Partial Readings: Fourth Estate Blues
Partial Readings: Fourth Estate Blues
Partial Readings: Fourth Estate Blues
South Africa?s governing African National Congress party has proposed a media law to prevent slander of the government, which some worry could ?threaten press freedom, enshroud much official activity in secrecy, potentially punish offending journalists or whistle-blowers with up to 25 years in prison and undermine the fight against corruption in the continent?s largest economy.? Journalists are already on the watch; editors at leading South African paper the Mail & Guardian expressed their worry after Sunday Times reporter Mzilikazi wa Afrika was arrested in early August: “We’re in the fight of our lives. It will be long, messy, and short on moral clarity, but that won’t stop us from fighting it with all we’ve got.”
Across Latin America, government and private media have also come into conflict. Argentina’s first couple, the Kirchners, are making steep demands of the country?s media conglomerates. In Venezuela, where the murder rate has skyrocketed, Chávez has targeted media outlets for printing photos of the dead:
When [Roberto Briceño-León of the Venezuelan Observatory of Violence] revealed the level of violence during a televised debate on CNN?s Spanish-language channel earlier this month, he was greeted with raucous laughter by Andrés Izarra, Mr Chávez?s former information minister. Mr Izarra, who used to work for CNN and now runs a rival, Telesur, for the Venezuelan government, accused the channel of ?journalistic pornography?. But he did not produce any alternative figures.
In Mexico, it’s journalists themselves who risk murder. Two journalists were rescued in July after being kidnapped by a drug cartel ?seeking to silence the media.? And just last week, a car bomb exploded outside TV network Televisa?s offices in Ciudad Victoria.
Meanwhile in Russia, because ?the Kremlin has brought almost all major television stations under its control over the last decade, and since newspapers and magazines have low circulations?and are often owned by oligarchs with close ties to the government?it has been left to the bloggers to exercise the checks-and-balances function traditionally performed by the media.? Internet journalists have received mixed messages on censorship and freedom of expression. President Medvedev ?calls for ?openness at all levels? from his government and Russian authorities,? while ?[t]he FSB, Russia’s domestic intelligence agency, wants to force Internet service providers to remove undesirable websites.? Robert Schlegel, an MP for Putin?s United Russia Party, is now ?working on a new Internet law that would introduce a type of electronic passport for every user, making the Internet as easy to control as the other forms of media that have been amenable to promoting government interests.?
In Italy, Berlusconi?s near-complete control of television media has helped solidify his popularity in recent years, but as he faces a tough election this fall, many worry that a phone-tap bill now under consideration in Parliament will lead to a further curtailing of press freedom, especially on the internet. Opposition to the proposed gag rule culminated in a total media blackout on July 9.
Elsewhere in Europe, the government-spying-on-media relationship is reversed. Reporters from Rupert Murdoch?s tabloid News of the World stand accused of tapping into phone conversations and voicemails of numerous British elites, including members of the royal family. This may only be the tip of the iceberg:
News of the World was hardly alone in accessing messages to obtain salacious gossip. ?It was an industrywide thing,? said Sharon Marshall, who witnessed hacking while working at News of the World and other tabloids. ?Talk to any tabloid journalist in the United Kingdom, and they can tell you each phone company?s four-digit codes. Every hack on every newspaper knew this was done.?
Across the pond, another wing of Murdoch?s media octopus got involved in politics in a friendlier way: News Corp. donated $1 million to the Republican Governor?s Association (RGA) this June. The other big RGA donors are the billionaire Koch brothers, one of whom started the tea party-allied Americans for Prosperity. Jane Mayer writes, ?The anti-government fervor infusing the 2010 elections represents a political triumph for the Kochs. By giving money to ?educate,? fund, and organize Tea Party protesters, they have helped turn their private agenda into a mass movement.?
Tea Party leading light and Murdoch employee Glenn Beck made the move to expand his own burgeoning brand this week; on the heels of his rally on the Mall, he began the Blaze, a website with a big mission: ?The Blaze will be about current news ? and more. It?s not just politics and policy. It?s looking for insight wherever we find it. We?ll examine our culture, deal with matters of faith and family, and we won?t be afraid of a history lesson.? So far, the Blaze has excelled in covering news about…Glenn Beck.
But the internet isn?t all good freedom and fun. Editors at the Economist point to three walled threats to internet openness. The first is governments ?reasserting their sovereignty? in an attempt to control the flow of information. The second: ?[B]ig IT companies are building their own digital territories, where they set the rules and control or limit connections to other parts of the internet,? a problem illustrated in Wired?s recent cover story, ?The Web is Dead. Long Live the Internet.? And third, ?network owners would like to treat different types of traffic differently, in effect creating faster and slower lanes on the internet,? a problem most vividly captured by recent discussions of an exclusive deal between Google and Verizon. Writes the Nation,
Instead of a free and open Internet that will take Americans where they want to go?thanks to the longstanding neutrality principle, which guarantees equal access to all websites and applications?the Google-Verizon deal would permit Internet service providers to speed up access to some content while leaving the rest behind. Such “pay for priority” would allow big business to buy speed, quality and other advantages?which would not be merely commercial. Now that the Supreme Court has afforded corporations electioneering rights equal to those of citizens, decisions about how we communicate have a profound political component to them.
