Freedom is not up for debate
Column: The murder of Anna Politkovskaya is forcing the Swiss media to reflect on press freedom, writes Josefa Haas.
Column The murder of Anna Politkovskaya forces the Swiss media to reflect on freedom of the press.A few years ago, I met Anna Politkovskaya. At an event in Bern, she talked about her work, the unimaginable living conditions in Chechnya and the permanent fear for her own integrity. At the time, an older gentleman dared to explain paternalistically to what he considered a young woman that no harm would come to her if she worked professionally. What it means to risk one's life for journalism was simply beyond his imagination. But Anna Politkovskaya is not an isolated case. Since the beginning of the year, 89 media professionals have been killed worldwide. In Switzerland, few can imagine risking their lives doing journalistic work. Fortunately, the country has long lived in peace and cultivates cultural diversity in a very small area. The pronounced democratic consciousness, the collegial system of government and a rich media set limits to the germination of ideological terror. This is an achievement that must be appreciated and nurtured.
Above all, the principle of freedom of the press must not be taken for granted. While this freedom is not open to discussion in principle, it must always be at the center of the discussion about the function and performance of the media. The scissors in the head are present everywhere, be it from fear of losing one's job, from the drying up of information sources or simply from making oneself unpopular.
The Reporters Without Borders organization, among others, is responsible for the debate on press freedom. It recently published its ranking of press freedom. At the top of the list are Finland, Iceland, Ireland and
the Netherlands. Switzerland moved up seven ranks to place
eight. The reason given for this is the legal prosecution of the media under Section 293 of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes the "publication of official secret proceedings.
Germany was also downgraded, from 18th to 23rd place. The reason for this was the illegal surveillance of journalists by the Federal Intelligence Service, the editorial and house searches at Cicero, the proceedings against two journalists for "aiding and abetting the betrayal of secrets," death threats against a cartoonist and the more difficult access to data.
The U.S. continues to lose ground: In 2002, it was still in 17th place; in 2006, it was only in 53rd place. Reporters without Borders explains this development by saying that any journalist who critically questions the Bush administration's "war on terror" appears suspicious.
It is interesting to look at the list of questions for the ranking. The survey does not only focus on government restrictions. Economic or private attacks on press freedom are also analyzed. These include subtle mechanisms such as restrictive access to information, preferential treatment of media with a particular editorial line, tabooing of topics, advertising boycotts or relevant restrictions on the diversity of information through media concentration.
These more or less subtly applied forms of instrumentalization of the media also exist in Switzerland. All those involved therefore have a responsibility for media freedom: the media owners, by creating space for broad information and comprehensive opinion-forming; the advertising industry and those responsible for PR, by valuing controversial debates to strengthen credibility; the journalists, by taking up explosive topics with civil courage and also facing up to critical examination of their work; and the audience, which uses journalistic products to broaden its horizons and form a differentiated opinion.
Josefa Haas is head of the Media Institute.
Above all, the principle of freedom of the press must not be taken for granted. While this freedom is not open to discussion in principle, it must always be at the center of the discussion about the function and performance of the media. The scissors in the head are present everywhere, be it from fear of losing one's job, from the drying up of information sources or simply from making oneself unpopular.
The Reporters Without Borders organization, among others, is responsible for the debate on press freedom. It recently published its ranking of press freedom. At the top of the list are Finland, Iceland, Ireland and
the Netherlands. Switzerland moved up seven ranks to place
eight. The reason given for this is the legal prosecution of the media under Section 293 of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes the "publication of official secret proceedings.
Germany was also downgraded, from 18th to 23rd place. The reason for this was the illegal surveillance of journalists by the Federal Intelligence Service, the editorial and house searches at Cicero, the proceedings against two journalists for "aiding and abetting the betrayal of secrets," death threats against a cartoonist and the more difficult access to data.
The U.S. continues to lose ground: In 2002, it was still in 17th place; in 2006, it was only in 53rd place. Reporters without Borders explains this development by saying that any journalist who critically questions the Bush administration's "war on terror" appears suspicious.
It is interesting to look at the list of questions for the ranking. The survey does not only focus on government restrictions. Economic or private attacks on press freedom are also analyzed. These include subtle mechanisms such as restrictive access to information, preferential treatment of media with a particular editorial line, tabooing of topics, advertising boycotts or relevant restrictions on the diversity of information through media concentration.
These more or less subtly applied forms of instrumentalization of the media also exist in Switzerland. All those involved therefore have a responsibility for media freedom: the media owners, by creating space for broad information and comprehensive opinion-forming; the advertising industry and those responsible for PR, by valuing controversial debates to strengthen credibility; the journalists, by taking up explosive topics with civil courage and also facing up to critical examination of their work; and the audience, which uses journalistic products to broaden its horizons and form a differentiated opinion.
Josefa Haas is head of the Media Institute.
