Index relies entirely on the support of donors and readers to do its work.
Help us keep amplifying censored voices today.
We, the undersigned, reaffirm our support for press freedom and a free media that is able to operate without coercion by, or interference from, government – and call on the United States to protect all reporters and media workers employed by the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), many of whom face significant personal risk in reporting on and from highly repressive regimes.
For more than 80 years, USAGM entities, which include Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), have played a vital role in reaching audiences living under authoritarian governments, empowering free expression in some of the world’s most dangerous reporting environments. Eliminating these organisations is a significant blow to press freedom – and a gift to autocrats worldwide. Journalists for VOA, RFE/RL, and other affiliates are frequently targeted by authorities in highly censored or dangerous countries.
A 14 March executive order issued by President Donald J Trump called for USAGM to be “eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law” as part of ongoing efforts to reduce “the elements of the Federal bureaucracy that the President has determined are unnecessary.”
USAGM is a US federal agency whose mandate is drawn from several laws. It oversees broadcast entities including VOA, RFE/RL, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks.
Under US law, the editorial operations of USAGM entities are separate from the government to protect editorial independence.
It is vital that Congress protect USAGM, ensure the safety of its affiliate journalists, and reaffirm the US government’s commitment to a free and independent media at home and abroad.
Signed by–
• Committee to Protect Journalists
• Association for International Broadcasting
• Reporters Without Borders
• Public Media Alliance
• The Press Freedom Center at the National Press Club
• Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism
• The Bureau of Investigative Journalism
• International Press Institute
• Forbidden Stories
• Radio Television Digital News Association
• PEN America
• The European Federation of Journalists
• Nieman Foundation for Journalism
• Pulitzer Center
• World Association of News Publishers (WAN-IFRA)
• National Press Photographers Association
• Society of Professional Journalists
• Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
• Freedom of the Press Foundation
• Association of Foreign Press Correspondents
• Center for Democracy & Technology
• Index on Censorship
• Free Press
• Global Investigative Journalism Network
• Global Reporting Centre
• International Women’s Media Foundation
• European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
• Association of European Journalists – Bulgaria
Gavin Hood directed the 2006 Best Foreign Language Academy Award winning film Tsotsi, based on the acclaimed novel by South Africa’s greatest playwright, the late Athol Fugard. Hood only met Fugard once but the writer’s influence on him has been deep and profound. Index on Censorship asked Hood to offer his personal thoughts on the impact of the legendary artist on his own life and work.
“Decency. You know the word, Tsotsi? Decency? I had a little bit of it, so I was sick. And that big one tonight, with the tie… he had a lot. So, he’s dead.”
It’s 2004. Actor Mothusi Magano, playing self-loathing, guilt-ridden drunk Boston, spits the slurred words at Presley Chweneyagae, the lead in a film I’m directing based on Athol Fugard’s haunting, redemptive masterpiece, Tsotsi. Boston is sickened by his participation in the murder of a dignified older man, stabbed just an hour earlier for nothing more than a few notes in his wallet.
Chweneyagae, chillingly silent, rocks back and forth ever so slightly, an unstoppable rage building behind his hooded eyes. He suddenly launches a vicious attack on Boston, who, like Fugard, just won’t stop talking about human dignity and compassion, even in the face of brutality.
Tsotsi is Fugard’s only novel. He is celebrated around the world as South Africa’s greatest ever playwright – and that is how I first encountered him. It was 1977. I was 13 years old, and attending a privileged, all-white, private boys’ school, when my parents took me to see The Island at The Market Theatre in downtown Johannesburg.
Fugard wrote the explosive two-handed epic in collaboration with his Tony Award winning stars, the legendary South African actors John Kani and Winston Ntshona. Less than a year earlier, the two actors had been jailed for their performance in another Fugard play, Sizwe Banzi is Dead, which the apartheid authorities claimed contained “inflammable, abusive and vulgar subject matter”.
Bluntly, I had never seen Black actors performing in a theatre before. I think my mother, who was a high-school English, French and History teacher, had heard that The Island referenced Sophocles’ tragedy Antigone, because I vaguely recall her outlining the plot of that play and saying she understood that The Island would also be about defying repressive authority.
Despite the heads up, I was hardly prepared for the raw, visceral power of a tale of human dignity and resistance by two prisoners rehearsing Antigone on a prison island that was clearly a stand in for Robben Island, where the world’s most famous political prisoner Nelson Mandela had been held since 1964.
Through the turbulent 1980s, I studied law at The University of the Witwatersrand. From the relative safety of my liberal white status, I worked at the Wits law clinic, briefly representing a few impoverished clients; I attended my fair share of student protests, got teargassed, and even got arrested once, just for an afternoon for attending a banned Winnie Mandela gathering on campus; I wrote a newspaper article questioning the neutrality of a newly appointed Chief Justice – which got me an unsettling call ominously declaring, “You must be careful what you write” – and I performed in a number of not too controversial theatre productions.
But through all those confounding formative years – marred by state violence I only ever experienced tangentially – I attended every Fugard play that came to The Market Theatre, from Hello and Goodbye to The Road to Mecca to Master Harold… and the Boys. I marvelled at how his intimate, tightly coiled works spoke so bravely and elegantly about the personal moral dilemmas, regrets, and reconciliations of ordinary, imperfect people living under a soul-crushing system. His art gnawed at my conscience while, at the same time, expressing an unyielding optimism and hope.
I completed my degree, worked briefly for a commercial law firm, left to pursue a career as a professional actor and then, in mid-1989, facing a rising risk of being called up to join a military camp to serve in the townships that were quite literally on fire, I secured a student visa to study screenwriting and directing at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and left South Africa for the USA.
Unbelievably, just a few months later, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the defeat of the “Rooi Gevaar” (the “Red Communist Danger”) British and American support for the apartheid regime evaporated and by 1994 I was back in the New South Africa, now led by President Mandela, working for the new Department of Health on HIV / AIDS educational dramas for television.
Fugard was still writing plays, and I was once again watching productions like Valley Song at theatres like The Baxter in Cape Town.
Fast forward to 2000 when, after some minor successes at festivals with a short film ironically starring Fugard’s long-time collaborator Winston Ntshona, and a low-budget first feature, I was asked by producer Peter Fudakowski if I might consider adapting Fugard’s novel, Tsotsi. “Have you read it?” he asked. “Years ago,” I said – which was true!
I read it again immediately. The book is very internally focused, with the emotional and moral conflicts of its title character mostly conveyed through moving inner monologues, which are notoriously difficult to translate into the visual medium of film.
I called Fudakowski back and reluctantly said a screen adaptation would likely require me to take some liberties with the plot and structure – and I was not at all sure how Fugard might feel about that.
Fudakowski called Fugard’s agent. Would he be willing to discuss the adaptation with Gavin and perhaps collaborate with him through the process?
“No,” came Fugard’s blunt reply through his agent a day later. “Athol is a playwright. He tried making a film once and he didn’t enjoy the process. He wishes you only the best and, when the film is complete, he’d love to see it – before it’s released. If he likes it, he’ll say so. If not, he will keep silent, and the critics will say whatever they say.”
I was shaken. It’s not unusual for those who love a book to loathe a film adaptation. Often rightly. What if Fugard hated the film? “What if the critics hate the film?” Fudakowski replied – and decided to hire me anyway.
Cut to five long years later and the film is finally complete. I have just dropped off a print (back then the cinemas still screened reels of film!) and I am sitting with my wife, Nerissa, in a coffee shop a block away from a small art house cinema in San Diego. We are waiting for a call from the projectionist to tell us that Fugard has arrived for a private screening.
The phone rings. He has arrived, with his poet and novelist wife, Sheila Meiring Fugard, and close friend Marianne McDonald, distinguished professor of theatre and classics at University of California, San Diego (UCSD). They are settling in. The screening will be over in approximately 90 minutes.
I push my coffee aside. My stomach acid is already surging, and my heart is pounding. Fugard’s agent has said Fugard has my cell number. If he likes the film, he will call me after the screening. If he doesn’t, I should please be discreet and allow him to leave without a meeting.
Okay. We wait. I don’t recall what Nerissa and I talked about to kill the time but finally my phone rings. “Unknown caller”. I answer – and a thick, sonorous South African accent fills my ear.
“Gavin, where are you? You must come for dinner! I know a great South African chef right here in San Diego. He will deliver to Marianne’s house. It’s not far. Lamb chops, boerewors, babotie, pap, chakalaka, whatever you like. We must talk. Where are you?”
“I’m a block away,” I say, still not sure if his enthusiasm means he liked the film.
“No man, come, get over here. I loved it! You made changes, I know. But thank you for staying true to the spirit of Tsotsi. That young actor, Presley, he’s extraordinary. They all are. The whole cast. Can you come for dinner?”
And so, I finally meet Athol Fugard.
Nerissa and I went for dinner at Marianne’s beautiful home – an old stone-walled monastery. I recall a huge spread on a very long kitchen table. And Fugard talking and talking and pacing around the room with a chop in one hand, never sitting down, asking a million questions about where we’d filmed and how we’d found such wonderful actors, and the challenges of novel writing, playwriting and screenwriting, and saying how the entire crew had done us all proud.
Yes, it is true that in adapting Tsotsi for the screen I took liberties to interpret emotional shifts through action and non-verbal cues. I also updated the time period from 1950s apartheid South Africa to what was then present day in the new South Africa. I did so to reflect the deep scars inflicted by the system through segregation, forced removals and so-called “Bantu education”, which will take decades to heal from. But the core story, the central themes of redemption and the uniquely original principal characters are all Fugard’s, not mine. It is his generous spirit, his cry for basic human decency and compassion toward our fellow human beings that infuses the film.
Athol, I am forever grateful for the privilege of bringing your beautiful novel to the screen. Thank you for your timeless inspiration – your courage in confronting injustice with moral clarity, and your unwavering human decency. Rest well, sir.
Less than a year after I joined Index in 2017, Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was murdered. Of all the words that come to mind when reflecting on Caruana Galizia – both in life and in death – “impunity” stands out most vividly. Perhaps it was a warning of things to come. Impunity is alive and well today. As the rules-based global order strains, criminals are no longer merely walking free, they are walking the halls of power. But this week, justice finally caught up with one of them: Rodrigo Duterte, former president of the Philippines. On Tuesday, he was arrested by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and flown to The Hague.
Duterte was also on my radar when I arrived at Index. He became president in 2016 and held office until 2022. He embodied a particular kind of autocrat, one we’ve sadly become all too familiar with: vulgar, brazen, insecure, chaotic, chauvinistic and brutal. During his presidency, Index maintained regular contact with the team at Rappler, the leading news outlet in the Philippines, which Duterte was particularly hostile towards. Miriam Grace A Go, Rappler’s news editor, penned a defiant piece for us in 2018, detailing the harassment journalists faced. They were regularly targeted with threats, described as “paid hacks who deserved to lose their jobs, be jailed, raped, or murdered,” and had to increase their security. A year later, Go wrote of Duterte’s descent into a vicious, power-drunk figure who harboured a pathological and violent hatred for women.
Duterte’s arrest this week stemmed from his so-called “war on drugs,” which is estimated to have left up to 30,000 dead, primarily poor, young men. His brutality extended far beyond this tragic group. In 2020, we honoured one of his victims, the radio journalist Rex Cornelio, in an obituary.
In the nearly three years since Duterte stepped down from the presidency, it looked unlikely that he would ever face accountability. Another case of impunity, it seemed. But Duterte couldn’t resist stoking controversy. In a recent outburst, he called the current president, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., a “drug addict” and a “son of a whore.” Perhaps that expletive-laden broadside was his undoing. The rift between the Duterte and Marcos families ultimately paved the way for the ICC arrest.
This week, there will be no cheers from those who have suffered at Duterte’s hands, or from those of us who witnessed his rule with horror. It would also be premature to proclaim the days of impunity over. Instead, his arrest marks a small ray of light in these otherwise dark times.
Index on Censorship has much in common with Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. We were all established during the Cold War, us in 1972 and RFE and RL in 1950 and 1953 respectively. We were all designed to offer uncensored news and alternative viewpoints to countries behind the Iron Curtain. And we all went beyond the Cold War remit both geographically and chronologically. Index never just covered the USSR, while the Radio Free brand later expanded into newsrooms operating across the globe; none of us closed shop in 1991.
Our shared central mission – to cover oppression whenever it manifested and to centre the voices of those who would otherwise be silenced – has not always been easy or free from controversy. But the attacks never felt existential. Until Donald Trump’s administration.
Building on threats already made to close RFE/RL and Voice of America, which we reported about here, on 14 March the White House issued an Executive Order aimed at “[r]educing the Scope of the Federal Bureaucracy”. Among the agencies impacted was USAGM, which funds RFE/RL, Radio Free Asia and VOA. On 15 March, RFE/RL was notified by the USAGM that its federal grant agreement, which funds its global operations, has been terminated. RFA was similarly notified by USAGM special adviser Kari Lake that its grant had been terminated and that the organisation must “promptly refund any unobligated funds”. The director of VOA, Michael Abramowitz, confirmed that “virtually the entire staff of Voice of America—more than 1300 journalists, producers and support staff—has been placed on administrative leave” as well.
These attacks feel as personal to us as they are political.
The White House published a news article focused on VOA, highlighting the importance of the funding cuts to “ensure that taxpayers are no longer on the hook for radical propaganda”.
The idea that they are “radical propaganda” is rubbish, more double speak from an administration that will argue left means right. The Radio Free outlets and VOA, all of whom are editorially independent from the US government, run huge newsrooms staffed by people trained to the highest standards. They have played a vital role in the global media environment, with their journalists taking great risks to operate in countries that have severely curtailed media freedom, such as Belarus, Myanmar, China, North Korea and Russia.
Abramowitz said VOA provides “objective and balanced news and information, especially for those living under tyranny”, while RFA President and CEO Bay Fang has described the move as “a reward to dictators and despots” and one that “benefits America’s adversaries at our own expense”. Renew Europe, a group of European MEPs, warned that these cuts could “leave a void that could be exploited by authoritarian regimes seeking to suppress free speech and control narratives.” We can only agree. Several autocrats have already welcomed the move.
The decision comes as the USAID funding freeze has already endangered public-interest journalism, particularly in Ukraine, where it has supported coverage of Russia’s unlawful invasion and the actions of the Ukrainian government. As Kyiv Independent’s editor Olga Rudenko highlighted, the sudden funding cuts have forced some Ukrainian outlets to slash their budgets by 90%. This crisis extends beyond Ukraine, threatening the entire global media landscape.
So here is our message to all of those who have been impacted: we stand firmly in solidarity with you. In today’s world, where lies are cheap, the brand of journalism that RFE/RL and others champion is not a luxury – it is an essential tool to safeguard democratic accountability. There is a reason these brands outlived the Cold War. It’s now up to all of us to help see them through the Trump years.