More

Mexico, Egypt No Longer Have A Free Press, Report Finds

Free Press

By BARRY SCHWEID   05/ 1/11 09:06 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON -- Mexico can no longer be considered to have a free press because of the threats and violence associated with drug trafficking, but an eight-year decline in press freedom around the world appears to have begun leveling off in 2010, an independent advocacy group reported.

In its annual accounting of press freedoms, Freedom House said the Middle East and North Africa showed a dramatic deterioration in 2010. The assessment of 196 countries and territories will be released Monday.

Among the results: Egypt was downgraded to "not free," while Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Tunisia continued to rank among the worst countries in the world for media independence and press freedom. Only Saudi Arabia, among those five countries, was not swept early this year by uprisings and appeals for freedom.

"In 2010, we saw how readily governments in the Middle East turned to repression of the media," said Karin Deutsch Karlekar, managing editor of the Freedom House study. Gains have to be implemented quickly or "this window of opportunity will be lost," she said.

"The openings that have taken place early in 2011 give us hope that gains in the Middle East may lead the way to improvements in the global level of press freedom," she said in an interview. But recent moves by the army in Egypt to restrict news coverage are worrying, she said.

The decline in Mexico's ranking to "not free"' was described as a surprise and attributed to violence related to drug trafficking. Attacks on journalists, self-censorship and a climate of fear were among the results.

Around the world, one in six people live in countries with a free press, Freedom House said, and those with access to a free and independent media declined to the lowest level in over a decade. Besides Egypt and Mexico, significant declines occurred in Honduras, Hungary, South Korea, Thailand, Turkey and Ukraine.

Over the past five years, countries with significant declines have outnumbered countries with similar gains by a more than 2-to-1 margin. However, the report said, the global trend of declines seems to have leveled off in 2010. It is not clear whether there will be an overall improvement this year, the report said.

The 10 worst-rated countries are Belarus, Burma, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

"In these states, independent media are either nonexistent or barely able to operate," the report said. "The press acts as a mouthpiece for the region, citizens' access to unbiased information is severely limited, and dissent is crushed through imprisonment, torture and other forms of repression."

___

Online:

Array

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

WASHINGTON -- Mexico can no longer be considered to have a free press because of the threats and violence associated with drug trafficking, but an eight-year decline in press freedom around the world ...
WASHINGTON -- Mexico can no longer be considered to have a free press because of the threats and violence associated with drug trafficking, but an eight-year decline in press freedom around the world ...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 391
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (12 total)
photo
karim banned
A fool's mind is at the mercy of his tongue and a
10:55 AM on 05/10/2011
What about US where all big media has been bought by Zionist bankers and people only hear warmongering from the news outlets.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Alex Gartzia
Specialist in Generalities.
10:07 PM on 05/04/2011
There is a distinct difference between the middle east and Mexico. Self censorship is a product of an internal war. Such as not reporting on government operations in progress or in development. This article fails to specify that Mexico is in a war against organized crime. It's easy to judge from afar and qualify Mexico's effort as a failed one. Although many would say the same thing about Afghanistan, because Osama has been in Pakistan for more than six years. Yet, perseverance and effort, and diligence Osama has been eliminated. War has a cost, may it be danger to the press, or innocent lives; war has never been a light effort. I'd like the author to consider the grave difference between an internal war against crime and a revolution. Seems rather ignorant stance and affirmation without a clear differentiation, but I suspect that the one sided reports from our media regarding Mexico, is not a product of ignorance but lack of research because Mexico's reporting on the Narco war is very much active and free.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jerry Bourbon
01:38 PM on 05/03/2011
In any civilized country, a journalist facing a threat would just carry a concealed weapon.

Not in Mexico. The government is utterly incapable of actually PROTECTING journalists, but is very efficient at jailing any honest citizen who actually tries to defend himself.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
John fulano de tal
09:32 AM on 05/03/2011
Here is a great example of what is happening with journalists in Mexico:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/07/we-bring-fear

What baffles me is that in Mexico this weekend they are having possibly their country’s largest protest ever against the drug war, narco violence, and government corruption.

Check below:

http://johnackerman.blogspot.com/2011/05/ending-mexican-drug-war-dallas-morning.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JohnMAckerman+%28John+M.+Ackerman%29

Here is the protest leader Javier Sicilia speaking with English subtitles. Mr. Sicilia's son and five of his sons friends were recently brutally murdered by narco thugs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_CiKzttxMQ

Why isn't the American Press all over this story?

Is this hitting too close to home for the Obama administration?
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Angie Tyne 1
I want my disagree button!!
04:04 PM on 05/03/2011
The US govt has invested enormous amounts of money and resources into the drug war. It's not the current administration. It really ramped up in the 60s with Nixon first declaring it a war.

As a nation we have yet to learn that prohibition actually increases crime and enables organizations to flourish and grow both in wealth and power.

The corruption in Mexico has been going on for decades. It is simply a matter of there being nothing new about this news. A shocker would be if the corruption actually decreased in Mexico.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Alex Gartzia
Specialist in Generalities.
10:13 PM on 05/04/2011
That is a rather ignorant statement, Mexico's police is less corrupt than ever.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Will Rinaldi
responsibility is dependability
04:08 PM on 05/02/2011
Headline should read US, Mexico, and Egypt. Let's be real, all major media corp. are owned by huge multinational corporations who have financial interest at stake to manipulate news in a manner that rewards them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Christian Buhl
02:18 PM on 05/02/2011
The ignorance in this thread is almost scary.

"Free press" is NOT synonymous with "unbiased press".
"Free press" is NOT synonymous with "press that reports things I like".

A "free press" is one that can report whatever it likes, however it likes, without fear of recrimination or censorship from the government.

Anyone who thinks we don't have a free press in this country clearly doesn't know what a free press is.
03:34 PM on 05/02/2011
Agree. Additionally:

Free press is not synonymous with accurate reporting
Free press is not sunonymous with quality reporting or relevant reporting
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jerry Bourbon
01:40 PM on 05/03/2011
On the other hand, a free press IS vastly superior to a Telesur or Granma situation where the government reports things as IT sees them.
07:16 PM on 05/02/2011
I think the problem is that most people disagree with your definition of "free press." While I'm sure that most journalists in the US appreciate the fact that they probably don't have to worry about having their throats slit by paramilitary death squads, the absence of such direct coercion is a merely a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for a "free press." If you wish to define a "free press" as one that is merely free of government interference, that is your prerogative, but do not be surprised when such a circumscribed definition is rejected by others.
01:08 PM on 05/02/2011
The press can be inaccurate, sensationalist, and irresponsible, but it is a necessary component to a free society. In the U.S., the biggest threat to a free press currently seems to be not the government, but the corporate world. Conservatives whine about the liberal press, but most of the major print and broadcast media is owned by people who are decidedly not liberal.
photo
EcnelisDoogod
B the change you want 2C
12:47 PM on 05/02/2011
Do I dare comment about the CIAs documented goals of controlling all important media since the early 1980s? Look it up for yourself under famous CIA quotes.
photo
EcnelisDoogod
B the change you want 2C
12:35 PM on 05/02/2011
Amy Goodman and "Democracy Now!" still seems pretty good.
01:21 PM on 05/02/2011
If you want an ideological partisan media, they're good. If you want neutral fair reporting which provides different perspectives, Amy doesn't provide it.
07:18 PM on 05/02/2011
Who does? The New York Times? Fox?
11:36 AM on 05/02/2011
If I didn't have to worry about my comment being censored, I'd write what I really think . . .
11:15 AM on 05/02/2011
there's no such thing as a free press...anywhere.
01:18 PM on 05/02/2011
There's no free lunch.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
reasonshouldrule
06:48 PM on 05/02/2011
THe U.S. still has a free press even though it is not necessarily an accurate or unbiased press. But to say there is no free press anywhere is patently untrue--and ridiculous.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Alex Gartzia
Specialist in Generalities.
10:15 PM on 05/04/2011
Consider what has been the ongoing pursuit of sanctions against the press for publishing the wikileaks cables.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kyeshinka
10:17 AM on 05/02/2011
This is a very subjective study. Freedom House probably puts American press near the top, but there are problems every day, and it's getting worse. Just last week a reporter in Florida was jailed for asking too many questions to Allen West; reporters are detained routinely at Quantico while asking questions about Bradley Manning; footage of protests on college campuses is routinely confiscated by police and never seen on TV. The US has absolutely no credibility lecturing other countries or even having these ridiculous rankings. Russia doesn't have a free press either, according to Freedom House, and they know far more about what's happening in the world than Americans do.
01:18 PM on 05/02/2011
Russians also eat and exercize better, and have more effective laundry detergent.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
reasonshouldrule
06:49 PM on 05/02/2011
ANd your post is very subjective as well, with little evidence to support your claims.
photo
avvocato
CON-gress is the opposite of PRO-gress.
10:08 AM on 05/02/2011
The US MSM press id CORPORATE controlled, not "free".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Christian Buhl
02:20 PM on 05/02/2011
Sorry, but "free press" doesn't mean "non-corporate controlled press".

It means freedom from government interference and censorship. You only have to look at MSNBC under Bush or Fox News under Obama to see that the press in this country is free.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
reasonshouldrule
06:51 PM on 05/02/2011
Corporations are manipulating our press, but that does NOT mean it's not a free press. Please read Christian Buhl's excellent response. He is right. You need to understand what "free press" means and what it does not.
photo
avvocato
CON-gress is the opposite of PRO-gress.
01:19 PM on 05/03/2011
Sorry to disagree but a press run by corporate money is NOT free.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LHoney
REINSTATE GLASS STEAGALL!!!
09:52 AM on 05/02/2011
USA, USA, USA, USA...
10:17 AM on 05/02/2011
Hey! You just read my mind!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
AZreb
equal-opportunity Independent heathen
09:50 AM on 05/02/2011
Our press may still be considered "free" but that depends on your definition of the word. It is becoming very hard to find a newspaper, a TV station, a website that does not promote one agenda or ideology over all others.

We have "liberal" and "conservative" areas - so-called "reporters" do not tell us who, what, where, when - they tell us "why" and if it is bad news it is always blamed on the other guy.

Too bad - this division gives us not the news without prejudice, but news from one or the other point of view.
photo
CigarGod
What is your process?
10:23 AM on 05/02/2011
Yep.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Christian Buhl
02:15 PM on 05/02/2011
A "free" press doesn't mean that media outlets can't promote one or another ideology.

In fact, it means PRECISELY that media outlets CAN promote an ideology - without fear of recrimination.