Fazal M. Kamal
That being a media professional has become a dangerous incarnation is all too well-known by this stage of our advanced and tech-savvy civilization; that just voicing an opinion not having the imprimatur of the myriad offshoots of state authority has also been known to lead to what may euphemistically be described as dire consequences; that after the atrocious events of 9/11 it has become absolutely commonplace for governments all around the globe — and which government would pass up such an opportunity since being self-serving is in their very nature — to take advantage of fears of unknown peril to asphyxiate many freedoms particularly to make it simpler and easier for them to throttle critical opinions as well as facts that are likely to discomfit powerful entities.
These are only some of the realities of today’s interconnected world. And they aren’t pretty.
Consequently, from the most powerful administration in the universe (the United States) to one of the most myopic (in Bangladesh) via India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine and an assortment of many across the world every government has been enacting tougher and tighter regulations so that they can blame the messenger (and of course shoot them when needed) instead of rectifying the lapses that are reported. The speed of legislating stranglehold laws increased once Julian Assange and Edward Snowden dumped all those files onto the public domain and told the people what was really going on behind the smoke-and mirror sleights performed behind the all-encompassing rubric of national security — a potent factor that has had innumerable definitions morphing whenever a government wished it to.
Chilling effect on democracy
In a recent report, Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union underscored that “digital mass surveillance is having a chilling effect on US democracy, affecting journalists and lawyers” and concluded that some of the most fundamental freedoms are under threat. They also warned that the US government’s policies on secrecy and preventing leaks, as well as its stance on officials talking to the media, undermine traditional US values. “These concerns do indeed appear to be playing out in the industry,” wrote Phillip Di Salvo commenting on the report. “In 2012 alone, the US federal government reclassified 95 million pieces of information. It’s not clear how many of these were made more or less secret but overclassification is becoming a concern. It has been estimated that between 50% and 90% of classified documents could be made public without them posing a security threat.”
What seems even more significant is that “The Obama administration has also used the 1917 Espionage Act to routinely target whistleblowers. Under the current presidency, eight people have been pursued for leaking information to the press, including Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, the WikiLeaks source. Just three such prosecutions were pursued between 1917 and Obama’s election.” These developments evidently have immense impact on media professionals as well as on their ability to tell a story or for commentators to provide opinions on issues of much national and international import.
Not surprisingly these circumstances led one national security journalist to state: “We’re not able to do our jobs if sources are in danger.” These concerns, as Di Salvo commented, “are in turn leading to increasing use of encryption technology among a significant number of journalists interviewed for the report. But … the [HRW and ACLU] report notes that many journalists fear [the encryption technology is] not completely safe. This was a fear raised by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Erich Schmitt when he warned that asking sources to protect their digital communication can actually attract more attention to their communications.”
Fear stalks the free & the brave
So there you have it. In the land of the free and home of the brave, fear stalks those very people who ought to be faithful to their chosen line of work by telling the truth. This environment has further added to the self-editing whims of large news organizations always trying to lean on the side of the more powerful. Which brings me to the tale told by Richard Falk, an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years. The primary point of his story is this: “When the BBC calls, don’t answer.” The main cause behind that advice is the decision of many news outlets editing and selecting the spin they prefer to provide to reports of different events. In this instance, Richard Falk was called by the aforementioned BBC to stand by so that he could be interviewed on the situation in Gaza during the bombing by Israel.
Following a number of such invitations and subsequent rejections Prof. Falk reached the conclusion: “It seems that somewhere buried in these trivial rejections there is occasion for concern that the media claim of objectivity in liberal societies is above all else a sham. That even powerful players such as the BBC are secretly captive, and their reportage and commentary qualify less as news than as Hasbara, at least when it comes to Israel-Palestine. In any event, my advice to the media savvy, is that if you have caller ID, and you can tell that it is BBC calling, don’t bother answering. I hope I have the good sense to follow my own advice should the phone ever ring again!” That, of course, is the management’s method of operation. For the working journalist it’s indeed quite a vastly different set of circumstances since s/he is usually reluctant to decide on her/his own what to report and what to secret away. In fact, a professional media person always feels a moral compulsion to tell the tale, often in spite of threats of many kinds. Because their conscience advises them to. (Certainly, as in all spheres, there indeed are exceptions.)
Instilling fear in newsmen
Way out there in Bangladesh, meanwhile, the incumbent administration despite having every tentacle of state apparatus in its firm grip, has decided to add more ammunition to its armory by formulating a brand-new so-called national broadcast policy which observers have dubbed yet another “black law”. Among other aspects, obviously, it’s meant to instill more fear especially in journalists as also to some extent among media owners. “We have enough reasons to be concerned over the policy. The media cannot operate like this. The policy ensures the government’s control on the media,” is how the Bangladesh chapter of Transparency International viewed this attempt of the government, and added: “This policy contradicts the Constitution, the Right to Information Act, the values of democracy and human rights.”
While a university professor commented, “If journalists live with fear of a lawsuit for revealing the truth, they won’t be able to work independently and people would suffer for it. …With journalists and lots of people dissatisfied with the policy, I don’t think the government can ever implement it in its current condition.” But the facts exhibit that such inhibitions don’t bedevil the present rulers.
All the factors together are creating enormous difficulties almost in all countries, and they are also affecting public discourse, an essential gear in a functioning democracy. As stated by Phillip Di Salvo, in the United States if sources are reluctant to talk, information doesn’t get through to the public. When it comes to reporting national security issues, several journalists described the climate in the US as comparable to what they might come up against in more authoritarian countries.
Horrific and outrageous
Journalist Peter Maass is quoted in the report as saying he is “horrified and outraged” by the situation, revealing that he has the same problems working as a reporter in the US as he did in the former Soviet Union and North Korea.
Di Salvo concludes by declaring: “We should be outraged but we should also use the case as evidence in the fight to narrow the scope of surveillance, reduce government secrecy and better protect national security whistleblowers — as well as the lawyers who defend them and the journalists who tell their stories.” This may also convey to government leaders in countries like Bangladesh that there definitely will be resistance to all efforts to quieten the media.
