Press Freedom: Ensuring Dissenting Voices are Heard is Critical for Democracy
Journalists and media workers hold banners during a World Press Freedom Day gathering in Gaza City, Palestine, on May 4, 2025. The press needs to increase the diversity of voices in its newsrooms and reports. It needs to be more plural, more transparent and more connected to the demands of society, says the writer.
Giuliano Galli
One of our greatest challenges is to understand the meaning of the words 'freedom' and 'press' in contemporary society, marked by technological transformations, political polarization and widespread distrust. Understanding what these concepts represent today is, above all, reflecting on the foundations of democracy itself .
Public trust in journalistic institutions has been declining for some years in many parts of the world. In Brazil, according to data from the Reuters Institute 's Digital News Report , only 43% of the population trusts the news they consume, the lowest rate since the beginning of the historical series, in 2012. This is a crisis of trust that threatens journalistic practice as the main mediator of public debates.
At the same time, the way information circulates has also changed radically. News is no longer just something we search for. Through cell phones and social media, it finds us and captures us, often driven by algorithms that prioritize what moves us – and not necessarily what informs us. Going viral has replaced journalistic curation. In this scenario, the traditional press is losing ground not only in terms of reach, but also in terms of authority, having to compete for the public's attention with digital influencers, now seen as alternative sources to the mainstream .
In this scenario, what should the press do to regain credibility in the age of social media? Above all, it must defend ethical and excellent journalism , even at the cost of making the news less 'viral'. But it is also essential to recognize that the competition is not just for audience, but for meaning. And that the role of the press is always to report with rigor, context and responsibility.
This shift in journalism requires self-reflection. The press needs to increase the diversity of voices in its newsrooms and reports. It needs to be more plural, more transparent and more connected to the demands of society. The current times, of great social transformations and increased access to new information and communication technologies, open up the possibility that small media outlets and even individual initiatives can join this large ecosystem known as the press – and this is healthy for democracy when done responsibly and guided by the public interest.
For this reason, regulating digital platforms should not be seen as censorship, but as an intrinsic part of the solution. It is necessary to ensure that citizens know how to distinguish between journalism and manipulation; between fact and propaganda. Establishing responsibilities for large technology companies is essential to preserve the public information space and curb the proliferation of misinformation.
Freedom of the press, after all, is not just a right for journalists, but for the whole of society, and precisely for this reason it must ensure that dissenting voices are heard so that democracy is not further weakened.
Therefore, it is necessary to reaffirm the commitment to ethical, independent and responsible journalism. The future of press freedom, more than ever, depends on public trust and on territories regulated on the basis of diversity, dialogue and collective interest.
* Giuliano Galli is a journalist and coordinator of Journalism and Freedom of Expression at the Vladimir Herzog Institute. A researcher of community journalism and popular communication, he has worked on the right to freedom of expression since 2014.
** This article was originally published at https://www.brasildefato.com.br/
*** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
25-05-2025
- IOL News
Independent Media and the true meaning of press freedom
Independent Media's editor-in-chief Adri Senekal de Wet. Image: Armand Hough/Independent Newspapers CAROLINE James's recent article on amaBhungane's decision to intervene in a legal matter involving Independent Media is a disingenuous attempt to paint herself and her organisation as champions of press freedom. However, it is both ironic and revealing that this apparent act of 'solidarity' arrives wrapped in disdain, accusations, and a backhanded swipe at Dr Iqbal Survé, the chairman of Independent Media and the Sekunjalo Group. Let me set the record straight. Dr Survé is a visionary South African entrepreneur, a trained medical doctor, and a global philanthropist who has received multiple honorary doctorates and has served in key leadership roles across international economic and media platforms. He has served as chairperson of the BRICS Business Council (South Africa), represented the country at the World Economic Forum in Davos, and remains deeply committed to building inclusive economic models that empower the majority of South Africans, not a select few. Crucially, Dr Survé has dedicated a significant portion of his life to defending and advancing the principles of free speech and media plurality, often at great personal and financial cost. Under his leadership, Independent Media became one of the very few large-scale, black-owned media houses in the country, committed to transforming the narrative landscape of South Africa. It is precisely because of this transformation that powerful interest groups have waged a relentless campaign to discredit him and the company he leads. Independent Media has published stories other outlets wouldn't touch — stories about state capture, corporate corruption, banking collusion, land restitution failures, and political hypocrisy. We have given voice to the marginalised, to families of unrest victims, whistleblowers, and ordinary citizens. We have upheld the spirit and substance of media freedom as enshrined in Section 16 of our Constitution: not just the right to speak, but the right to know. Which brings us to the real meaning of World Press Freedom Day, a day meant to honour the fundamental human right to free expression and to recognise the press as a pillar of democracy, not a tool of elite manipulation. Sadly, this spirit is being diluted by actors like amaBhungane, who present themselves as independent while evading full transparency about their funding and motives. James fails to mention, for instance, the growing concern about amaBhungane's financial ties to international donors and wealthy local benefactors, including links to Oppenheimer-aligned initiatives. She does not disclose that figures like William Gumede allegedly received funding from these circles, raising serious questions about ownership influence and editorial bias. For an organisation that preaches transparency, this omission is glaring. It is also worth reminding the public that one of amaBhungane's co-founders, Sam Sole, has previously been accused of Stratcom-style tactics, misusing investigative journalism to serve political interests and destabilise black-owned media entities. These are not idle accusations. They come from years of observation, experience, and first-hand exposure to how narrative warfare is conducted in South Africa. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ In that context, James's faux indignation that Independent Media has called out amaBhungane as 'racist' or 'Stratcom' is not only misplaced, it's revealing. It reflects a belief that their organisation is beyond scrutiny, above criticism, and immune to being held to the same standards they so eagerly apply to others. Let us be crystal clear: press freedom does not belong to a handful of NGOs funded from abroad. It belongs to the people of South Africa. It belongs to the journalists on the ground, the community papers, the investigative reporters who work without donor stipends or overseas backers. And yes, it belongs to media houses like Independent, which face daily legal and financial harassment for simply doing their job. The case involving ARTsolar is not an isolated incident; it is part of a broader trend where powerful interests use the courts to silence journalists. We reject any form of censorship, whether it comes from corporate boardrooms or courtrooms. But we also reject opportunists who swoop in at the last minute to frame themselves as heroes while undermining the very institutions they claim to defend. At Independent Media, we are committed to protecting the rights of our journalists, defending the integrity of our platforms, and ensuring that media freedom is not reduced to a slogan used to justify elitist capture of the narrative. We are here to serve the public interest. That includes challenging the very actors who claim to speak for the public while operating in secret. We call on amaBhungane to disclose all their sources of funding, all potential conflicts of interest, and the real motivations behind their targeted interventions. We also remind them that media solidarity begins with mutual respect, not condescension, not character assassination, and certainly not selective advocacy. As editor-in-chief, I am proud to stand alongside Dr Survé and the editors and journalists across our titles. We are not perfect, but we are principled. And we will continue to tell the stories that matter, no matter how uncomfortable they are for those who believe they should control the narrative. On this Press Freedom Day, let us reaffirm what real media independence looks like: it looks like accountability, it looks like truth-telling, and it looks like ownership that reflects the soul of the country, not the wallets of a privileged few. * Adri Senekal de Wet is the editor-in-chief of Independent Media.
Daily Maverick
12-05-2025
- Daily Maverick
When bail becomes a ‘victory' – Zimbabwe's dangerous war on journalism continues
Zimbabwe's government, under Emmerson Mnangagwa, has steadily intensified its crackdown on dissent. Far from the reformist image he attempted to project after long-serving former president Robert Mugabe's unceremonious 2017 ouster, Mnangagwa has led a regime characterised by the weaponisation of law, suppression of opposition, and an unrelenting assault on press freedom. Coming as it did, just three days after the World Press Freedom Day commemorations, the recent granting of bail to Zimbabwean investigative journalist Blessed Mhlanga should not be mistaken for a shift towards a more tolerant regime that is beginning to embrace democratic norms of a free press, justice or judicial independence. Rather, it is likely a begrudging concession to local and international pressure by a regime bent on cowing journalists, and crushing any form of dissent and freedom of expression. It could even be an act sanctioned by an administration that believes that Mhlanga's long and unjustified incarceration has served its purpose of sufficiently intimidating other journalists and showing them the fate that awaits them should they ever diligently exercise their duties of covering and giving a platform to dissenting voices. Mhlanga was arrested on 24 February 2025 and detained for a staggering 72 days. His supposed crime? Broadcasting his interview with ruling Zanu-PF party Central Committee member and war veteran Blessed Geza, who excoriated President Emmerson Mnangagwa for alleged corruption and gross violation of the constitution, and demanded his resignation. For simply giving a platform to dissenting views — a cornerstone of journalistic duty — Mhlanga was charged under the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act for allegedly 'inciting violence'. His case was investigated not just by the regular police, but by the Counter-Terrorism Unit — a worrisome escalation that reveals the paranoid Zimbabwean government's dangerous conflation of journalism with terrorism. Why this is important The context of his arrest is essential. Zimbabwe's government, under Mnangagwa, has steadily intensified its crackdown on dissent. Far from the reformist image he attempted to project after long-serving former president Robert Mugabe's unceremonious 2017 ouster, Mnangagwa has led a regime characterised by the weaponisation of law, suppression of opposition, and an unrelenting assault on press freedom. Mhlanga is just the latest in a long line of journalists subjected to arbitrary arrest, surveillance, physical attacks, and harassment. There is no reason to believe he will be the last. It took three separate court appearances before Mhlanga was finally granted bail on 6 May 2025 by High Court Judge Gibson Mandaza. In arriving at his decision, Justice Mandaza cited 'changed circumstances', including the completion of the docket against Mhlanga and the passage of time. Yet these factors existed or were foreseeable from the beginning. Why, then, was bail denied repeatedly beforehand? Why did the courts parrot state claims that his release would 'undermine peace and security' or lead to 'witness interference'? The judiciary's role in Zimbabwe is increasingly controversial and suspect. Courts are supposed to be independent of other arms of the state. They ought to be bastions of justice and constitutional order. Yet many Zimbabweans now believe that they appear instead to operate as extensions of the executive. The opacity surrounding their decisions — especially in politically charged cases — erodes public trust. In Mhlanga's case, the lack of substantive reasoning behind both the initial bail denials and the eventual approval fuels suspicions of political interference. The timing of the bail, just three days after World Press Freedom Day commemorations, also suggests the regime and the courts may have bowed to rising international condemnation and local civil society pressure. Abnormality of Zimbabwe's political environment That Zimbabweans and press freedom advocates around the world must breathe a collective sigh of relief over bail being granted is a testament to the debasement and abnormality of Zimbabwe's legal and political environment. In any functioning democracy, bail is not a privilege to be celebrated — rather, it is a constitutional right. But under Mnangagwa, Zimbabwe has been reduced to a country where even basic liberties are luxuries dispensed by the state in dribs and drabs, very much like the state and its cronies distribute educational opportunities, farming inputs, healthcare and other essential services to a few chosen bootlickers. Mhlanga is out on bail, but we remain very far from a resolution. This is because the unwarranted charges against him remain in place. The sword still dangles, and the chilling message to other journalists remains the same — do your job at your peril. The broader climate of fear, persecution and repression of journalists, human rights activists and ordinary citizens persists. The government is not showing any signs of repenting from its nefarious agenda to frame independent journalism as a national security threat. By deploying the Counter-Terrorism Unit in Mhlanga's case, the state sent a loud signal that it no longer distinguishes between terrorism and journalism. This dangerous narrative undermines press freedom and the public's right to information and democratic participation. Mhlanga's ordeal fits into a broader pattern. Laws such as the Patriotic Act, the Maintenance of Peace and Order Act, and various provisions of the Criminal Law Act are frequently deployed not to maintain order, but to sanitise the persecution of real and imagined dissenters. Unsurprisingly, Zimbabwe has become a nation wherein fear suppresses truth, and repression is enforced through a veneer of legality. Palpable irony In all the regime's machinations, there remains a palpable irony that cannot be ignored. Not too long ago, Mnangagwa immensely benefited from a courageous press. When he fell out of favour with Mugabe in 2017, it was the independent media — including Mhlanga — that provided him with a platform to air his views and remain politically relevant. Today, having entrenched himself in power, he has turned against the very institutions that once stood by him. This self-inflicted amnesia shows a leader and a government that is unwilling to tolerate accountability. Mhlanga may be out of jail for now, but ordinary Zimbabweans, civil society, and media watchdogs must not allow themselves to be placated by this 'victory'. Bail is not freedom. The charges against Mhlanga remain, and they should not. There is no legitimate case to answer. Journalism is not a crime. Conducting interviews is not terrorism. Asking difficult questions or broadcasting dissenting views is not a sedition. To allow these charges to stand is to endorse the regime's dangerous narrative that independent journalism is a threat to national security. We must remain vigilant because it is Not Yet Uhuru. We must continue the fight for justice. True justice will only be served when the charges against Mhlanga are dropped unconditionally. True justice will only be served when journalists can operate without fear of persecution, and when the legal system upholds its duty to protect, rather than punish, those who seek to inform the public. DM
Daily Maverick
11-05-2025
- Daily Maverick
When bail becomes a ‘victory': Zimbabwe's dangerous war on journalism continues
Coming as it did, just three days after the World Press Freedom Day commemorations, the recent granting of bail to Zimbabwean investigative journalist Blessed Mhlanga should not be mistaken for a shift towards a more tolerant regime that is beginning to embrace democratic norms of a free press, justice or judicial independence. Rather, it is likely a begrudging concession to local and international pressure by a regime bent on cowing journalists, and crushing any form of dissent and freedom of expression. It could even be an act sanctioned by an administration that believes that Mhlanga's long and unjustified incarceration has served its purpose of sufficiently intimidating other journalists and showing them the fate that awaits them should they ever diligently exercise their duties of covering and giving a platform to dissenting voices. Mhlanga was arrested on 24 February 2025 and detained for a staggering 72 days. His supposed crime? Broadcasting his interview with ruling Zanu-PF party Central Committee member and war veteran Blessed Geza, who excoriated President Emmerson Mnangagwa for alleged corruption and gross violation of the constitution, and demanded his resignation. For simply giving a platform to dissenting views — a cornerstone of journalistic duty — Mhlanga was charged under the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act for allegedly 'inciting violence'. His case was investigated not just by the regular police, but by the Counter-Terrorism Unit — a worrisome escalation that reveals the paranoid Zimbabwean government's dangerous conflation of journalism with terrorism. Why this is important The context of his arrest is essential. Zimbabwe's government, under Mnangagwa, has steadily intensified its crackdown on dissent. Far from the reformist image he attempted to project after long-serving former president Robert Mugabe's unceremonious 2017 ouster, Mnangagwa has led a regime characterised by the weaponisation of law, suppression of opposition, and an unrelenting assault on press freedom. Mhlanga is just the latest in a long line of journalists subjected to arbitrary arrest, surveillance, physical attacks, and harassment. There is no reason to believe he will be the last. It took three separate court appearances before Mhlanga was finally granted bail on Tuesday, 6 May 2025 by High Court Judge Gibson Mandaza. In arriving at his decision, Justice Mandaza cited 'changed circumstances', including the completion of the docket against Mhlanga and the passage of time. Yet these factors existed or were foreseeable from the beginning. Why, then, was bail denied repeatedly beforehand? Why did the courts parrot state claims that his release would 'undermine peace and security' or lead to 'witness interference'? The judiciary's role in Zimbabwe is increasingly controversial and suspect. Courts are supposed to be independent of other arms of the state. They ought to be bastions of justice and constitutional order. Yet many Zimbabweans now believe that they appear instead to operate as extensions of the executive. The opacity surrounding their decisions — especially in politically charged cases — erodes public trust. In Mhlanga's case, the lack of substantive reasoning behind both the initial bail denials and the eventual approval fuels suspicions of political interference. The timing of the bail, just three days after World Press Freedom Day commemorations, also suggests the regime and the courts may have bowed to rising international condemnation and local civil society pressure. Abnormality of Zimbabwe's political environment That Zimbabweans and press freedom advocates around the world must breathe a collective sigh of relief over bail being granted is a testament to the debasement and abnormality of Zimbabwe's legal and political environment. In any functioning democracy, bail is not a privilege to be celebrated — rather, it is a constitutional right. But under Mnangagwa, Zimbabwe has been reduced to a country where even basic liberties are luxuries dispensed by the state in dribs and drabs, very much like the state and its cronies distribute educational opportunities, farming inputs, healthcare and other essential services to a few chosen bootlickers. Mhlanga is out on bail, but we remain very far from a resolution. This is because the unwarranted charges against him remain in place. The sword still dangles, and the chilling message to other journalists remains the same — do your job at your peril. The broader climate of fear, persecution and repression of journalists, human rights activists and ordinary citizens persists. The government is not showing any signs of repenting from its nefarious agenda to frame independent journalism as a national security threat. By deploying the Counter-Terrorism Unit in Mhlanga's case, the state sent a loud signal that it no longer distinguishes between terrorism and journalism. This dangerous narrative undermines press freedom and the public's right to information and democratic participation. Mhlanga's ordeal fits into a broader pattern. Laws such as the Patriotic Act, the Maintenance of Peace and Order Act, and various provisions of the Criminal Law Act are frequently deployed not to maintain order, but to sanitise the persecution of real and imagined dissenters. Unsurprisingly, Zimbabwe has become a nation wherein fear suppresses truth, and repression is enforced through a veneer of legality. Palpable irony In all the regime's machinations, there remains a palpable irony that cannot be ignored. Not too long ago, Mnangagwa immensely benefited from a courageous press. When he fell out of favour with Mugabe in 2017, it was the independent media — including Mhlanga — that provided him with a platform to air his views and remain politically relevant. Today, having entrenched himself in power, he has turned against the very institutions that once stood by him. This self-inflicted amnesia shows a leader and a government that is unwilling to tolerate accountability. Mhlanga may be out of jail for now, but ordinary Zimbabweans, civil society, and media watchdogs must not allow themselves to be placated by this 'victory'. Bail is not freedom. The charges against Mhlanga remain, and they should not. There is no legitimate case to answer. Journalism is not a crime. Conducting interviews is not terrorism. Asking difficult questions or broadcasting dissenting views is not a sedition. To allow these charges to stand is to endorse the regime's dangerous narrative that independent journalism is a threat to national security. We must remain vigilant because it is Not Yet Uhuru. We must continue the fight for justice. True justice will only be served when the charges against Mhlanga are dropped unconditionally. True justice will only be served when journalists can operate without fear of persecution, and when the legal system upholds its duty to protect, rather than punish, those who seek to inform the public. DM
