Olympic Games: catalyst of press freedom violations

Fireworks over the National Stadium in the opening ceremony at the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Photograph: Tim Wimborne/ Reuters

Aside from the enormous pressure to achieve the most gold medals, the Olympics is the number one chance for its host to flaunt their intentional friendliness and economical strength through various showcases, from the preparation process to the grand opening ceremony.

And it is without a doubt that the press’s role is crucial when it comes to the success of an Olympic Games.

Last year, even though the Chinese government put an admirable effort in the Olympics, they nevertheless received criticisms for the restrictions on the press. The Chinese authorities went back on their promise that “there will be no restrictions on journalists reporting on the Olympic Games” in 2001.

James Doran’s report on the Guardian, “Beijing lays down the law for army of global media”, gave an overview account of how the foreign media was treated during the game, saying: “China has tried to give the impression that it has relaxed many of its despotic media restrictions for the Olympics… but little has changed.”

But this time the headline did not come from a one-party state country. It was a scandal which sparked a debate over the freedom of expression in Vancouver, Canada -
the host of the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, as well as the 5th ranking country in America area in the Freedom of the Press report in 2009.

Amy Goodman interviewed on CBC News. Photograph: CBC

Amy Goodman, host of daily international TV/radio news hours called Democracy Now! in North America, was detained at the Canadian border when she drove through it with two colleagues to give a speech at the Vancouver Public Library.

Goodman described in her column on rabble.ca how she was treated by the border guards, who questioned her over the content of her speech, and whether she would be talking about the Vancouver Olympic Games. She commented that her detention and interrogation were “not only a violation of freedom of the press but also a violation of the public’s right to know.”

She said:

“It was then that I started learning about what was going on. The crackdown is widespread, it turns out. David Eby, executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, told me, “We have a billion dollars being spent on security here; protesters and activists have been identified as the No. 1 security threat to the Olympic Games … we have new city bylaws that restrict the content of people’s signs.” According to critics, the police can raid your home if you place an anti-Olympic sign in your window. There are concerns that homeless people may be swept from Vancouver, about how much public funding the Games are receiving while vital social services are financially starved. Anti-Olympic activists — and their family and friends — are being followed, detained and questioned.”

The incident has brought the issues of press freedom in Canada as the Olympics draws closer into the spotlight. Many have commented that this is an “embarrassment” for the free press status in the country. But similar to the example from the Beijing Olympics, the Canada government would try to shine the public away from anything that could damage the good image in which they spend a lot of money to promote.

Sports journalist Dave Zirin wrote on the Huffington Post :

“Harsha Walia, member of No One Is Illegal and the Olympic Resistance Network, said to me, “In the lead-up to the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games, we have witnessed and been subjected to an increasingly fortified police state, including intimidation and harassment of activists by security and intelligence forces as part of an unparalleled $1 billion security and surveillance network. In contravention of basic rights, police have stated their plans to set up checkpoints, search people without cause, and erect security exclusion zones.”

The Canadian government has leveled public housing, stifled civil liberties and harassed local activists. The last thing they want is someone like Amy Goodman telling the world.”

Will the 2012 Olympic Games in London lead to any speculation regarding press freedom? It is still early to say. However, it is almost certain that the job of journalists are made harder as the Games become increasingly important to a nation’s status.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

88 journalists killed so far this year

The World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA) recently published a report which revealed the death toll of media employees so far in 2009 to be 88 with hundreds more were attacked or under arrests.

The report shows that Philippines has the most cases of journalists killed, 27 of which happened during the massacre in November.

International press freedom group Reporter Without Borders said in a statement about the tragic event: “Never in the history of journalism have the news media suffered such a heavy loss of life in one day.”

WAN presented this report two days ago at the World Newspaper Congress and World Editors Forum in Hyderabad, India.

Sources: BBC/Guardian

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Will Nobel Peace winner Obama do more for human rights in China?

US President Barack Obama’s trip to China is one of the highlights in this coming week.

The purpose of this visit is for President Obama to address the economic relationship between the two countries and the environmental issues, which are believed to be the most urgent ones.

However, the issue of human rights is also one that should not be left out of the big picture. The suppress of freedom of expression in China is severe and is a fundamental problem of this country.

The following extract is taken from The Daily Beast, which sums up all the points so far regarding Obama and his fail to tackle human rights abuses in China.

Last month, President Obama snubbed the Dalai Lama when the exiled Tibetan leader came through Washington. It was a strategic move to placate China, where Obama is now on a three-day visit to meet with Chinese President Hu Jintao to address economic issues. Such actions have led some to think that Obama is brushing human-rights issues under the rug. So far on his Tour de Asia, Obama has failed to bring attention to Tibet or Xinjian, two embattled minority regions in China. (Although he did call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, a Burmese dissident leader under house arrest.) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also implied that, at the moment, the economy and climate change are more pressing issues than human rights. A former Bush administration Asia adviser said, “I really hope that on this trip the president not only presses privately but makes it clear publicly his support for the Dalai Lama… It’s not just about an important international spiritual leader; it’s a measure of how China will treat the weak as it grows more powerful.” Obama will meet with the Dalai Lama after he returns from China.

Other readings:
“Barack Obama criticises internet censorship at meeting in China” – The Guardian
“Obama reaches out to China in first visit” – The Washington Post
“Five things the U.S. and China actually agree on” – The Time

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

What Caijing’s editor’s resignation means

China is notorious for its reputation of censorship, most dominantly in the press. The recent resignation of Caijing magazine’s founder and editor, Hu Shuli, is a tip of an iceberg for the freedom of media in this country.

Caijing's cover on November 9. WSJ.

Caijing, meaning “Finance and Economics”, is an independent publication based in Beijing. It is a pioneer in reporting finance, economics and politics in China. Started in 1998, the bi-weekly news magazine is widely praised for its bold, investigative and influential coverage of China’s controversial economical and political issues.

Hu has always been credited for the reputation of Caijing magazine and websites. Zhang Hong, a Chinese commentator on the Economic Observer, said: “The success of both Hu Shuli and Caijing, lay in her ability to clearly understand the size of the cage and also the position of her “bird” within the cage.”

Since her decision to quit broke out on Monday, commentaries have been circulating on the internet over what the departure of Hu and her editorial team means for the future of Caijing and what impacts this has on the issue of press freedom in China.

In an article on the Huffington Post, Goldkorn, editor in chief of Danwei, a website that covers China’s media industry, said: “No one will take Caijing seriously now. Hu Shuli is almost half the brand, if not more.”

The CPJ’s blog credited the magazine as “a prime example of just how good journalism in China could be if a publication has good reporters and editors and enough political protection.”

Another commentator on Foreign Policy wrote a throughout article on this issue, explaining what it shows us about “how Chinese bureaucracy and censorship works that she wasn’t fired.”

A Wall Street Journal’s journalist blogged about Hu’s article published on Caijing’s latest issue. It was a piece takes on ChiNext, “China’s new exchange for startup companies, whose opening two weeks ago was seen by many observers as an almost farcical example of Chinese trading run amok.”

In the conclusion, he said:

Hu’s swan song for Caijing shows why she’ll be missed by its readers. The piece demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of how markets are supposed to work, which often seems lacking in the Chinese financial press, but also a subtle grasp of the larger forces at work in China, often missing in Western commentaries. Above all, what stands out is her willingness to call out Beijing on its mistakes.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Exiled Thai PM could be jailed for “insulting” the Royal Family

Former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in Manchester, north-west England (AFP)

This is a prominent example of how the press is heavily, if not entirely, controlled by its government in East Asia.

The Times online today published an article reporting about the former Thai prime minister being under jail threat for calling for a reform of institutions and for speaking of “information unflattering to the monarchy.”

In the interview with the Times, Thaksin Shinawatra, the ousted Thai PM, said: “Thailand needs to have a monarchy but it should not be abused or played by the palace circles.”

The Thai government took his words as offensive.

“I would like to say that Thaksin’s interview violates the monarchy, which is the country’s main institution,” Kasit Piromya, Thailand’s foreign minister, said to reporters in Bangkok.

“I wonder what the hidden agenda was that caused him to make this inappropriate move. In his interview there are several parts referring to His Majesty the King, the Crown Prince and the monarchy, and [they] also refer to His Majesty’s role in politics.”

He said that the country’s justice ministry would consider whether to charge Mr Thaksin with lèse majesté, on top of the two-year prison sentence imposed upon him in absentia for a corrupt land deal transacted during his five years as prime minister.

According to the Times, Mr Thaksin reacted in defence followed an uproar in Thailand by issuing a statement saying that The Times’s report was “distorted” and “untrue”.

However, the Times claimed that “the text of the interview, posted on Times Online, matches the recording of the conversation and was transcribed by a press representative of Mr Thaksin.”

Have your own thoughts on Mr Thaksin’s answers and comments in the full interview transcript.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::