As World Press Freedom Day Is Observed; Journalists: Observers and Participants ...

Observance of World Press Freedom Day at the United Nations on 3 May was organized by the Department of Public Information (DPI), in cooperation with The Freedom Forum - an international non-governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to freedom of the press - and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). In an introductory statement, Kensaku Hogen, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public (pictured at centre), said World Press Freedom Day had been observed at the United Nations since 1993. This year, the panel discussion focussed on the topic "Turbulent Eras: Generational Perspectives on Freedom of the Press'." Robert Giles, Senior Vice-President of The Freedom Forum and Executive Director of Media Studies Center (right), in his introductory remarks said: "We would like to think that every day is World Press Freedom Day." The reality was, however, different. The lists of journalists who had been jailed, beaten and killed was a sobering reminder that today's news reports depended on the courage of reporters and photographers who worked under the threat of violence and intimidation. Stephen Rosenfeld, Deputy Editorial Page Editor and columnist, The Washington Post (left), delivered the keynote address. Daljit Dhaliwal, anchor, World News for Public Television, moderated the panel discussion, noting that the United Nations establishment of Worm Press Freedom Day had yielded many prominent ideas on why it was important to have a free press.

Eugenie Aw, journalist, Partnership Africa Canada, said that to be a journalist in Africa in the early 1970s was to have the freedom to expand media coverage to present multiple voices. At one time, journalists in the region used to practise self-censorship. The United Nations had encouraged journalists to exercise freedom and present the truth. Women started taking a greater role, and many stories that were never presented before were suddenly in the media; they could finally talk about the violence from their husbands and political and economic issues. Twenty years ago, there were only a handful of radio stations in Africa; now there were more than 200. But repression and economic pressures remained. The new generation of journalists must ensure that all voices were heard to accelerate the creation of public opinion in Africa.

Anthony Lewis, columnist, The New York Times, said the press often acts as a warning sign for terrible events to come. When the press was suppressed, it meant other repression was bound to happen. Many tools were used to repress the media - money, imprisonment and death. People in power did not like to be criticized and it was natural for them to stifle the press if tradition and laws did not prevent it.

He said that tabloid zeal last year in the United States had encouraged a campaign to destroy the President. It seemed fantastic that Americans spent 13 months traumatized about such nonsense as the Monica Lewinsky situation. In contrast, it was crucial that there were brave committed journalists in Bosnia when Serbs were shelling the city. If they had not stayed despite the snipers, the world would not have known about what was happening, and nothing would have been done. In that regard, it would have been better if the Western press would have told what was happening in Rwanda and shame the world into acting. Maybe that was the role of the press - to shame the politicians. "I think we have to keep doing it", he said.

Susan Meiselas, photojournalist, Magnum Photos, said the key issue for photographers was to bear witness - to document and find evidence. Photos resisted erasure and remained part of the historic record. Foreign journalists had often not only been harassed, but pushed and beaten. The struggle was still to witness, and to see what "we have been forbidden to see".

Tomoyo Nonaka, former anchor, NHK and TV-Tokyo, and Visiting Professor of Communications at Chukyo Women's University, said Japanese society as a whole was experiencing drastic changes and turbulence in terms of social, cultural and economic perspectives. During the past one or two years, aided in particular by the ever-expanding digital technological advances, those great changes had served as a catalyst towards further democratization and liberalization of the world.

The Japanese language as a tool of communication was extremely complex. The application of the language's many variations required the complete understanding of social mores, the status of human relationships, the positions of tides within society and even the issue of gender. She said another area of constraint arose from the traditional Japanese value in which individual interests were subordinated to those of groups.

Journalists in Japan gave priority to being a member of an elite group of comrades or sharing in common objectives. As a result, sectorial press clubs appeared to function with an unthinkable degree of dogmatism, authority and conformity, often with pre-agreed formats for press reports and news items. Her representing Japan today was, however, symbolic of the evolving progress in the freedom of the press in her country. "In this turbulent era, we journalists are supposed to discuss not only the contents of freedom of the press, but also how to spread it to all the people of the world."

Sam Younger, former Managing Director of BBC World Service and currently Director-General of the British Red Cross, said there was an ongoing debate on whether citizenship and national interest should be placed before journalistic interests. During his career, he had developed a respect for those journalists who were relentless in their search for the truth, ignoring the interests of nations or their own interests. Nevertheless, there was also a point to saying that journalists did have a responsibility to national and other interests. The reporting of many media organizations had brought the profession into disrepute.

There was a danger that journalism standards would go so low that Governments would be able to set restrictions on the media, with the support of the people who did not think highly of the press, he said. The decline in standards or poor behaviour by journalists made it easy for those who would restrict press freedom to do so. He added that the real heroes in journalism was not the Western press, but those who risked their lives in situations of repression in relentless pursuit of truth.

Cameron Duodu, columnist, The Johannesburg Mail and Guardian, said that in 1960 in Ghana, journalists thought they were living in turbulent times.

Many countries became independent and massacres ensued. The United Nations was involved then, as now, in trying to bring stability to the region. Many UN personnel had died working for peace in Africa, including Ghanaians. There was no monument to those who died trying to make peace in the Congo and other places. Journalists should ask themselves how often they used their press freedom to pursue the truth, especially in regard to the oppression undertaken against Yugoslavia. Actions there had been undertaken without the agreement of the Security Council. Freedom of the press was not an abstract concept that should be pigeon-holed.

'From Glibness to Understanding'

In his keynote address, Stephen Rosenfeld said that during the cold war many journalists were enlisted by either side in the struggle. Large stakes, such as war and peace and the validity of political systems, pervaded the times. Journalists were both observers and participants in the battle. Being on the right side was what counted. The cold war was now over. and the new story was globalization, interdependence and peace - those preoccupations put the United Nations right in the middle of things.

He said the story was not just about globalization as life and growth, but about war and fear, the predatory aspects of the process. Journalists did not see just the debris of wars, they were also the debris, evidenced in colleagues everywhere who had died. In Kosovo, the war of guns had been supplemented by a war of words. Slobodan Milosevic, President of Yugoslavia. used propaganda to mobilize people behind his political agendas. His countercharge was that the United States started a propaganda war against the Serbs years ago. That did not just mean that the United States Government had used its official instruments of communication to serve a political agenda, which was true. Perhaps. Mr. Milosevic also meant that the Western media had been recruited for counter-Serb news - in other words, they were paid to lie. Ongoing coverage in the United States of Kosovo was good. Journalists were paid to tell the truth. In the end, however, it came down to a cultural gap. Very few Americans were familiar with the cultural identity politics practised in Yugoslavia. His own personal exposure had led him to the conclusion that in addressing an international event, the American press tended to take years to move from glibness to understanding.

He wished that in the aftermath of the cold war there had been greater thought on how "our allies of two world wars" - the Serbs - were now turning into foes. The prevailing media tone was not respectful to Serbs. and the Serbian American community had not provided the calibre of spokespersons to speak on their behalf. The bombing of Serbian media houses did not bode well for future coverage. The free press doctrine had been structured for peaceful times and did not translate well into the turbulent international times.