24 Mar 20 | Magazine, Magazine Editions, Volume 49.01 Spring 2020
Director
Émerson Maranhão is a Brazilian director and filmmaker, who has directed the short film Aqueles Dois, about two transgender men, amongst others
Writer
An award-winning Libyan academic and writer, Najwa Bin Shatwan has written three novels, a collection of short stories, plays and contributions to anthologies
Historian
Tom Holland is a writer and historian, who has published a range of bestselling books. He specialises in classical and medieval history
19 Feb 20 | News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”112409″ img_size=”large”][vc_column_text]China has just revoked the press credentials of three journalists from the Wall Street Journal after the newspaper refused to apologise for a column called China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia. The journalists – Josh Chin, Philip Wen and Chao Deng – have each established a strong reputation for their reporting from China. The column that angered Chinese officials, here, is an opinion piece written by the academic Walter Russell Mead. Chin, Wen and Deng have been given just five days to leave.
This is not the first time China has expelled journalists working for newspapers that publish the “wrong” kind of news story, though to expel three at once is a serious act of aggression (the first time in the post-Mao Zedong era the government has expelled multiple journalists from one international news organisation at the same time). It’s another example of the lengths China will go to to stifle criticism at home and abroad. Back in 2014, New York Times reporter Austin Ramzy was the victim of similar treatment, following a story about the family wealth of a former high level official, Wen Jiabao. We interview Ramzy about what it was like having to leave China.
Index: When your visa was not renewed back in 2014, do you remember how you felt at the time?
Ramzy: When I was forced out in 2014 I was sad to leave the place where I had lived and worked the previous seven years, frustrated at the circumstances it was happening under and a bit overwhelmed at being at the centre of a news story.
Index: How logistically easy was it to leave? You had more time than five days, but was it still rushed and hard?
I had been working at TIME, but after I moved to the New York Times I was not given a new journalist visa. At the end of 2013 I was given a one-month humanitarian visa, basically to give me time to pack up. I sent my dog home to live with my sister, stored most of my stuff in a friend’s basement and went to Taiwan with a couple suitcases.
I had a month to prepare. Five days to leave would be very difficult. I do know the journalists being forced out and wish them the best during a very difficult time.
Index: What was it like working immediately after?
Ramzy: Returning to work was a strange feeling but it was also a welcome sort of normalcy.
Index: It’s another huge blow and sign of how much less room there is for free expression under Xi Jinping compared to Hu Jintao.
Ramzy: The Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China said this was the first expulsion, rather than a visa non-renewal, that it knew of since 1998. And I can’t think of a time when so many journalists were forced out at once. So yes, it seems clear the environment is getting worse.
Index: Have you been back to China (mainland) since?
Ramzy: I have been back to the mainland a few times to see friends, but not for work as a journalist.
Index: Does it make you sad that you can’t report from China?
Ramzy: I’m in Hong Kong now, so I still help cover China and there’s plenty to keep me busy.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]
05 Feb 20 | News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”112213″ img_size=”large”][vc_column_text]The world has been transfixed by news coming out of China since the outbreak of coronavirus in the Chinese city of Wuhan. The running death toll currently sits at nearly 500, with a further 24,000 people in China confirmed as having been infected. But are these the real numbers? Is China, a country whose government is notorious for censorship and control of information, revealing the whole truth? And how are they handling a crisis in which people having the correct information could be the difference between life and death? We report on the five key trends that are having an impact on the accurate reporting of the virus.
Suppress the news
It got off to a bad start. Local authorities in Wuhan did not speak out about the deadly outbreak when it began, even allowing Lunar New Year gatherings to go ahead, knowing people in attendance were infected. This initial suppression of information about the virus could be attributed to the authoritarian, centralisation of power and intelligence in China. Local authorities must wade through levels of bureaucracy to gain the verification needed from the higher offices to release vital information to their local residents.
And media were warned to stick to the party line; one widely read commercial newspaper in Wuhan, Wuhan Evening News, did not feature the outbreak on its front page between the 6 and 19 January. Today, it’s much the same. Bad news isn’t news.
Arrest, arrest, arrest
In the early days of the outbreak, the authorities in Wuhan tried to silence people who attempted to warn others about the spread of coronavirus. Eight people in Wuhan were arrested for speaking out on social media, including a doctor working to treat the infected. Li Wenliang, from Wuhan Central Hospital, sent a message to some of his colleagues telling them he had noticed several patients infected with a Sars-like disease. Four days later authorities arrived at Li’s home, accused him of spreading misinformation and forced him to sign a document which called for his silence.
The charge of spreading misinformation has since been used against many others, such as a social media user in the city of Tianjin near Beijing, who criticised the government’s response. He was arrested for 10 days and accused of publishing “insulting speech”.
The government continues to threaten long jail terms for people who criticise the government’s response.
Scapegoat easy targets
In a story twist, President Xi Jinping has allowed posts criticising local Wuhan authorities for their slow response to circulate on social media. Keen to preserve his image as an infallible leader, Xi has been happy to allow small government bodies to become scapegoats for the crisis. Xi has also shied away from the spotlight in the government’s handling of coronavirus, presumably not wishing to be associated with it, and has appointed Li Keqiang to a leadership position in controlling the outbreak. Is this a typical approach of Xi Jinping’s? Perhaps. China historian Jeff Wasserstrom explores how the Chinese leader carefully manages his image in the new Index on Censorship magazine.
Flood the web with “good virus” news stories
State media have saturated news feeds with stories of hospitals being built at breakneck speed to accommodate the waves of infected people and other stories of just how well China is handling the outbreak. Footage of the construction of a new hospital is even being live streamed online. Despite this apparent transparency of the government’s actions, state media and government officials shared an image of a building claiming it was a completed hospital in Wuhan, when it was in fact an apartment building more than 600 miles away.
Working alongside the media are China’s 50 cent party members – aka the government’s army of trolls who are known for their online praise.
Block the flow of people – and information
Seventeen cities, which are collectively home to over 50 million people, have been put on lockdown so far, restricting the movement of people throughout China. While this may be a practical move to reduce the spread of the infectious disease, it also halts the spread of information between Chinese citizens. People are forced to rely on the information given to them by the authorities, who, during the early days of the outbreak, falsely assured people coronavirus could only be passed on from an animal, and not between people. Or they’re going online to be greeted by photos of shiny hospitals being built in a week. Either way, it’s not great.
Click here to read about how the Chinese government responded to Sars and here for articles on how the Chinese government has used censorship over the years.
Read about how Allied governments during the First World War suppressed news of Spanish flu here. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]
22 Jan 20 | News and features, Volume 48.04 Winter 2019
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”In the winter 2019 issue of Index on Censorship magazine, editor-in-chief Rachael Jolley argues that a new generation of democratic leaders is actively eroding essential freedoms, including free speech” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][vc_column_text]
Like brothers in arms, they revel in the same set of characteristics. They share them, and their favourite ways of using them, on social media.
From Orbán to Trump and from Bolsonaro to Johnson, national leaders who want to dismiss analysis with a personalised tweet, and never want to answer a direct question, have come to power – and are using power to silence us. They like to think of themselves as strongmen but what, in fact, they are doing is channelling the worst kind of machismo.
For toughness, read intolerance of disagreement. They are extremely uncomfortable with public criticism. They would rather hold a Facebook “press conference” where they are not pressed than one where reporters get to push them on details they would rather not address. Despite running countries, they try to pretend that those who hold them to account are the elite who the public should not trust.
While every generation has its “tough” leaders, what’s different about today’s is that they are everywhere, and learning, copying and sharing their measures with each other – aided, of course, by the internet, which is their ultimate best friend. And this is not just a phenomenon we are seeing on one continent. Right now these techniques are coming at us from all around the globe, as if one giant algorithm is showing them the way. And it’s not happening just in countries run by unelected dictators; democratically elected leaders are very firmly part of this boys’ club.
Here are some favoured techniques:
If you don’t like some media coverage, you look at ways of closing down or silencing that media outlet, and possibly others. Could a friend buy it? Could you bring in some legislation that shuts it out? How about making sure it loses its advertising? That is happening now. In Hungary, there are very few independent media outlets left, and the media that remain is pretty scared about what might happen to them. Hungarian journalists are moving to other countries to get the chance to write about the issues.
In China, President Xi Jinping has just increased the pressure on journalists who report for official outlets by insisting they take a knowledge test, which is very much like a loyalty test, before being given press cards.
Just today, as I sit here writing, I’ve switched on the radio to hear that the UK’s Conservative Party has made an official complaint to the TV watchdog over Channel 4’s coverage of the general election campaign (there was a debate last night on climate change where party leaders who didn’t turn up were replaced with giant blocks of ice). A party source told the Conservative-supporting Daily Telegraph newspaper: “If we are re-elected, we will have to review Channel 4’s public service broadcasting obligations. Any review would, of course, look at whether its remit should be better focused so it is serving the public in the best way possible.” In summary, they are saying they will close down the media that disagree with them.
This not very veiled threat is very much in line with the rhetoric from President Donald Trump in the USA and President Viktor Orbán in Hungary about the media knowing its place as more a subservient hat-tipping servant than a watchdog holding power to account. It’s also not so far from attitudes that are prevalent in Russia and China about the role of the media.
For those who might think that media freedom is a luxury, or doesn’t have much importance in their lives, I suggest they take a quick look at any country or point in history where media freedom was taken away, and then ask themselves: “Do I want to live there?”
Dictators know that control of the message underpins their power, and so does this generation of macho leaders. Getting the media “under control” is a high priority. Trump went on the offensive against journalists from the first minute he strode out on to the public stage. Brazil’s newish leader, President Jair Bolsonaro, knows it too. In fact, he got together with Trump on the steps of the White House to agree on a fightback against “fake news”, and we all should know what they mean right there. “Fake news” is news they don’t like and really would rather not hear.
New York Times deputy general counsel David McCraw told Index that this was “a very dark moment for press freedom worldwide”.
When the founders of the USA sat down to write the Constitution – that essential document of freedom, written because many of them had fled from countries where they were not allowed to speak, take certain jobs or practise their religion – they had in mind creating a country where freedom was protected. The First Amendment encapsulates the right to criticise the powerful, but now the country is led by someone who says, basically, he doesn’t support it. No wonder McCraw feels a deep sense of unease.
But when Trump’s team started to try to control media coverage, by not inviting the most critical media to press briefings, what was impressive was that American journalists from across the political spectrum spoke out for media freedom. When then White House press secretary Sean Spicer tried to stop journalists from The New York Times, The Guardian and CNN from attending some briefings, Bret Baier, a senior anchor with Fox News, spoke out. He said on Twitter: “Some at CNN & NYT stood w/FOX News when the Obama admin attacked us & tried 2 exclude us-a WH gaggle should be open to all credentialed orgs.”
The media stood up and criticised the attempt to allow only favoured outlets access, with many (including The Wall Street Journal, AP and Bloomberg) calling it out. What was impressive was that they were standing up for the principle of media freedom. The White House is likely to at least think carefully about similar moves when it realises it risks alienating its friendly media as well as its critics.
[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_icon icon_fontawesome=”fa fa-quote-left” color=”custom” size=”xl” align=”right” custom_color=”#dd3333″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_custom_heading text=”And that’s the lesson for media everywhere. Don’t let them divide and rule you” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” google_fonts=”font_family:Libre%20Baskerville%3Aregular%2Citalic%2C700|font_style:400%20italic%3A400%3Aitalic”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]
And that’s the lesson for media everywhere. Don’t let them divide and rule you. If a newspaper that you think of as the opposition is not allowed access to a press briefing because the prime minister or the president doesn’t like it, you should be shouting about it just as hard as if it happened to you, because it is about the principle. If you don’t believe in the principle, in time they will come for you and no one will be there to speak out.
That’s the big point being made by Baier: it happened to us and people spoke up for us, so now I am doing the same. A seasoned Turkish journalist told me that one of the reasons the Turkish government led by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was able to get away with restrictions on critical media early on, was because the liberal media hadn’t stood up for the principle in earlier years when conservative press outlets were being excluded or criticised.
Sadly, the UK media did not show many signs of standing united when, during this year’s general election campaign, the Daily Mirror, a Labour-supporting newspaper, was kicked off the Conservative Party’s campaign “battle bus”. The bus carries journalists and Prime Minister Boris Johnson around the country during the campaign. The Mirror, which has about 11 million readers, was the only newspaper not allowed to board the bus. When the Mirror’s political editor called on other media to boycott the bus, the reaction was muted. Conservative Party tacticians will have seen this as a success, given the lack of solidarity to this move by the rest of the media (unlike the US coverage of the White House incident).
The lesson here is to stand up for the principles of freedom and democracy all the time, not just when they affect you. If you don’t, they will be gone before you know it.
Rallying rhetoric is another tried and tested tactic. They use it to divide the public into “them and us”, and try to convert others to thinking they are “people like us”. If we, the public, think they are on our side, we are more likely to put the X in their ballot box. Trump and Orbán practise the “people like us” and “everyone else is our enemy” strategies with abandon. They rail against people they don’t like using words such as “traitor”.
Again in Hungary, people are put into the “outsiders” box if they are gay, women who haven’t had children or don’t conform to the ideas that the Orbán government stands for.
Dividing people into “them and us” has huge implications for our democracies. In separating people, we start to lose our empathy for people who are “other” and we potentially stop standing up for them when something happens. It creates divides that are useful for those in power to manipulate to their advantage.
The University of Birmingham’s Henriette van der Bloom recently co-published research pamphlet Crisis of Rhetoric: Renewing Political Speech and Speechwriting. She said: “I think there is a risk we are all putting ourselves and others into boxes, then we cannot really collaborate about improving our society. Some would say that is what is partly going on at the moment.” Looking forward, she saw one impact could be “a society in crisis, speeches are delivered, and people listen, but it becomes more and more polarising”.
But it’s not just the future, it’s today. We already see societies in crisis, with democratic values being threatened and eroded. This does not point to a rosy future. But there are some signs for optimism. In this issue, we also feature protesters who have campaigned and achieved significant change. In Romania, a mass weekly protest against a new law which would allow political corruption has ended with the government standing down; in Hungary, a new opposition mayor has been elected in Budapest.
Democracies need to remember that criticism and political opposition are an essential part of their success. We must hope they do.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Rachael Jolley is editor-in-chief of Index on Censorship magazine. She tweets @londoninsider. This article is part of the latest edition of Index on Censorship magazine, with its special report on macho male leaders
Index on Censorship’s winter 2019 issue is entitled The Big Noise: How macho leaders hide their weakness by stifling dissent, debate and democracy
Look out for the new edition in bookshops, and don’t miss our Index on Censorship podcast, with special guests, on Soundcloud.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”How macho leaders hide their weakness by stifling dissent, debate and democracy” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2F2019%2F12%2Fmagazine-big-noise-how-macho-leaders-hide-weakness%2F|||”][vc_column_text]The winter 2019 Index on Censorship magazine looks at how male leaders around the world are using masculinity against our freedoms[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_single_image image=”111045″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2019/09/magazine-border-forces-how-barriers-to-free-thought-got-tough/”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][vc_custom_heading text=”Subscribe” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]In print, online. In your mailbox, on your iPad.
Subscription options from £18 or just £1.49 in the App Store for a digital issue.
Every subscriber helps support Index on Censorship’s projects around the world.
SUBSCRIBE NOW[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row]
