15 Jun 07 | Magazine, Volume 36.02 Summer 2007
[vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_single_image image=”90659″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://shop.exacteditions.com/gb/index-on-censorship”][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]
Subscribe to Index on Censorship magazine on your Apple, Android or desktop device for just £17.99 a year. You get access to the latest thought-provoking and award-winning issues of the magazine PLUS ten years of archived issues, including What New Labour did for free speech. Subscribe now.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
10 May 07 | Comment
On the face of it, the move of First Gentleman Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo to drop the 16 libel cases he has filed against 46 journalists is laudable. Many have praised Mr. Arroyo for his change of heart.
I do, too—but only up to a point.
Let’s look deeper. The First Gentleman – husband of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the current President of the Philippines – for all his religious rhetoric, made the U-turn for reasons of self-interest. Definitely, I don’t take that against him.
The stress of appearing in court and undergoing cross-examination can take its toll. It was his choice to testify in the hearings to show how serious he was in pursuing the cases. Now, his fragile health has stopped him.
But, in making his decision to withdraw the libel suits, the First Gentleman steered clear of the real issues. He set his terms on a religious plane, invoking God. This provides him personal comfort and he aims to rally public opinion as well.
He said in a statement, “I am determined to keep in touch with the God that has been magnanimous to me, and to let His spirit of generosity steer me through any future conflicts.”
He continued: “Seeking redress for all the grievances that the libel suits sought to address now pales in comparison to taking on a genuine chance to make peace and pursue a more positive and constructive relationship with those who will accept my offer of a handshake.”
In a predominantly Catholic country like ours, this tends to sit well with those who look at the issue as one of forgiveness and reconciliation. Questions from fellow journalists have been instructive for me in this regard.
One radio reporter asked me during an interview, right after the Palace announced on World Press Freedom Day (May 3) that Mr. Arroyo was dropping the cases, if I was now willing to reconcile with the First Gentleman. (Newsbreak was sued by Mr. Arroyo twice.).
Before he asked the question, I told him that we would have preferred that our cases be decided in the courts, on their merits. The issue, I pointed out, does not rest on one man’s magnanimity or well-being.
I thought hard about it and I’ve never looked at journalism in terms of making nice with people. Our job is not to make friends or enemies. It is to tell the truth. In the process, some get hurt, others are angered.
But that’s part of the territory—and we learn to live with it as long as we know that we are accurate, fair, honest, and we observe ethical conduct.
In another interview, a reporter said that I may be seen as harassing a sick person by choosing to pursue the cases. It struck me that standing one’s ground and seeking justice can be seen in such personal terms.
He also pointedly asked me if I wasn’t being hypocritical. Why, he argued, did we strongly protest Mr. Arroyo’s filing of the libel cases and now that he is withdrawing them, we’re being belligerent.
Journalists who file stories on a daily basis usually forget the context. I reminded him that we’ve always taken the position that the First Gentleman, by whimsically filing libel cases, has redefined libel. He no longer used it as a legitimate means to seek redress but as a tool of the powerful meant to intimidate and silence journalists.
In the history of Philippine media, it is Mr. Arroyo who has filed the most number of libel cases versus journalists. During their terms, former Presidents Corazon Aquino and Joseph Estrada filed only one libel case each.
Thus, the heart of our argument is: Mr. Arroyo is out to erode the watchdog function of the press. That is anathema in a democracy.
We’re trying to build the press as an institution that will function vigorously as part of the checks and balances in our system. As it is, we already operate in difficult conditions, where vested interests dominate some media organizations and the culture of impunity casts its dark shadow on us.
Sadly, that’s the paradox of the Philippine media. Our case dispels the myth that just because we’re the freest press in Southeast Asia and one of the oldest democracies in this part of the world, we’re doing well.
And today, we face a new battleground—in the courts.
(more…)
24 Apr 07 | Comment
Liberian information minister Laurence Bropleh continues to make a stalwart but surprising defence of his government’s targeting of the Monrovia Independent newspaper for publishing an obscene photograph of another cabinet minister.
Disgraced Minister of Presidential Affairs Willis Knuckles tendered his resignation on 25 February after a picture of him in a sex act with two young girls surfaced on the internet. Accepting it, President Ellen Sirleaf-Johnson said his behaviour “while not illegal, is improper and inappropriate for a public servant.”
But when the Independent newspaper in Monrovia reprinted a copy of the obscene picture in its coverage of Knuckles’s resignation two days later, the government snapped. It revoked the newspaper’s license for a year, ordered its offices closed and sent officers of the country’s National Security Agency round to Monrovia’s print houses to warn them off printing the paper.
Bropleh did not name the Independent during his comments to an April 20-21 conference on post-conflict press freedoms organised by International Media Support (IMS) and sponsored by the Danish committee of UNESCO. Instead he reserved his ire for Liberian media rights groups which had supported the paper against the ban.
In fact the Press Council of Liberia had been as critical of the Independent for republishing the photograph as Bropleh had been, and suspended the membership of the paper and editor Sam Dean for three months. Nevertheless, concerned along with others about the security services’ involvement, they still supported The Independent’s petition to Liberia’s Supreme Court for a lifting of the ban.
Sadly there were no representatives of the Liberian media rights community at the Copenhagen conference and thus able to put the minister straight.
But sat on a conference panel with Bropleh on Saturday to debate the issue of access to information in post-conflict societies, Index on Censorship did try. We defended the media rights groups’ right to protest the way the state acted against the Independent, regardless of any question about the paper’s taste and judgment.
Perhaps, this correspondent suggested, the publication of the photo was a criminal matter – possibly even a civil one – “more appropriately dealt with by a detective constable from Monrovia High Street police station than the security services.”
Bropleh reasserted that it was the NSA’s jurisdiction. The Media Foundation for West Africa reported in February that publication of the pictures could be a breach of Section 18.1 of Liberia’s Penal Code, which ‘prohibits the dissemination of obscene materials without minimizing the risk of exposure to children under sixteen,’ citing a senior police official.
In fact the rest of the Liberian government has since distanced itself from the use of NSA officers to enforce the closure. Another government spokesman, Gabriel Williams, has told the Monrovia Inquirer that “such an act will not be repeated,” as he said, Liberia ‘subscribes to the rule of law, democratic governance and free press.’
‘The government has acknowledged that it did not follow due process,’ commented the US Committee to Protect Journalists on the case. ‘We urge the Supreme Court to rescind the ban against the paper.’
Bropleh is a minister of a Liberian church as well as a minister in the Liberian government. Apart from demonstrating his possible unsuitability for at least one of those jobs, what does any of this matter?
Actually, quite a lot.
Liberia is bracing itself for the withdrawal of a multinational peacekeeping force, the largest committed to Africa in United Nations history, and in place since the end of the country’s civil war four years ago.
This month the Johnson-Sirleaf government announced plans to create a new paramilitary security force, tasked to tackle riots and other threats to national stability, independently of the country’s existing national police.
Given the way the National Security Agency besieged The Independent after its Willis Knuckles’ resignation coverage, in a manner that the Press Union described as ‘akin to intimidation,’ media rights groups are right to be concerned about how the new so-called ‘Quick Reaction Unit’ will react the next time a government minister is offended – or is caught being offensive – by the country’s press.
03 Jan 24 | China, News and features, Taiwan
As Taiwan gears up for the presidential and legislative election on 13 January, the Chinese government is also ramping up its efforts to interfere. From sponsored trips to China for local leaders, economic coercion, fake opinion polls, and disinformation campaigns, some analysts say the wide-ranging tactics that Beijing has unleashed will have an impact on the election’s outcome.
In recent weeks, Taiwanese authorities have launched investigations into several cases of individuals attempting to sway voters by inviting local borough chiefs and village leaders on group tours to China. These trips are partially sponsored by local Chinese authorities.
During the trips, participants were allegedly encouraged by officials from China’s propaganda department to vote for political parties and candidates favoured by Beijing. At least one man has been indicted while several others are facing ongoing investigations.
Apart from sponsored trips, Beijing also rolled out coercive economic measures to pressure Taiwan, suspending tariff relief on imports of 12 Taiwanese petrochemical products, and blaming it on the trade barriers enacted by Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party.
“Since 2023 is a major year of cross-strait exchange for China, Chinese authorities have devoted a lot of resources to facilitate influence campaigns against Taiwan,” Puma Shen, chairperson of Taipei-based research group Doublethink Lab, told Index on Censorship. “They want to make sure that Taiwanese people feel threatened but also are not too afraid of the influence campaigns from China.”
The most recent example of China’s influence campaign is an investigation into alleged lip-sync by popular Taiwanese rock band Mayday, a practice that is banned for live musicians in China. A Taiwanese security agency internal memo claims the investigation is Beijing’s attempt to pressure the rock band into publicly supporting the position that Taiwan is a part of China.
Shen from Doublethink Lab said Taiwanese people who have huge financial stakes in China, such as artists and businessmen, often become targets of China’s influence campaign. “Even though they are earning money in China, they are more like victims,” he said.
Multi-pronged cognitive warfare
In addition to economic coercion and influencing local politicians, some experts say China has also launched multi-pronged cognitive warfare against Taiwan ahead of the election, amplifying narratives criticising the ruling party through state media outlets and initiating disinformation campaigns on social media platforms, including TikTok, YouTube and Facebook.
Over the last few months, China’s state-run media outlets have repeated the narrative that the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is pushing Taiwan to the brink of war with its efforts to pursue “Taiwan independence”. The narrative resonates with criticisms against the DPP by opposition candidates in Taiwan, who have repeatedly accused DPP’s presidential candidate, Lai Ching-te, of being “the golden child of Taiwan independence.”
There are also signs that Chinese state media and online troll groups are amplifying narratives aimed at damaging the image and credibility of the Taiwanese government, including controversial domestic issues such as the de-sinicization of Taiwan’s curriculum and scepticism toward the Taiwanese government’s deepened relations with the USA.
According to Taiwan AI Labs, online troll groups have mirrored narratives promoted by Chinese state media, including the People’s Daily, Haiwainet, Xinhua News Agency, Global Times, and China Central Television (CCTV). While there is no direct evidence to prove that China is behind all online troll groups, Taiwan AI Labs said their behaviours fit the criteria of autocratic countries’ interference in democratic elections.
“Since the online troll groups promote narratives about Taiwanese domestic issues and U.S. President Joe Biden and there is a high similarity between the narratives they promote and the narratives preferred by Chinese state media, we can conclude that it fits the methods that autocratic countries use to interfere in democratic elections,” Ethan Tu, the founder of Taiwan AI Labs, said.
Compared to China’s efforts to interfere in previous Taiwan elections, it is becoming harder to determine whether disinformation targeting the upcoming Taiwanese election originates from China or not.
“This time around, it’s very difficult to determine whether the disinformation originates from China or is created by actors within Taiwan,” Chiaoning Su, an associate professor in communication, journalism, and public relations at Oakland University, told Index on Censorship.
In her view, China has built up a better understanding of public opinion in Taiwan and they realise that for efforts of election interference to work, the narratives they amplify need to match the trend in Taiwan’s public opinion.
“The way that China is amplifying social economic issues such as the controversy of lack of eggs or the debate about reducing the amount of ancient Chinese literature in the curriculum shows that their efforts to initiate disinformation campaign are becoming more localised and harder to trace,” Su said.
Shen from Doublethink Lab said one of the main goals of China’s disinformation campaign is to denigrate democracy. “They want to show the Taiwanese public that Taiwan’s democracy is a mess and that while the DPP claims to protect democracy and freedom, in the end, it is not democratic and free at all,” he told Index on Censorship.
Since Taiwan is a democracy that values freedom of speech, Shen thinks Taiwanese authorities need to deal with the threats that come with China’s election interference through ways that will safeguard Taiwanese people’s freedom of expression, by specifically identifying remarks which originate from sources external to Taiwan.
“Otherwise, they will fall into China’s trap,” he said.
