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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

With the exponentially development of technology, multiple social networking sites available in different platforms, the impact of living in this digital era is immense on people’s lives around the world.

“Info-activism is about turning information into action.”

So how effective could it be in terms of practicing freedom of expression?

It is about using information and technological tools to make a difference, which includes spreading news and knowledge which are forbidden or suppressed in the press to the public who have the rights to know.

Whether it is via blogging or Twitter, people’s lives are effected by this wave of info-activism in many places around the world, e.g. India, Egypt, Cambodia and Iran.

I first caught sight of the term while skimming through events on the Front Line Club website, a London-based media club supporting independent journalism.

On December 4, the 50-minute documentary, 10 Tactics, will be showed at the Front Line Club, which will be followed by worldwide screenings.

This film is the project of Tactical Technology Collective. According to its own definition, it is “an international NGO helping human rights advocates use information, communications and digital technologies to maximise the impact of their advocacy work.”

10 Tactics will feature 35 interviews with human rights advocates around the world, as well as 10 tactics for turning information into action.

Share this
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

The chief executive of Index on Censorship, John Kampfner, says that critics of the political and corporate powers-that-be risk being silenced by a legal system that has become heavily biased against free speech.

Index on Censorship will next week release a report Free Speech is Not for Sale: The Impact of English Libel Law on Freedom of Expression, a document it hopes will convince politicians of the urgent need to change the law on what you can write or broadcast without being liable for defamation damages. It is attempting to find out how many media super-injunctions are in existence in Britain, and estimates a figure of between 20 and 50.

The Index research has been timed to precede the much-anticipated report by Parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee entitled Press, Standards, Privacy & Libel. John Kampfner, chief executive of Index and the former editor of the New Statesman, says the issues at stake go to the heart of a society that is at risk of becoming mute in its criticisms of political and, particularly, corporate institutions. “It’s not just about the press,” he says. “The really damaging thing is the self-censorship that is becoming ingrained.”

Kampfner talks passionately of British scientists who “are talking in euphemisms in their research documents” for fear of being sued by multinational companies, and of NGOs refraining from criticism of foreign politicians and military figures who commit human rights abuses, due to the high risk of crippling legal actions.

It is an extraordinary time, when the largely anonymous users of sites such as Twitter can come together and, in comments of 140 characters or fewer, bring pressure to bear on institutions, including media companies, yet identifiable critics are increasingly being cowed into silence. “It’s a strange world we inhabit,” agrees Kampfner, “when the only people that can take action are anonymous, or have huge safety in numbers.”

Over the past decade, the right to uncover information and to criticise the powers-that-be has been undermined, says Kampfner. “This Labour government … [is] working from the assumption that the public has no right to know unless it hammers on the gates.”

That is part of Index’s role, along with lobbying, providing affidavits to judges and constantly speaking out publicly. “In an ideal world we would be less busy because we would have a political culture in the UK that took the American approach that something is open unless there are very specific and compelling reasons to make it secret. I think we are a long way off from that yet.”

The publication of the Free Speech report (which has been compiled in partnership with English PEN, the literature and human rights group that includes writers Claire Tomalin, pictured, Doris Lessing, Philip Pullman and Monica Ali), will be followed by the formation of a new Libel Coalition, which will continue the struggle for changes in the law. Among the prominent members of the coalition will be Simon Singh, a science writer who is fighting a libel action brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association.

Singh’s case is “just a microcosm”, says Kampfner, whose organisation works closely with the charitable trust Sense About Science. “There are dozens of similar science and medical writers here and in the US and elsewhere who are frightened of making fair and reasonable scientific comments because they could be sued in the UK courts,” he says.

British law, argues Kampfner, has become “balanced heavily against free expression”. He is also involved with the Arts Council, being chair of the Turner Contemporary gallery in Kent, and says that some galleries are now resorting to canvassing opinion on future exhibitions to ensure that they do not cause offence. “It’s pretty much impossible to put on any artistic or cultural event which does not cause offence,” he complains. “The whole point of art and culture and journalism is to challenge. There do need to be certain safeguards but the balance has gone completely the other way.”

The introduction of conditional fee agreements (CFAs) to give wider access to the libel courts has had the reverse effect of what was intended, he says. “You now have the rich and famous taking on legal firms who string out cases for as long as possible to break the will and cash flow of small publishers.”

Kampfner would like to see the libel laws changed so that large companies, like governments, are beyond libel – unless they can prove malicious falsehood. He would like the public interest defence to be broadened and for the burden of proof in a libel action to be shifted from the defendant to the litigant. “This is not just about the rights of the media,” he emphasises. “We are here to define the right to know and the right to free expression.”

This article was published on the Independent, November 2.

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

Arunachal Pradesh is an Indian state bordered with China and has been the subject of border disputes between the two countries.

The AP article on the New York Times website reads:

Permits allowing foreign correspondents to travel to Arunachal Pradesh state were not given, and the government revoked passes previously provided to four of them, including two Associated Press journalists.

Foreigners require special government permission to visit the mountainous state.

”We are incredibly surprised and disappointed to learn that reporters’ visas to Arunachal Pradesh have been canceled ahead of the Dalai Lama’s visit,” said Heather Timmons, president of the New Delhi-based Foreign Correspondents’ Club.

China has strongly opposed the Tibetan spiritual leader’s visit to a Buddhist monastery in the Arunachal Pradesh town of Tawang beginning Sunday.

Although relations between India and China have improved in recent years, tensions can flare because of sharpening economic rivalries, lingering bitterness over their shared border, and unrest in Tibet — the Chinese-controlled Himalayan region on the Indian frontier.

Last week, the Dalai Lama said China was overpoliticizing his travels, adding his decisions on where to go were spiritual in nature, not political.

However, amid pressure from China, more than 800 Buddhist monks in Arunachal are all set to give the Dalai Lama a “religious welcome.”

An article on Spero news reported yesterday:

According to Rinpoche [prime minister of Tibet’s government-in-exile], “this is the fifth visit of the Dalai Lama to the State, actually the sixth, if you count the time when he went through the State on his way to Dharamsala. It is a routine visit, planned long time ago. The Dalai Lama will inaugurate a hospital, and the local population wants to receive his dharshan (blessing). It is clearly a religious trip, nothing political about it.”

It all strictly comes down to the political relationship with China.

Barack Obama also cancelled his meeting with the spiritual Tibetan leader last month, stirring a debate of whether a policy of appeasement towards the Chinese government is undergoing.

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

The following quote was taken from Lecture 5, Licence to Deceive, where it talked about Press Freedom in the 21st Century.

This is a good read for a start.

O’Neill not only addressed what a free press means and what it should do but also reflected on the media conglomerates’ trustworthiness on having “unrestricted rights of free expression.”

She argued that “freedom of the press does not also require a licence to deceive,” and thus deduced thought provoking ideas that press freedom should not abuse its privilege in reporting what it wants to achieve for a purpose, but should rather give the public the rights to assess and judge for themselves what they want to trust.

So if we want to address the supposed ‘crisis of trust’ it will not be enough to discipline government, business or the professions– or all of them. We will also need to develop a more robust public culture, in which publishing misinformation and disinformation, and writing in ways that others cannot hope to check, is limited and penalised. Yet can we do so and keep a free press?

We may use twenty-first century communication technologies, but we still cherish nineteenth century views of freedom of the press, above all those of John Stuart Mill. The wonderful image of a free press speaking truth to power and that of investigative journalists as tribunes of the people belong to those more dangerous and heroic times. In democracies the image is obsolescent: journalists face little danger (except on overseas assignments) and the press do not risk being closed down. On the contrary, the press has acquired unaccountable power that others cannot match.

Rather to my surprise and I think ultimately my comfort, the classic arguments for press freedom do not endorse, let alone require, a press with unaccountable power. A free press can be and should be an accountable press.

Accountability does not mean censorship: it precludes censorship. Nobody should dictate what may be published, beyond narrowly drawn requirements to protect public safety, decency and perhaps personal privacy. But freedom of the press does not also require a licence to deceive. Like Mill we want the press to be free to seek truth and to challenge accepted views. But writing that seeks truth, or (more modestly) tries not to mislead needs internal disciplines and standards to make it assessable and criticisable by its readers. There is no case for a licence to spread confusion or obscure the truth, to overwhelm the public with ‘information overload’, or an even more dispiriting ‘misinformation overload’, let alone to peddle and rehearse disinformation.

Like Mill we may be passionate about individual freedom of expression, and so about the freedom of the press to represent individuals’ opinions and views. But freedom of expression is for individuals, not for institutions. We have good reasons for allowing individuals to express opinions even if they are invented, false, silly, irrelevant or plain crazy, but hardly for allowing powerful institutions to do so. Yet we are now perilously close to a world in which media conglomerates act as if they too had unrestricted rights of free expression, and therefore a licence to subject positions for which they don’t care to caricature and derision, misrepresentation or silence. If they had those unconditional rights they would have rights to undermine individuals’ abilities to judge for themselves and to place their trust well, indeed rights to undermine democracy.

Like Mill we may support freedom of discussion, and think that it is fundamental to democracy, and so support the freedom of the press to foster what in the US is charmingly called wide-open, robust debate. But for that very reason we cannot support freedom for media conglomerates to orchestrate public ‘discussion’ in which some or many voices are unrepresented or caricatured, in which misinformation may be peddled uncorrected and in which reputations may be selectively shredded or magnified.

A free press is not an unconditional good. It is good because and insofar as it helps the public to explore and test opinions and to judge for themselves whom and what to believe. If powerful institutions are allowed to publish, circulate and promote material without indicating what is known and what is rumour; what is derived from a reputable source and what is invented, what is standard analysis and what is speculation; which sources may be knowledgeable and which are probably not, they damage our public culture and all our lives. Good public debate must not only be accessible to but also assessable by its audiences. The press are skilled at making material accessible, but erratic about making it assessable. This may be why opinion polls and social surveys now show that the public in the UK claim that they trust newspaper journalists less than any other profession.

The rest of the lecture can be found here.