Index relies entirely on the support of donors and readers to do its work.
Help us keep amplifying censored voices today.
On almost any day of the year, the headlines concerning attacks on free media around the globe are shocking. Consider the main headlines from a day last week, Friday, April 27 carried on the website of the International Freedom of Expression eXchange http://www.ifex.org, the world’s free expression monitoring network:
Mexico – Murdered journalist had received list of suspects in kidnapping he was investigating
Pakistan – Police in Pakistani Kashmir harass television station employees to force withdrawal of news story
Cambodia – Newspaper editor found dead in suspicious circumstances
Ghana – District official assaults, verbally abuses TV journalists
Uzbekistan – Rights defender sentenced to six years in prison
Zimbabwe – Government plan to revoke all NGO licenses violates free expression rights
This pattern repeats itself in dozens of countries around the world. Add to the list the number of journalists killed in war zones and the stringent control of journalism in many newsrooms, and it’s clear that journalists and media are under heavy attack.
To bring awareness to the number of attacks on free expression, UNESCO sponsors World Press Freedom Day every May 3. Free expression groups are reporting that the number of journalists killed on the job has escalated dramatically in recent years. One organisation, Reporters Without Borders (RSF), based in Paris, says that 81 journalists and 32 media assistants were killed last year. That’s the highest total since 1994, and is due in part to the number killed in Iraq. Another group, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reports there were 134 journalists and 49 Internet journalists in prison. In addition, hundreds of journalists were attacked and beaten, and several newsrooms were bombed.
But does it have to be this way? Are the more than 100 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and media groups that spend in excess of US$15-million a year investigating, monitoring, and trying to ameliorate attacks on journalists and on media freedom doing everything possible to reduce the attacks, killings, and many forms of censorship?
***
In the late 1970s, physical attacks on journalists in the Latin American countries of Argentina, Uruguay, and El Salvador made headlines around the globe. Dozens of journalists were tortured and murdered, sometimes for investigating corruption or drug dealings, but just as often for pursuing stories that would have been considered quite routine in developed countries. As a result of these attacks, a new breed of organisation – the press freedom group – began to spring up in many developed countries to campaign in defence of those being attacked and killed, first in Latin America, then in Africa, and ultimately in other parts of the world. Initially, groups were funded largely by donations from individual journalists and media companies, and later by grants from western governments and foundations, which viewed media protection as a vital component of human rights protection and the development of democracy.
By the late 1980s, about a dozen free expression groups – all located in western countries – were in operation. Although some of these organisations met annually to discuss free expression issues, there was very little cooperation. In fact, rivalries developed. Groups manoeuvered to see which one could develop a particular programme first, or to see who could report on a case first. But the greatest rivalry developed over access to the increasing pot of money available from donors: competition for financial support led to secrecy about activities rather than cooperation on programmes.
In 1992, pressure was exerted on the ever-increasing number of free expression groups to join ranks and work more closely together. While in New York for a United Nations conference on refugees that year, four press freedom organisations individually visited The Ford Foundation, each acting in isolation from the others and asking for funding for their own pet projects. Frustrated by the failure of the groups to work together, the Ford programme officer called a meeting and told the groups that they needed to establish mechanisms that would allow them to carry out fundraising in a more coordinated way and to implement more effective programmes. In this way, the impetus for a more efficient and more effective approach to the world’s free expression issues came not from the free expression community itself, but from a prominent donor.
To their credit, the groups warmed to part of the message coming from Ford. Within a year, agreement was reached to have Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (CJFE) manage the activities of a new network, the International Freedom of Expression eXchange (IFEX) out of Toronto. Twelve groups – all from northern countries – were the first members of the network. (For background and current list of IFEX members see, http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/429/ .) The creation of IFEX led groups to increase their cooperation in some areas, such as the distribution of action alert reports by email, and the creation of a weekly email newsletter that described developments in the free expression community. The Canadians also raised funds to help support new free expression groups that were springing up in many developing countries, thus, for the first time, giving those most directly affected by attacks on their rights an opportunity to play a role in their own defence.
But when IFEX held its second annual meeting it became clear that some of the largest and best-funded members had no interest in empowering their network so that it could help develop collective policies or large-scale campaigns. They wanted individual groups to have all the power. Soon thereafter, three of the original founders of the network – the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), the World Association of Newspapers (WAN) h, and Reporters Without Borders – expressed apprehension that the growth of independent groups in developing countries, as well as IFEX’s overall popularity, would undermine their own interests. The three groups put forward a motion at a Board meeting that any one of the founding members of IFEX would have a veto that would allow them to stop any major change or development in the organisation they disapproved of. The resolution was defeated. Had the veto been approved, support for groups in developing countries would almost certainly have been curtailed, and a weakened IFEX likely would not have survived.
Yet, IFEX not only survived, it flourished. Most significantly, IFEX’s Toronto-based Outreach Programme has helped build and develop more than 40 free expression groups throughout the developing world and the Newly Independent States. The work of IFEX and the more than 100 groups that now exist has substantially increased the profile of free expression around the globe and reaffirmed its status as a vital component of democratic development. There is no doubt that some campaigns by IFEX members, aided by the support of other groups, such as Amnesty International, and the intervention of northern donor governments, resulted in journalists being saved from torture or execution.
Unfortunately, beyond their cooperation in IFEX, there are few examples of high-profile or highly successful activities involving the pooling of resources among press freedom groups. In one cooperative venture through IFEX, where groups maintain their own autonomy, about 15 organisations are pressuring the Tunisian government to allow some degree of press freedom. In other instances, two or three groups will sometimes work together to develop strategies for a particular case, to advance legislation relating to media in a restrictive country, or to conduct a joint mission to investigate conditions in a country and issue a joint report at the conclusion of the project.
But, despite such initiatives, and despite having in the IFEX network the perfect vehicle at their disposal, the free expression community has failed to overcome much of its own narrow interest and has not brought significant change to the status of free expression around the globe. The Ford Foundation’s urging that groups work more closely as a united force has largely gone ignored. The idea of pooling huge resources in the millions of dollars to conduct massive campaigning programmes has never been given serious consideration. All major western groups have clearly demonstrated, and have said openly, that their own activities and programmes are of paramount importance. Old rivalries continue and new ones have developed.
The many journalists working in dangerous and sometimes life-threatening conditions pay the price when the dominant free expression groups continue to focus on the advancement of their own interests. Such a focus frequently results in funds being spent in a questionable manner about the advancement of their own groups, including spending considerable money in questionable manner and in areas that often result in a duplication of effort:
• In countries where journalists are being threatened and killed – for instance, the Philippines, Colombia, or the Democratic Republic of Congo – as many as four to six northern groups carry out their individual activities, generally paying little attention to the similar work of other groups, both northern and local.
• When a serious incident occurs, such as an attack on a journalist, usually in a developing country, as many as six northern groups independently gather information on the case, duplicating effort and wasting resources.
• Although one of the main reasons behind the creation of IFEX was to have it systematically organise and distribute Action Alerts prepared by the many individual groups, perhaps as many as 20 groups continue to distribute their own alerts in addition to having them circulated by IFEX. This is an extra cost and still means that human rights activists may receive as many as a half-dozen alerts on the same case.
• At least five Northern groups cover many of the same cases by publishing their own newsletters and preparing costly annual reports concerning attacks on media.
***
Members of the donor community must accept some responsibility for the fact that there is waste in the free expression community, as well as the fact that there is no well-focused common strategy to stop the killings, attacks, and censorship. Donors can’t agree on priorities among themselves, and this is a major reason why more than 100 free expression groups – mostly with differing objectives – are funded around the globe. An effort to bring together the world’s top 30 or so donors for the media/free expression field in order to develop more common approaches to issues appears to be floundering. A couple of small groups of donors are setting common goals and objectives, but, for the large part, many donors are just as guilty as the free expression and media development groups of working in isolation of other donors.
The amount of money available to the press freedom community increased by leaps and bounds for about a dozen years, but many NGOs now say that funds are shrinking. If there is less money available, an obvious response would be for groups with similar activities to amalgamate and build a more efficient and more powerful machine to defend free expression.
***
No one can say with certainty that there would be improvements in free expression and that fewer journalists would be killed if groups pooled some of their resources and adopted more dynamic campaigning and lobbying techniques. Broad-based, concerted efforts surely cannot be less successful than current practices.
A research project was carried out by the Committee to Protect Journalists last year that shows how ineffective the free expression movement is in helping put the murderers of journalists in jail.
CPJ researched the murders of 580 journalists over a period of 15 years and discovered that about 85 per cent of the journalists’ killers faced neither investigation nor prosecution for their crimes. Moreover, when murders were investigated and some convictions obtained, those behind the killings were brought to justice in only seven per cent of the cases.
This is an important measure, because if only seven per cent of the killers are going to jail, such a small conviction rate does not serve as a deterrent against the killing of more journalists. Faced with such a depressing situation, will the press freedom community adopt some new tactics beyond sending e-mails and the occasional mission to countries to help cut down on the number of killings and serious assaults?
With the exception of Reporters Without Borders, most of the world’s free expression groups seldom adopt activist tactics. Groups sprang out of the journalism and human rights communities, and neither take well to being too impolite or causing a disturbance. But with journalists being jailed and killed at the same rate as 30 years ago, more aggressive tactics would seem to be called for. Depending on the circumstances, a case can be made for civil disobedience such as sit-ins and marches, for economic sanctions against offending countries, and for aggressive litigation.
Collectively, free expression organisations spend hundreds of thousands of dollars annually on researching and documenting threats and attacks that have already occurred. They spend very little on developing pro-active strategies to try to cut down on attacks before they occur. In addition, the lack of cooperation, openness, and trust among groups means that there is no “big picture” strategy with regard to tackling free expression issues.
***
In the first decade of the 21st century, one of the deadliest places for journalists is the Philippines. At least 51 journalists have been murdered in the politically troubled, corrupt country since 2001, when President Gloria Arroyo came to power. (Philippines’ Centre for Media Freedom and Responsibility). Most of the murders are related to investigations of corruption, narcotics, and other illegal activities. The most recent victim was 41-year-old Mark Palacios, who worked for a government-run radio station. Palacios reported on corruption in the police and politics, and the Police Director speculated that he must have “earned the ire of scallywag policemen and politicians”.
Despite the government’s promises and cash rewards, only a handful of the murders carried out in the Philippines have been solved. And what has been the response of the free expression community to the murder of an average of more than eight journalists per year for six years? Amazingly, the large and wealthy organisations have done little beyond meticulously researching the deaths, faxing and emailing protest letters of concern to the government, and occasionally sending missions to the country to report on the situation.
The lives of so many Philippine journalists should be worth a greater effort. Perhaps a more effective response could be an action project model pursued several years ago in the United States. In the 1970s a journalist at the Arizona Republic, Don Bolles, was one of America’s most capable investigative reporters. In the middle of one of his corruption investigations, someone attached six sticks of dynamite to the ignition of his car. Bolles died as a result of the explosion.
During a bizarre string of court proceedings over nearly 15 years three men served time for Bolles’s murder, but many U.S. journalists were not satisfied with the result. Thirty-eight journalists came together in a team effort and spent months in Arizona unearthing organized crime networks. What became known as the Arizona Project produced a series of 23 stories on organised crime and corruption that appeared in many newspapers across the US organised crime in the state was exposed and largely shut down.
The world press freedom movement has the resources and skills to launch an Arizona Project type investigation in the Philippines to expose the many murderers who have never been identified. A special team could include some of the Philippine’s top investigative reporters as well as those from other countries. Because of the complicity of some members of the police in the Philippines, only such a large-scale and fully independent investigation will likely put more of the murderers behind bars. If such a project were to work in the Philippines, then another investigative team could be brought together to work in
another country. The goal, ultimately, would be that anyone, anywhere, who kills a journalist should expect to go to jail.
***
For many years now, there has been discussion in the free expression community, both among donors and free expression groups, about the need to empower the South, to shift programs from the North to communities that are living with the fear and repression generated by killings, intimidation, censorship, and other threats to press freedom. Some progress has been made in this direction, but far too little. (The exceptions are Southern Africa [Media Institute of Southern Africa], and Southeast Asia [Southeast Asian Press Alliance], where strong regional organisations have emerged.) It is time to turn rhetoric into action, and to begin developing meaningful programmes that tackle issues head on – not just documenting and feebly protesting attacks. One wonders if the real power and financial resources were held in Manila instead of New York, Paris and Brussels if eight journalists per year for six years would be killed just like clockwork in the Philippines.
This year’s awards will be presented by Anna Ford, with a keynote speech from Jung Chang, bestselling author of Mao: The Untold Story and Wild Swans.
This year’s panel of judges will include: Mark Kermode, Conor Gearty, Dreda Say Mitchell and Ursula Owen OBE. Nominations are now open in the five categories below – we look forward to hearing from you all.
The Index / Hugo Young Journalism Award
The Bindmans’ Law and Campaigns Award
The Index Whistleblower Award
The Index Film Award
The Index Book Award
Please note that films or books need to have been released in the UK after January 2006, and that the deadline for nominations in these two categories is 26 January 2007. Please e-mail suggested nominations in any of the categories to at Index on Censorship.
Last year’s winners were: The Index / Hugo Young Journalism Award: Sihem Bensedrine, a prominent activist for press freedom in Tunisia; The Index Whistleblowing Award: Huang Jingao; The Index Film Award: <i>Turtles Can Fly, directed by Bahman Ghobadi; The T.R.Fyvel Book Award: Jean Hatzfeld for the books Into the Quick of Life. The Rwandan Genocide: The Survivors Speak and A Time for Machetes. The Rwandan Genocide: The Killers Speak; The Bindmans Law and Campaigning Award: Beatrice Mtetwa, a prominent human rights lawyer who works to defend and protect journalists in Zimbabwe.
[vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content_no_spaces” css_animation=”fadeIn” css=”.vc_custom_1485789205412{padding-top: 250px !important;padding-bottom: 250px !important;background-image: url(https://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/awards2006-logo.jpg?id=83189) !important;background-position: 0 0 !important;background-repeat: repeat !important;}”][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row css=”.vc_custom_1472525914065{margin-top: -150px !important;}”][vc_column][vc_row_inner equal_height=”yes” content_placement=”middle”][vc_column_inner el_class=”awards-inside-desc” width=”1/2″][vc_custom_heading text=”FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AWARDS 2006″ use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship’s Freedom of Expression Awards exist to celebrate individuals or groups who have had a significant impact fighting censorship anywhere in the world.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”83179″ img_size=”460×260″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row css=”.vc_custom_1472608310682{margin-top: 0px !important;margin-bottom: 20px !important;}”][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”WINNERS” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes” css=”.vc_custom_1477036676595{margin-top: 0px !important;}”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][staff name=”Huang Jingao” title=”Whistleblower” color=”#28a7cc” profile_image=”83189″]
Huang Jingao, a local Communist Party official in southern the People´s Republic of China, drew national attention in August 2004 by posting an open letter on a party website complaining that efforts to prosecute corruption had been thwarted by high-level officials. Removed from his post he was sentenced to life in prison in November 2005 after a campaign by party authorities.
[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][staff name=”Beatrice Mtetwa” title=”Bindmans Law and Campaigning Award” color=”#28a7cc” profile_image=”83192″]Beatrice Mtetwa is a prominent media and human rights lawyer, working to defend and protect journalists in Zimbabwe in the face of frequent threats to her safety. Most recently Mtetwa secured the release of journalists Toby Harnden and Julian Simmonds of the London Sunday Telegraph, charged after publishing critical accounts of Zimbabwe’s flawed presidential elections.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][staff name=”Sihem Bensedrine” title=”The Index / Hugo Young Journalism Award” color=”#28a7cc” profile_image=”83193″]Sihem Bensedrine is the editor of the banned magazine Kalima and a prominent activist for press freedom in Tunisia. During the World Summit on Information Society in Tunis in November 2005, Bensedrine helped highlight Tunisia’s restrictions on freedom of expression. She has been jailed for her opinions and faces regular harassment from the Tunisian authorities.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][staff name=”Turtles Can Fly, director Bahman Ghobadi” title=”Index Film Award” color=”#28a7cc” profile_image=”83194″]Turtles Can Fly, director Bahman Ghobadi´s moving tale set in the harsh landscapes of Kurdistan in the days leading up to the US invasion of Iraq, won the Index Film Award. A gang of wily and irreverent children are challenged by the arrival of a brother and sister, refugees whose bodies and souls have been irreparably damaged by the brutality of Saddam Hussein’s regime.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][staff name=”Into The Quick of Life: The Rwandan Genocide: The Survivors Speak and A Time for Machetes: The Rwandan Genocide: The Killers Speak by Jean Hatzfeld.” title=”TR Fyvel Book Award” color=”#28a7cc” profile_image=”83195″]In the late 1990s, French journalist Jean Hatzfeld interviewed survivors of the 1994 Rwandan genocide. In 2000 he returned to interview the men behind one of the most devastating crimes against humanity in recent history.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”JUDGING” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_row_inner el_class=”mw700″][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]
Criteria – Anyone involved in tackling free expression threats – either through journalism, campaigning, the arts or using digital techniques – is eligible for nomination.
Any individual, group or NGO can nominate or self-nominate. There is no cost to apply.
Judges look for courage, creativity and resilience. We shortlist on the basis of those who are deemed to be making the greatest impact in tackling censorship in their chosen area, with a particular focus on topics that are little covered or tackled by others.
Nominees must have had a recognisable impact in the past 12 months.
Where a judge comes from a nominee’s country, or where there is any other potential conflict of interest, the judge will abstain from voting in that category.
Panel – Each year Index recruits an independent panel of judges – leading world voices with diverse expertise across campaigning, journalism, the arts and human rights.
The judges for 2006 were:
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][staff name=”Matthew d’Ancona” title=”Journalist” color=”#28a7cc” profile_image=”83119″]Matthew d’Ancona is Editor of The Spectator. Formerly Deputy Editor of The Sunday Telegraph, and Assistant Editor of The Times, he was named Political Journalist of the Year in the British Press Awards in 2004. He is the co-author of two bestselling books on the origins of Christianity.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][staff name=”Delia Jarrett-Macauley ” title=”Writer and broadcaster” color=”#28a7cc” profile_image=”83117″]Delia Jarrett-Macauley is an academic, writer and broadcaster. As a multi-disciplinary scholar in history, literature and cultural politics, she has devised, taught and examined a range of university courses and is the author of three books. Her first novel Moses, Citizen and Me (Granta) was published in 2005 to critical acclaim.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][staff name=”Mark Kermode” title=”Film Critic” color=”#28a7cc” profile_image=”81669″]Mark Mermode is a film critic, broadcaster and musician. Resident film critic for many BBC programmes such as Radio Five Love and the News Channel, he also frequently contributes to The Culture Show and Newsnight Review. He is contributing editor to Sight & Sound, a regular writer for the Observer. He has a PhD in modern English and American horror fiction, and is a fello of the English and Film Department of Southampton University. He plays the double bass in The Dodge Brothers.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][staff name=”Imran Khan” title=”Barrister” color=”#28a7cc” profile_image=”83118″]Imran Khan specialises in civil rights law. He represented the family of Stephen Lawrence in a case that marked a turning point in the way the police investigate racist crimes. He has spoken and written widely on issues surrounding racism, immigration and anti-terrorism and was named Lawyer of the Year in Britain in 1999.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][staff name=”Conor Gearty” title=”Professor and barrister” color=”#28a7cc” profile_image=”83115″]Conor Gearty is Rausing Director of the Centre for the Study of Human Rights, a practicing barrister and professor of human rights law at the London School of Economics. His latest book is a study of the place of the Human Rights Act in Britain’s constitutional order.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/3″][staff name=”Baroness Lola Young” title=”Author” color=”#28a7cc” profile_image=”83116″]Baroness Lola Young is director of the arts and heritage consultancy Cultural Brokers, and the former Head of Culture at the Greater London Authority. She has written numerous academic essays and articles as well as theatre and film reviews and a book on race, gender and sexuality in cinema.[/staff][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row css=”.vc_custom_1473325552363{margin-top: 0px !important;margin-bottom: 20px !important;padding-top: 0px !important;padding-right: 15px !important;padding-bottom: 0px !important;padding-left: 15px !important;}”][vc_column css=”.vc_custom_1473325567468{margin-top: 0px !important;margin-bottom: 0px !important;padding-top: 0px !important;padding-bottom: 0px !important;}”][awards_gallery_slider name=”GALLERY” images_url=”83121,83122,83123,83124,83125,83126,83127,83128,83129,83130,83131,83132,83133,83134,83135,83136,83137,83138,83139,83140,83141,83142,83143,83144,83145,83146,83147,83148,83149,83150,83151,83152,83153,83154,83155,83156,83157,83158,83159,83160,83161,83162,83163,83164,83165,83166,83167,83168,83169,83170,83171,83172,83173,83174,83175,83176,83177,83178,83179,83180,83181,83182,83183,83184,83185,83186″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
The Index on Censorship /TR Fyvel Book Award
In the late 1990s French Journalist Jean Hatzfeld visited two Rwandan villages and interviewed fourteen survivors of the 1994 massacre. In 2000 Hatzfeld returned to interview ten men who were later put on trial and convicted for their part in the genocide. The findings of the interviews were published in the two books Into The Quick of Life: The Rwandan Genocide: The Survivors Speak and A Time for Machetes: The Killers Speak.
The Index on Censorship Film Award
Turtles Can Fly by Bahman Ghobadi is a thought-provoking film about two refugees in the region of Kurdistan, whose bodies and souls have been irreparably damaged by Saddam Hussein’s brutal legacy.
The Index on Censorship/Hugo Young Award For Journalism
Sihem Bensedrine is editor of the banned and now secretly published (online) magazine Kalima. Throughout her career she has been harassed and intimidated by officials for highlighting Tunisia’s lack of freedom of expression and was once briefly imprisoned for discussing corruption in an interview for a London-based TV station. On 15 October 2008 the web content of the newspaper was totally destroyed by an attack.
The Index on Censorship Law Award
Beatrice Mtetwa is a prominent media and human rights lawyer who works to defend and protect journalists in Zimbabwe who have been detained and harassed, regardless of regular threats to her personal safety. She has won acquittals for dozens of journalists arrested under Zimbabwe’s repressive media laws.
The Index on Censorship Whistleblower Award
Huang Jingao, a local Communist Party official, generated a national sensation in August 2004 by posting an open letter on a party website. Therein he complained that his efforts to investigate and prosecute corruption were thwarted by high-level party and governmental officials. In 2005, he was sentenced to life imprisonment.