obstructed for various periods in 2012. In response to the June protests, the NTC alsoblocked online newspapers known for their coverage of the events, including Al-Rakoba andHurriyat Sudan. Furthermore, the NISS deployed a “cyber jihad” unit to proactively monitoronline activities and hack into activists’ social media accounts.Journalists were regularly harassed, attacked, arrested, detained, and reportedly torturedthroughout the year. In May, prominent opposition journalist Faisal Mohamed Saleh was arrestedafter several weeks of persistent harassment by security agents. After 11 consecutive days ofquestioning at the NISS office about an interview Saleh gave on Al-Jazeera in which hecriticized Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, he was arrested for failing to appear at the NISSoffice on the 12th day, charged with refusing to cooperate with the authorities, and held for 6days before being released on bail. However, he was quickly acquitted, due in part to hismistreatment at the hands of the NISS. In October, a serious case of abuse was documented afterjournalist Somaia Ibrahim Ismail was detained and subjected to torture by NISS officers aspunishment for supposedly opposing Bashir’s government. Ismail then fled the country to Egypt,353

though she continued to receive warnings and threats after her release for her allegedinvolvement with a group called the Armed Movement of Darfur.Harassment and arrests of journalists increased during the border conflict between Sudanand South Sudan in April, and again during the antigovernment demonstrations launched byUniversity of Khartoum students in protest of the country’s deteriorating economic situation inJune. According to human rights organizations, at least seven reporters were detained forcovering the demonstrations, several of whom were held without charge until late August.Foreign media organizations were also targeted, including Agence-France Presse (AFP), whoseoffices were raided in June after one of its reporters photographed a protest in Omdurman, andBloomberg, which had a correspondent deported in June for covering the demonstrations.Deportations of foreign journalists also included a British correspondent for AFP and an editorfor a private Egyptian daily. Many other journalists and photographers had their equipmentconfiscated, while bloggers and online journalists were targeted for their coverage of the protestson social-media sites and online news outlets. The repression against press freedom in Sudan hasled many journalists to actively self-censor.Despite constraints on journalists, media outlets have proliferated in recent years. Thereare nearly 20 political dailies operating in the country, plus dozens of sports and social affairspublications. However, experts have argued that there is little difference between private andstate-run media, as all are subject to serious government intrusion, ranging from interference inmanagement decisions to censorship of content. Newspapers are generally too expensive formost citizens. The state dominates the broadcast media, which are the main source ofinformation for much of the population. Television programming continues to be formallycensored, and radio content largely reflects the government’s views. There are approximately 60private radio stations broadcasting on FM frequencies, in addition to the state radio network. Asthe licensing of radio stations remains firmly under government control, private stations avoidreporting on political affairs and focus instead on entertainment and music. Internet penetrationin Sudan is relatively high for sub-Saharan Africa, with 21 percent of the population accessingthe web in 2012.Ownership of media outlets is generally not transparent. There are no laws requiring therelease of ownership information. Moreover, many owners refrain from acknowledging theirstatus in order to evade taxes and avoid possible attacks. Journalists work for low pay, and manyfreelancers do not earn enough to cover the cost of living. Some analysts believe this hasencouraged corruption within the media, with journalists and editors selling coverage topoliticians. Independent media do not receive public subsidies, but do benefit from secretfinancial support if their coverage is deemed friendly to the government. The authorities alsowithhold state advertising from newspapers that are critical of the government.As a complement to other coercive tools, the authorities stepped up the practice ofconfiscating the entire press runs of newspapers as a deliberate strategy to intimidate andfinancially cripple critical publications in 2012. Each confiscated edition resulted in thousands ofdollars in losses for economically fragile outlets, and in many cases no official reason for theconfiscation was given. In response to widespread press coverage of the June antigovernmentprotests, the government reportedly raised taxes on all printing-related expenses, dealing anotherfinancial blow to news outlets and causing at least five newspapers to close down in 2012. Otherpublications had their operations suspended for extended periods.354

SurinameStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 6Political Environment: 12Economic Environment: 6Total Score: 24Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 23,F 23,F 23,F 23,F 23,FThe government generally respects freedom of expression and of the press, as provided for in thecountry’s constitution. Suriname has some of the most severe criminal defamation laws in theCaribbean, with prison sentences of up to seven years for “public expression of enmity, hatred,or contempt” toward the government, and up to five years imprisonment for insulting the head ofstate. However, these laws have not been used against members of the press in recent years. Thecountry continued to lack freedom of information legislation.While there have been instances of threats and physical harassment directed at journalistsin the past, no major incidents were reported in 2012. However, little investigative journalismtakes place, and some journalists practice self-censorship due to pressure and intimidation fromgovernment officials. Coverage of certain issues, such as drug trafficking and the human rightsabuses that took place under the Desi Bouterse dictatorship in the 1980s, are also discouraged. In2010, Bouterse returned to office after winning Suriname’s democratic presidential elections,despite being on trial since 2007 for the 1982 murders of 15 political opponents, including fivejournalists. On April 4, 2012, the National Assembly voted to extend the country’s 1992 amnestylaw to include “crimes committed in the context of the defense of the state” between April 1,1980, and August 19, 1992, effectively granting immunity to Bouterse and the 24 other suspectsin the murders and entrenching a climate of impunity for those who have committed crimesagainst journalists. According to the Association of Surinamese Journalists (SVJ),communication between the Bouterse government and the independent media has been poor, andthe government has occasionally restricted the work of journalists. In 2012, government officialslaunched verbal attacks and threats toward individual journalists, particularly for their reportingon the passage of the amnesty law. The president’s official spokesman publicly intimidatedjournalists who reported on negative reactions to the law, and the government also used a stateownedradio station to criticize independent journalists.Suriname has a robust media, with numerous print publications. The two dailynewspapers, De Ware Tijd and De West, are both privately owned, publish in either Dutch orEnglish, and maintain independent websites. Suriname has about 30 radio stations, including thegovernment-owned Stichting Radio Omroep Suriname (SRS), two state-owned televisionstations, and one privately owned television station. Many media outlets are affiliated withparticular political parties, which sometimes exert influence over news coverage. Chineseinvestment has recently surged in Suriname, resulting in an upgrade of a state television network.Additionally, the growing Chinese community has created two daily newspapers and a newtelevision station that operates in Mandarin. The SVJ has reported that low salaries and poortraining lead to unprofessional conduct and hurt the profession.355

The country has two internet service providers, and approximately 35 percent of thepopulation accessed the internet in 2012. Access is readily available in urban areas but muchmore limited in interior sections of the country. While there are no official restrictions on theinternet, journalists have complained of government monitoring of their e-mail and social mediaaccounts.SwazilandStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 24Political Environment: 28Economic Environment: 25Total Score: 77Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 76,NF 76,NF 76,NF 76,NF 76,NFSwaziland’s absolute monarchy continued to exert strict control over the media in 2012. KingMswati III has the power to suspend the constitutional rights to freedom of expression andfreedom of the press at his discretion, and these rights are severely restricted in practice,especially with respect to speech on political issues or the royal family. Of six media billsproposed along with a new constitution in 2007—including a Public Broadcasting CorporationBill, a general Broadcasting Bill, and an Information and Privacy Bill—none was enacted by theend of 2012, and only the press-regulating Media Commission Bill was opened to parliamentarydebate. According to the African Media Barometer, there are approximately 30 laws that restrictmedia freedom in Swaziland, including harsh defamation laws and a Suppression of TerrorismAct that the government has threatened to apply to critical journalists. There is no lawspecifically banning criticism of the monarchy, though authorities warn that such criticism couldbe considered seditious or treasonous, and in March 2012 the government proposed a law thatwould ban criticism of the king on social-media sites. In recent years, however, the courts havedismissed a number of defamation cases and overturned attempts to limit media coverage ofpolitically or culturally sensitive issues. A case of contempt of court brought against the Nationmagazine in 2009 for an article that was critical of the judiciary remained unresolved at the endof 2012.Swaziland does not have a freedom of information law, and accessing governmentinformation is difficult. On a positive note, the Swaziland Media Complaints Commission, a selfregulatorybody of journalists and other media workers, was officially registered in 2011following a 14-year effort by local media organizations.Swazi media content is marked by a high level of both official censorship and selfcensorshipon political and royal matters, often encouraged by hostile rhetoric and threats fromsenior government and royal officials. The authorities have restricted media coverage of recentprodemocracy protests and public-sector strikes, among other controversial stories. In January2012, newspaper editors were told by the minister of information, communication, andtechnology to publish only positive reports of a visit by the president of Equatorial Guinea and tosuppress international media stories on corruption and repression in that country; this directive356

was generally observed. Also in January, Musa Ndlangamandla, the chief editor of the privatebut royally owned Swazi Observer, was fired after publishing interviews with opposition leadersand writing about corruption among prominent politicians. Police later searched his office andtook away his computer, prompting him to flee to South Africa in February. In March, a senatorproposed an investigation to identify and prosecute the author of an anonymous Times ofSwaziland editorial, published in 2011, that was critical of the parliament. In July, two senioreditors—Alec Lushaba and Thulani Thwala—and the chief financial officer at the SwaziObserver were suspended for reporting negatively on the king. The editors remained suspendedat year’s end.Journalists are subject to harassment and assault by both state and nonstate actors, thoughsuch incidents have declined in recent years. In April 2012, two South African reporters fromeTV were detained at a roadblock in Mbabane for lacking accreditation to cover ongoing protestmarches.The country’s two newspapers—the independent Times of Swaziland and the SwaziObserver—are read almost exclusively in urban areas. Despite restrictions on political reporting,both papers do criticize government corruption and inefficiency. The Swaziland TelevisionAuthority dominates the airwaves and generally favors the government in its coverage. MostSwazis get their news from the radio, and there is one government-owned radio station and oneindependent station, Voice of the Church, which focuses on religious programming. Statebroadcasters are prohibited from reporting on the activities of labor unions—which ledantigovernment protests in 2012—and private citizens cannot express opinions on these outletswithout prior approval of their comments. No new broadcast licenses were granted in 2012.Swazis with sufficient funds can freely purchase and use satellite dishes to receive signals fromindependent South African and international news media. In April 2011, the government bannedstate radio from airing the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) program Focus on Africaafter it carried criticism of the government. The government does not restrict internet-basedmedia, though there were reports of the government monitoring e-mail, social-media sites, andchat rooms. Few Swazis can afford access to the internet; only 21 percent of the population usedthe medium in 2012.Advertisers, including the government, regularly deter negative coverage by employingfinancial pressure, and their influence is significant in Swaziland’s small economy. Low pay andinsufficient training at times affect the quality of reporting. Many journalists have left theindustry to work for the government or elsewhere in the private sector. However, journalists andmedia houses are not considered prone to corruption.SwedenStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 2Political Environment: 4Economic Environment: 4Total Score: 10Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 11,F 11,F 10,F 11,F 10,F357

Sweden has strong legal protections for press freedom under the constitution, a Freedom of thePress Law dating back to 1766, and the 1991 Fundamental Law of Freedom of Expression.However, the country’s laws criminalize expression that is deemed to be hate speech. InSeptember 2012, the editor of Nordfront, a website for the extremist Swedish ResistanceMovement, was sentenced to a month in jail for a comment posted by a reader that portrayedJews as capitalist parasites. A month later, another editor for Nordfront was questioned by thepolice about hate speech in the site’s articles. There is considerable debate in Swedish media onthe limits of free speech regarding the issue of immigration and Islam. Right-wing nationalistsdecry what they see as self-censorship in the Swedish media, but most of the mainstream mediaview criticism of immigration and Islam as a form of hate speech. In December, the tabloidAftonbladet launched a campaign against nationalist blogs in order to test the limits of the hatespeech law. It also directly called for a government intervention to shut down a number of theright-wing blogs. However, the initiative was criticized by other newspapers as an assault on freespeech.Separately, in May, the editor in chief and a news editor of the tabloid Expressen werefined up to 30,000 kroners ($4,400) for inciting a journalist to purchase illegal firearms as part ofa story on how easy it is to obtain such weapons in Malmö. Leading journalists saw the case asgovernment harassment and a blow to investigative reporting.Journalists’ sources are protected by law, as is access to information for all citizens. InDecember 2012, the government finished a revision of a controversial law that will prohibitintrusive photography and video that has been obtained without the subject’s knowledge. Criticshad complained that the original draft could restrict photojournalism and violate press freedom.The self-regulatory Swedish Press Council was established in 1916 and has jurisdictionover print and online content. It consists of a judicial board as well as industry and independentmembers. Complaints are investigated by an appointed ombudsman who can choose to dismissthem for lack of merit or forward them to the council with a recommendation to uphold. Thecouncil ultimately rules on complaints and can impose a tiered administrative fee, often referredto as a fine, of up to 30,000 kroners. Although the council does not have authority over broadcastmedia, it does operate an ethical code across all platforms. The code is applied to broadcastmedia by the Swedish Radio and Television Authority.Public broadcasting has a strong presence in Sweden, consisting of Sveriges Television(SVT) and Sveriges Radio (SR), both funded through a license fee. SVT has considerablecompetition from private stations, led by TV4. Private broadcasting ownership is highlyconcentrated under the media companies Bonnier and the Modern Times Group. Thegovernment offers subsidies to newspapers in order to encourage competition, and media contentin immigrant languages is supported by the state. Sweden’s newspaper market is very diverse,with many local and regional outlets, though it is threatened by dwindling advertising. Access tothe internet is not restricted by the government, and the medium was used by about 94 percent ofthe population in 2012.SwitzerlandStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 4358

Political Environment: 3Economic Environment: 5Total Score: 12Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 13,F 13,F 13,F 13,F 12,FFreedom of expression is guaranteed under Article 16 of the constitution, while Article 93explicitly guarantees the independence of broadcast media. The penal code prohibits publicincitement to racial hatred or discrimination, spreading racist ideology, and denying crimesagainst humanity. The law does not specifically prohibit anti-Semitic speech or Holocaust denial,though there have been convictions for such expression in the recent past. The European Court ofHuman Rights (ECHR) ruled in June 2012 that Swiss prison officials’ 2004 refusal to allow atelevision station to air an interview with an inmate serving time for murder violated freedom ofexpression because the authorities “failed to establish that the ban on filming met a pressingsocial need.”It is a crime to publish information based on leaked “secret official discussions,”particularly regarding banking information. In January 2011, Swiss authorities arrested a formerbanker after he gave information on wealthy tax evaders to the antisecrecy organizationWikiLeaks. In 2012, the media continued to report on similar whistle-blower scandals. A 2006transparency law has not been used extensively due to a lack of awareness of its existence andprovisions.Members of the press rarely suffer attacks or physical harassment in the course of theirwork.Large publishing houses control most of the print sector, and such concentration ofownership has forced many stand-alone newspapers to merge or shut down. Broadcast media aredominated by the public-service Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (SRG SSR), which is obligedto carry content in each of Switzerland’s four official languages—French, German, Italian, andRomansh. There are 3 German, 2 French (also broadcasting in Romansch), and 1 Italiantelevision channels, and 17 radio stations. Radio has maintained its popularity, though because ofthe country’s linguistic divisions, most private stations are local or regional. Swiss televisionviewers also have extensive access to cable services and foreign channels. To accommodatemultiplatform access, consultations started in May 2012 on a reform that would substitute theradio and television reception fee with a universal fee paid by every household. The internet,which is generally unrestricted, was accessed by approximately 85 percent of the population in2012.SyriaStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 29Political Environment: 37Economic Environment: 22Total Score: 88359

Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 83,NF 83,NF 83,NF 84,NF 89,NFThe uprisings that swept across the Middle East and North Africa in 2011 reached Syria inMarch of that year, when antigovernment protests erupted in the southern city of Daraa. Theregime of President Bashar al-Assad used deadly force in a bid to crush the popular uprising,which soon spread to other cities and developed an armed component. In December 2012 theUnited Nations estimated that more than 40,000 people had died in what was by that point a civilwar. Journalists have been targeted in violent attacks, and 30 were killed during 2012 by eitherthe regime or the opposition. However, the regime’s loss of control in large parts of the countryresulted in the emergence of new media outlets and a de facto reduction in censorship, leading toa slight improvement in Syria’s overall media environment.Although Article 38 of Syria’s constitution provides for freedoms of speech and of thepress, these rights are severely restricted in practice. The 1963 State of Emergency law, in placeuntil 2011, allowed the authorities to arrest journalists under ambiguous charges of threatening“national security,” which in effect nullified the constitution protections. The 2001 Press Lawallows for broad state control over all print media and forbids reporting on topics that are deemedsensitive by the government, such as issues of national security or national unity; it also forbidsthe publication of inaccurate information. Individuals found guilty of violating the Press Lawface one to three years in prison and fines ranging from 500,000 to 1 million Syrian pounds($7,700 to $15,500). The law also stipulates that the prime minister grants licenses to journalists,which can be rejected for reasons concerning the public interest. Under Articles 9 and 10, theMinistry of Information must approve all foreign publications. The ministry also has the powerto ban these publications if they are found to challenge national sovereignty and security oroffend public morality.A new media law issued in 2011 prohibits a “monopoly on the media,” guarantees the“right to access information about public affairs,” and bans “the arrest, questioning, or searchingof journalists.” However, it bars the media from publishing content that affects “national unityand national security” or inciting sectarian strife or “hate crimes.” The law also forbids thepublication of any information about the armed forces. It holds editors in chief, journalists, andspokespeople accountable for violations and prescribes fines of up to 1 million Syrian pounds($15,500). Article 3 states that the law “upholds freedom of expression guaranteed in the Syrianconstitution” and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but Article 4 says the mediamust “respect this freedom of expression” by “practicing it with awareness and responsibility.”There is no clear definition of this phrase, leaving room for authorities to use the law to crackdown on journalists and reporters. Consequently, despite the lifting of the 1963 State ofEmergency law in late 2011, there has been little change in the treatment of journalists inpractice. The government continued to arrest reporters under the ambiguous charge ofthreatening “national security” in 2012.The worsening conflict has transformed the media landscape in the country. Syrianauthorities continued to forcibly restrict coverage of the unrest during the year, and state-runtelevision stations misreported the events of the uprising. False statements and propaganda arecommon on state-run outlets, whose journalists routinely refer to the opposition as “terrorists” or“radicals.” In addition, since the beginning of the conflict, al-Assad has imposed a foreign mediablackout, barring most foreign journalists from entering and reporting in the country. The regimeoffered 70 visas to foreign journalists in 2012, but they were required to be escorted by state360

epresentatives who determined what they could cover. At the same time, the government losteffective control over large portions of the country, meaning its laws and restrictions could notbe enforced in those areas. Self-censorship is therefore less pervasive, and red lines areincreasingly being crossed. Media outlets such as Sham FM, a privately owned radio station thatpreviously did not cover politics, have started to report on political issues and become keysources of news to Syrians. Opposition-oriented newspapers such as Suryitna, Oxygen, Hurriyat,and Enab Baladi have also sprung up, though they tend to circulate either underground or mostlyonline. Citizen journalists continue to be critical in providing foreign outlets with videorecordings of protests and atrocities, but the authenticity of these recordings is difficult to verify,and they have routinely been labeled “fake” by the regime.As a result of this more complex environment, a propaganda war has emerged in thecountry, in which both the regime and armed rebels try to restrict or control information byattacking journalists and media organizations. In February 2012, government forces raided theSyrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression, a Damascus-based nongovernmentalorganization, and arrested its head, Mazen Darwish, and 13 others. In May, security forcesharassed a Sky News camera crew that was filming a demonstration in Damascus and detainedtwo journalists, even though the government had given them credentials to work in the city. InJuly, government forces destroyed a radio tower in Aleppo that was carrying a station establishedby university students and staff. Meanwhile, state-run media also suffered attacks. In June, anunidentified group of gunmen attacked a progovernment television station, killing sevenemployees and destroying its studios.According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), 30 journalists were killed inSyria in 2012, making the country by far the deadliest place in the world to practice journalism.Those targeted included foreign, state, and citizen journalists. Shukri Abu al-Burghul, host ofstate-owned Radio Damascus and editor of state-owned Al-Thawra, died in January after beingshot by unidentified gunmen in December 2011. Also in January, Gilles Jacquier, a Frenchtelevision reporter, became the first foreign journalist to be killed in Syria. He died as a result ofshelling while covering a progovernment rally. The next month, foreign journalists Marie Colvinand Rémi Ochlik were killed in the shelling of a building that was being used as a makeshiftmedia center. In April, in a sign of the war’s growing impact on neighboring countries, Syrianforces killed Lebanese cameraman Ali Shaaban in the northern Lebanese region of Wadi Khaled,near the Syrian border. Abductions have also been a serious problem. U.S. freelance journalistAustin Tice has been held in captivity since August, presumably by progovernment forces.Meanwhile, rebel fighters kidnapped three journalists working for progovernment media inAugust; two were freed by the Syrian army, but the third was killed along with two rebels. Rebelforces also kidnapped a reporter for the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation in October. Attackson journalists at their homes have increased. In September, Syrian security forces killed ajournalist from Sham News Network and three of his friends by burning his house. Basel TawfiqYoussef, a reporter for Syrian state television, and Naji Assad, editor of state-run Tishreen, wereshot outside their homes in separate incidents. Arrests and torture of citizen journalists andfreelancers continued throughout the year.Although the authorities unblocked access to the social-media sites Facebook and Twitterin February 2011, they continued their crackdown on citizen journalists’ use of social media andthe internet to disseminate information about regime abuses. The so-called Syrian ElectronicArmy (SEA), which emerged in 2011, continued to hack opposition websites, block them, orflood them with progovernment messages—with the tacit approval of the regime. In 2012, the361

SEA hacked into the Twitter accounts and websites of prominent foreign media outlets such asReuters, Al-Jazeera, and Al-Arabiya. The regime and the SEA also continued their harassment ofbloggers and online activists. The government used surveillance equipment to interceptcommunications, block text messages, and track mobile telephones. Recently it has acquiredtechnology to track satellite phones, and by extension, journalists. The SEA used spyware toinfiltrate journalists’ personal computers and get access to passwords and information on theirsources, as well as to disseminate false information. Beyond harassment, the regime torturedactivists, bloggers, and citizen journalists to obtain the passwords to their social-media accounts.The government and allied businessmen own most newspaper publishing houses andheavily control the media. The Ministry of Information and the Ministry of Culture and NationalGuidance censor domestic and foreign news, and have banned all Kurdish-language publications.Although the government opened up space for private print media in 2001, the owners of mostprivate outlets—including Al-Watan, Al-Iqtisad, and Al-Khabar—have close ties to the regime.As a result, genuinely independent media are virtually nonexistent. Only the government controlsand disseminates domestic and foreign political news and analysis, especially through televisionnetworks and FM radio. Television and radio broadcasting is, in general, controlled by the state.The private Shams TV tried to extend its programming beyond entertainment by covering newsin 2012, but its journalists were targeted throughout the year. A National Council of Informationwas established under the new media law to regulate the information sector. Among other duties,it will set up conditions for licenses, issue them to private media outlets, and specify rules onfunding. There was little evidence that the council had begun enforcing such rules in 2012, but itdid set advertising limits that will further strain economic support for independent outlets.Approximately 24 percent of Syrians accessed the internet in 2012, and social-mediawebsites and communication tools such as Skype are increasingly used to transmit information.The government shut down the internet across the country for three days in November. Thoughthis was not the first time the government had enforced an internet blackout, previous instanceshad been restricted to certain parts of the country. The November blackout was the first to affectnationwide access to the internet and, in some cases, mobile networks.TaiwanStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 9Political Environment: 9Economic Environment: 8Total Score: 26Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 20,F 23,F 24,F 25,F 25,FTaiwan’s media environment is one of the freest in Asia, with a vigorous and diverse press thatreports aggressively on government policies and alleged official wrongdoing. However, politicalpolarization, self-censorship, and indirect Chinese influence limit the diversity of opinionsrepresented in mainstream media. In 2012, attempts by tycoons with significant businessinterests in Taiwan and China to gain greater control of the media market sparked protests from362

students, journalists, and social activists who argued that press pluralism was under seriousthreat.The constitution provides for freedoms of speech and of the press, and the governmentand independent courts generally respect these rights in practice. Publication of defamatorywords or pictures can be punished with a maximum of two years in prison. Media freedomadvocates continued to urge the government to decriminalize defamation in 2012. In July, theTaipei district prosecutor’s office issued a final decision in favor of a reporter who was chargedwith criminal defamation by a lawmaker from the ruling Kuomintang (KMT) in 2011, after thejournalist wrote an article implying that the lawmaker had pressured the NationalCommunications Commission (NCC) to expedite its review of a cable merger.Taiwan’s Freedom of Government Information Law, enacted in 2005, enables publicaccess to information held by government agencies, including financial audit reports anddocuments about administrative guidance.Print media are free of state control, and following reforms in recent years, broadcastmedia are no longer subject to licensing and programming reviews by the GovernmentInformation Office (GIO), which was formally dissolved in May 2012. The NCC is the mainregulatory body tasked with awarding licenses. In December 2011, the Legislative Yuan, orparliament, amended the law governing the NCC, changing the process for appointing its chairfrom internal selection by the commissioners to appointment by the premier and approval by theparliament. Critics of the change argued that it would undermine the commission’sindependence. The new rule was implemented for the first time in mid-2012, when a new NCCchairperson was chosen.Two proposed transactions were at the center of the NCC’s attention in 2012, both ofwhich involved the Want Want Group conglomerate. In July, the NCC conditionally approved abid by Want Want Broadband, a Want Want Group subsidiary, to purchase China NetworkSystems (CNS), Taiwan’s second-largest cable television provider, for NT$76 billion (US$2.57billion). The preconditions imposed by the commission included having the owners disassociatethemselves from the news operations of CtiTV, a Want Want television network, andestablishing a system for ensuring the editorial independence of another television holding. Themultibillion-dollar deal would allow Want Want—which already owned newspapers, amagazine, television channels, and a radio station—to secure 23 percent of Taiwan’s cablesubscribers and roughly one-third of the overall media market. International media watchdogsand local academics raised concerns that the merger would give Want Want the ability tointerfere with other media outlets and the power to decide which channels—including rivaltelevision stations—may be broadcast via its cable system. As of the end of 2012, the NCC waswithholding final approval of the deal until its conditions could be fulfilled.In the year’s second major transaction, Hong Kong entrepreneur Jimmy Lai, founder andchairman of Next Media, announced a tentative agreement to sell his Taiwan print and televisionassets for NT$17.5 billion (US$590 million) in November. The media group includes AppleDaily, one of Taiwan’s most popular newspapers, known for its nonpartisan and investigative—though at times salacious—reporting. Since August 2009, the NCC had repeatedly deniedrequests by Next Media to launch a cable television station. Having lost more than US$200million on its television venture after the regulatory delays, Next Media said its Taiwaneseoperations had become economically unviable. The consortium bidding for the assets includedTsai Shao-tsung, the son of Want Want Group owner Tsai Eng-meng, who maintains friendlyties to the Chinese government. Critics have raised fears that the buyers could impose a new363

editorial line at the Next Media outlets, either openly favoring Beijing or limiting coverage oftopics deemed sensitive by the Chinese government. Analysts have estimated that the Tsai familywould control between one-third and one-half of Taiwan’s media market if the proposed dealwere to go through. The transaction requires prior approval from three regulatory agencies andremained under review at year’s end.Media coverage is often critical of the government, though the sector is politicallypolarized; most outlets are sympathetic to either the KMT or the opposition DemocraticProgressive Party (DPP). There was little state interference in reporting on the January 2012presidential and legislative elections, but strong party affiliations were evident in media outlets’preferential treatment of candidates. Separately during the year, analysts accused Want WantGroup of using its media assets to intimidate opponents of the CNS merger. In July, WantWant’s China Times, China Times Weekly, and CtiTV ran stories with pictures that allegedlyshowed students taking money after protesting against the proposed deal. The three outletsclaimed that a media scholar, Huang Kuo-chang, had paid students to attend the protest.Following public pressure, the outlets apologized to Huang in August for making falseaccusations, but they denied fabricating the story. The incident prompted several China Timeseditors and reporters to quit. Three advisers on the ethics committee at CtiTV also resigned,stating that their opinion had little bearing on the network’s news coverage. On New Year’s Eve,the lead singer of the popular Taiwanese band Sodagreen had his remarks against mediamonopolization removed from a broadcast by CTV, another Want Want outlet. Also inDecember, Want Want announced plans to launch a new magazine in early 2013 in cooperationwith the Fujian Daily Group, which is affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party.As commercial ties between Taiwan and China deepen, press freedom advocates havewarned that media owners and some journalists are self-censoring news about China to protecttheir financial interests. There is growing concern that the Chinese government has been able toexert greater influence on Taiwan-based media, including outlets seen as pro-DPP and relativelycritical of Beijing in their programming. In May 2012, popular political talk-show host ChengHung-yi, who is known for his pro-Taiwanese views, resigned from his position at Sanlih E-Television (SET-TV). In December, the host of the show that replaced Cheng’s program alsoresigned, though she eventually decided to stay on at a different timeslot. The station hadrecently sought approval to distribute its television dramas in China, a highly lucrativeopportunity, adding to concerns that the resignations were linked to SET-TV efforts to curryfavor with Chinese officials. SET-TV denied those claims, stressing that both hosts had madetheir decisions for “family reasons.”Physical violence against journalists in Taiwan is rare, and both local and foreignreporters in general are able to cover the news freely. No attacks on journalists were reported in2012.Taiwan is home to more than 360 privately owned newspapers and numerous radiostations. Satellite television systems carry more than 280 channels. Legislation approved in 2003barred the government and political party officials from holding positions in broadcast mediacompanies, and required government entities and political parties to divest themselves of allbroadcasting assets. Controversies plagued the Public Television Service (PTS) in 2009 and2010, including over the unfair dismissal of the president and vice president, as well as thecomposition of the board of directors. The current PTS board’s term expired in 2011, but KMTand DPP legislators were not able to agree on a proposed new list in 2012. In June, the TaiwanHigh Court handed down a final ruling in favor of the service’s former president. She had sued364

the PTS after she was removed by its board three months before her term expired in 2010,challenging the station’s assertion that her removal was due to poor performance.A 2011 amendment to the Budget Law prohibited Taiwanese government agencies andgovernment-funded enterprises from using public funds for paid news. The measure alsoprohibited embedded marketing—advertising cloaked as news—for political purposes or for thepromotion of a particular high-ranking official. Since then, there has reportedly been a notablereduction in such cases. Nevertheless, a report released by the National Audit Office in August2012 found that more than one-third of the government bodies responsible for carrying outpublicly funded projects had violated the law in some instances in 2011 by failing to adequatelylabel their campaigns as advertisements. The finding drew criticism from legislators across partylines, as did the audit office’s passage in June of a clause that exempts government agenciesfrom identifying their ads if the act would damage their credibility or harm “state security” and“social order.”There have also been concerns about the Chinese government influencing media contentthrough embedded marketing. Such practices by foreign governments were excluded from the2011 legal amendment, but Chinese official advertising in Taiwanese media is generally bannedunder a 1992 law. In November 2011, the Control Yuan, a government watchdog body,published a report warning that some Taiwanese media had carried embedded ads from China ina possible attempt to circumvent the restrictions. In May 2012, the Ministry of Economic Affairsfined China Times NT$400,000 (US$13,500) after it ran a series of articles promoting businesscooperation with China’s Fujian Province during a visit by the province’s governor. Other outletshad reported a recorded telephone conversation indicating that the feature was produced incoordination with—and likely with payment from—Chinese government officials.The government refrains from restricting the internet, which was accessed by 76 percentof the population in 2012.TajikistanStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 25Political Environment: 29Economic Environment: 25Total Score: 79Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 77,NF 78,NF 78,NF 78,NF 79,NFFreedom of speech is guaranteed by the constitution, but President Emomali Rahmon’sadministration has maintained intense pressure on the country’s independent media. In 2010, adraft Law on Mass Media of Tajikistan was proposed to replace the 1990 Law on Press andOther Mass Media. The proposal was met with criticism from international rights organizations,which argued that it did not meet international standards. After more than two years ofdiscussion by government officials, members of parliament, and nongovernmental organization(NGO) representatives, Tajikistan’s lower house of parliament passed the bill in December 2012.It contains language assuring media freedom, bans censorship, and obliges public officials to365

espond to inquiries posed by journalists within three days. At year’s end the legislation wasawaiting approval by the upper house of parliament and Rahmon. In July, Rahmon had approveda new law that decriminalized libel. However, journalists can still face criminal penaltiesincluding fines and jail time for insulting Rahmon or other public officials. Also in July,authorities announced plans to create a volunteer organization tasked with monitoring theinternet for insults against Tajik officials. The government itself already monitors internetactivity, particularly on social-networking websites. Tajikistan has had a freedom of informationlaw since 2002, but many journalists are unaware of it, officials do not respect it, and costsassociated with requests for information are unregulated.The country’s licensing committee routinely denies licenses to independent media outletsor otherwise obstructs the licensing process. No member of an independent media outlet has everbecome a member of the licensing committee. However, the media bill approved by the lowerhouse in December would require all Tajik media outlets to be registered as legally operatingentities, potentially easing licensing complications. Foreign media outlets have been denied Tajikbroadcasting licenses, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) reported in Septemberthat Tajik authorities had arbitrarily denied accreditation to two of its journalists. Reporters frominternational media outlets are not invited to official events and press conferences.The government blocked domestic access to various social-networking and newswebsites on a number of occasions during 2012, with some sites remaining inaccessible for up tothree months. In March, officials blocked access to the independent news websites PolyarnayaZvezda, Maxala, CentrAsia, and TjkNews, and the social-networking website Facebook, blamingtechnical problems. The blockage came after three of the four news sites published acommentary about a meeting at which Rahmon was said to have ordered increased surveillanceof several religious groups; the minutes of the meeting were posted on Facebook. During thesummer, as clashes between militants and government forces were taking place in the easternregion of Gorno-Badakhshan, the authorities again blocked access to Facebook, as well as toseveral independent regional news websites, Russia’s RIA Novosti news agency, and theRussian-language version of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) news service.YouTube was blocked after videos of demonstrations in the region were posted to the site.Access to Facebook was blocked once again in late November; the government’s director ofcommunications services, Beg Zuhurov, called the website a “hotbed of slander” and said it hadbeen blocked in response to citizen complaints about insults against Rahmon. Access toFacebook and several independent news sites was then restored in early December withoutexplanation. Later that month, Rahmon’s administration blocked more than 100 news and socialnetworkingwebsites in what an official reportedly described as a dry run for an expectedcrackdown on online dissent ahead of a presidential election set for November 2013. Tajikjournalists report that the government’s repeated blocking of Facebook has increased publicinterest in the site, where robust political debates and criticism of Rahmon’s administration canbe found. However, only about 15 percent of Tajikistan’s population regularly used the internetin 2012.Investigative reporting is rare in Tajikistan given the difficult conditions faced byjournalists. Independent journalists are particularly hampered by a lack of legislation allowingthem to protect their sources. Authorities frequently prevent independent reporters from coveringthe news, for example by blocking access to official events or barring journalists from takingphotographs. However, the Danish NGO International Media Support (IMS) reported inSeptember that with the help of an IMS-affiliated investigative network, an investigative reporter366

had published a piece on corruption within the national motor vehicles department, prompting agovernment probe into the matter.Journalists reporting on sensitive issues face threats and attacks. In May 2012, statetelevision journalist Daler Sharifov, who also heads an unregistered NGO aimed at defusingregional tensions among young Tajiks, was beaten badly by two unidentified attackers. Twoother journalists—Ravshan Yormakhmadov and Salim Shamsiddinov—were beaten that month,apparently as a result of their work. In September, police attacked several journalists who weretrying to cover a fire that destroyed a market in Dushanbe, the capital.According to the government, there are more than 350 registered print publications, about200 of which are privately owned. Roughly half of all print publications are issued on anirregular schedule. The broadcast sector is dominated by state-controlled national televisionstations that praise Rahmon and deny coverage to independent or opposition points of view.Tajik journalists claim that state-run media outlets often publicize letters from fabricated entitiesin which independent journalists and opposition figures are smeared. Several regions inTajikistan lack access to independent television and radio stations. Meanwhile, internationaltelevision broadcasts are becoming increasingly available through satellite services. Electricityshortages limit overall access to electronic media, and government control over distributionlimits the reach of print media. In addition, widespread poverty, a small advertising market, andthe concentration of wealth in the hands of political leaders and their associates hamper theemergence of financially robust and independent media outlets.TanzaniaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 18Political Environment: 18Economic Environment: 15Total Score: 51Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 48,PF 50,PF 50,PF 48,PF 49,PFAlthough the constitution of Tanzania provides for freedom of speech, numerous other lawsencourage self-censorship and limit the ability of the media to function effectively. Perhaps themost notorious and widely used of these laws is the 1976 Newspaper Registration Act, whichempowers authorities to register or ban publications “in the interest of peace and good order.” InJuly 2012, the Information Ministry banned the Swahili-language weekly MwanaHalisiindefinitely on vague charges of sedition and false reporting for unspecified articles. The paper’schief editor, Jabir Idrissa, said he suspected the publication was targeted for its coverage of aphysicians’ strike and the abduction and torture of the protesters’ spokesperson, StevenUlimboka. Reports from MwanaHalisi had suggested that authorities were involved in the attackon Ulimboka, but the government denied the allegations. The paper remained banned at year’send. In 2011, state prosecutors had accused two journalists from Tanzania Daima, editorAbsalom Kibanda and columnist Samson Mwigamba, of incitement for the publication of anarticle claiming that the government misused police for political purposes. In March 2012,367

authorities charged Theophil Makunga, the managing editor of Mwananchi CommunicationsLimited, the company that prints Tanzania Daima, with “intent to excite disaffection” for thesame article. All three cases remained pending at year’s end.Among other restrictive laws, the National Security Act allows the government to takeaction against any piece of investigative journalism that touches on information it considersclassified. Libel is a civil offense, and officials have used libel suits to weaken cash-strappedmedia houses. In 2011, a court ordered a local Swahili newspaper, RAI, to pay 15 millionshillings ($9,500) in damages and publish apologies to former minister of good governanceWilson Masilingi for a column that accused him of soliciting funds from his voters to buy anapartment. Such fines can cripple media companies, which often operate on a tight budget; theaverage journalist’s salary has been estimated at between $58 and $72 per month. Nevertheless,most cases are settled out of court by arbitration or simply abandoned.A number of laws, such as the Civil Service Act and the Public Leadership Code ofEthics Act, block access to information for journalists. Many public officials face legalrestrictions on providing information to the media. Progress on enacting freedom of informationlegislation has been slow, with continued consultations on a draft bill. Despite claims byInformation Minister Fenella Mukangara that the Right to Information Bill would be movedthrough the parliament in 2012, it had not been introduced by the end of the year.The 1993 Broadcasting Services Act provides for state regulation of electronic media andallows the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA), a nominally independentagency, to close stations at will. There is concern that the TCRA is subject to governmentinfluence, as its board chairman and director general are both appointed by the president. Mediaadvocacy groups are generally able to operate freely. In 1995, an independent self-regulatorybody, the Media Council of Tanzania (MCT), was established to help promote a more free andopen media sphere. Since its inception, the MCT has helped to settle defamation lawsuits,worked toward preserving media freedom and journalistic ethics, and encouraged new mediapolicies and legislation.The brutal killing of television reporter Daudi Mwangosi in September 2012 marked thefirst work-related fatality of a journalist in Tanzania in the last 20 years. Mwangosi, a reporterfor the private station Channel Ten and chairman of the local press club in Iringa, had confrontedpolice officers over the arrest of another journalist during a demonstration by supporters of theopposition party Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (CHADEMA). Mwangosi was shot atpoint-blank range with a tear-gas canister and died at the scene. The authorities arrested a juniorofficer in connection with the killing, but they did not pursue at least six other officers thought tohave been involved, according to the MCT.Conditions in the semiautonomous Zanzibar archipelago remain more restrictive than onthe mainland. There are indications that the Zanzibar government is interested in reform, as theMCT now has a branch on the islands, new press clubs are operating, and an editors’ forum wascreated in 2009. However, the Zanzibar government largely controls the content of radio andtelevision broadcasts, and it publishes the only daily paper, Zanzibar Leo. Zanzibar Wiki Hii isthe only private weekly, though it generally avoids critical coverage of the leadership, asimplicating Zanzibar lawmakers in criminal activities can result in a minimum fine ofapproximately $200 or three years’ imprisonment. There are four private radio stations, althoughnone are critical of the government; two are owned by ruling party supporters, and the otherspredominantly focus on religious issues. Residents can receive private broadcasts from themainland, and opposition politicians have access to the state media outlets. In September 2012,368

Channel Ten reporter Munir Zakaria was attacked by a mob outside a party branch office of theruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM) during a by-election in Zanzibar. The group beat him in hiscar and destroyed his equipment.There are numerous media outlets in Tanzania as a whole, including dozens of daily andweekly newspapers. The government controls two daily newspapers, and the two main politicalparties own one each. According to the TCRA, there are 85 licensed radio stations and 26licensed television stations, but only a small percentage of the population has access to televisiondue to high costs. Private individuals and nongovernmental organizations are the main mediaowners, but control is concentrated in the hands of a few proprietors. Only five radio stationshave a national reach—state-run Radio Tanzania and privately owned Radio One, Radio FreeAfrica, Radio Uhuru, and the youth-oriented Cloud FM—and all are viewed as sympathetic tothe ruling party. Foreign media content is freely available. The government reportedly continuesto withhold advertising from critical newspapers and websites, especially those that favor theopposition. Private firms that are keen to remain on good terms with the government allegedlyfollow suit, making it difficult for critical media outlets to remain financially viable. Theproblem is exacerbated by the influence advertisers have over editorial content and mediahouses’ dependence on advertising revenue.Internet penetration in Tanzania has steadily increased over the past few years, with ausage rate of about 13 percent in 2012. The medium is not explicitly restricted, but there werereports during the year that officials monitored internet content or activity.ThailandStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 21Political Environment: 25Economic Environment: 16Total Score: 62Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 56,PF 57,PF 58,PF 62,NF 60,PFStatus change explanation: Thailand moved from Partly Free to Not Free due to court rulingsthat the lèse-majesté law does not contradict constitutional provisions for freedom of expressionand that third-party hosts are liable for lèse-majesté content posted online. In addition, both thegovernment of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and the parliament explicitly indicated thatthey were unwilling to address the chilling effects of the lèse-majesté law. Thailand’s onlinemonitoring agency expanded its use of the lèse-majesté law to silence dissent, and journalistsfaced mounting difficulty in writing about lèse-majesté cases and press freedom issues, with selfcensorshipincreasing as a result.Against a backdrop of ongoing political conflict between the red-shirted backers of the UnitedFront for Democracy Against Dictatorship and the yellow-shirted supporters of the People’sAlliance for Democracy, the authorities enhanced their monitoring of electronic media andcontinued their crackdown on and harassment of journalists. Landmark prosecutions of lèse-369

majesté cases highlighted the courts’ lack of independence, the government’s unwillingness toaddress the sensitive issue of the monarchy, and the threat posed by the lèse-majesté law tofreedom of expression in the country.The 2007 constitution restored and extended freedom of expression guarantees, replacingan interim charter imposed by a military government in 2006. Also in 2007, the legislaturereplaced the 1941 Printing and Publishing Act, though various pieces of legislation enacted bythe military government remain a threat to press freedom. For example, the 2007 InternalSecurity Act grants the government sweeping powers in the event of vaguely defined securitythreats, including the authority to detain suspects for 30 days without charge. Defamation is acriminal offense and can be punished with fines and prison terms of up to two years. On severaloccasions during 2012, journalists were threatened with defamation suits by governmentofficials; the deputy prime minister threated to sue four newspapers in February, while in Augustthe army chief ordered that a defamation suit be filed against critics who accused the army ofinvolvement in the political violence of 2010.The lèse-majesté law, Article 112 of the criminal code, assigns penalties of up to 15 yearsin prison for anyone who “defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent orthe Regent.” Prosecutors have been able to increase sentences beyond this threshold using the2007 Computer Crimes Act (CCA), which assigns prison terms of up to five years for the onlinepublication of forged or false content that endangers individuals, the public, or national security,as well as for the use of proxy servers to access restricted material. Article 112 complaints can bebrought by one citizen against another, and authorities are required to investigate suchallegations, which have increased in recent years alongside the state’s use of the law to stifledissent. In early 2012, a group of university academics and activists set up the CampaignCommittee for the Amendment of Article 112, and were joined by international supporters intheir effort to increase popular pressure for reform of the law. In response, both the parliamentand the Yingluck administration vowed that they would not address concerns about Article 112and went out of their way to express support for the protection of the monarchy. Also during theyear, two defendants petitioned the Constitutional Court to rule on whether Article 112 violatedsections 3, 8, 29, and 45 of the constitution. In October, the court unanimously decided thatcriminal penalties for lèse-majesté offenses did not contradict constitutional protections forhuman rights, including freedom of expression, since lèse-majesté violations were considerednational security threats.Over the course of 2012, several high-profile lèse-majesté cases resulted in harshpunishments or consequences for the defendants. On April 11, police detained the editor of thenow-defunct Voice of Taksin magazine, Somyot Pruksakasemsuk, ostensibly for defaming themonarchy in two articles published in 2010. His arrest came less than a week after he introduceda petition demanding a review of the lèse-majesté law. He remained behind bars at year’s end.On May 10, Ampon Tangnoppakul, a 62-year-old man who had been sentenced to 20 years inprison in November 2011 for allegedly sending four text messages that insulted the monarchy,passed away in prison. On May 16, the police ordered online news site Prachatai to removeseven articles by journalist Pravit Rojanaphruk for possible infringement of lèse-majestélegislation. On May 30, after a lengthy trial with several delays, Prachatai webmaster ChiranuchPremchaiporn was found guilty under the CCA of allowing 20 days to pass before removing acomment posted on the website’s discussion forum that was deemed critical of the monarchy. ABangkok criminal court judge sentenced Chiranuch to a suspended eight-month jail term and afine of 20,000 baht ($700). The judge ruled that 20 days was “too long” for the offensive post to370

have remained on the website, despite the lack of any specified time limit under the CCA. Theverdict represented the first time the law was used to criminally convict a Thai journalist for anoffense related to freedom of expression. It was widely criticized for making managers of usergeneratedcontent platforms legally responsible for any material posted to their sites and therebyencouraging self-censorship. This and other lèse-majesté cases during the year prompted arenewed campaign against the CCA by groups such as the Thai Netizen Network. Major internetcompanies such as Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, all part of the Asia Internet Coalition, alsostood in support of Chiranuch, fearing that they and other “intermediaries” could be foundcriminally liable in similar cases in Thailand.The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC), established inDecember 2010 as a single regulator for the telecommunications and broadcast sectors,continued to develop its work in 2012. This included the challenging task of wresting control ofthe two industries from powerful businesses with close ties to the government and the military.The NTBC is composed of 11 commissioners, including a high-ranking police officer and fivetop military officials. Some critics have raised concerns regarding the body’s independence,considering the significant military representation, as well as its efficacy, given the currentpolitical impasse. Nevertheless, the NBTC is working to establish regulatory control as existingallocations of broadcast and telecommunications spectrum reach or approach their expiry dates.The NBTC’s spectrum, telecommunications, and broadcasting master plans were approved andpublished in the Royal Gazette, making them legally binding. Unfortunately, the schedule set forthe return of all media licenses (radio, television, and telecommunications) resulted in terms thatextend beyond the current NBTC commissioners’ mandates. Critics argue that this makes for alack of stability, as new commissioners with new agendas could take over before the current plantakes full effect. One of the biggest issues facing the NBTC is the reallocation of broadcastlicenses in the next few years. New regulations have been drafted for radio, and the NBTC isdetermining how many licenses there will be for commercial, public-service, and communitybasedoutlets. In May 2012 the commission approved a draft regulation that would allow theissuing of one-year “trial” licenses to more than 7,000 community radio stations in anticipationof a more permanent licensing scheme still to be developed.Government censorship of the internet continued in 2012, and it is increasingly usedagainst potentially disruptive political messages and sites that are considered a threat to nationalsecurity, including those of Muslim separatist groups in southern Thailand. The founding of theCyber Security Operations Center (CSOC) in late 2011 and the expansion of its work in 2012enabled the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology to shut down and blockonline content more quickly, without the need for a court order. The CSOC extends control andsurveillance over online media and has aided the large-scale shutdown of websites and individualwebpages. The center works with internet service providers and website owners to block notonly Thai-based content, but also material that is available globally, affecting thousands of sites.Their efforts are particularly focused on social-networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook,both of which have gained significant ground in Thailand recently; Facebook was used byapproximately 20 percent of Thais in 2012. In January, the government was the first to expresspublic approval of U.S.-based Twitter’s move to allow censorship of microblog postings. Usersof social media in Thailand can face jail time if they click “like” or “share” for any contentdeemed offensive to the monarchy.Although self-censorship on topics involving the monarchy remains the rule, newspapersprovide a diversity of news and opinion, and even feisty commentary and analysis of domestic371

politics. In addition to some state limitations on what can or cannot be published, owners of newsoutlets have become increasingly polarized in recent years, advocating a hard line on theirrespective sides of the political divide. Few major cases of physical intimidation and violenceagainst journalists were reported in 2012. However, freelance investigative journalist and redshirtactivist Wisut Tangwittayaporn was shot and killed in January by two men on a motorcycleon the southwestern resort island of Phuket, possibly due to his coverage of local land disputes.Arrest warrants were issued for three individuals. There is still a sense of impunity surroundingacts of violence against journalists, and lingering distrust between the public and the press. Anongoing state of emergency in the country’s four troubled southern provinces also continues torestrict the media’s ability to operate.Large conglomerates and prominent families, some with political ties, own the majorityof print outlets. Radio and television have remained under the direct or indirect control of thestate, although this is now beginning to change with the establishment of the NBTC. Ownershipof Thailand’s six free-to-air television stations is divided among four government bodies; thePublic Relations Department and the Thai Public Broadcasting Service each administer onestation, while the state-controlled Mass Communication Organization of Thailand (MCOT) andthe Thai Royal Army oversee two channels apiece. Satellite television is also widely available.The government and security forces own more than 700 radio stations registered with the NBTC,and thousands of community stations also broadcast. Allegations that journalists accept bribesfrom politicians and business elites in exchange for favorable coverage persisted in 2012. Theinternet was accessed by approximately 27 percent of the Thai population during the year.Although the internet and social-networking sites contain a greater diversity of content anddebate than traditional media, the government and military have recently undertaken a muchmore focused effort to control commentary and information that is deemed incendiary, divisive,or subversive, leading to a greater degree of self-censorship online than in previous years.TogoStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 22Political Environment: 27Economic Environment: 21Total Score: 70Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 74,NF 72,NF 74,NF 73,NF 69,NFFreedom of speech and freedom of the press are guaranteed by the constitution and other laws inTogo, but these rights are often ignored by the government and there is an atmosphere ofpervasive impunity for crimes against journalists. The protection of confidential sources isexplicitly provided for in the Press and Communication Code, but security forces at timesdisregarded this in 2012. In February, a reporter with Tribune d’Afrique—a Benin-based paperthat has repeatedly been targeted by the Togolese authorities over the years—was questioned forsix hours by police about his sources for a story about the president of the National Assembly.372

While imprisonment for defamation was abolished in August 2004 with an amendment tothe Press and Communications Law, journalists can still receive a criminal fine of up to 5 millionCFA francs ($10,000) under Article 104 of the media code or Article 58 of the penal code. Suchpunishment for libel has typically been infrequent, but 2010 featured a startling increase in thenumber of libel cases and convictions, particularly those concerning President Faure Gnassingbéand his family. However, there was only one noteworthy libel case in 2011 and no such casesreported in 2012, signaling an improvement from previous years.Togo does not have a law guaranteeing access to information, and in practice access toofficial information remains difficult, particularly for private media outlets.Print media are not required to obtain permission from state authorities before publishing,and there is no law restricting the practice of journalism to those with a certain academicbackground. However, the High Authority of Broadcasting and Communications (HAAC) isused by the government to intimidate the press. While originally intended to be an independentregulatory body that would allocate frequencies to private broadcasters, protect the media, andensure ethical standards, the HAAC now serves primarily as the government’s censorship arm, arole that was formalized further in 2011 when the National Assembly passed a new lawempowering the HAAC to revoke or suspend licenses for media outlets that it believes aredangerous to national security or unity, or that have published anything containing serious errors.In 2009, the National Assembly had already given the HAAC the ability to seize equipment,impose sanctions, and withdraw press cards. In July 2012, the HAAC permanently revoked theprinting license of La Nouvelle for publishing articles regarding the ethnic makeup of thegovernment and the president’s mistresses, citing it for defamation and inciting racial hatred. InAugust, the HAAC suspended call-in shows on the popular private radio station Légende FM forallegedly inciting racial and ethnic hatred. The station’s director believed they were beingpunished for a June show in which callers criticized the government’s crackdown onantigovernment protests in Lomé, the capital. The station was suspended indefinitely, without thepossibility of appealing the decision in court. Several other stations that had been closed in 2011remained shuttered throughout 2012 while their appeals were pending. There is no knowngovernment censorship of web-based news content.Although media outlets cover an increasingly wide range of topics and provide a range ofpro- and antigovernment views, journalists in Togo have traditionally operated in fear of violentattacks and harassment for their reporting, and some engage in self-censorship as a result,particularly on issues concerning corruption, the military, and national security issues. Incidentsof direct attacks on journalists have fluctuated over the last few years, with an increase reportedaround the 2010 presidential election. While few incidents were reported in 2011, the situationdeteriorated in 2012, linked typically with coverage of the police crackdown of anti-Gnassingbédemonstrations in the spring and late summer. In April, for example, two journalists filming aprotest were attacked and severely beaten by police. The police also took their equipment; thedamaged equipment was returned two days later. While authorities admitted to the incident, onlya few of the individuals responsible were implicated and the government refused to make publicexactly how they were being disciplined. A number of equally violent incidents occurredthroughout the year, most frequently carried out by members of the security forces.Despite the rapid growth of private media since the late 1990s, the government still ownsthe outlets with the greatest reach in each medium, including the only television station with anationwide broadcast. The size of the private media sector is impressive for a relatively smallcountry, and its content is often highly politicized. There are approximately 30 privately owned373

newspapers that publish with some regularity, including 2 dailies, about 100 radio stations—most of which are private—and 8 independent television stations. Many media outlets sufferfrom precarious finances due to a small pool of private advertisers and a low degree ofprofessionalism. Journalists regularly take bribes and self-censor often as a result of pressurefrom editors or external actors. Over 4 percent of the population was able to access the internet in2012, a relatively high penetration rate by regional standards, and there are no state-imposedrestrictions on access. While internet access has been both very slow and expensive, theintroduction in May 2012 of broadband internet through underwater fiber optic cables mayeventually provide a solution. In June, the state telecommunications company, Togo Telecom,began offering data packages for mobile phone subscribers at twice the speed with no increase inthe cost.TongaStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 10Political Environment: 9Economic Environment: 10Total Score: 29Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 31,PF 32,PF 32,PF 31,PF 29,PFTonga’s media landscape has matured in recent years, with the constitutional kingdom’sdemocratic government strengthening press freedoms. The kingdom held elections under newrules in 2010, with the parliament, rather than the king, empowered to choose the prime minister.The election campaign reflected a more robust and open media climate than in the past, and aclearer commitment by the government to uphold Clause 7 of the constitution, which guaranteesa free press.Journalists found guilty of criminal libel and defamation are usually punished with fines.In 2011, cabinet minister Clive Edwards won a defamation lawsuit against the newspaper Kele‘afor a story published the day before the 2010 elections that accused him and other candidates offorming a “secret” political party backed by the government. Edwards claimed that the frontpagestory was false and played a key role in the loss of his seat in the parliament. Thenewspaper was fined 14,275 pa‘anga ($8,300). In October 2012, the prime minister and sixcabinet members sued Kele‘a for an editorial asserting that some members of parliament wereabove the law. The case was pending at year’s end.Tonga does not have a freedom of information (FOI) law, but in early 2012 thegovernment stressed its commitment to a more open administration and held nationalconsultations on future FOI legislation.A longtime publishing foe of the monarchy, Kalafi Moala, now heads an independentnewspaper, Taimi ‘o Tonga, and the Taimi Media Network website. He had also been contractedto revive the state-owned Tongan Chronicle as a weekly English-language newspaper beginningin 2009, but the paper ceased publication in 2011 after a struggle to keep it afloat, and its assetswere returned to the government in March 2012. The government subsequently announced that it374

planned to restart a weekly English-language newspaper, which would bring the number ofnewspapers in the kingdom to five, along with Taimi, Talaki, Kele‘a, and Ita. The independentmonthly magazine and news website Matangi Tonga is an important media provider andindependent book publisher. The state-owned Tonga Broadcasting Commission owns one AMand two FM radio stations as well as the free-to-air station Television Tonga. There are threeindependent FM radio stations. The government does not restrict access to the internet, whichwas used by about 35 percent of the population during 2012.Trinidad and TobagoStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 6Political Environment: 12Economic Environment: 8Total Score: 26Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 23,F 23,F 23,F 24,F 25,FFreedom of the press is enshrined in the constitution and is generally respected in practice.However, there were a number of cases in 2012 in which government officials intimidatedcritical journalists and media outlets.Defamation and libel remain criminal offenses. In May 2012, Jack Warner, the nationalsecurity minister and former vice president of the Fédération Internationale de FootballAssociation (FIFA), soccer’s world governing body, sued Trinidadian journalist Lasana Liburdfor libel after he wrote online articles linking Warner to missing emergency aid that FIFA haddonated for earthquake relief in Haiti. Warner was seeking damages and an injunction to forbidLiburd from publishing further defamatory statements against him. In June, Prime MinisterKamla Persad-Bissessar announced the government’s intention to decriminalize defamation, butno such reform was enacted by year’s end. In April, Ian Alleyne, director of the TV6 programCrime Watch, was charged under the Sexual Offences Act for an October 2011 episode thatshowed a recording of the sexual assault of a teenage girl with the intention of identifying theperpetrator. Alleyne, who could face up to five years in prison, was awaiting trial at year’s end.Executives at the Caribbean Communications Network (CCN), the parent company of TV6, werealso charged.While freedom of information legislation is in place, the government has been criticizedfor gradually narrowing the categories of public information that are available under the law.Warner announced in October 2012 that the media would be denied access to the government’scrime statistics so that news outlets and the opposition could not sensationalize the data, which,he argued, could lead to more crime. In December, the Trinidad and Tobago Publishers andBroadcasters Association announced that it had reached an agreement with the attorney generalto amend the 2011 Data Protection Act, a privacy law that partially came into force in 2012, tocreate an exemption for investigative journalism.While there were no reports of physical attacks on the press in 2012, there were a numberof cases in which the government intimidated journalists and interfered in the work of media375

outlets. In February, police raided the offices of the daily Newsday and the home of journalistAndre Bagoo after he refused to reveal his sources for a story on a dispute between members ofthe government’s Integrity Commission. Police confiscated Bagoo’s computers, documents, andmobile telephones. In late December 2011, the police had raided the newsroom of TV6 inconnection with the probe into the controversial October Crime Watch episode.Among other incidents, in response to an article published in September 2012 byTrinidad Guardian reporter Anika Gumbs-Sandiford on the efforts of Planning Minister BhoeTewarie to disband the board of the Chaguaramas Development Authority (CDA), the CDAobtained the journalist’s confidential phone records to uncover her sources. The government andits supporters allegedly led a smear campaign against two journalists in October, after theirinvestigative reports criticized legislative measures taken by Warner to protect two donors to theruling United National Congress party from charges of money laundering. The MediaAssociation of Trinidad & Tobago specifically cited public statements and anonymous e-mailmessages that contained personal attacks on Denyse Renne of the Trinidad Guardian and AshaJaveed of Trinidad Express. Also in October, Communications Minister Jamal Mohammed sentan e-mail to TV6 that accused the station, and Trinidad Express, of bias against the ruling partyand criticized what he viewed as their efforts to embarrass government officials.There are three daily newspapers—Trinidad Express, Newsday, and the TrinidadGuardian—and three political weeklies, all of which are privately owned. Four televisionstations are in operation, including the state-owned Caribbean New Media Group (CNMG),though TV6 dominates ratings. There are about a dozen radio stations, including three operatedby CNMG. The government and state-owned businesses disproportionately place theiradvertising with state-owned media and private outlets that favor the government. In 2012, therewere reports that at least two critical media outlets had faced attempted advertising boycotts bythe government. In October, Mohammed announced a new rule that will require all privatelyowned radio and television broadcasters to air up to one hour per day of government messagingwith no financial compensation, a move that was condemned by press freedom advocates.There were no government restrictions on the internet, which was accessed by nearly 60percent of the population in 2012.TunisiaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 18Political Environment: 18Economic Environment: 16Total Score: 52Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 81,NF 82,NF 85,NF 85,NF 51,PFThe Tunisian media environment remained in transition in 2012 following the overthrow ofPresident Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in early 2011. The National Constituent Assembly (ANC),elected in 2011 as the interim legislature and tasked with drafting a new constitution, is led byEnnahda, a moderate Islamist party that was banned during the Ben Ali era. The space for media376

freedom opened considerably under the transitional government, which released jailedjournalists, bloggers, and activists and passed a number of measures to promote press freedomduring its first year in office. In 2012, however, both government and opposition forces exertedincreased pressure on news content, and journalists faced an uptick in violence.The ANC continued working on a new constitution in 2012. However, proposed clausesthat make exceptions to freedom of expression on the grounds of morality and decency could beused to censor free speech or media content. The assembly is considering whether a higherreligious council will be involved in interpreting laws, a mechanism that could also be used tocurb press freedom. There is a genuine concern that the constitution will articulate media rules inrigid and excessive detail rather than guaranteeing broad rights to freedom of opinion,expression, and the press. On a positive note, in October 2012 the government dropped acontroversial clause outlawing blasphemy from the draft constitution, and the ANC announcedthat defamation would not be criminalized. Nevertheless, defamation cases continued to be filedagainst members of the press during the year. In February, journalist Ghazi Mabrouk wascharged with “defamation and publishing false news” for an article that revealed poor workingconditions in a clothing factory. He faced up to two years in prison if convicted. Also that month,the director of two daily newspapers, Abdel Aziz al-Jaridi, was sentenced to four months in jailfollowing his June 2011 conviction for defaming a news anchor with Qatar’s Al-Jazeeratelevision network.In November 2011, the transitional government passed Decrees 115 and 116, which wereintended to replace the restrictive 1975 press code and create an independent audiovisualregulatory authority. The new press code enabled journalists to freely access information andremoved a requirement for prior authorization from the Interior Ministry for the publication ofcertain stories. The code also included a reduction in the protections and privileges enjoyed bypublic authorities, including those related to defamation and information pertaining to statesecurity. After a significant delay, the government announced that it would begin implementationof the new regulatory framework in October 2012, though the independent audiovisualregulatory authority had not been launched by year’s end. While the 2011 decrees are widelyregarded as a step toward increased press freedom, the ambiguity of the language still posespotential risks to the work of journalists and media outlets. The National Authority to ReformInformation and Communication (INRIC), a body created to overhaul the media sector followingthe revolution, ended its work in July 2012, citing the government’s engagement in censorshipand its disregard for the authority’s recommendations. Another reason for the INRIC’s closurewas the government’s slowness to implement Decrees 115 and 116. Separately, newlyestablished media outlets are able to begin work quickly, as the registration process has beenexpedited considerably. Press freedom groups and journalists alike are able to operate moreopenly in the new environment.The judiciary functions with legal uncertainty regarding press freedom, enforcing boththe new press code established under Decree 115 and the repressive Ben Ali–era penal code.Some observers have expressed concern that the judiciary will be used to harass and intimidatejournalists, who continue to face legal action for allegedly offending Islamic morals andcommitting acts of indecency. In February 2012, the publisher of the Arabic-language dailyAttounissia, Nasreddine Ben Saida, became the first media executive to be jailed in the post–BenAli era following the paper’s publication of a photograph of a scantily clad model. He wasreleased after seven days and fined approximately $650. In May, Nabil Karoui, director of theprivate station Nessma TV, was fined $1,500 after the channel broadcast the Franco-Iranian377

animated film Persepolis, which includes a depiction of God. Despite these rulings, the judiciaryhas at times demonstrated independence and upheld freedom of expression. In February,Tunisia’s highest court overturned a lower court’s ban on pornographic websites, which manyfeared would be applied broadly and lead to tighter internet restrictions. However, the courtreferred the case back for reconsideration, leaving open the possibility of internet censorship. InMarch, whistleblower and former Interior Ministry official Samir Feriani was acquitted of“spreading false information” for his criticism of personnel and practices within the ministry.Access to information and sources has improved, but remains difficult. In 2011, thetransitional government adopted Decree 41, which provided greater access to administrativedocuments. In May 2012, the government issued a directive detailing the information thatgovernment offices must make public and the procedures for doing so. While the adoption of thedecree was welcomed by press freedom groups, it was criticized for its broad exceptions and theabsence of a public-interest override clause, as well as the fact that no independent body hasbeen created to oversee implementation. Activists continued working in 2012 to include a formalright to freedom of information in the new constitution.Increased polarization of the media landscape has left news organizations divided byideology, political affiliation, and economic interests. Media outlets tend to favor eitherprogovernment or opposition voices, and adopt Islamist or secularist outlooks. However, statemedia have displayed growing independence and covered the government in a considerablynonpartisan manner, creating tension with the ruling party. In April 2012, discussion of theprivatization of state broadcasting caused an uproar that led to clashes outside the state mediaheadquarters.There is no longer official censorship, and self-censorship has decreased since the fall ofBen Ali. However, the ruling coalition has increased pressure on the state media, which it viewsas a platform for the opposition. On several occasions in 2012, officials and reporters with thestate-owned broadcasters were dismissed in what appeared to be politically motivated firings. InJune, the director of the national news channel Wataniya 1 was dismissed for inviting a Ben Ali–era politician to participate in a panel discussion. The government nominated new officials tomanagerial positions within the state media outlets, a process reserved in theory for the plannedbroadcast regulatory body. Private media that were critical of the government also enduredrepressive treatment. In August, authorities detained television producer Sami Fehri ofAttounissia TV for alleged misappropriation of public funds and refused to comply with aNovember court order calling for his release. He remained in detention at year’s end.While the environment for online free expression improved significantly after the fall ofBen Ali, there have been instances of internet censorship under the transitional government. InMarch 2012, two bloggers—Ghazi Ben Mohamed Beji and Jaber Ben Abdallah Majri—receivedseven-year prison sentences for publishing items deemed offensive to Islam. The former fled toEurope and was convicted in absentia. Although the government in September announced itsintention to lift all internet censorship, activists remained concerned by the continued existenceof the censorship infrastructure. Tunisia subsequently joined the Freedom Online Coalition, apartnership of 19 countries that have declared a commitment to work in support of internetfreedoms.Physical assaults on journalists, while not systematic, have become a standard practiceamong police during demonstrations. In February 2012, at least seven journalists were harassedand attacked by police while reporting on security forces’ use of violence to disperse a unionprotest. In April, some 14 journalists were similarly beaten by police while covering a378

demonstration in defiance of a ban on protests on Tunis’s central thoroughfare. Journalists werealso targeted by party supporters based on the political affiliation of their outlets, and by hardlineSalafi Muslim groups. In March, Lotfi Hajji, director of Al-Jazeera’s Tunisia office,accepted an invitation to cover a political meeting only to be assaulted by participants. In May,assailants ransacked the privately owned television station El-Hiwar Ettounsi, causing over$130,000 in damage. Impunity for violence against the media remains an issue, as most caseshave resulted in inconclusive investigations.There was a spike in the number of independent media outlets immediately following therevolution. However, many of these outlets dissolved shortly thereafter, leading to majorfluctuations in the number of operational independent media outlets since 2011. The print sectornow contains a mix of state-owned and private dailies. There are two public television stationsand nine radio stations, four of which are national in reach. Two radio stations formerly ownedby Ben Ali’s children are now counted among these public stations. While the cost ofestablishing media outlets has decreased in general, independent radio stations formed after thefall of Ben Ali’s government are now threatened with closure as a result of the exorbitantlicense-renewal fees requested by the National Broadcasting Office (ONT). Community radiostations do not receive special status under current laws, and they cannot secure necessaryequipment without facing severe penalties. Critics of the government’s slow progress on thisissue accuse it of intentionally hindering community radio in order to centralize broadcasting inthe commercial sector. There is no longer a state intermediary between advertisers and themedia, and the debilitating limits on advertising that existed under Ben Ali are no longer a factorfor privately owned outlets. However, the country’s weak economy has made it difficult formedia companies to sustain themselves financially without backing from wealthy, politicallyconnected investors. Even state media are not immune from these economic problems.Approximately 41 percent of the population had internet access in 2012. More peoplethan ever used social-media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter during the year, and agrowing number of online services and websites are contributing to the news and informationenvironment. However, access continues to be inhibited by high prices and underdevelopedinfrastructure. Despite the popularity of mobile telephones, with over 12.8 million subscriptionscountrywide, mobile internet service is beyond the financial reach of most Tunisians.TurkeyStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 21Political Environment: 24Economic Environment: 11Total Score: 56Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 51,PF 50,PF 51,PF 54,PF 55,PFThe Turkish authorities continued to use the penal code and an antiterrorism law to crack downon journalists and media outlets in 2012, leading Turkey to imprison more journalists than any379

other country in the world. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), 49 werebehind bars as of December.Constitutional guarantees of press freedom and freedom of expression are only partiallyupheld in practice. They are generally undermined by provisions in the penal code and thecriminal procedure code, and by the country’s strict, broadly worded antiterrorism law, whicheffectively makes many types of investigative or critical journalism tantamount to terroristactivity. The restrictive penal code continues to overshadow positive reforms that had beenimplemented as part of the country’s bid for European Union (EU) membership, including a2004 press law that replaced prison sentences with fines for media violations. A 2011amendment to the press law allows for television broadcasts to be suspended and stations to befined or closed by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan or other designated ministers in casesof emergency or threats to national security. Also in 2011, the Constitutional Court approved theremoval of Article 26 from the press law. The provision had restricted the amount of timeprosecutors had to file a complaint against publications or journalists to two months in the caseof dailies and up to four months for other publications. Defamation remains a criminal offenseand can result in fines or prison terms. In December 2012, Erdoğan won compensation in a libelsuit against Ahmet Altan, the former editor in chief of the daily Taraf, for a column that calledthe prime minister “arrogant, uninformed, and uninterested.” Altan was found to have violatedErdoğan’s personal rights and was forced to pay 15,000 lira ($8,400).Application of a range of restrictive laws has led to the imprisonment of dozens ofjournalists and writers in recent years. Article 301 of the penal code, which prescribes prisonterms of six months to two years for “denigration of the Turkish nation,” has been used to punishjournalists who state that genocide was committed against the Armenians in 1915, discuss thedivision of Cyprus, or criticize the security forces. A set of 2008 amendments to the article werelargely cosmetic, substituting “Turkish nation” for “Turkishness” and “State of the TurkishRepublic” for “Turkish Republic,” and reducing the maximum prison sentence from three yearsto two. Very few of those prosecuted under Article 301 receive convictions, but the trials aretime consuming and expensive. Article 216 of the penal code, which bans “inflaming hatred andhostility among peoples” and carries a prison term of six months to three years, continues to beused against journalists and other commentators who write about the Kurdish population orallegedly denigrate the armed forces.Many journalists currently in prison are charged with being a member of a criminalorganization under Article 314 of the penal code. Convictions under Article 314 carry aminimum sentence of seven and a half years in prison. In January 2012, 11 employees of OzanPublishing Company and Yürüyüş magazine who had been arrested in a December 2010 raid hadtheir first court hearing, 13 months after their arrest. By July, eight of them had been releasedpending trial on charges of “publishing propaganda for a terrorist organization,” specifically anillegal leftist group. In October, editor in chief Hatice Duman of the leftist weekly Atılım, whohas been serving a life sentence since 2003 for allegedly being the leader of a terroristorganization, had her appeal rejected by the Supreme Court of Appeals. However, in the samecase, the court overturned Atılım journalist and editor Necati Abay’s sentence of 18 years andnine months, on the grounds that he was just a member—not a leader—of a terroristorganization.Amendments to the antiterrorism law, officially called the Law on the Fight againstTerrorism, that were passed in 2006 allow journalists to be imprisoned for up to three years forthe dissemination of statements and propaganda by terrorist organizations, and five years for380

creating propaganda on behalf of a terrorist organization. The legislation has raised concernsabout arbitrary prosecutions, since members of the pro-Kurdish press are sometimes accused ofcollaborating with the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) militant group, a designatedterrorist organization. According to a report by the independent Turkish press agency Bianet, themajority of the reporters in detention at the end of 2012 were from Kurdish media outlets. InOctober 2011, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights voiced concern over thebroad wording and application of both the antiterrorism law and Article 220 of the penal code,which assigns one to three years in prison to those found guilty of creating propaganda in supportof a criminal organization or its objectives. Such cases are tried in special courts that limit thedefendant’s access to evidence and to legal counsel. In July 2012, the parliament passed theThird Judicial Reform Package, including Law 6352, which allows the suspension or dismissalof cases brought against journalists charged with spreading propaganda for terroristorganizations prior to December 31, 2011. The reform package also mandates that judgesprovide written justification for the pretrial incarceration of suspects accused of being affiliatedwith “outlawed” organizations. However, that same month, the ruling Justice and DevelopmentParty (AKP) introduced a constitutional amendment that would restrict reporting on the judicialsystem and security issues. The amendment had yet to be adopted at the end of 2012.The extensive ongoing investigations surrounding Ergenekon, a broad and vaguelydefined alleged coup conspiracy, have led to the arrests of multiple journalists. In 2011, policeraided a number of homes of journalists and professors. Ten people affiliated with OdaTV, anationalist news website that is critical of the Erdoğan government, were arrested and chargedwith offenses including “aiding an armed terrorist organization” and “inciting hatred andhostility.” Among those charged were prominent journalists Nedim Şener and Ahmet Şık, whofaced up to 15 years in prison. Neither journalist was able to access the evidence against him,drawing criticism from the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights. The governmentand the chief prosecutor in the Ergenekon case have maintained that journalists arrested duringthe investigation were held not because of their writing, but due to evidence tying them to anillegal organization, though this evidence has not been presented publicly. All 10 journalistsarrested in the 2011 sweep were released in 2012, including Şener and Şık. Their trial wasongoing at the end of 2012. The OdaTV staff members were apparently targeted for their criticalreporting on the Ergenekon case, while Şık was reportedly detained because of his book on thereligious movement founded by Fethullah Gülen, and Şener for his book on ethnic Armenianjournalist Hrant Dink’s assassination in 2007. Separately, Mustafa Balbay, a bureau chief of thedaily Cumhuriyet who was arrested in connection with Ergenekon, had been held in prisonwithout charge for nearly four years as of the end of 2012.Throughout 2012, the government also continued to detain and prosecute individualssuspected of having links to the Union of Communities in Kurdistan (KCK), a wing of the PKK,as part of a crackdown launched in April 2009. Approximately 7,000 people—mostly membersof the pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party—had been arrested as of November 2012 oncharges of undermining the state and assisting an illegal organization. In late 2011, nearly 200people were arrested for alleged ties to the KCK, including some 30 journalists and the owner ofBelge Publishing House, Ragıp Zarakolu. Zarakolu was released in April 2012 pending trial. InSeptember, a trial began for 44 journalists employed by Özgür Gündem and the DİHA newsagency, both pro-Kurdish media outlets. Thirty-six of the journalists had been held in pretrialdetention since December 2011. The Ergenekon and KCK cases have further encouraged editorsand journalists to practice self-censorship to avoid violating legal restrictions.381

Turkey adopted a freedom of information law in 2003. However, state secrets that mayharm national security, economic interests, state investigations, or intelligence activity, or that“violate the private life of the individual,” are exempt from requests.The Supreme Council of Radio and Television, whose members are elected by theparliament, has the authority to sanction broadcasters if they are not in compliance with the lawor the council’s expansive broadcasting principles. The body is frequently subject to politicalpressure. Print outlets can also be closed if they violate laws restricting media freedom. Inaddition to arrests of Kurdish journalists, several Kurdish newspapers have been suspended. InMarch 2012, Özgür Gündem was suspended for one month by the High Criminal Court after itran a headline about Kurds that read “Revolt Speaks.” Police raided the publisher of the paper,the Gün Printing Company, and confiscated copies with the banned headline. The editor in chiefof Özgür Gündem, Reyhan Çapan, was sentenced to one year and three months in prison forprinting the headline. In May, a court suspended Demokratik Vatan for one month for allegedlyspreading terrorist propaganda through the publication of pro-Kurdish stories. During a televiseddebate in August, Erdoğan stated that journalists must ignore the conflict between the Turkisharmy and the PKK, especially regarding the number of Turkish casualties, on the grounds thatsuch coverage amounted to propaganda for terrorism.Ten books were newly banned in 2012, adding to a list of around 400, while 12newspapers were among 46 publications that were confiscated during the year. Publications werebanned under orders from a variety of different ministries and offices. Restricted topics includedKurdish issues, the Armenian genocide, or any subject deemed offensive to Islam or the Turkishstate. As part of the Third Judicial Reform Package, all bans on publications will be void unlessrenewed by court order prior to a January 5, 2013, deadline.Law 5651 allows the authorities to block websites that insult Turkish Republic founderMustafa Kemal Atatürk or contain content that “incites suicide, pedophilia, drug abuse,obscenity, or prostitution,” among other criteria. After being blocked for more than two years forcarrying videos that were deemed insulting to Atatürk, the video-sharing website YouTube wasunblocked in October 2010. As of December 2012, the Turkish Telecommunications Directoratehad reportedly blocked more than 6,600 websites that year and more than 22,000 overall, 47percent of which allegedly contained pornography, according to the Information TechnologiesInstitute. Many websites that published content on Kurdish-related issues were blocked in 2012,including news sites such as Özgürlük.org and Firatnews.org.Media outlets are sometimes denied access to events and information for politicalreasons. In September 2012, seven publications—Cumhuriyet, Sözcü, Birgün, Evrensel, Aydınlık,Özgür Gündem, and Yeniçağ—were denied the accreditation needed to cover the AKP’s fourthparty congress.Threats against and harassment of the press remain much more common than acts ofviolence. Journalists are rarely killed—none were murdered in 2012—and their work is notregularly compromised by the fear of physical attacks, although instability in the southeasternpart of the country does infringe on journalists’ ability to work. The European Court of HumanRights (ECHR) ruled in 2010 that the Turkish government had failed to respond toultranationalist hostility toward Hrant Dink, the editor in chief of the Armenian Turkish weeklyAgos who was assassinated in 2007. Prior to his murder, Dink had twice been prosecuted underArticle 301 for insulting Turkishness. In 2011, a juvenile criminal court convicted Ogün Samast,who was 17 at the time of the killing, of premeditated murder and sentenced him to more than 22years in prison. In January 2012, the High Criminal Court issued rulings in the cases of an382

additional 19 individuals charged in relation to Dink’s murder. Three were given prisonsentences ranging from 12 years to life. However, the remaining 16 were acquitted, and the courtrejected any allegations of a state-level conspiracy to assassinate Dink.There are approximately 370 newspapers operating in Turkey, including 38 daily nationalpapers. Independent domestic and foreign print media are able to provide diverse views,including criticism of the government and its policies, though Turkish print outlets tend to focuson columns and opinion articles rather than pure news. The country’s broadcast media are alsowell developed, with hundreds of private television channels, including cable and satellite, andmore than 1,000 commercial radio stations. State television and radio provide limitedbroadcasting in minority languages, including several local radio and television stations thatbroadcast in Kurdish. The introduction of Kurdish-language stations in recent years marked amajor step forward for freedom of expression, although critics say that the broadcasts are toorestricted and their quality is poor. An Armenian-language radio outlet, Nor Radio, beganbroadcasting over the internet in 2009. Media ownership is highly concentrated, with a fewmajor private holding companies subtly applying pressure on editors and journalists at theiroutlets to refrain from coverage that could harm their broader business interests, includingcriticism of the government or potential advertisers. In 2011, the parliament passed legislationthat allows foreigners to own up to 50 percent of a Turkish broadcaster, an increase from theexisting 25 percent cap. The new law also reduced the amount in advertising revenues thatchannels are required to turn over to the Radio and Television Supervision Agency.A politicized case against one of the country’s major media companies, the DoğanGroup, for purported tax evasion worth some $3 billion was resolved in 2011. The Doğan Grouphad consistently reported on the ruling party’s shortcomings and its involvement in an Islamiccharity scandal in 2008. In February 2011, the courts overturned approximately $1.1 billion infines and interest allegedly owed by Doğan. The company subsequently sold two of its majorpapers, Milliyet and Vatan, and one of its television stations, Star TV, in order to raise funds topay the remaining back taxes and fines. Doğan settled with the Finance Ministry in May 2011,agreeing to pay $590 million. Doğan employees have reported practicing self-censorship toavoid further trouble with the law.An estimated 45 percent of the population accessed the internet in 2012. There arereportedly 28,000 internet cafés in Turkey, and they require a license from the local governmentin order to operate.TurkmenistanStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 30Political Environment: 37Economic Environment: 29Total Score: 96Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 96,NF 96,NF 95,NF 96,NF 96,NF383

President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov’s autocratic government continued to maintain neartotalcontrol over the media in 2012, despite his pledges to take steps such as providing increasedinternet access. The constitution’s nominal protections for press freedom and freedom ofexpression are not observed in practice. Libel is a criminal offense, but it is rarely invoked due tothe intensity of official media control and self-censorship and the extreme scarcity ofindependent and critical reporting. A new media regulation law was enacted in December 2012.Drafted in consultation with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, thelegislation defined procedures for gathering and disseminating news and was the first of its kindto be approved in Turkmenistan since independence in 1991. However, in light of the country’sdismal record on media freedom to date, the law was not expected to result in a significantrelaxation of current restrictions. In March, the UN Human Rights Committee had reported forthe first time on the government’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights. With regard to the media in particular, the committee noted repression of freespeech, harassment and intimidation of journalists, and monitoring and censorship of theinternet.The government retained a monopoly on the national media in 2012.Berdymukhammedov appoints the editors of authorized outlets, and independent news websitesare blocked. Journalists who are critical of the government are blacklisted and prevented fromtraveling within the country or abroad. A journalist from the state newspaper NeutralnyTurkmenistan, the only Russian-language newspaper in the country, told the Institute for Warand Peace Reporting in March that multiple agencies impose censorship on media outlets, andeverything journalists write must comply with requirements set by the president’s office. InFebruary, just before a tightly controlled presidential election in which the incumbent supposedlytook more than 97 percent of the vote, human rights defender Nataliya Shabunts criticized thegovernment in a radio interview. The next day, a bloody sheep’s head was found at her door inwhat some observers interpreted as a warning from the state security services.The government closely supervises television content. In June 2012, for the first timesince Turkmenistan became independent, state television aired a live broadcast of a majorsporting event—the European football championships. Previously, state-run television outletshad only shown prerecorded programs. During all aired matches, Ashgabat-based commentatorsrepeatedly thanked the president for making the live broadcast possible.The government controls the dominant internet service provider, Turkmen Telecom, andrestricts access to critical sites, including regional news sources based outside Turkmenistan andopposition websites run by Turkmens living abroad. Leading independent news site Chroniclesof Turkmenistan (Chrono-tm.org), run by human rights activists in exile, was subjected toseveral cyberattacks in 2012, including three instances of hacking that rendered the sitetemporarily inaccessible. Other foreign-based news sites that cover Turkmenistan, Gundogar.organd Ferghana.ru, were blocked. Popular youth site Ertir.com was blocked for most of June.Online social-media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, LiveJournal, and YouTube are oftenunavailable, and the authorities interfere with electronic correspondence such as Gmail.Continued government restrictions and high costs kept the internet penetration rate extremelylow in 2012, with only 7 percent of the population using the medium.Two journalists, Sapardurdy Khadjiyev and Annakurban Amanklychev, have beenimprisoned since 2006. The two men were originally arrested with a colleague, OgulsaparMuradova, after helping a French television station with a report on Turkmenistan; Muradovadied several months after her arrest as a result of severe beatings in prison. Switzerland’s public384

television broadcaster was permitted to make a documentary about the country in September2012, but the film was to avoid controversial topics.A privately published magazine, Rysgal, opened with great presidential fanfare in 2010,but it became clear that the magazine was produced by the government-controlled Union ofIndustrialists and Entrepreneurs and did not stray from the official line. In 2012, Rysgal ownerAleksander Dadayev, who is close to Berdymukhammedov, helped to establish the new Party ofIndustrialists and Entrepreneurs, nominally ending the political monopoly of the rulingDemocratic Party of Turkmenistan. Berdymukhammedov had approved its establishment, and inpractice the new party is loyal to the regime. Months before the party’s first congress in August,Rysgal began publishing announcements encouraging entrepreneurs to join it.State-run newspapers are used to disseminate government propaganda and ignore issuesrelevant to Turkmen citizens. The paper with the largest circulation is Turkmen Dili, with117,500 subscribers. Employees of state institutions are required to pay high subscription feesout of their own pockets to state newspapers that focus on their field of work, often imposing aconsiderable financial burden on employees with low salaries. The authorities maintained a banon almost all foreign newspapers and periodical subscriptions—notably including Russiannewspapers—and confiscate books and periodicals from travelers. Despite an absence ofindependent domestic media, many citizens have some access to international media throughsatellite dishes. Repeated government attempts to crack down on such receivers have beenlargely unsuccessful, but cost barriers continue to limit access. Turkmenistan’s government inrecent years has indicated that it plans to launch its own satellite to control broadcasting morecomprehensively, but there was little progress on the project by the end of 2012.One positive event in 2012 was the return of Russian mobile-telephone service providerMobile TeleSystems (MTS). The Turkmen government reissued MTS’s license in July, havingexpelled the provider in 2010 and cut off service to 2.4 million people—or 80 percent of thecountry’s mobile users. MTS provides a faster connection speed than the government-ownedcarrier and allows users to access banned social media. On the first day it became operationalagain, MTS reactivated over 500,000 subscribers.TuvaluStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 3Political Environment: 11Economic Environment: 12Total Score: 26Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 26,F 26,F 26,F 26,F 26,FUgandaStatus: Partly Free385

Legal Environment: 19Political Environment: 22Economic Environment: 14Total Score: 55Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 53,PF 53,PF 54,PF 54,PF 57,PFThe Ugandan press freedom environment did not undergo any significant changes in 2012, asjournalists continued to face intimidation and harassment from state and nonstate actors. Themedia operated in a tense atmosphere as the government sought to rein in protests demandingfinancial accountability. Government officials often accused media houses of helping to inciteviolence by giving airtime to voices of dissent. Verbal threats from officials, including thepresident, engendered self-censorship, especially among less prominent rural media outlets.Despite these obstacles, the independent media remained vibrant, and many continued to thrivecommercially. Moreover, Ugandan courts exercised a degree of independence, throwing outcriminal cases brought against journalists by the state.The country’s constitution provides for freedoms of expression and of the press.However, several laws undermine these guarantees, and the government has continued to crackdown on critical journalists and media houses using a variety of methods. Although theConstitutional Court declared the law on sedition unconstitutional in August 2010, thegovernment has employed other provisions of the penal code, including those on criminal libeland treason, against journalists. In March 2012, a local official in Kalangala brought criminaldefamation charges against Central Broadcasting Service (CBS) journalist Ronald Ssembuusi fora report linking the official to the disappearance of a number of solar panels donated by theAfrican Development Bank. The case remained pending at year’s end. In a positive step inDecember, a Kampala court dismissed a criminal libel case against two Daily Monitorjournalists, Henry Ochieng and Angelo Izama, who had been accused of defaming PresidentYoweri Museveni.In April 2011, after a delay of nearly six years, the government finally promulgatedimplementing regulations for the 2005 Access to Information Act. Uganda is among a handful ofAfrican countries with a freedom of information law, but without the regulations in place, the acthad existed only on paper. Even after the release of the regulations, many governmentdepartments still deny requests for information. Moreover, the parliament has yet to enforce thelaw’s requirement that each ministry submit annual reports on the status of implementation. In2012, Information Minister Mary Karooro Okurut conceded to lawmakers that her ministry hadnot done enough to enforce the regulations. Other laws related to national security andconfidentiality continue to impede open access to information in practice.Media groups had expressed fear that the Press and Journalist Amendment Bill, proposedin 2010, would enable the government to manipulate the licensing and registration of mediaoutlets and introduce new publication offenses, but the amendments had not been tabled beforethe parliament by the end of 2012. The 2000 Press and Journalist Act requires journalists toregister with the government-affiliated National Institute of Journalists of Uganda (NIJU) andobtain a license from the Media Council, which has been criticized for lacking independence.Journalists must also meet certain standards, including possession of a university degree, to befull members of the NIJU. Although journalists are required to renew their licenses annually, this386

provision is frequently overlooked in practice. In 2012, Karooro Okurut reiterated a previousthreat that the government might enforce the licensing requirement, citing growingunprofessionalism.The regulatory structure is not always transparent and grants broad discretionary powersto the regulator. In September 2012, the parliament passed legislation that consolidated the 1997Uganda Communications Act and the 2000 Electronic Media Act, effectively merging tworegulators, the Uganda Broadcasting Council (UBC) and the Uganda CommunicationsCommission (UCC), under the name of the latter. The new law completed a move initiated bythe government in 2010. The regulatory bodies’ licensing procedures have been criticized asarbitrary and opaque, and they are susceptible to influence and manipulation by the executive.The authorities have continued to interfere in private radio broadcasting, suspending a number ofstations in recent years. Radio stations that have faced suspension in the past often engage inself-censorship to avoid renewed conflict with authorities. There were new reports in 2012 thatrural radio stations that aired criticism of the government on talk shows had been forced tosuspend or fire the hosts and presenters. In October 2012, the UCC directed radio stations not toair a song by a local musician that was critical of the executive director of the Kampala CityCapital Authority. Although the regulator has not followed up on its 2011 warning to televisionand radio stations against covering political protests live, fears of repercussions for suchcoverage remain, especially at the state broadcaster. In December 2012, Museveni once againthreatened to close radio stations that hosted critics of his government. The threat came after acontroversy surrounding the mysterious death of Cerinah Nebanda, a ruling party legislator whowas very critical of the administration.Censorship and interference by authorities reportedly continued to hamper newscoverage, particularly in rural areas. In July 2012, police questioned prominent talk-show hostMeddie Nsereko Ssebuliba for more than three hours after he moderated a program featuringcritical politicians. He was summoned on allegations that he “failed to moderate” the show, butno charges were filed. In the countryside, government officials and security agents continued tointimidate journalists and attempt to influence content by forbidding certain guests to appear onlive radio programs. The several radio stations owned by members of the ruling NationalResistance Movement (NRM) avoid news that is deemed harmful to the government and denyopposition politicians access to the airwaves, particularly in rural areas.Journalists face harassment, occasional violence, and various other obstacles whileattempting to cover the news. Security agencies, especially the police, once again topped the listof press freedom offenders in 2012, with many cases of brutality against journalists. In January,plainclothes police in Kampala reportedly shot at Daily Monitor photographer Isaac Kasamani ashe observed officers throwing a tear gas canister at opposition leader Kizza Besigye, accordingto local press freedom group Human Rights Network for Journalists–Uganda (HRNJ-Uganda). Apolice investigation found no evidence that the journalist had been shot at. Kasamani was againassaulted by police officers in October, along with two other journalists who had gone to coverBesigye’s arrest outside police headquarters in Kampala. Kasamani and reporter William Ntegesuffered minor injuries, and both had their cameras destroyed in the incident, according toHRNJ-Uganda and the Committee to Protect Journalists. A third reporter was punched in theface. On December 24, officers from a police antiterrorism unit assaulted journalist MulindwaMukasa of the Associated Press and WBS Television as he was covering the arrest of an NRMmember of parliament. Another journalist reporting on the arrest, Radio Simba’s NasserKayanja, had his mobile telephone confiscated and smashed. There were several other reports of387

journalists being injured by police during demonstrations in 2012, though it was not always clearwhether these cases were deliberate or accidental.There are more than two dozen daily and weekly newspapers and more than 180 privateradio stations. The daily New Vision, in which the government holds a controlling stake,generally shows some editorial independence, though it tends to side with the government duringelections and political protests. Other print outlets, such as the Monitor, the Observer, and theIndependent, are more critical of the government and offer a range of opposition views. There isunrestricted access to foreign news sources, and domestic outlets draw on and reference thesesources in their reporting. Radio remains the most widely accessed news medium, though veryfew stations dedicate sufficient time to news and public affairs programming. In recent years, thenumber of community stations has grown across the country. Although technically a publicbroadcaster, the Ugandan Broadcasting Corporation (UBC) remains subservient to the interestsof the ruling party and the government. Four private television stations also operate.To safeguard their investments, private media owners reportedly comply withgovernment requests, including onerous instructions as to which journalists they may employ.Declining circulation rates have compromised the sustainability of newspapers in recent years.Threatened or actual advertising boycotts by corporations and the government, which areespecially problematic for smaller media outlets, further limit media diversity and pluralism.About 15 percent of Ugandans accessed the internet in 2012. Internet access througheither computers or mobile phones is not officially restricted, though it is effectively limited byhigh costs and a lack of infrastructure, especially in rural areas. In the last decade, the mobilephoneindustry has experienced substantial expansion, and there are now more than 14 millionsubscribers in Uganda, making it one of the top 10 African countries in terms of mobilesubscriptions. Social-media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are gaining popularityas a means of disseminating news and information.UkraineStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 19Political Environment: 21Economic Environment: 20Total Score: 60Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 53,PF 55,PF 53,PF 56,PF 59,PFPress freedom eroded further in 2012 as President Viktor Yanukovych continued curtailing thecountry’s recent democratic gains through his authoritarian style of rule. The president and hisParty of Regions cracked down on the opposition, stalled legal reforms, consolidated theirinfluence over the national broadcast media, and manipulated the results of Octoberparliamentary elections—all while rhetorically promoting media freedom abroad as Ukraineprepared to assume the 2013 chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Cooperation inEurope (OSCE). A highly politicized judicial system ensured that Yanukovych’s main politicalrival, former prime minister Yuliya Tymoshenko, remained in prison under a seven-year388

sentence that was imposed in 2011 for her alleged mishandling of natural gas negotiations withRussia in 2009. Journalists endured an escalation in attacks in the months ahead of theparliamentary elections, while Yanukovych’s relatives and allies continued to use their positionsto dramatically increase their personal wealth.The constitution and legal framework generally provide for media freedom and areamong the most progressive in Eastern Europe. Libel was decriminalized in 2001, and inFebruary 2009 the Supreme Court instructed judges to follow the civil libel standards of theStrasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights, which granted lower levels of protection topublic officials and clearly distinguished between value judgments and factual information.Nonetheless, officials continue to use libel lawsuits filed in the country’s politicized court systemto deter critical news reporting. Respect for other media-related laws has diminished in recentyears.The Party of Regions proposed various new laws and initiatives during 2012 in an effortto muzzle independent reporting on widespread corruption and nepotism among the ruling elite.In January, the party ousted media lawyer and lawmaker Andriy Shevchenko from his post ashead of the parliamentary committee on free speech and information. In July, the Party ofRegions proposed a bill that would recriminalize libel and insult, allowing up to five years’imprisonment for convicted offenders. The parliament initially passed the proposed law inSeptember, but withdrew it in October amid intense domestic and international criticism.Politicized courts, weakened by legal reforms introduced under Yanukovych, consistently ruledin favor of progovernment media owners and against outlets that criticized politicians and thegovernment during 2012. In August, for example, a Kyiv court found Hromadskyy ZakhystKyivshchyny reporter Andriy Kachor guilty of petty hooliganism and fined him 102 hryvnyas($13) for allegedly forcing his way into the office of a Party of Regions parliamentary candidate.Kachor had accused the candidate of misusing public funds in an interview on the independenttelevision station TVi.The National Television and Radio Broadcasting Council remains unreformed and hasapplied regulations in a secretive and highly partisan manner. The council used the transitionfrom analog to digital television broadcasting in 2011 to deny licenses to editorially independenttelevision stations such as TVi, TRC Chernomorskaya, and Rivne 1. Meanwhile, it awardeddigital licenses to progovernment stations or new outlets that were registered offshore tounknown owners. Other government officials, like tax inspectors, continued to enforceregulations in a selective and politicized manner in 2012. In July, tax police and prosecutorsraided the offices and froze the bank accounts of TVi—the last remaining national televisionstation that criticized the Yanukovych administration—while some 80 cable operators werereported to have dropped the channel. In September, a Kyiv court threatened the station withinsolvency by ordering it to pay 4 million hryvnyas ($500,000) in alleged back taxes. The timingof the financial pressure suggested that the authorities were attempting to control the mediaenvironment ahead of the October parliamentary elections.Government officials routinely took steps to limit journalists’ access to informationduring the year. In January, presidential security officers prevented journalists from filmingYanukovych’s entourage leaving his mansion in the northern Kyiv suburb of Mezhyhirya. InFebruary, Korrespondent reporter Iryna Solomko filed a lawsuit against the parliament after shewas denied information about civil servants working as assistants to lawmakers. A Kyiv courtruled against Solomko in March, despite a provision of the Law on Access to Information thatprohibits the withholding of such information about officials receiving state salaries. An389

appellate court confirmed the ruling in June. In September, guards protecting Yanukovych as hespoke at a World Press Congress in Kyiv confiscated several “Stop Censorship” posters thatjournalists held up in protest. In addition to imposing restrictions on professional journalists, thegovernment limits the ability of bloggers and citizen journalists to report on public affairs byrefusing to grant them accreditation.Although media coverage—including on electoral campaigns—remains more pluralisticthan in Russia and other authoritarian states in the region, the politicization of private media hasincreased under the Yanukovych administration. Wealthy media tycoon ValeriyKhoroshkovskyy has used his Inter Media Group to advance his political interests, serving firstas head of the National Security Service (SBU) and later as first deputy prime minister from2010 to 2012. Two days before the parliamentary elections in October, a group of editors at theUNIAN news agency, owned by Yanukovych loyalist Ihor Kolomoyskyy, issued a publicstatement protesting that they had been instructed not to publish stories that criticizedYanukovych. Meanwhile, the country’s state media remained unreformed and continued to servethe interests of senior politicians and the bureaucracy. Politically loyal managers have beenappointed to the state-run outlets, and those who failed to ensure favorable coverage have beenillegally dismissed. OSCE election monitors indicated that “due to the lack of political will, thetransformation of the National Television Company of Ukraine from a state to a public-servicebroadcaster has not progressed; two laws on the reform … are pending in the parliament.” Statetelevision has no editorial statute or editorial board, as required by law. The election monitorsalso reported “abuse of regional state-owned broadcasters or newspapers in favor of the Party ofRegions, in particular through obvious political advertising not declared as such.” Additionally,independent news websites like LB.ua endured harassment throughout the year as well ashacking attacks that escalated during and after the parliamentary election campaign.A steady stream of threats and harassment against the media continued in 2012, as thecountry’s weak and politicized criminal justice system failed to protect journalists from abuse bypoliticians, businessmen, and criminal groups. Several correspondents for the popularRoadcontrol.org.ua website were harassed and assaulted during 2012 in retaliation for exposingabuses committed by corrupt traffic police officers. In June, Maksym Kasyanov, a correspondentfor Korrdon.info in the southeastern city of Donetsk, was filming the car of a senior politicianwhen he was assaulted by several tax-service officers, arrested by the police, and then forced byan investigator to write a statement that he was planning to assassinate the politician. Prosecutorsdeclined to punish the police investigator.Attacks against journalists escalated significantly in the months ahead of the Octoberparliamentary elections, with the Kyiv-based Institute of Mass Information registering some 60cases in September. Prosecutors and police regularly failed to take action against suspectsidentified in past attacks, leading to a culture of impunity. In April, prosecutors in thesoutheastern city of Donetsk declined to open a criminal inquiry after a group of Ukrainiannationalists assaulted four journalists at a ceremony in January to commemorate Ukrainianresistance to Bolshevik forces in 1918. In August, police investigators reported that they hadidentified a former Kharkiv police officer as a suspect in the August 2010 disappearance ofNovyy Styl editor Vasyl Klymentyev, but the suspect had not been apprehended by the end of theyear. Klymentyev had disappeared shortly after reporting on police corruption.The authorities have made limited progress in solving an older such crime, the abductionand murder of journalist Heorhiy Gongadze in 2000. Former Interior Ministry official OleksiyPukach remained on trial at year’s end for allegedly carrying out the killing, though the case was390

marred by procedural violations and closed to the public. In June, a Kyiv appellate court upheld alower court’s ruling that prosecutors could not investigate credible evidence that formerpresident Leonid Kuchma had ordered the killing. Journalists, press freedom advocates, andGongadze’s family have asserted that Yanukovych used the courts to clear Kuchma’s name bydismissing key evidence and pinning all of the blame on Yuriy Kravchenko, a deceased formerinterior minister.With hundreds of state and private television and radio stations and numerous printoutlets, Ukraine’s media sector is diverse compared with those of most other former Sovietrepublics, but it faces growing challenges, including declining pluralism and an increasingemphasis on entertainment over news reporting. Four pro-Yanukovych media magnates—ViktorPinchuk, Ihor Kolomoyskyy, Valeriy Khoroshkovskyy, and Renat Akmetov—dominate thenational television channels, while most regional broadcasters are dependent on progovernmentbusiness magnates and state subsidies, encouraging self-censorship and bias in favor of specificeconomic or political interests. Transparency of media ownership remains poor, as businessmenand politicians often prefer to hide their influence over news programs. Thanks to the tiesbetween business and politics, the top eight television channels avoid politically sensitive topicssuch as government corruption, the president’s use of state resources to support his and hisfamily’s lifestyle, human rights abuses, persecution of the political opposition, and growingunemployment. The global economic crisis has led to a decline in advertising revenue, leavingmedia outlets, particularly newspapers, even more financially dependent on politicized owners.Hidden political advertising is widespread in the media and weakens the credibility ofjournalists, particularly during elections.The government does not restrict access to the internet, which was used by about 38percent of the population in 2012. A growing number of citizens are relying on the web andsocial-networking sites such as Odnoklassniki and VKontakte to exchange information.Although internet publications are not required to register with the authorities, the SBU hasincreased its monitoring of government criticism on the internet in recent years.United Arab EmiratesStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 24Political Environment: 27Economic Environment: 23Total Score: 74Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 68,NF 69,NF 71,NF 71,NF 72,NFThe government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) significantly increased its efforts to silencedissent in 2012, arresting scores of activists and bloggers and further limiting an alreadyconstrained media environment. While the constitution provides for freedom of speech, thegovernment uses its judicial, legislative, and executive powers to limit those rights in practice.UAE Federal Law No. 15 of 1980 for Printed Matter and Publications regulates all aspects of themedia and is considered one of the most restrictive press laws in the Arab world. It authorizes the391

state to censor both domestic and foreign publications prior to distribution, and prohibitscriticism of the government, rulers and ruling families, and friendly foreign governments. Thelaw also bans publication of information that “causes damage to the national economy.”Violations of the law can result in fines and prison sentences. Journalists can also be prosecutedunder the penal code. In early 2009, the Federal National Council (FNC), the UAE’s legislativeadvisory body, adopted a draft “regulation of media activities” bill that would replace the 1980law, though after more than three years it has not been enacted. The proposed legislation wouldimpose fines of more than $1 million for disparaging the head of state or his deputies, and finesof several thousand dollars for publishing “misleading” articles “in a manner that harms thecountry’s reputation, foreign relations or obligations or defaces its national identity,” or that“harms the country’s national economy.”Defamation is a criminal offense. In a major case in 2011, blogger Ahmed Mansoor andfour other Emirati activists were arrested and charged under Articles 8 and 176 of the penal codefor allegedly insulting the leaders of the UAE in posts on the internet forum UAEHewar. InNovember 2011, Mansoor received a three-year prison sentence, while the others receivedsentences of two years each. The trial was widely criticized by international human rightsgroups, which cited a lack of evidence and failure to adhere to proper court procedures. The dayafter their conviction, the five men were pardoned by the president and released. During 2012, intheir ongoing crackdown on political reform advocates, the authorities rounded up several dozenactivists and bloggers affiliated with the Islamist group Al-Islah and detained them withoutcharge. Many were arrested for using social media to call for reform, and have had theirFacebook and Twitter accounts blocked. In a massive security sweep on July 16 and 17, bloggersKhalid al-Nuaimi, Rashid Omran al-Shamsi, Omran al-Radhwan, Salah al-Dhufairi, andAbdullah al-Hajri were among many others arrested for posting comments that were critical ofthe regime and for being affiliated with Al-Islah. Most of those arrested were still being heldwithout formal charges and with their whereabouts unknown at the end of 2012.The 2006 Information and Privacy Cybercrime Law criminalizes the use of the internet tocommit a range of offenses—including violating political, social, and religious norms—andsubjects perpetrators to prison terms and fines. In November 2012, a highly restrictivecybercrime law was instituted through a presidential decree. Although the law centers oninformation technology, it has detrimental implications for citizen journalism. Article 28 of thedecree states that the publication or dissemination of information, news, or images deemed“liable to endanger security and its higher interests or infringe on the public order” could bepunished with imprisonment and a fine of up to 1 million dirhams ($270,000). Under Article 29,“deriding or harming the reputation, stature, or status of the state, any of its institutions, itspresident or vice president, the rulers of the emirates, their crown princes or their deputies,” aswell as a number of national symbols, is also punishable with imprisonment and a fine of thesame amount. Beginning in early December, several bloggers and activists were arrested underthe law.The National Media Council (NMC), created in 2006, is responsible for licensing allpublications and issuing press credentials to editors. Members of the council are all appointed bythe president. The UAE has three media free zones (MFZ)—areas in which foreign media outletsproduce print and broadcast material intended for foreign audiences—located in Dubai, AbuDhabi, and Ras al-Khaimah. Although these areas are subject to UAE media laws, the pressoperates with relative freedom. The Dubai and Abu Dhabi MFZs house bureaus of high-profilemedia outlets such as the U.S.-based Cable News Network (CNN), the British Broadcasting392

Corporation (BBC), and Agence France-Presse. Broadcast media outlets based in the MFZs areregulated by the Technology and Media Free Zone Authority, but are also subject to the 1980press law and the penal code. All free zones must obtain approval from the NMC beforelicensing any print or broadcast activities.Journalists, especially foreign journalists working for UAE-based media outlets, havereported having their stories censored by their editors, particularly if they are covering sensitiveissues such as religion, politics, or foreign allies of the UAE. Online censorship is extensive,although the government claims that it only censors pornographic sites. Users are directed to aproxy server that maintains a list of banned websites and blocks material deemed inconsistentwith the “religious, cultural, political, and moral values of the country.” The OpenNet Initativehas reported a marked increase in the number of political sites blocked since 2007 andcategorizes filtering on social issues as “pervasive.” Websites that are considered indecentinclude those featuring pornography, dating or personal advertisements, and LGBT (lesbian, gay,bisexual, and transgender) content. Some websites based in Israel or covering religions otherthan Islam, notably the Baha’i faith, are also blocked. The authorities have threatened to restrictuse of encrypted e-mail and messaging services, which could facilitate government surveillanceof journalists.Due to vaguely defined red lines on permissible speech, extreme forms of self-censorshipare widely practiced, particularly regarding issues such as local politics, culture, religion, or anyother subject the government may deem sensitive.Although there were few reported physical attacks against journalists in 2012, reportersin the UAE suffered multiple forms of intimidation and harassment. Emirati journalists oftenface warnings and threats if they push the limits of permissible media coverage. However,noncitizen journalists account for the overwhelming majority of those working in the UAE, andthey face harsher measures, including dismissal and deportation. In June 2012, Ahmed Abd al-Khaleq, a blogger documenting the plight of his fellow stateless residents, or bidoon, wasdeported to Thailand after his residency documents were confiscated by UAE authorities. AhmedMansoor, the blogger who was released and pardoned by the president at the end of 2011, facedphysical attacks by unknown assailants in late 2012. He also reported that his computer washacked.There are about a dozen newspapers printed in Arabic and English in the UAE, as well asseveral radio stations and terrestrial television stations. Most media outlets are either governmentowned or have close government affiliations. The Arab Media Group and Dubai MediaIncorporated operate as the Dubai government’s media arm, publishing several newspapers andoperating television and radio stations. Privately owned newspapers such as the Arabic daily Al-Khaleej and its English-language sister paper, Gulf Today, are heavily influenced by thegovernment. Almost all Arabic-language broadcast media that target the domestic audience arestate owned and provide only the official view on local issues. However, satellite televisionservice is widespread and provides uncensored access to international broadcasts.Most major papers receive government subsidies and rely predominantly on the officialEmirates News Agency (WAM) for content and guidance on whether or how to cover sensitivelocal news. Several publishers have opposed free dailies such as 7DAYS, arguing that theyviolate a legal provision requiring papers to print their price on the front page. In 2010, theeditors of several papers adopted an initiative to expand the number of local citizens in theworkplace, despite concerns that the process, known as Emiratization, was leading to arbitrarydismissals and insecurity among non-Emirati staff. According to one estimate, only about 10393

percent of working journalists in 2010 were native Emiratis. The NMC-supported JournalistAssociation allocated 1 million dirhams ($270,000) for training and developing Emiratis’capacity in the field.About 85 percent of the UAE population had regular access to the internet in 2012. Thereare two internet service providers, Etisalat and Du, both of which are owned and operated bystate corporations. Despite broad restrictions, a majority of news consumers in Dubai rely on theinternet, including blogs and news forums, to obtain information, according to the Dubai PressClub’s Arab Media Outlook 2009–2013 report. The UAE has an extremely high mobiletelephonepenetration rate, making such devices one of the most popular ways to receive newscontent.United KingdomStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 7Political Environment: 9Economic Environment: 5Total Score: 21Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 18,F 19,F 19,F 19,F 21,FWith a history of aggressive reporting and an editorially independent public broadcaster, theUnited Kingdom maintained its open media environment in 2012, though positive developmentsregarding libel law reform were balanced by the possibility of increased newspaper regulation.The laws provide for freedom of the press, and the government generally respects thisright in practice. While antiquated legal provisions that criminalized blasphemy andblasphemous libel were abolished in 2008, several laws that weaken press freedom remain inplace. The media can be required to turn over reporting materials to the police under the 1984Police and Criminal Evidence Act. This happened on several occasions during the 2011 Londonriots, as well as during separate riots in Northern Ireland. In the aftermath of the July 2005terrorist bombings on London’s mass transit system, the government passed the 2006 Preventionof Terrorism Act. Certain provisions of the law criminalize speech that is considered toencourage terrorism, even in the absence of a direct, proven link to a specific terrorist act. The2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act criminalized incitement of religious hatred or violence,and using threatening words or behavior or displaying any threatening written material isconsidered an offense if the intended purpose is inciting religious hatred. The same is true formaterial that is broadcast. In the first conviction under this legislation, blogger Bilal ZaheerAhmad was sentenced in July 2011 to 12 years in prison for encouraging Muslims to murdermembers of Parliament who had supported the war in Iraq. His website was also shut down.Libel laws in effect in England and Wales heavily favor the plaintiff, placing the burdenof proof on the defendant. As a result, the country has become an increasingly populardestination for “libel tourism,” in which foreign plaintiffs bring libel actions against foreigndefendants in English courts. However, a campaign led by the free speech organizations Senseabout Science, English PEN, and Index on Censorship launched a libel reform petition in394

Parliament in December 2009, attracting greater attention to the issue and resulting in a promisein 2010 by the new coalition government to reform libel laws. A bill introduced in Parliament bythe Ministry of Justice in May 2012 was designed to limit lengthy and expensive proceedings,making it easier to dismiss frivolous cases quickly. Under the proposed law, claimants wouldhave to demonstrate that the published material in question caused them “serious,” not justpossible, harm. The measure is also expected to limit the use of English courts by foreignclaimants by excluding those who live outside the European Union (EU), except for cases inwhich “England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place to bring an action.”Campaigners are still calling for a stronger “public interest” defense—currently journalistswould first need to prove that they have been “responsible” in their writing—and betterprotections for internet service providers. As of the end of 2012, the bill had made it through itsthird reading in the House of Commons and was pending in the House of Lords.The 2003 Communications Act prohibits any message from being sent through a publicelectronic communications network that is “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene, ormenacing character.” In July 2012, the High Court overturned a 2010 conviction against a manwho had written a microblog comment about “blowing the airport sky high.” The presiding judgeruled that the statement was not menacing and had been written out of frustration over flightcancellations. In October, 19-year-old Matthew Woods was sentenced to three months in prisonfor posting allegedly offensive statements on the social-networking site Facebook related to amissing 5-year-old girl. The director of public prosecutors announced in December thatguidelines on prosecuting offensive comments on the internet would be established to rein in thegrowing number of legal cases in recent years.In keeping with EU policy, a 2009 law requires communications service providers toretain certain limited usage records for one year. Intelligence, law enforcement, and otheragencies may access such data—which do not include the content of communications—withoutjudicial permission for a variety of reasons, including crime detection, national security, and the“economic well-being” of the country. However, the system includes procedural and institutionalsafeguards against abuse, and there are departments in place to handle public complaints. A draftcommunications data bill under consideration in 2012 would require internet and telephonecompanies to retain a much greater range of information about online communications, includingon social media, e-mail, mobile phone calls, and voice calls placed over the internet. Theproposed law, which has been defended as necessary for crime prevention and detection, wouldallow public authorities to access the identity of communication participants, their location, andthe duration of contact, among other information. Accessing the content of communicationswould still require a warrant. In December, Parliament’s Joint Committee on theCommunications Data Bill released a report that was critical of the draft, deeming it toosweeping and calling for consultations before redrafting. The prime minister announced at year’send that the bill would be rewritten.On rare occasions, the courts impose so-called superinjunctions, which forbid the mediafrom reporting certain information and even from reporting on the existence of the injunctionitself. The media have criticized the increasing use of these “gag orders,” claiming that theyallow the rich and powerful to be legally exempt from journalistic investigation. However, suchmechanisms have been undermined by the ease of spreading information via the internet andsocial media. In a recent superinjunction revelation, a Channel Islands businessman claimed thathe was gagged by the former wife of an unnamed Asian head of state in 2009. The businessman,Mark Burby, stated in a submission to Parliament’s Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions,395

published in February 2012, that the Asian head of state was a “substantial” supporter of Al-Qaeda and had “advanced knowledge” of the 2005 London bombings. Lawyers for the formerwife threatened “diplomatic repercussions” against the parliamentary committee, requesting thatthe submission—which revealed the existence of the 2009 superinjunction to the public—beremoved from its website. The committee did not comply.In March 2012, the same committee released a report calling for internet companies, likeGoogle, Facebook, and Twitter, to establish ways to limit online posts that breach court orders.The committee also concluded that the introduction of a privacy statute would be more harmfulthan the current regulation because no definition of privacy could be exhaustive, potentiallyresulting in new litigation over interpretation. Earlier, in January, Twitter had unveiled a newcensorship system whereby microblog posts could be blocked on a country-by-country basis ifthey broke local laws. The new system served to address, among other things, breaches of Britishsuperinjuctions. Upon receiving notice from an authorized entity, posts that violate asuperinjunction can be blocked in the United Kingdom, but will remain accessible outside thecountry. Twitter has pledged to be as transparent as possible, logging blocked posts and alertingthe author of the action.The right to information is not constitutionally guaranteed, and while a 2000 Freedom ofInformation Act came into force in 2005, it contains a number of broad exceptions. “Absolute”exemptions act as unconditional barriers to the disclosure of information. With “qualified”exemptions, a determination is made as to whether the public interest is better served bywithholding or disclosing the information; also, a ruling is made on whether to reveal whatparticular information has been withheld. Although the law includes 24 such exemptions, theInformation Commissioner’s Office—established in 2000 to address freedom of informationcomplaints—has been praised by civil society groups.Broadcast media are regulated by the Office of Communications (Ofcom), while the printsector operates under a voluntary, self-regulating mechanism. The Press ComplaintsCommission, whose rulings have no legal force, is made up of representatives of the newspaperindustry. In response to the 2011 News of the World phone-hacking scandal, the prime ministerlaunched a public inquiry, led by Lord Justice Leveson, into the ethical lapses at the tabloid andthe general regulatory framework of the British media. The resulting Leveson report, released inNovember 2012, recommended the establishment of an independent regulatory body withstatutory underpinnings. Press freedom advocates, who claim that any kind of statutoryregulation would undermine freedom of expression, criticized the proposal. Prime MinisterDavid Cameron also disagreed with the concept of a statutory solution and recommendedstronger self-regulation instead. In December, the government suggested the alternative of usinga royal charter—such as the one used to set up the public-service British BroadcastingCorporation (BBC)—to establish an independent regulatory body. Proponents of this modelargued that it would provide a press regulator that is free of interference from both the politicalsphere and the newspaper industry. Under a royal charter, a governing committee of five to nineindependent figures would be established and charged with appointing and overseeing membersof the new regulatory body, which in turn would be responsible for drafting a new press code.However, opponents of the charter plan and victims of privacy invasion continued to call forstatutory regulation.Physical attacks on the media are rare in the United Kingdom. However, there were anumber of incidents of harassment and assaults on journalists in Northern Ireland in 2012. InAugust, the National Union of Journalists reported that a Belfast-based journalist had received a396

death threat from the Ulster Defence Association (UDA)—Northern Ireland’s largest loyalistparamilitary group—though the UDA denied involvement. In early December, an AssociatedPress photographer was injured in clashes between police and rioters during demonstrationsagainst a Belfast council vote to limit the display of the union flag at the city hall. Two weekslater, a reporter for the Daily Telegraph, Adrian Rutherford, was attacked in East Belfast whilecovering loyalist protests over the flag decision; he was chased by a gang of masked men, whostole his mobile phone. A few days earlier, a pipe bomb was left outside the home of newsphotographer Mark Pearce in County Down; army bomb-disposal officers deactivated the device,and no one was injured. As of the end of 2012, no one had been brought to justice for the 2001murder of journalist Martin O’Hagan, who is believed to have been killed for his investigationsinto cooperation among Northern Ireland police, military intelligence officials, illegal armedgroups, and drug gangs.The United Kingdom has a strong tradition of public broadcasting, and the BBC, which ispublicly funded, is editorially independent. Ownership of private media outlets is concentrated inthe hands of a few large companies, including News Corporation, and many of the nationalnewspapers remain aligned with political parties. Following the News of the World scandal,critics of the existing media structure, including Lord Justice Leveson, argued for stricterownership rules. The broadcast regulator Ofcom, however, argued against absolute limits onownership and concluded in its regular review, published in November 2012, that the currentsystem did not need any immediate changes. Few commercial news radio stations exist, and thehandful in operation are reportedly struggling financially. The BBC offers a wide range ofregional and local radio stations. There are a number of independent television news channels,including ITV and BSkyB. In 2012, about 87 percent of households in the United Kingdom hadinternet access.United StatesStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 3Political Environment: 10Economic Environment: 5Total Score: 18Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 17,F 18,F 18,F 17,F 18,FMedia freedom remained robust in 2012, a year marked by vibrant if polarized coverage ofelections for president and Congress as well as continuing struggles over journalistic access toinformation related to America’s counterterrorism policies.The United States has one of the world’s strongest systems of legal protection for mediaindependence. The First Amendment of the U.S. constitution provides the core guarantee ofpress freedom and freedom of speech. While those rights have come under pressure at varioustimes in the country’s history, the independent court system has repeatedly issued rulings thatuphold and expand the right of journalists to be free of state control. The courts have also giventhe press broad protection from libel and defamation suits that involve commentary on public397

figures, though libel formally remains a criminal offense in a number of states. The state ofColorado repealed its criminal libel law in 2012.Some 39 states have shield laws that give journalists limited protection from revealingsources or other information gathered in the course of their work. The federal government,however, offers no such protection, and an effort to adopt a federal shield law has effectivelybeen shelved by a combination of congressional inaction and executive opposition. Over the pastdecade, a series of controversies have emerged over efforts by federal prosecutors to obtaintestimony from journalists in high-profile cases, including some in which government workershave been charged with leaking information to the media or lobbyists. Until recently, judgeshave tended to side with prosecutors and have on occasion held journalists in contempt of courtfor refusing to identify sources. While many of the cases were initiated by the JusticeDepartment under President George W. Bush, the administration of President Barack Obama hasproven equally zealous in pursuing government secrecy cases and issuing demands forinformation from reporters. The best-known case during 2012 involved James Risen, a prizewinningNew York Times reporter and author of several books on national security themes. TheJustice Department has sought on three occasions to compel Risen to testify about information hemay have received from Jeffrey Sterling, a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee,in the course of researching a book about American efforts to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.While the Justice Department continued to seek to compel Risen to testify in 2012, its effortswere restricted by a 2011 federal court ruling that reporters are not to be called before grandjuries if the government has not already exhausted other means to gather the information inquestion, or if enough material for indictment has already been obtained. Separately, the JusticeDepartment announced in July 2012 that it would not seek testimony by journalists in theprosecution of John C. Kiriakou, a former intelligence officer accused of leaking classifiedinformation.Another case during the year centered on efforts by award-winning Irish journalist EdMoloney and researcher Anthony McIntyre to keep their sources secret. Moloney and McIntyrehad conducted interviews with former members of the Irish Republican Army militant group foran oral history project at Boston College and promised the interviewees that their contributionswould only be published after their deaths. Nevertheless, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Bostonruled in July 2012 that the interviews must be surrendered to the police. Moloney and McIntyrewere petitioning the Supreme Court to intervene at year’s end.Although it has not yet ensnared journalists, the case of Army private Bradley Manning,who is alleged to have provided hundreds of thousands of classified documents to the antisecrecyorganization WikiLeaks, has drawn considerable attention from civil libertarians, both becauseof the nature of the charges and because of the harsh detention conditions Manning hasreportedly endured while awaiting trial since his 2010 arrest. It remained unclear in 2012whether individuals associated with WikiLeaks would be charged despite the group’s claim to bethe equivalent of a media organization.In November 2012, proposed antileak measures were dropped from an intelligenceauthorization bill after protests from press freedom organizations and civil libertarians. Amongother provisions, the bill would have forced many former government employees to wait oneyear before providing analysis or commentary for the media, prohibited intelligence communityofficials from speaking to the media about unclassified issues, and given intelligence agenciesthe authority to strip pension benefits from any employee or former employee that theydetermine to have been responsible for an unauthorized disclosure.398

The United States adopted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in 1966. While theadministration of President George W. Bush had a somewhat restrictive attitude toward therelease of classified documents, the Obama administration announced a more expansiveinterpretation of the law in 2009, when the attorney general declared that records should bereleased to the public unless doing so would violate another law or cause foreseeable harm toprotected interests, including personal privacy and national security. Critics have complainedthat approximately half of federal government agencies have yet to comply with Obama’sexecutive order and that fulfillment of FOIA requests can take months or even years. The Obamaadministration has also drawn criticism for policies that discourage journalistic access to federalofficials. The president holds fewer press conferences than his predecessors and often usesinterviews with friendly media to present his perspective to the public. Journalists have alsocomplained of an environment in which officials are less likely to discuss policy issues withreporters than during previous administrations.Since the terrorist attacks of 2001, the courts have been asked to adjudicate a number ofrequests by journalists or civil liberties organizations who seek access to information related tocounterterrorism. In April 2012, a federal court denied a request by Judicial Watch for access tophotographs that showed terrorist leader Osama bin Laden’s body after he was killed during a2011 raid by American special forces. The federal judiciary has also been asked to rule onreporters’ access to the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, where over 100 detaineesassociated with counterterrorism efforts or the war in Afghanistan are held.Official regulation of media content in the United States is minimal, and there are noindustry-wide self-regulatory bodies. By law, radio and television airwaves are considered publicproperty and are leased to private stations, which determine content. The FederalCommunications Commission (FCC) is charged with administering licenses and reviewingcontent to ensure that it complies with federal limits on indecent or offensive material interrestrial broadcasts. While the judiciary has declined to issue a broad ruling on the FCC’sauthority to regulate indecency on the airwaves, recent decisions have chipped away at theagency’s power. The Supreme Court ruled against FCC restrictions in two cases in 2012, oneinvolving fleeting expletives during awards shows and another involving partial nudity in apolice drama.Although the government does not restrict political or social engagement over theinternet, there are laws banning or regulating promulgation of child-abuse images, exposure ofminors to indecent content, dissemination of confidential information, online gambling, and theuse of copyrighted material. The search-engine giant Google reported that requests fromgovernment entities at the local, state, and federal levels for removal of content had risen steadilyin recent years, including in 2012. Two proposed laws—the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) andthe PROTECT IP Act (PIPA)—that would have allowed the government to order the blocking ofentire websites if they contained copyrighted material without authorization were withdrawn inJanuary after internet companies and advocates of internet freedom staged a series of virtualprotests, including blackouts by a number of frequently-used sites.Controversy has emerged in recent years over cases involving bloggers and other newmedia workers who claim the status, protections, and rights of journalists. Police departments inNew York City and elsewhere denied formal journalist status to some new media practitionerswho applied for accreditation to cover the Occupy protests in 2011. The debate continued inJanuary 2012, when several journalists were arrested while covering the clashes between policeand Occupy protesters in Oakland, California. Those without what the police accepted as official399

accreditation were briefly held in custody. In another case in February, filmmaker Josh Fox wasarrested on Capitol Hill for covering a congressional subcommittee hearing withoutaccreditation. The hearing was open to the public, and congressional aides were able to recordimages without repercussions.Media coverage of political affairs is aggressive and increasingly partisan. The pressitself is frequently a source of contention, with conservatives and liberals alike accusing themedia of bias. The appearance of enhanced polarization is driven to some degree by the growinginfluence of all-news cable television channels and blogs, many of which are aggressivelypartisan. The popularity of talk-radio shows, whose hosts are primarily conservative, has alsoplayed an important role in media polarization. Nonetheless, most U.S. newspapers make aserious effort to keep a wall of separation between news reporting, commentary, and editorials.The trend toward fewer family-owned newspapers and more newspapers under corporate controlhas contributed to a less partisan, if blander, editorial tone. In December 2012, a noteworthycontroversy emerged after a newspaper in suburban New York published the names andaddresses of area residents who held permits to own handguns. The paper was subsequentlyinundated by protests and complaints, including some threats of violence. In recent years, therehave been few physical attacks on reporters in reprisal for their work, although journalistscovering the Occupy protests were repeatedly subject to arrest and detention in 2011 and early2012.Media in the United States are overwhelmingly under private ownership. Nevertheless,National Public Radio (NPR) and television’s Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which arefunded by a combination of government allocations and private contributions, enjoy substantialaudiences. Public broadcasting is periodically criticized by conservative Republican Partylegislators for an alleged liberal bias, and there have been efforts to eliminate or greatly reducegovernment funding for NPR and PBS. Meanwhile, Qatar’s internationally popular satellitetelevision network Al-Jazeera English (AJE), which previously had difficulty breaking into theU.S. market due to a political stigma dating to the Bush administration, has found a growingnumber of cable television companies willing to offer the channel to U.S. viewers.Media ownership concentration is an ongoing concern in the United States. The problemhas intensified in recent years following the purchase of media entities by large corporations withno previous experience in journalism. In 2011, the FCC approved the acquisition of NBCUniversal, including the NBC television network, by Comcast, a major cable provider. Amongthe terms of approval, the FCC stipulated that Comcast’s cable offerings could not favor contentgenerated by its own media entities over that produced by other companies. The FCC regularlyconsiders policies that would ease restrictions on a single corporation’s ownership of bothtelevision stations and newspapers in a single local market, and in recent years the trend in FCCrulings has been toward a loosening of such restrictions.Traditional media, including print and broadcast outlets, have suffered financially fromthe increasing popularity of the internet as a news source. The newspaper industry in the UnitedStates is undergoing a period of profound decline and readjustment. There are an estimated 1,400daily newspapers geared primarily toward local readerships, but even the largest and mostprestigious papers have faced falling circulations and advertising revenues and been forced to cutstaff over the past decade. A few newspapers have dropped print editions entirely, and otherspublish only a few times a week, concentrating their resources on online editions. Financialweakness has particularly affected outlets’ ability to conduct investigative reporting and coverforeign news. More recently, coverage of local news by television stations in some medium-400

sized cities has been affected by economic problems. The result in some areas has been a sharingof resources, including journalistic staff, among competing stations.The decline in coverage offered by traditional media has been partly offset by the growthof cable television and internet journalism. Approximately 81 percent of Americans used theinternet in 2012. In 2010, for the first time, Americans who identified their primary source ofnews as the internet outnumbered those who relied most on newspapers. The number andinfluence of websites and blogs have grown rapidly over the past decade, and more recently,social-media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have gained prominence as a means ofbreaking news and mobilizing public opinion on political and policy issues. Indeed, a survey bythe Pew Research Center found that the internet was the third most frequently used source fornews about the 2012 presidential campaign, trailing only cable news networks and localtelevision news, and far exceeding newspapers.UruguayStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 8Political Environment: 10Economic Environment: 8Total Score: 26Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 30,F 26,F 25,F 25,F 26,FThe 1967 constitution provides for press freedom and freedom of expression, and thegovernment generally respects these rights. Uruguay’s legal framework for the media isconsidered one of the best in the Americas, with effective community media regulations andlaws protecting access to information. However, some statutes continue to present obstacles tojournalists.Laws protecting the privacy of children may be overzealously applied. In September2012, the Institute for Children and Adolescents (INAU), an executive branch agency, placed alien on the facilities of the newspaper El Heraldo in the city of Florida and fined it $5,300 forviolating the Childhood and Adolescence Code. The code purports to protect minors’ right toprivacy and, as of 2006, moved sanctioning power for infractions from the courts to INAU itself,meaning penalties can be imposed without judicial review, according to the Inter American PressAssociation. At issue in the El Heraldo case was a 2008 article that mentioned the nickname of aminor who had been charged with murder and several armed robberies. Officials at INAUclaimed that the article identified the youth, who allegedly had been involved in gang activity.The newspaper’s editor said it would no longer write about minors and accused the governmentof seeking to quash negative news.An initiative to decriminalize defamation in 2009 was left incomplete, and reportersremain vulnerable to prosecution. Articles about “dirty war” crimes by officials duringUruguay’s right-wing dictatorship (1973–1985) still occasionally prompt reprisals againstjournalists. In March 2012, lawyers for Juan Carlos Larcebeau, a naval officer charged withhuman rights violations from that period, petitioned to bring criminal defamation charges against401

investigative journalist Roger Rodríguez of the newsmagazine Caras y Caretas. Rodríguez hadreceived anonymous threats via social media in 2011 for his reporting on dictatorship-era humanrights abuse accusations against armed forces members. The 2012 case involved an article inwhich Rodríguez allegedly misidentified one of the defendant’s lawyers and misrepresented thedefense’s legal strategy. The defamation petition remained unresolved at year’s end.The Ministry of Interior has classified nearly all of its work under a national securityexemption contained in the Access to Public Information Law. Several other ministries alsodeclare portions of their work to be exempt from disclosure obligations, though to a lesser extent.Thirty-one journalists were killed or disappeared during the Uruguayan dirty war, and in2012 the courts made some progress on investigations into the crimes. In March, former policeofficer Juan Ricardo Zabala was tried on charges that he acted as an accomplice in the militaryorderedmurder of journalist and labor activist Julio Castro, whose remains were discovered onmilitary property in 2011. Zabala admitted kidnapping Castro in 1977 and said his jailers decidedto execute the journalist after his health declined rapidly during torture. The discovery ofCastro’s remains had convinced President José Mújica to revoke a controversial amnesty law,allowing the case to be investigated and charges to be filed. Zabala faces 15 to 30 years in prisonif convicted.The press is privately owned, and Uruguay hosts more than 100 daily and weeklynewspapers. There are no government restrictions on internet use, and penetration is high relativeto the rest of Latin America, with about 55 percent of the population accessing the medium in2012. The broadcast sector is mostly private, with the exceptions of the state-owned televisionstation and radio outlet. Ownership of commercial free-to-air and subscription television stationsis concentrated in three companies, but community media and nongovernmental advocates ofmedia diversity are highly organized in Uruguay and have put ownership concentration on thepolitical agenda. In March, Mújica issued a preliminary decree that will allot the country’s digitaltelevision spectrum in a pluralistic manner. Commercial, public, and community broadcasterswill each receive about a third of the frequencies. The initial decree stated that while currentcommercial operators would keep analog channels and be awarded a digital channel, theirproposals would be discussed in public hearings and subject to review by a government boardmade up of government, commercial, and nonprofit representatives. However, in the final decreepublished in December, the president rejected the recommendations of his nongovernmentaladvisers and removed incumbent commercial operators from the public hearing and reviewrequirements. The World Association of Community Radio Operators (AMARC) also accusedthe president of effectively extending commercial concessions to 25 years, since only a cursoryreview would be held to renew the concessions after 15 years.UzbekistanStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 30Political Environment: 37Economic Environment: 28Total Score: 95Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012402

Total Score, Status 92,NF 93,NF 92,NF 94,NF 95,NFUzbekistan’s legal framework ostensibly prohibits censorship and guarantees freedom of speechand the right to independent information. In practice, such protections are systematically ignoredby President Islam Karimov’s autocratic government, which exerts near-total control over themedia. Convictions for libel and defamation can result in fines and jail time, and public insult ofthe president is punishable by up to five years in prison. Journalists can also face legal penaltiesfor “interference in internal affairs” and “insulting the dignity of citizens.” Uzbekistan has anaccess to information law on the books, but it is not enforced. The parliament, the Organizationfor Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and the Uzbek National Association ofElectronic Media held a conference in Samarkand in October 2012 to discuss several proposedmedia laws, including one regarding freedom of information and another on broadcasting.However, no legislative action was taken on those proposals during 2012. Journalists workingfor unaccredited foreign outlets or unregistered domestic outlets are not legally recognized asjournalists and risk persecution by the government.The few remaining independent journalists in Uzbekistan continue to face pressure fromKarimov’s regime. In March 2012, investigative journalist Viktor Krymzalov was convicted ofdefamation and fined $1,350 over an article concerning a pensioner’s eviction that had beenpublished without a byline on the independent Russian-language news website Centrasia.ru.Krymzalov, who had previously written critically about Uzbekistan’s judiciary, denied writingthe Centrasia.ru article. Yelena Bondar, another independent journalist, was found guilty in Aprilof “promoting national, racial, ethnic, or religious hatred” and ordered to pay a fine of more than$2,000. She was punished despite having decided not to publish the article in question, whichinvolved alleged government harassment of ethnic Russians at a university. She subsequentlyfled to Kyrgyzstan, where she has sought asylum. In July, independent journalists Sid Yanyshevand Pavel Kravets were arrested as they were taking photographs of a market in Tashkent, thecapital, and were interrogated by police before being released hours later. The prosecutor’s officein Tashkent in September called for an investigation into the incident, but no further details aboutsuch a probe have been reported.Virtually all local media outlets are linked directly or indirectly to the state, and theNational Security Service actively manipulates reports to present a carefully constructed imageof the country, with occasional forays into limited criticism of local corruption. Widespread selfcensorshipis a serious problem, as investigative journalists fear reprisals in the form ofharassment, loss of employment, or jail time.The state-run Center for Monitoring Mass Communications monitors internet usage inUzbekistan, reporting to a government committee with the authority to block websites that aredeemed inappropriate. In May 2012, an investigation by a Swedish news program found that theSwedish telecommunications giant TeliaSonera had sold sophisticated surveillance equipment toUzbek authorities, as well as to authorities in several other Central Asian and Eastern Europeannations. According to the report, the equipment allowed those governments to monitor onlineand telephone communications and had been used against journalists and political dissidents.Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) reported in February that a clone website had beenset up to mirror its Uzbek service, in what analysts said might have been a scheme to identifyand monitor the service’s users. The cloned site was shut down after RFE/RL reported on itsexistence. The 2012 launch of YouFace, an Uzbek alternative to the social-networking websiteFacebook, also raised concerns about government surveillance.403

In July 2012, Uzbek state television aired a documentary that portrayed socialnetworkingwebsites including Facebook and Russia’s Odnoklassniki as “weapons of outsideforces.” The Uzbek-language version of Wikipedia was blocked by Uzbek authorities early in theyear. The blogging website LiveJournal was temporarily blocked twice in the spring, whileWordPress, a similar blogging platform used by a number of Uzbek dissidents living abroad,remains inaccessible in Uzbekistan. Several foreign-based news services, including the Uzbekversions of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), RFE/RL, and Voice of America, arealso blocked by authorities. In October, Uztelecom, the national internet service provider,blocked certain circumvention tools that had allowed users in Uzbekistan to bypass statecensorship. Approximately 37 percent of the population used the internet in 2012.Foreign media have been gradually expelled since the 2005 Andijon massacre, in whichgovernment troops killed hundreds of demonstrators, straining Uzbekistan’s relations withdemocratic countries. In separate incidents in March 2012, authorities deported two journalists—BBC correspondent Natalya Antelava and Russian photojournalist Viktoriya Ivleva—withoutexplanation following their arrival at the airport in Tashkent.Uzbekistan is among the world’s most prolific jailers of journalists. In 2012, Uzbekauthorities continued to detain four journalists for political reasons: Muhammad Bekjanov andYusuf Ruzimuradov of the opposition newspaper Erk, imprisoned since March 1999; SalijonAbdurakhmanov of the independent news website Uznews, imprisoned since June 2008; andfreelance journalist Dilmurod Saiid, imprisoned since February 2009. Bekjanov was due to bereleased in January 2012, but a court sentenced him to an additional five years in prison based onquestionable allegations that he had broken prison rules. Erk has been banned in Uzbekistan, andwhile Uznews remains active, its editor now operates from Germany. Separately, independentjournalist Jamshid Karimov, who is the president’s nephew, went missing in mid-January. Hehad been held against his will in a psychiatric clinic between 2007 and 2011, and hisdisappearance prompted concerns that he might have been detained again.According to the government, there are 663 active newspapers in Uzbekistan, as well as195 magazines, 13 periodical bulletins, 35 radio stations, and 53 television stations. Ownershipof nonstate media outlets is opaque, though journalists report that there is not a great publicdemand to know who owns various private outlets, as they all generally report the same versionof the news. The government controls most publishing houses and printing presses. A number ofregional and local television and radio stations are privately owned, and a few private printingpresses produce independent publications that avoid politically sensitive topics and have limitedcirculation. Low pay within Uzbekistan’s media industry encourages journalists to accept bribes.VanuatuStatus: FreeLegal Environment: 6Political Environment: 11Economic Environment: 8Total Score: 25Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 23,F 23,F 23,F 25,F 26,F404

VenezuelaStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 27Political Environment: 29Economic Environment: 20Total Score: 76Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 74,NF 73,NF 75,NF 76,NF 76,NFPress freedom in Venezuela continued to be undermined by the policies of President HugoChávez’s government in 2012. His administration has hampered opposition-oriented mediaoutlets by restricting the content of reporting, enforcing arbitrary licensing requirements, andexcluding private media from access to public information. Journalists are routinely intimidatedand harassed by government officials. While Venezuelans continue to have exposure to a varietyof opinions and a lively debate on public affairs—most notably through cable television, socialmedia, and newspapers—the availability and impartiality of such information has been underthreat.Article 57 of Venezuela’s 1999 Constitution guarantees freedom of expression andexpressly prohibits censorship of any kind. However, the legal environment for the press remainspoor. The 2004 Law on Social Responsibility in Radio, Television, and Electronic Media(Resorte Law), amended in 2010, contains vaguely worded restrictions that can be used toseverely limit freedom of expression. For example, the law bans content that could “incite orpromote hatred,” “foment citizens’ anxiety or alter public order,” “disrespect authorities,”“encourage assassination,” or “constitute war propaganda.” It also restricts content that thegovernment deems to be of an adult nature—including news stories that cover sexual or violenttopics, in a country with one of the world’s highest homicide rates—to the hours between 11p.m. and 5 a.m. Consequently, many broadcasters are forced to present a watered-down versionof national and international news during the hours when most viewers tune in. In addition, thelaw requires all broadcasters to air live government broadcasts (known as cadenas), which cancome at random and supersede regular programming. The law empowers the VenezuelanNational Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL) to oversee enforcement and permits itto impose heavy fines or disrupt service at its discretion. In 2011, CONATEL levied a $2.16million fine against Globovisión, Venezuela’s last remaining opposition television network, overwhat CONATEL deemed to be “excessive” coverage of a prison riot “that promoted hatred andintolerance for political reasons.” The fine, which was ratified by the Supreme Court in June2012, represented 7.5 percent of the company’s gross 2010 income. Globovisión paid the fineafter the Supreme Court ordered the company’s assets seized. Separately, in March, after Chávezaccused the press of “media terrorism” in reporting on possible water contamination in the centerof the country, courts barred the media from covering the story unless they could base it on a“truthful technical report backed by a competent institution.”Other legal statutes remain problematic for Venezuela’s press. Article 58 of theconstitution guarantees Venezuelans’ right to “timely, truthful, and impartial information,” andArticle 51 confirms their right to obtain public information by petition. However, there is nocomprehensive statutory law facilitating information requests, and a study by the Venezuelan405

press watchdog Espacio Público in 2009 found that nearly 70 percent of such requests wentunanswered by the authorities, a situation that has reportedly not improved in recent years.Reforms to the country’s penal code in 2005 extended the scope of defamation as a criminaloffense; when directed at the president it can result in a prison term of up to 30 months.The Venezuelan judicial system remains highly politicized at all levels, and judges mayface reprisals for ruling against the government. As a result, journalists and opposition-orientedmedia outlets cannot count on impartial adjudication of their cases. It is expected thatVenezuela’s announced withdrawal from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights(IACHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, to be completed by 2013, will have anegative effect on journalists’ rights. The commission and court were often a last resort forreporters facing attacks or censorship.CONATEL retains broad powers to suspend or revoke licenses at its discretion. In recentyears, this authority has largely been levied against opposition broadcasters. In addition to thelarge fine against Globovisión, CONATEL has opened seven separate investigations into theoutlet since 2010, all of which remained in arbitration as of the end of 2012. The most notoriouscase of abuse by CONATEL was that of RCTV, once Venezuela’s most popular anti-Chávezbroadcaster, which had its free-to-air license suspended in 2007. After moving to cable televisionas RCTV International, the station was once again pulled from the airwaves by CONATEL in2010 for alleged problems with its certification. The agency also refused to renew the licenses of32 radio stations, largely aligned with the opposition, in 2009.These actions by CONATEL are reported to have encouraged self-censorship in themedia. According to a source cited in a July 2012 Human Rights Watch report, fear ofgovernment reprisals leads to “journalists thinking two, three, five times [about] what will besaid, who will be interviewed, and how the interview will be conducted.” As a result, criticalnews and policy issues such as crime, inflation, the economy, prison conditions, and Chávez’shealth went underreported during 2012.In the face of government harassment, many critical voices have migrated fromtraditional media to social media to avoid censorship. Although a 2010 amendment to theResorte Law permitted CONATEL to monitor internet activity, the body has so far not utilizedthis provision.Politicization of the press is an ongoing issue in the country, with both state media andopposition-aligned outlets frequently offering highly partisan content. In addition to its legalattacks, the government has restricted the opposition media’s access to presidential events, pressconferences, and public figures. Journalists from Globovisión have reported being shut out ofofficial press conferences and are only able to access certain information through colleagues orthe foreign press. Politicization proved especially sharp in 2012 due to the October presidentialelection, in which Chávez faced his strongest challenge since 1999 from a young and charismaticopposition governor, Henrique Capriles Radonski. However, the government fully exploited itsinfluence over press conditions in order to muster support for the Chávez campaign. Thisincluded a large increase in government propaganda in state media, a boost in spending on stateadvertising in the press, and abuse of the cadenas on television, including one that preemptedtelevision coverage of an opposition rally.Murders of journalists are relatively rare in Venezuela, and no journalists were killed inthe country in 2012. However, according to Espacio Público, attacks that threatened freedom ofexpression increased by 22 percent compared with 2011. Such attacks included harassment,assault, equipment confiscation, forced deletion of coverage, and death threats. Espacio Público406

found that 61 percent of these incidents were perpetrated by the government. In an especiallyegregious episode in March, armed members of Chávez’s United Socialist Party of Venezuela(PSUV) attacked a Globovisión camera crew at a Capriles rally after firing at Capriles and hissupporters. The PSUV partisans forced the reporters to surrender footage that had captured theshooting. Opposition supporters, for their part, were involved in several attacks on journalistsfrom state-run media outlets during the campaign. The election period was also marked byattacks on media offices, with at least five regional newspaper offices suffering drive-byshootings or bombings. In a bizarre episode in May, officials accused a crossword-puzzle writerof plotting to assassinate Chávez’s brother Adán after one of his puzzles included the words“kill,” “bursts of gunfire,” and “Adán.”In recent years, journalists have experienced an increasing number of cyberattacks. TheVenezuelan hacker group N33, which penetrated the e-mail and social-media accounts of variousgovernment critics in 2011, remained active in 2012, even as the group denied that it took ordersfrom the government. Journalists report that the hackers hijack their social-media accounts topost progovernment messages and use the personal information they obtain to make threats.Journalists who criticize the government also report experiencing online harassment after beingsingled out by figures in state-run media. In March, cartoonist Rayma Suprani faced insults anddeath threats on the Twitter microblogging platform after being accused of “spreading hatred” byMario Silva, the host of a talk show on state-run television.The Venezuelan government officially controls six television networks, four radiostations, a news agency, three newspapers, and a magazine. The government’s presence in themedia has grown over the years, and outlets that are owned or financially supported by the stateserve as reliable advocates for its official agenda. The government-run outlets operate alongsidea number of privately owned and often opposition-oriented television and radio broadcasters.Venezuela’s leading newspapers are privately owned, and although some avoid critical coverageor politically sensitive topics, many openly air their opposition to the government. However,their distribution remains limited, with the three largest papers having a total circulation ofaround 600,000 in a country of 29 million. Critical private media have little access to stateadvertising, and the government has also used state enterprises to weaken companies thatadvertise in opposition media. Other forms of state pressure include increases in the price ofnewsprint, distribution blockages, and lengthy investigations or audits of critical media.Community media, bolstered by significant government support, are flourishing acrossthe country, bringing increased participation to segments of the population that traditionally didnot have access to the dominant private media outlets. In 2012 there were 265 community mediaoutlets in operation. However, they lack sufficient autonomy to determine content and are oftendependent on state funding to stay afloat, meaning they generally carry messages that arefavorable to the government. Authorities have discouraged international support for communitymedia through nongovernmental organizations. An investigation by Espacio Público found that50 percent of all Venezuelan media outlets are progovernment, while 25 percent identify with theopposition.In 2012, 44 percent of the Venezuelan population had access to the internet. The numberof users of social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter continues to grow rapidly, andVenezuelans are among the most active users of social-networking sites in Latin America.Vietnam407

Status: Not FreeLegal Environment: 29Political Environment: 33Economic Environment: 22Total Score: 84Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 82,NF 83,NF 82,NF 83,NF 84,NFVietnam remained one of Asia’s harshest environments for the press in 2012. Authoritiescontinued to employ both legal attacks and physical harassment to punish and intimidatejournalists critical of the government, led by the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV). Theinternet remains one of the few spaces for dissent, though crackdowns on both high-profile andmore obscure outlets have sent a chill through the blogosphere. However, the presence of somepublic discussion in state-owned media and online blogs on constitutional and land reform ispromising.Although the 1992 constitution recognizes freedom of expression, the criminal codeprohibits speech that is critical of the government. The definition of such speech is vaguelyworded and broadly interpreted. The propaganda and training departments of the CPV control allmedia and set press guidelines. The government frequently levies charges under Article 88 of thecriminal code, which prohibits the dissemination of “antigovernment propaganda,” as well asArticle 79, a broad ban on activities aimed at “overthrowing the state.” Reacting to increasinglyvibrant reporting by both the traditional and internet-based news media, the government issued adecree in 2006 that defined over 2,000 additional violations of the law in the areas of culture andinformation, with a particular focus on protecting “national security.” In January 2011, PrimeMinister Nguyễn Tấn Dũng signed Decree No. 2, Sanctions for Administrative Violations inJournalism and Publishing, restricting the use of pseudonyms and anonymous sources andexcluding bloggers from press freedom protections. During 2012, the government was reportedlydrafting a Decree on the Management, Provision, Use of Internet Services and Internet ContentOnline. Designed to prohibit anonymity and “abuse” of the internet, it prompted concerns overincreased legal mechanisms to criminalize dissent.The judiciary is not independent. Individuals are held for months or longer in pretrialdetention and are sometimes not released after completing their sentences. Many trials related tofree expression last only a few hours. In August 2012, a Đăk Nông provincial court sentencednetizen Đinh Đăng Định to six years in prison for articles critical of corruption and bauxitemining. Also that month, Lê Thanh Tùng of the activist group Bloc 8406 was sentenced in a onehourtrial in Hanoi to five years imprisonment for articles calling for multiparty democracy. InSeptember, a Ho Chi Minh City court convicted popular bloggers and founders of the FreeJournalists Club Nguyễn Văn Hải, Tạ Phong Tần, and Phan Thanh Hải of antigovernmentpropaganda. Nguyễn Văn Hải, who writes under the name “Điếu Cày,” was sentenced to 12years in prison for reporting on anti-Chinese protests. He has remained in prison, held largelyincommunicado, since completing a previous sentence in October 2010 for trumped-up chargesof tax evasion. Tạ Phong Tần was sentenced to 10 years and Phan Thanh Hải to 4. With 14netizens imprisoned at year’s end, Vietnam has one of the largest numbers of bloggers behindbars worldwide.408

The CPV generally views the media as a tool for the dissemination of party and statepolicy. Calls for democratic reform and religious freedom, land rights, and criticism of relationswith China are the issues most commonly targeted for official censorship or retribution.Provincial-level media enjoy slightly more room to report on local issues and have recentlyprovided increased coverage of land laws and constitutional reforms. In the past, journalists haveoccasionally been permitted to report on corruption at the local level, as it serves the interests ofthe party’s national anticorruption platform. However, in September a Ho Chi Minh City courtsentenced well-known Tuồi Trẻ corruption reporter Nguyễn Văn Khương to four years in prisonfor bribing a police officer as part of an undercover investigation.Censorship of online content is increasingly common. Internet service providers (ISPs)are legally required to block access to websites that are considered politically unacceptable, andin 2008, the Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC) formed an agency to monitorthe internet and blogosphere. In September 2012, Prime Minister Dũng issued an executive orderto investigate antigovernment blog Dân Làm Báo and two other online outlets. Though thegovernment has denied using cyberattacks to monitor and prevent dissident activity, maliciousprograms attached to downloadable Vietnamese-language software and distributed denial-ofservice(DDoS) attacks, which overwhelm servers and websites with traffic, frequently targetpolitically sensitive websites.Police often use violence, intimidation, and raids of homes and offices to silencejournalists who report on sensitive topics. Police severely beat state-run Voice of Vietnam(VOV) journalists Nguyễn Ngọc Năm and Hán Phi Long in April 2012 while the two werecovering protests of mass evictions in Hưng Yên province. Numerous reports of plainclothespolice harassing the families of imprisoned journalists and preventing bloggers’ family membersfrom attending trials surfaced throughout the year. Several bloggers were detained at, orprevented from accessing, anti-China protests in July and December. Foreign reporters have beendenied entry into the country after reporting on politically sensitive topics. The government didpass a promising decree on October 23, however, which expands visa permissions for foreignjournalists and allows for the first time foreign press agencies to establish a presence outsideHanoi, the capital.Almost all print media outlets are owned or controlled by the CPV, governmentinstitutions, or the army. Several of these newspapers—including Thanh Niên, Người Lao Động,and Tuồi Trẻ (owned by the CPV Youth Union)—have attempted to become financially selfsustaining.Along with the popular online news site VietnamNet, they have a fair degree ofeditorial independence, though ultimately they are subject to the CPV’s supervision. Severalunderground publications have been launched in recent years, including Tổ Quốc, whichcontinues to circulate despite harassment of staff members, and Tự Do Ngôn Luận, whose editor,Father Nguyễn Văn Lý, is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence. Radio is controlled bythe VOV or other state entities. State-owned Vietnam Television (VTV) is the only nationaltelevision provider, although cable services do carry some foreign channels. Many homes andlocal businesses in urban areas have satellite dishes, allowing them to access foreignprogramming. In 2011, Decision 20/2011 came into effect, requiring all foreign news, education,and information television content to be translated into Vietnamese and censored by the MICbefore airing. International periodicals, though widely available, are sometimes censored. TheVietnamese-language services of the British Broadcasting Corporation, Voice of America, andRadio Free Asia are also blocked intermittently.409

Approximately 40 percent of the population accessed the internet in 2012, with the vastmajority utilizing internet cafés and other public providers. Website operators continue to useISPs that are either wholly or partly state-owned. The largest is Vietnam Data Communications,which is controlled by the state-owned Vietnam Posts and Telecommunications Group andserves nearly a third of all internet users. Rising internet penetration has created opportunities fordiscussion and debate about salient public issues, including land rights and environmentalconcerns. This has posed problems for the CPV, which seeks to promote new technology whilerestricting online criticism.West Bank and GazaStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 28Political Environment: 34Economic Environment: 22Total Score: 84Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 84,NF 86,NF 84,NF 83,NF 83,NFPress freedom in the Palestinian territories continues to be restricted by ongoing violence and byabuses at the hands of three different governing authorities: the Fatah-controlled PalestinianAuthority (PA) in the West Bank, the Hamas-led government in the Gaza Strip, and the IsraelDefense Forces (IDF), which occupy parts of the West Bank and engage in intermittenthostilities with Hamas. Three media workers were killed in November 2012 by Israeliairstrikes—making 2012 the deadliest for journalists in the Palestinian territories since 2009—and scores more faced harassment, detentions, assaults, and restrictions on their freedom toreport throughout the year.The Palestinian basic law and the 1995 Press and Publication Law provide for freedom ofthe press and freedom to establish media outlets, and state that there should be no censorship.However, restrictions are allowed if press activity threatens “national unity” and “Palestinianvalues.” This vague terminology gives authorities ample leeway to impede journalistic activitythrough legal means, including by bringing criminal libel charges. In the West Bank, the PAMinistry of Information regulates all television and radio licenses. Following its 2007 takeoverof Gaza, Hamas introduced a new system of accreditation under which all outlets and journalistsare required to register with the authorities.West Bank and Gaza authorities have banned broadcast outlets and newspapersassociated with Hamas and Fatah, respectively. In early 2012, eight websites critical of the PAand its president, Mahmoud Abbas, were blocked in the West Bank; however, the bans werelifted in May under orders from Abbas. There were some reported instances of the PA, Hamas,and Israeli authorities monitoring e-mail activity and internet chat rooms.According to a 2012 report by the Palestinian Center for Development and MediaFreedoms (MADA), physical attacks, arrests, detentions, and confiscation of equipment by bothPalestinian governments accounted for 31 percent of all press freedom violations in 2012, withIsraeli forces accounting for the remainder. The cumulative pressure has driven many journalists410

to practice self-censorship. Security services from both Palestinian authorities cracked down onjournalists covering street demonstrations in 2012, with the situation somewhat worse in Gazathan in the West Bank. In June, several journalists were attacked by PA security personnel whileattempting to cover a demonstration in Ramallah to protest a meeting between Israeli DeputyPrime Minister Shaul Mofaz and Abbas.In 2012, MADA reported multiple instances of journalists in Gaza being beaten,threatened, and detained during Hamas crackdowns on demonstrations in support of Palestiniannational unity. Security forces continued to intimidate bloggers and other social-media activistswho were critical of the Hamas government. In February, Saher al-Aqraa, editor of the newswebsite Al-Shoa’lah, was arrested and reportedly interrogated and tortured for allegedlycollaborating with the West Bank PA. Al-Aqraa was again assaulted, detained, and tortured inAugust by Hamas security officials. He was forced to shut down his website after Hamas beganto intimidate his family. In March, Hamas security forces beat journalist Yousef Basher Hammadwhile he attempted to cover a police assault on youths near Beit Hanoun. In September, Ismailal-Badah, a cameraman for the television news channel Palestine Today, was assaulted byHamas security officials while filming a house fire. Although al-Badah complied with theofficials’ request to stop filming, he was nonetheless beaten and subsequently interrogated.Israeli security policies and military activities also continued to restrict Palestinian mediafreedom in 2012. Israeli forces harassed and detained reporters during the year, and wererepeatedly accused by local and international media advocacy organizations of targetingjournalists with assaults and arbitrary detentions. Soldiers routinely fired tear gas, rubber bullets,and stun grenades at journalists covering events throughout the West Bank, and occasionallyfired live ammunition as well. Soldiers confiscated journalists’ equipment on a number ofoccasions in 2012. As with the PA in the West Bank, Israeli troops often target Hamas-affiliatedpress outlets and journalists. In February, the IDF raided the headquarters of two televisionstations in Ramallah: Watan and Al-Quds Educational. They seized broadcasting and technicalequipment, halting the operations of both stations. Israeli officials claimed that the two outletswere using unauthorized broadcasting frequencies. In November, during an eight-day militaryoffensive in Gaza named Operation Pillar of Defense, the IDF bombed the Al-Shawa Wa HassriTower and other buildings in Gaza City where media outlets associated with or sympathetic toHamas were housed. At least three journalists were killed and several more were injured in thestrikes.Freedom of movement for journalists is restricted by the Israeli checkpoint system, whichrequires military permission for passage into Israeli territory and often hinders travel within theWest Bank. In addition, the IDF has increasingly curbed coverage of regular protests near theIsraeli security barrier in the West Bank by declaring such areas “closed military zones.” InDecember 2012, four Palestinian journalists, including two working for Reuters, were stopped ata checkpoint in Hebron, physically assaulted, and forced to strip and kneel on the ground. Afterconfiscating their gas masks and a video camera, the IDF members allegedly fired tear gas at thejournalists.There are three daily West Bank Palestinian newspapers: Al-Hayat al-Jadidah, which iscompletely funded by the Fatah-controlled PA; Al-Ayyam, which is partially funded by the PA;and Al-Quds, a privately owned paper based in Jerusalem that is subject to Israeli militarycensorship. Distribution of these papers in Gaza was alternately banned by the Hamasgovernment or blocked by Israeli authorities beginning in 2008, but the latest ban, by Hamas,411

was lifted in January 2012. Distribution of pro-Hamas newspapers Al-Risala and Filistin in theWest Bank remained banned.There are approximately 45 privately owned television stations, and the PA funds theofficial Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation (PBC), which is under the direct control of Abbas.The PA has closed down Al-Aqsa TV offices in the West Bank towns of Ramallah, Jenin, andTulkarm. PBC transmissions have been blocked in Gaza since the Hamas takeover in 2007,while the Voice of the People radio station, run by the Popular Front for the Liberation ofPalestine, is generally allowed to operate but occasionally blocked. The Israeli military hasutilized coercive tactics to restrict broadcasting by stations deemed to be advocating terrorism oraffiliated with Hamas. Foreign broadcasts are generally available.About 58 percent of the population in the Palestinian territories accessed the internet in2012, according to Internet World Stats, and its use is generally not subject to restriction.YemenStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 25Political Environment: 31Economic Environment: 23Total Score: 79Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 78,NF 79,NF 80,NF 83,NF 83,NFWhile the 33-year rule of President Ali Abdullah Saleh ended in February 2012, many of therepressive actions against journalists that were perpetrated under his regime continuedthroughout the year. Journalists and media workers faced attacks, intimidation, and harassmentby government security forces, tribal groups, and loyalists of the outgoing president. Lawscircumscribing press freedoms and special courts designed to prosecute journalists remained inplace under the new president, Abdu Rabu Mansur Hadi. However, Yemen took a step towardgreater media freedom in April, when the parliament approved a freedom of information law.The constitution allows for freedom of expression “within the limits of the law,” and therelevant laws are restrictive. The Press and Publications Law of 1990 requires journalists touphold “national unity” and adhere to the “goals of the Yemeni revolution.” Article 103 banscriticism of the head of state and defamation of “the image of Yemeni, Arab, or Islamicheritage.” Article 104 prescribes fines and up to one year in prison for violations. Calls to repealproblematic portions of the 1990 law have so far been ignored by the new government.A new draft Press and Publications Law and a repressive draft Audiovisual andElectronic Media Law remained pending in the parliament in 2012. The former would expandthe prohibition on insults to the president to include leaders of allied states, among otherrestrictions. The latter would subject electronic media and online news sources to the sameconstraints as in the Press and Publications Law. It would also impose prohibitive licensing feeson private broadcasters and internet media outlets.Two specialized courts, established in direct contravention of the constitution, areregularly employed to prosecute journalists. The Specialized Criminal Court, established in 1999412

to handle cases of national security, targets both the government’s political opponents andjournalists, while the Specialized Press and Publications Court (SPPC), established in 2009, triescases related to the media. Judges at the SPPC may choose from a variety of laws, including thepenal code, to punish journalists, and the prosecutor can refer cases to the court at his discretion.Charges against Al-Ayyam editor Hisham Bashraheel were dropped after his death from anillness in June 2012. The trial of several other Al-Ayyam journalists, including Bashraheel’s twosons, Hani and Mohammed, continued in the specialized tribunal. The proceedings, derided as a“farce” by media watchdog organizations, stem from a 2009 government raid on the Aden-basednewspaper, which authorities subsequently shut down. The charges against Bashraheel and hiscodefendants included “inciting violence,” “instigating separatism,” and “forming an armedgang.” Prior to its closure, Al-Ayyam was Yemen’s largest-circulation daily and was often criticalof the president; it had been reporting on the secessionist movement in the south of the country.In 2011, the Specialized Criminal Court convicted journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye ofterrorism and sentenced him to five years in prison. His case underscored the dangers Yemenijournalists face when covering sensitive topics such as corruption and terrorism. Shaye wasconvicted after reporting on U.S. responsibility for military strikes that killed civilians. His arrestalso came after he conducted an interview with Anwar al-Awlaki, a well-known Al-Qaedaoperative in Yemen, for Qatar’s Al-Jazeera television network in 2009. Although Saleh wasreportedly prepared to pardon Shaye shortly after his conviction, he remained in prison at the endof 2012 due to pressure from the U.S. government.In a related development, the trial of two Yemeni journalists working for Al-Jazeeracontinued in 2012. Ahmed al-Shalafi and Hamdi al-Bukari were charged with “operating outsidethe bounds of the law,” having covered antigovernment demonstrations in 2011 after Al-Jazeera’s accreditation had been revoked. The Ministry of Information had decided to drop thecharges in 2011, but the SPPC later opted to proceed with the case.In June 2012, Yemen finalized a freedom of information law that had been passed by theparliament in April, becoming just the second Arab country, after Jordan, to enact suchlegislation. Freedom of information advocacy groups rated the law highly, although the qualityof implementation had yet to be seen.Yemeni news outlets and journalists must obtain licenses annually from the Ministry ofInformation, and printing houses must maintain a registry of printed materials and submit copiesto the ministry. New television stations and news websites have sprung up in the wake of the2011 uprising. Most offer news that is slanted to match the views of the person or organizationthat owns them, and employees feel pressure to adhere to specific editorial agendas. Accordingto the Freedom Foundation, a Sanaa-based media and human rights organization, at least ninenewspapers’ press runs were confiscated for some period of time in 2012. Not all of theconfiscations were conducted by government agencies; some were carried out by local politicalgroups. Self-censorship is common, and journalists know not to cover “red-line” topics such asrebel movements in the north and south of the country. The government controls editorial policyon these issues at state-owned outlets, but Yemenis who can afford it have access to satellitenews channels, which have covered both conflicts with greater freedom.The authorities sometimes interfere with internet access. In 2011, for example, thegovernment blocked access to Skype, the popular online telecommunications tool, after itdiscovered that journalists were using the service to conduct interviews; the site continued to beblocked in 2012. Al-Hawyah, an online opposition newspaper that was shut down in 2009 forallegedly supporting terrorism, was able to resume publishing in early 2012. Despite such413

incidents, individuals are free to create websites, and a growing number of blogs carry diverseand independent views.No journalists were murdered in 2012, an improvement over 2011, when two were killed.However, media workers continued to be harassed, beaten, and detained during the year. TheFreedom Foundation documented 263 violations against media personnel, including attacks,arrests, abductions, confiscation of newspapers, and attempted murder. Mohamed al-Maqaleh, aprominent investigative journalist who writes frequently about Yemen’s tribal factions, wasattacked in April by armed tribesmen while visiting the defense minister’s house in Sanaa. Alsoin April, Anwar al-Bahri, an editor for the state-run news agency Saba, was beaten in his home inSanaa by men identified as members of an influential tribe, and Wael al-Absi, a photographercovering a protest in Taiz for the news website Al-Eshtiraki, was beaten by security forces. InMay, Hissam Ashour, a journalist with Al-Nada who had previously written about corruption,survived an attempt on his life.The government controls most news outlets, including the country’s 4 terrestrialtelevision stations and 12 radio stations, which are operated by the Yemen General Corporationfor Radio and Television. Two new private radio stations, the first ever in Yemen, wereestablished in 2012. At least 10 private television stations broadcast into Yemen from outside thecountry, increasing the diversity of news coverage available to residents. Only a handful ofnewspapers provide independent views. The state also controls distribution outlets andadvertising, undermining the ability of the press to operate without economic pressure.Due to low literacy rates, most Yemenis still get their news from television and radio, butsocial-networking sites have been gaining popularity, according to a 2012 report issued by theDoha Centre for Media Freedom. In 2012, more than 17 percent of the population had access tothe internet, though poor infrastructure makes connections unreliable. The government owns thecountry’s two internet service providers. While news websites often operate with a small budget,the internet has also given some newspapers greater reach. The English weekly Yemen Post hasreported receiving more than 60,000 visits to its website per day, far exceeding its printcirculation.ZambiaStatus: Partly FreeLegal Environment: 17Political Environment: 24Economic Environment: 19Total Score: 60Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 64,NF 65,NF 64,NF 61,NF 60,PFAfter several years of threats to press freedom under President Rupiah Banda and the long-rulingMovement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD), the September 2011 presidential election victoryof opposition Patriotic Front (PF) leader Michael Sata prompted hope for openings in the mediaenvironment. However, the PF government has generally failed to fulfill its promises to advance414

press freedom, and has targeted critical journalists and outlets with numerous legal and otheractions.The constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but the relevant language can be broadlyinterpreted. Journalists and media outlets face restrictions under criminal and civil defamationlaws, sedition and obscenity laws, and provisions of the penal code such as the Official SecretsAct and the State Security Act. In 2012, Sata demonstrated intolerance of criticism and soughtredress through the courts. In one prominent case, the president in May filed a defamation ofcharacter lawsuit against the leader of the opposition United Party for National Development(UPND), Hakainde Hichilema, for issuing a press release that accused Sata of corruption. Thedefamation suit also included editors of two critical publications, Lloyd Himaambo of the onlinenewspaper Zambian Watchdog and Richard Sakala of the newspaper Daily Nation, for printingstories about the press release. The two outlets faced several similar lawsuits during the year.A freedom of information bill that had been shelved by previous administrations receivedsupport from the new government in 2011. Although the government continued to pledge that itwould pass such legislation in 2012, no bill had been put forward by year’s end. In a separatesetback for media access to government information, Sata held no official press conferencesduring 2012.The 2010 Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (Amendment) Act allows theinformation minister to select the corporation’s board without first receiving nominations froman appointments committee. However, the selections must be ratified by the parliament. Theboard is tasked with choosing the head of the state-owned Zambia National BroadcastingCorporation (ZNBC). The new government has vowed to reintroduce the appointmentscommittee. Nevertheless, Information Minister Fackson Shamenda unilaterally named economistChibamba Kanyama as the director general of ZNBC in March 2012, four months before theparliament received a list of board members for approval. The 2002 Independent BroadcastingAuthority (IBA) Act was modified in 2010, granting the information minister similar powers ofdirect appointment for the IBA, the broadcast media regulator. However, by the end of 2012 theIBA had yet to be established, and no new board members had been appointed.In October 2012, Zambia’s registrar of societies threatened to deregister the ZambianWatchdog, which is hosted outside Zambia, for allegedly failing to submit a postal address andpay required fees.The issue of media regulation had been contentious under the Banda government, as theMMD made repeated threats to impose statutory regulation. A consortium of groups within theindustry made progress on self-regulation in 2010, agreeing to establish a voluntary, independentZambia Media Ethics Council (ZAMEC) and drafting a code of ethics that the proposed councilwould enforce. However, under Banda, ZAMEC’s launch was repeatedly postponed, and theparticipation of public media workers was prohibited. In a positive step under the newadministration, ZAMEC was officially launched in July 2012 with the full participation of thepublic media, which employ an estimated two-thirds of Zambia’s media workers.Upon taking power, the Sata government pledged to free the public media—consisting ofthe ZNBC and the widely circulated dailies Zambia Daily Mail and Times of Zambia—fromgovernment control. Throughout 2012, the government made pronouncements that the publicmedia had been depoliticized. However, according to reports by media monitoring groups, theseoutlets have generally continued to report along progovernment lines, and their journalistscontinued to practice self-censorship. The only other major daily is the privately owned Post,415

which has long been a vocal supporter of the PF and a critic of the MMD. As a result, all majorprint publications now favor the government.Intimidation and physical harassment of journalists occurs occasionally, and perpetratorsinclude members and supporters of both the ruling party and the opposition. In April 2012, threeMMD supporters received three-year prison sentences with hard labor for assaulting a crew fromindependent Muvi TV and stealing their equipment in 2011. In May, the Zambian Watchdogclaimed that its website was the target of distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks. In July,Defense Minister Godfrey Mwamba said the PF government would “sort out” the ZambianWatchdog in response to its highly critical reporting. In August, UPND politician William Bandaattempted to strangle Muvi TV cameraman Lloyd Kapusa outside a police station in Lusaka. Thecase was later settled out of court. In September, a group of PF supporters attacked aphotojournalist from the Post who attempted to photograph them while they were helping policebreak up an opposition rally in Lusaka. In October, party cadres from the UPND attacked aZNBC reporter and camera operator who were at Lusaka’s police headquarters to conduct aninterview with a police official. The cadres, who accused the journalists of bias against theUPND, threw stones and bricks at them and issued death threats until they took refuge insidepolice headquarters.Political actors’ intolerance of independent voices also extended to civil society. InSeptember, the PF youth chairman for Copperbelt Province, Kabwe Chanda, accused the Zambiachapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) of becoming politicized. MISA deniedthe accusation, noting that it had supported the PF’s efforts to disseminate its views while inopposition.In 2011, the Banda government had cracked down on media coverage of a growingseparatist movement in Barotseland, in western Zambia. In one incident, security forces closedlocal station Radio Lyambai and confiscated its equipment after it aired an advertisement for abanned secessionist meeting. Radio Lyambai was subsequently allowed to reopen. However, inApril 2012, authorities warned that its coverage of a March separatist council meeting wastreasonous.There are three daily newspapers with wide circulation: the Zambia Daily Mail, the Timesof Zambia, and the Post. Several smaller independent papers, such as the Daily Nation, alsopublish. The ZNBC is the primary broadcast outlet covering domestic news. A growing numberof private radio stations, including dozens of community radio stations, operate freely, as do fourprivate television stations. International broadcast services are not restricted. Some local privatestations, including Radio Phoenix and SkyFM, carry call-in shows that express diverse andcritical viewpoints. In August 2012, the government issued 10 full licenses and 16 constructionlicenses to new radio and television stations.Also in August, the permanent secretary for information and broadcasting, AmosMalupenga, threatened to revoke the licenses of outlets that attacked the government’sreputation. In September, the Zambia Information and Communication Technology Authorityreduced the transmission strength of University of Zambia (UNZA) Radio from 1,000 watts to260 watts, effectively limiting its reach to the campus itself. The station had previously airedinterviews with opposition figures. The move sparked protests by university students.Radio remains the medium of choice in most of the country because of its relatively lowcost of access, but many stations face financial difficulties due to their dependence on sponsoredprogramming and the small advertising market. Reception of both state and private televisionsignals throughout the country remains poor. The costs of newsprint and ink (including high416

import duties and taxes), printing, and distribution remain very high, hampering print outlets’ability to increase their readership. The government sometimes uses advertising as a tool toinfluence media content and coverage. Only 13 percent of the population accessed the internet in2012 due to high costs.ZimbabweStatus: Not FreeLegal Environment: 25Political Environment: 26Economic Environment: 26Total Score: 77Survey Edition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Total Score, Status 89,NF 88,NF 84,NF 81,NF 80,NFPress freedom in Zimbabwe remained restricted in 2012, as promised reforms to liberalize thelegal and regulatory environment after years of authoritarian abuse were stalled by PresidentRobert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe African National Union–Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) party, whichwas entrenched in the executive branch and continued to exercise control over the nominallyinclusive government of national unity formed in 2009. Legal harassment and attempts to extendregulatory controls over journalists, particularly those who work for the few independent printmedia outlets, were still primary concerns. Nevertheless, positive changes during the yearincluded a decline a physical attacks and a modest increase in media diversity and viewpoints asa result of new private radio stations.Despite constitutional provisions for freedom of expression, a draconian legal frameworkcontinues to inhibit the activities of journalists and media outlets. The 2002 Access toInformation and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) requires all journalists and media companiesto register and gives the information minister sweeping powers to decide which publications canoperate legally and who is able to work as a journalist. Unlicensed journalists can face criminalcharges and a sentence of up to two years in prison. In addition, the Official Secrets Act, thePublic Order and Security Act (POSA), and the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Actseverely limit what journalists may publish and mandate harsh penalties—including long prisonsentences—for violators. The 2007 Interception of Communications Act allows officials tointercept telephonic and electronic communications and to monitor their content to prevent a“serious offense” or a “threat to national security.”Authorities continued to exploit these laws to harass and punish journalists in 2012.Criminal defamation charges filed in July 2011 against Nevanji Madanhire, editor of the weeklyStandard, and two other staff members at the paper remained in limbo throughout 2012, pendinga Supreme Court decision on the case. Meanwhile, a number of politicians from all parties andother prominent figures continued to file defamation cases against journalists, under either thecriminal code or civil laws, demanding exorbitant amounts in damages. Although many cases aredismissed by the courts, charges can remain pending for months, leading to hardships for thejournalists involved.417

In a positive development, the draft constitution currently under consideration containsexplicit provisions for media freedom and access to information, as well as source protection, butit had not been adopted by year’s end. Other proposed legislation to reform the media sector wascriticized by local stakeholders as an insufficient improvement on the extremely restrictive legalframework currently in place.The new Zimbabwe Media Commission (ZMC), mandated in 2008 as part of the powersharingGlobal Political Agreement (GPA) between ZANU-PF and the two factions of theopposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), is tasked with regulating the licensing ofpublications and journalists. It was finally formed in February 2010 and proceeded to license fivenew publications in May of that year, including several independent dailies. In September 2012,the ZMC announced the creation of the 13-member Zimbabwe Media Council as provided forunder AIPPA. The council is to develop codes of conduct for print media and has the power toimpose punishments on media houses that transgress the codes. Meanwhile, the independentVoluntary Media Council of Zimbabwe (VMCZ), a self-regulatory body covering all types ofmedia that is supported by a majority of print outlets, continued to develop its scope of activities,hearing several dozen formal complaints throughout the year and adjudicating a number of otherdisputes regarding media content. The potential for competition between these dual regulatoryframeworks raised concern among local analysts.Broadcasting licenses have been consistently denied to independent and community radiostations, despite the fact that liberalization of the airwaves was also mandated by the GPA.Critics allege that the board of the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ), which isresponsible for granting radio and television licenses, was illegally appointed in 2009 by theinformation minister and stacked with ZANU-PF loyalists. Calls for the BAZ to be reconstitutedhad not been resolved by the end of 2012. Meanwhile, after issuing an invitation for radio licenseapplications and receiving 15 submissions, the BAZ awarded two national commercial licensesto companies aligned with the ruling party in November 2011, in a process that was deemedopaque and politically biased. The decision faced a legal challenge in 2012 by two of the rejectedapplicants.Journalists faced verbal intimidation, physical attacks, arbitrary arrest and detention,interception of communications, and financial pressure at the hands of the police, governmentofficials, and supporters of ZANU-PF during the year. Many were harassed while attempting tocover news events or sensitive political issues such as the constitutional reform process,parliamentary hearings, or abuses at diamond mines. In March 2012, four journalists werearrested in Mutare while attempting to cover a story on local pollution, and in October, the editorof the Daily News and his deputy were temporarily detained after publishing a story concerning aprominent businessman. Media offices were also targeted during the year. The offices ofAfromedia, a Harare-based news production company, were raided by police in September; atleast 10 staff members were temporarily detained, and equipment was confiscated. Professionaland media-monitoring organizations such as the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists, the MediaMonitoring Project of Zimbabwe (MMPZ), and the local chapter of the Media Institute ofSouthern Africa (MISA) are also subject to official harassment. Legal charges that were filedagainst three MMPZ employees in December 2011, stemming from their distribution of DVDs,were reduced in January 2012.Faced with legal restrictions as well as the threat of extralegal intimidation, manyjournalists practice extensive self-censorship, particularly regarding stories on corruption orfactional fighting within ZANU-PF. During the past decade, dozens of Zimbabwean journalists418

have fled the country, mostly to South Africa and Britain. According to the Committee to ProtectJournalists, Zimbabwe has one of the largest numbers of exiled journalists in the world.Foreign journalists can encounter restrictions on residing full-time in the country and aresometimes denied visas to file stories from Zimbabwe. Locally based correspondents for foreignpublications have also been refused accreditation or threatened with lawsuits and deportation.Steep accreditation fees introduced in January 2011 for foreign media bureaus and their localcorrespondents remain in place. In April 2012, police detained and then deported freelancephotojournalist Robin Hammond after he tried to cover the issue of Zimbabwean migration toSouth Africa.The government, through the Mass Media Trust holding company, controls the two maindaily newspapers, the Chronicle and the Herald, whose propagandistic coverage favors Mugabeand ZANU-PF. The private Alpha Media Holdings group publishes a number of the country’sindependent papers, including NewsDay, the Standard, and the Zimbabwe Independent. TheDaily News, published by Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe, resumed operations in 2011after being shuttered in 2003 and is generally aligned with MDC viewpoints. The Zimbabwean isproduced in South Africa for the Zimbabwean market, and some foreign newspapers, most ofthem also from South Africa, are available. However, in early 2012, the ZMC issued a directivebanning distribution of unregistered foreign newspapers.Newspapers typically have poor distribution networks outside urban areas, and they havebeen buffeted by soaring prices for newsprint in recent years. Vendors and distributors ofindependent newspapers are occasionally harassed by soldiers or ruling party supporters. InMarch 2012, the Daily News was “banned” from circulating in parts of Mashonaland EastProvince. According to MISA’s African Media Barometer, state-run companies do not advertisein private papers, and state-run media outlets do not accept advertising from companies thoughtto be aligned with the opposition. Owing to poor economic conditions and salaries that do notkeep pace with inflation, journalistic corruption and cash incentives for coverage have becomerampant.The state-controlled Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) runs the vast majorityof broadcast media, which are subject to overt political interference and censorship. ZBCcoverage, particularly before and during elections, overwhelmingly favors ZANU-PF. During2012, two new privately run radio stations, Star FM and ZiFM, commenced operation. Despiteconcerns over their owners’ close ties with ZANU-PF, local analysts noted that the stations’news and talk-radio content initially presented a diversity of views. The Broadcasting ServicesAct bans foreign funding and investment in this capital-intensive sector, making it very difficultfor private players to enter the market. Radio broadcasts are currently the predominant source ofinformation in rural areas. However, access to broadcast media in these districts is hampered bydeteriorating equipment and a lack of transmission sites, although the government has reached anagreement with China to help upgrade transmission infrastructure. Official attempts to broadlyjam the signals of popular foreign-based radio stations that broadcast into Zimbabwe—includingSW Radio Africa, a station run by exiled Zimbabwean journalists in London; the Voice ofAmerica’s Studio 7 service; and the Voice of the People—have decreased in recent years,although local authorities have on occasion raided homes in rural areas and confiscated theshortwave radios used to access these broadcasts. Satellite television services that provideinternational and regional news programming remain largely uncensored and are being accessedby a rapidly growing share of the population thanks to new technology such as free-to-air419

decoders. It is estimated that approximately 60 percent of the population now have satellitedishes.Access to the internet is limited by the high costs at internet cafés and service disruptionscaused by frequent power outages. Nonetheless, Zimbabwe has a relatively high rate of internetpenetration for Africa, at 17 percent of the population in 2012. Online newspapers, news portals,and blogs run by Zimbabweans living abroad are popular among those with internet access, anddiaspora media also distribute news and information via mobile-telephone text messaging.420

FOTP 2013 Full Report

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?