World Press Freedom Index – USA Gov Policy

Freedom of the press is increasingly endangered throughout the globe.

The existence of unbridled journalism is vital to the entire concept of democracy. It is essential for providing a forum in which all problems facing a government can be resolved by a thorough airing of all facts and solutions, and to attack instances of corruption and power grabbing.

Unfortunately, the concept of free speech is taking a worldwide beating. Outright censorship by totalitarian governments, management of media outlets that seek to slant the news towards a particular point of view, and the growing trend towards labelling open discussions as “offensive” and then banning them, combine to make an objective and independent press an endangered species.

Reporters Without Borders has released its 2016 “World Press Freedom Index,” and the news is distressing. According to the organization, “Most of the movement … is indicative of a climate of fear and tension combined with increasing control over newsrooms by governments and private-sector interests. The…Index reflects the intensity of the attacks on journalistic freedom and independence by governments, ideologies and private-sector interests during the past year.”

According to the group’s Secretary General Christophe Deloire, “The climate of fear results in a growing aversion to debate and pluralism, a clampdown on the media by ever more authoritarian and oppressive governments, and reporting in the privately-owned media that is increasingly shaped by personal interests. Journalism worthy of the name must be defended against the increase in propaganda and media content that is made to order or sponsored by vested interests. Guaranteeing the public’s right to independent and reliable news and information is essential if humankind’s problems, both local and global, are to be solved.”

All of the Index’s indicators revealed a decline in press freedom over the past several years. The problems are not confined to just censoring individual news stories. The very infrastructure of journalism is under assault, as well. The study notes that “Some governments do not hesitate to suspend access to the Internet or even to destroy the premises, broadcast equipment or printing presses of media outlets they dislike. The infrastructure indicator fell 16% from 2013 to 2016.”

There has long been confusion among many canadian cialis online men over an age of 40 years. In very rare cases, this drug may cause an aching or squeezing sensation located in the forehead, temples, or back of the head with radiation to the neck and shoulders. viagra 25 mg raindogscine.com Sildenafil was originally created to treat angina, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol are at increased risk of developing vision problems when taking generic levitra canada. Till then, Kamagra tablets are the best way to order online kamagra tablets by check cheapest viagra prices online in Germany. The outright purchase of media outlets by forces hostile to free speech is an ongoing threat. Bloomberg news reports, for example, that “China is considering taking board seats and stakes of at least 1 percent in operators of some Internet portals and mobile apps in exchange for granting news licenses, according to people familiar with the plan…The proposal would give authorities the ability to block news from reaching the Web and coincides with a broad government clampdown on information distributed online.”

In addition to government censorship and biased media management, pressure from aggressive pressure groups have damaged free speech. For quite some time, the threats from Islamic extremists has produced a chill, particularly in Europe and the middle east, on the need for a frank discussion of the key issues of terrorism, maltreatment of females, political corruption under the guise of religious leadership, and other related issues. Outright violence, such as that perpetrated against the Charlie Hebdo publication in Paris, serves as a prime example.

Reporters Without Borders notes that “The “media environment and self-censorship” indicator has deteriorated by more than 10% from 2013 to 2016.”

Even before the latest Index was published, there were an increasing number of complaints within the United States, for example, that social media outlets have acted prejudicially against individuals expressing viewpoints contrary to the prevailing Progressive orthodoxy, a trend clearly visible on college campuses. The Internet, the New York Analysis of Policy and Government believes, may be the media most at risk. The bizarre plan of the Obama Administration to surrender control of the internet to an international body composed of many members that practice censorship, scheduled to take place by November, does not bode well for the future.

Nor does the growing quest for expanding operations in China by private social media moguls. Mark Zuckerberg’s meeting with China’s propaganda chief Liu Yunshan, who praised the facebook founder’s “cooperative” attitude should raise serious alarm bells.

No nation has ever enacted free speech protection as substantial as America’s Constitutional First Amendment guarantee. But for the first time, that absolute right is being substantially assaulted. From college campuses which limit student statements that challenge leftist orthodoxy, to acts (which have not yet been successful) such as that by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) to actually amend the Bill of Rights to allow censorship of paid political speech in the name of campaign finance regulation, the free press faces dangerous times.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.