Latest news with #WorldPressFreedomIndex
Business Insider
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Insider
10 African countries where press freedom is on the decline
The year 2025 continues to witness an alarming escalation of threats to press freedom across the globe, with several African countries experiencing some of the worst crackdowns on independent journalism and press freedom. Business Insider Africa presents 10 African countries with declining press freedom The list is courtesy of the World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders African countries like Cameroon, Rwanda, and Somalia remain hostile environments for journalists due to ongoing conflicts and restrictive laws. At the core of this attack on press freedom as seen in some African countries is a complex interplay of factors, including political regimes tightening control over information, inaccessible legal systems, and the exertion of state and corporate influence to coerce the media into compliance, particularly in conflict-ridden or authoritarian states. According to the latest World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), press freedom in several African countries has deteriorated significantly, marked by some of the lowest global scores and a rising toll of detained and killed journalists. This decline is attributed to state censorship, legal crackdowns, insecurity, and financial pressures, which ultimately compromises media independence and economic viability. Notably; RSF's global ranking and scoring system assesses 180 countries based on five key indicators: political context, legal framework, economic situation, sociocultural conditions, and safety. Business Insider Africa highlights 10 African Countries where Press decline have reached alarming heights, based on their latest rankings, press freedom scores, and the number of journalists killed or detained this year: Country Index Score Global Rank No. of Journalists Killed or Detained Eritrea 11.32 180 14 detained Egypt 24.74 170 20 detained Rwanda 35.85 146 3 detained Ethiopia 36.92 145 6 detained Libya 40.42 137 1 detained Somalia 40.49 136 5 detained DR Congo 42.31 133 1 killed / 4 detained Cameroon 42.75 131 4 detained Tunisia 43.48 129 4 detained Nigeria 46.81 122 5 detained The 2025 RSF Press Freedom Barometer reveals the scale of the crisis: A Continental Crisis Eritrea remains at the bottom of the global rankings, characterized by a complete absence of a functioning press and the prolonged detention of at least 14 journalists without trial. Notable cases include Dawit Isaak and Seyoum Tsehaye, who have been imprisoned for decades. Egypt follows closely, maintaining a harsh grip on its media environment through military and political control. Currently, 20 journalists are detained under anti-terror and state security laws, while many independent media outlets have been shut down or forced out of the country. In Ethiopia, ongoing conflict and rising authoritarianism have reversed years of press reform. Six journalists, including Dawit Begashaw, are currently detained. Cameroon, Ethiopia, Rwanda, and Somalia are consistently ranked among the most perilous for press freedom, plagued by ongoing conflicts and draconian laws that instill fear in reporters. The Democratic Republic of Congo has tragically lost one journalist, Patrick Adonis Numbi of Pamoja TV, this year, underscoring the precarious environment in conflict zones like eastern DRC. Nigeria, Africa's largest democracy, has dropped 10 places in the global ranking this year. According to RSF, five journalists are currently detained, and media independence is being undermined by financial dependence on state and corporate advertisers. As Reporters Without Borders (RSF) continuously collects global information on abuses against journalists, updating its press freedom barometer daily, it highlights the need for increased protection and support for media professionals worldwide due to ongoing threats and violence against journalists, In Africa and beyond.
Business Insider
6 hours ago
- Business
- Business Insider
South Africa leads Africa in the latest global press freedom ranking
Only three African countries rank in the top 30 globally, while economic pressure, political control, and insecurity undermine press freedom across the continent. The 2025 World Press Freedom Index ranks South Africa 27th, marking it as the top African nation for press freedom. Namibia and Cape Verde also feature in the top 30 globally, showcasing their commitment to press freedom standards. The report highlights the interplay between economic and political instability and diminished media freedom across the continent. In the newly released 2025 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), South Africa has been ranked as the most press-friendly country in Africa, placing 27th out of 180 countries globally, a notable jump of 11 positions from its ranking last year. The country retains its position in the 'satisfactory' category, lauded for its reliable legal protections, pluralistic media landscape, and relative independence from government and corporate interference. Namibia (28th) and Cape Verde (30th) also rank in the same category, joining a small group of African countries that uphold press freedom standards alongside European and Asian counterparts. However, the continental trend remains concerning, with most African nations falling into the "difficult" or "very serious" press freedom zones and several experiencing record declines in media safety, legal protection, and financial sustainability. What the World Press Freedom Index Measures The World Press Freedom Index evaluates media freedom in 180 countries and territories using five key indicators: Political context, Legal framework; Economic context; Sociocultural context and Safety of journalists Score Range Zone African Countries Meaning [85 - 100 points] Good Journalism is fully protected; few or no constraints. [70 - 85 points] Satisfactory South Africa (27), Namibia (28), Cape Verde (30) Media is mostly free, but vulnerable to institutional or commercial pressure [55 - 70 points] Problematic Ghana (49), Mauritius (50), Senegal (74), Seychelles (59), Botswana (65), Malawi (72), Gabon (41) Structural issues and pressure from political or economic actors exist. [40 - 55 points] Difficult Nigeria (122), Tunisia (129), Cameroon (131), DR Congo (133), Somalia (136), Libya (137), Kenya (117), Benin (92), Togo (121), Guinea (103), Burkina Faso (105), Mali (119), Uganda (143), Burundi (125) Press freedom is significantly constrained; journalists often self-censor [0 - 40 points] Very Serious Rwanda (146), Ethiopia (145), Egypt (170), Eritrea (180 Journalism is dangerous or impossible; extreme censorship and violence occur RSF's findings highlight a concerning trajectory between economic elites' influence over media and editorial self-censorship. In many African countries, media outlets rely heavily on advertising revenue from state actors or politically aligned corporations, compromising their independence. Although some African nations demonstrate stability and openness, the media advocacy agency warns that the economic and political climate in much of Africa is becoming increasingly hostile to journalism. Despite challenges, RSF identifies South Africa, Namibia, and Cape Verde as examples of how legal protections, institutional accountability, and civic engagement can safeguard press freedom.
Straits Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Straits Times
Azerbaijan hands down long prison terms to seven journalists amid media crackdown
BAKU - A court in Azerbaijan sentenced seven journalists to jail terms ranging from 7-1/2 to nine years on Friday after finding them guilty of smuggling, in what international press freedom advocates have described as a politically motivated case. Six of the defendants are affiliated with Abzas Media, an independent outlet focused on corruption and human rights in the South Caucasus country, which ranks 167th of 180 countries in Reporters without Borders' World Press Freedom Index. Abzas Media's editor-in-chief Sevinj Vagifgizi, director Ulvi Hasanli, translator Mahammad Kekalov, staff journalists Nargiz Absalamova and Elnara Gasimova, and freelance journalist Hafiz Babali all denied the charges. Their lawyers said they would appeal. The seventh defendant, Farid Mehralizada - who received a nine-year sentence and also maintained his innocence - is a reporter with the Azeri language service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), an outlet funded by the U.S. government. In a statement, RFE/RL President and CEO Stephen Capus condemned the trial as a "sham" and said Mehralizada should be released home to his family. President Ilham Aliyev, in power since 2003, has rejected criticism over the arrests of journalists and said Azerbaijan has "a free press and a free internet." The first arrests in the case were made in November 2023 after authorities said they had found 40,000 euros ($41,000) in cash in Abzas Media's Baku offices. Several other media workers have been arrested on similar charges of smuggling in recent years in Azerbaijan, an oil-rich country of 10 million case against the seven journalists drew condemnation from global press freedom groups and the administration of former U.S. President Joe Biden, with his secretary of state, Antony Blinken, calling for their release last year. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Arab Times
08-06-2025
- Politics
- Arab Times
Fake News And Nationalism: India's Media War On Truth
NEW DELHI, June 8: India's mainstream news media, once celebrated for their fearless reporting and democratic spirit, are now facing a crisis of credibility that has drawn concern from international observers, rights organizations, and even their journalists. The decline is not just a matter of perception but is playing out in real time, with recent events exposing deep-rooted issues of sensationalism, political alignment, and the unchecked spread of misinformation. The latest wave of misinformation occurred against the backdrop of escalated India–Pakistan military tensions. Indian mainstream media like Aaj Tak, Zee News, NDTV, and Times Now were accused of disseminating unverified videos, AI-generated images, and false casualty figures. A report by a fake‑news watchdog exposed multiple instances of such errors—old or unrelated images being misrepresented as evidence of the Pahalgam tragedy A Shifting Landscape: From Watchdog to Megaphone Over the past decade, India's largest news channels and newspapers have come under fire for aligning too closely with propaganda narratives and sidelining dissenting voices. The shift has raised alarms about the erosion of press freedom in the world's largest democracy. According to Reporters Without Borders, India now ranks 159 out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index—its lowest position ever. 'India's media has gradually turned into an echo chamber for the state,' a senior RSF analyst observed, highlighting the growing skepticism both domestically and abroad. Behind this transformation lies a media industry dominated by powerful conglomerates with deep political and financial stakes. Critics argue that this ownership structure has compromised editorial independence, replacing investigative journalism with polarizing debates, celebrity coverage, and sensational rhetoric. The result is a press that increasingly prioritizes loyalty over accountability, as noted by a foreign correspondent based in New Delhi. The Misinformation Maelstrom: When Newsrooms Become Amplifiers The dangers of this new media reality were laid bare during a recent military standoff between India and Pakistan. In the early hours of May 9, a WhatsApp alert from the Indian public broadcaster falsely claimed that Pakistan's army chief had been arrested in a coup. The message was quickly picked up by an Indian journalist, broadcast across major news channels, and began trending on social media. The entire story was fabricated; no coup had occurred, and the supposed 'arrested' general was soon promoted. This incident was not an isolated lapse. During the crisis, Indian newsrooms became saturated with unverified claims and outright fabrications, shaping public perception at a time of heightened national security tensions. Channels broadcast images from unrelated conflicts, repurposed visuals from plane crashes and video games, and reported dramatic victories without evidence. Former Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao described the environment as one of 'hypernationalism and abnormal triumphalism,' fueled by a lack of official information and a rush to fill the vacuum with spectacle. Media critic Manisha Pande of Newslaundry called it 'the most dangerous version of what a section of TV news channels have been doing for a decade … completely unchecked.' Journalists admitted to airing stories based on unverified WhatsApp messages and influencer posts, while anchors declared dramatic developments with no factual basis. A Crisis of Trust—and a Glimmer of Hope The fallout from these episodes has been profound. The unchecked spread of misinformation and the willingness to prioritize sensationalism over verification have eroded public trust in mainstream media, both in India and internationally. Even as Pakistani media engaged in its own misinformation campaigns, the Indian press's lapses were particularly glaring given its democratic heritage. Yet, amid the spectacle, a core group of Indian journalists and independent platforms—such as The Wire, and Article 14 —continue to uphold the values of rigorous, ethical reporting, often at great personal and professional risk. Global outlets like The New York Times, BBC, and Al Jazeera have also expanded their India coverage, offering alternative perspectives and counter-narratives. Looking Ahead: Can Indian Media Reclaim Its Role? As India approaches future elections and navigates complex domestic and global challenges, the question remains: Can its mainstream media reassert its independence and restore public trust, or will it continue its drift into partisanship and spectacle? The answer may well determine not just the fate of the press, but the health of Indian democracy itself.
The Hindu
05-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
The university versus constitutionally protected speech
'Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties,' said John Milton in his famous pamphlet, Areopagitica (1644), opposing the licensing system (called imprimatur). Originally introduced in response to the introduction of the printing press in England in 1538 and reinstituted by the British Parliament in 1643, authors had to obtain permission or licence from the government prior to their publications. In India, several High Courts and even the Supreme Court of India are hearing petitions on the limits of freedom of expression. Should we really go back to that dated system where prior permission of the government or university is required to express one's views? Are university teachers mere robots who should write only research papers and not express their opinions on contemporary issues? Do we no longer consider free speech to be an integral part of human dignity and an individual's self-fulfilment? Is truth no more autonomous and the highest public good? Are not excessive restrictions on free speech based on the assumption of infallibility of the state or its stated positions? These are some of the pertinent issues that India must resolve because its position on these fundamental issues is bound to strengthen or weaken its ethical claim of being a true Vishwaguru. India's low rank of 151 out of 180 in the World Press Freedom Index does not enhance its stature in the comity of nations. No doubt, 'nation first' should be the rule of thumb for all of us because no debate can survive if the nation itself perishes. We must be united in our fight against an enemy that has time and again been sponsoring and exporting terror to our country. A prompt and befitting response during Operation Sindoor has been given to the enemy nation. The labelling of opinion as activism We must now return to the realm of constitutional vision as we need to win the battle of ideas as well. Of course, every writer has the duty to make a disclaimer that his views are personal and do not represent the views of the institution he serves. But then a mere expression of views cannot be termed by the corporate owners of the universities or vice-chancellors as 'activism'. An expression of opinion may be dissent but not necessarily activism. Public academic institutions do not mind even activism and active politics. A professor became the national president of the Bharatiya Janata Party (1991-93). Certainly, no writer should expect any institutional support for his personal views. No court should ideally shy away from its duty of safeguarding constitutionally 'protected speech'. It must remain consistent with its own past pro-freedom of speech judgments. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Texas vs Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), had even considered burning of the national flag as a protected expression. India need not go that far. John Stuart Mill, in his celebrated essay on liberty, said that ''If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind'. British jurist William Blackstone in 1769 considered a free press was essential for a free state. Though the 1787 U.S. Constitution did not include freedom of the press as a right (because Roger Sherman had said in the Constitution Convention that adopted the U.S. Constitution, that there was no need to mention freedom of press as the powers of the Congress would not extend to press yet within four years), the First Amendment in 1791 on freedom of press made a categorical and explicit declaration that the 'Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....' Democracy is government by choice and people cannot exercise their choices if they are not told about all the available alternatives. Let alternative views be expressed and protected. Moreover, freedom of speech assures individual self-fulfilment. If a citizen is not allowed to express his emotions, his opinions, his frustration, and his happiness he will not feel self-fulfilled. University owners must understand that such suffocated individuals cannot produce scholarly research as knowledge cannot be created in a controlled environment. We produced greats such as Aryabhata, Chanakya, Gargi Vachaknavi and Charaka because the education in our ancient gurukuls was not controlled by the state. Within the portals of universities, all kinds of ideas, which include repulsive ones, must be expressed. Today, our universities are over regulated and grossly underfunded. Expression and the truth Freedom of expression helps us in attaining the truth. It was Milton who said, 'Though all winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple, who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter'. In an age of fake news, let everyone speak so that people can decide for themselves who is speaking the truth. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. of the United States rightly observed that in a capitalist market place, the 'best test of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of market'. Thus, an expression of all views would basically serve the government's cause in fencing off people from what is false. This is nobody's case that freedom of speech is an absolute right. Indeed, no one should indulge in unnecessary talk. The exercise of right must be aimed to serve the constitutional objects of free speech, i.e., the search for truth and helping people in forming opinions about governmental actions and thereby ensuring sovereign people's participation in the governance. The extent of restrictions The Constitution permits only 'reasonable restrictions' on the freedom of speech and expression. The all-important word 'reasonable' was inserted by the first constitutional Amendment in 1951. These restrictions can be in the interests of sovereignty and the integrity of India, security of state, public order, decency, morality, friendly relations with foreign countries, and defamation or incitement of an offence. 'Public order and friendly relations with foreign states' too were inserted in 1951. Interestingly, restrictions in the interests of 'sovereignty and integrity' were inserted by the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963. No restriction on freedom of speech can be imposed even by the government through an executive order. Restriction on free speech requires legislation. To satisfy the test of 'reasonableness', courts invoke the 'doctrine of proportionality'. In Anuradha Bhasin vs Union Of India (2020), the Supreme Court not only held the right to Internet as a part of free speech but also reiterated that the restrictions on free speech can be imposed after considering alternative measures. It added that such restrictions must be legitimate, necessary and least intrusive. It is the state which has the burden of proof in establishing that the restriction is proportionate, and thus reasonable. No institution has any right to restrict anybody's freedom of speech on any ground other than the ones mentioned in Article 19(2). Thus, restrictions cannot be imposed by any institution just because it is a private educational institution or because it is bound by the regulatory control of regulatory bodies. These are lame excuses that do not have a leg to stand on. The Supreme Court, in Dr. Janet Jeyapaul vs S.R.M. University and Anr. (2015), had held private universities as 'state' because they too discharge 'public functions' and thus, any arbitrary dictate by them would be hit by Article 14, i.e., the right to equality which includes the right against arbitrariness. Returning to the issue of an author/writer facing the consequences, the law is crystal clear — if his speech is not protected by the Constitution, no one can or should defend him. But when the speech is well within constitutional limits, ideally, the institution should not disown him as it would not only demotivate the faculty but also result in a situation where such an institution would not be able to attract outstanding scholars. A student is the real conscience keeper of a university. Private educational entrepreneurs must know that the Supreme Court has had the consistent view that education is an occupation and not a business. Let us celebrate a diversity of opinions as in a vibrant democracy, every opinion counts and the university truly signifies a universe of knowledge. Faizan Mustafa is a constitutional law expert and Vice-Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University, Patna, Bihar. The views expressed are personal
