&w=3840&q=100)
India ranks 151st on World Press Freedom Index: Reporters Without Borders
India's ranking on the World Press Freedom Index improved to 151 among the 180 countries surveyed by Reporters Without Borders this year from 159 the previous year.
Finland, Estonia and the Netherlands take up the top three positions in the index that sought responses from more than 5,000 persons from across the world to finalise the rankings.
"We have surveyed 5,000 respondents across the world. It comprises a diverse set including policymakers, journalists and other stakeholders," Thibaut Bruttin, assistant director general of Reporters Without Borders, said at a press conference in Delhi.
The organisation does not reveal the respondents' identity, he said and insisted that it was a diverse set representing different ideologies.
India has nearly 900 privately-owned TV channels, half of which are dedicated to news.
Around 1,40,000 publications are published in more than 20 languages, including some 20,000 daily newspapers with a combined circulation of more than 390 million copies, Reporters Without Borders said.
The US ranks 57th on the index, slipping two positions from the previous year's ranking.
Even in highly-ranked countries such as Australia (29th), Canada (21st) and Czechia (10th), media concentration is a cause for concern, Reporters Without Borders said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
5 days ago
- The Hindu
The university versus constitutionally protected speech
'Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties,' said John Milton in his famous pamphlet, Areopagitica (1644), opposing the licensing system (called imprimatur). Originally introduced in response to the introduction of the printing press in England in 1538 and reinstituted by the British Parliament in 1643, authors had to obtain permission or licence from the government prior to their publications. In India, several High Courts and even the Supreme Court of India are hearing petitions on the limits of freedom of expression. Should we really go back to that dated system where prior permission of the government or university is required to express one's views? Are university teachers mere robots who should write only research papers and not express their opinions on contemporary issues? Do we no longer consider free speech to be an integral part of human dignity and an individual's self-fulfilment? Is truth no more autonomous and the highest public good? Are not excessive restrictions on free speech based on the assumption of infallibility of the state or its stated positions? These are some of the pertinent issues that India must resolve because its position on these fundamental issues is bound to strengthen or weaken its ethical claim of being a true Vishwaguru. India's low rank of 151 out of 180 in the World Press Freedom Index does not enhance its stature in the comity of nations. No doubt, 'nation first' should be the rule of thumb for all of us because no debate can survive if the nation itself perishes. We must be united in our fight against an enemy that has time and again been sponsoring and exporting terror to our country. A prompt and befitting response during Operation Sindoor has been given to the enemy nation. The labelling of opinion as activism We must now return to the realm of constitutional vision as we need to win the battle of ideas as well. Of course, every writer has the duty to make a disclaimer that his views are personal and do not represent the views of the institution he serves. But then a mere expression of views cannot be termed by the corporate owners of the universities or vice-chancellors as 'activism'. An expression of opinion may be dissent but not necessarily activism. Public academic institutions do not mind even activism and active politics. A professor became the national president of the Bharatiya Janata Party (1991-93). Certainly, no writer should expect any institutional support for his personal views. No court should ideally shy away from its duty of safeguarding constitutionally 'protected speech'. It must remain consistent with its own past pro-freedom of speech judgments. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Texas vs Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), had even considered burning of the national flag as a protected expression. India need not go that far. John Stuart Mill, in his celebrated essay on liberty, said that ''If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind'. British jurist William Blackstone in 1769 considered a free press was essential for a free state. Though the 1787 U.S. Constitution did not include freedom of the press as a right (because Roger Sherman had said in the Constitution Convention that adopted the U.S. Constitution, that there was no need to mention freedom of press as the powers of the Congress would not extend to press yet within four years), the First Amendment in 1791 on freedom of press made a categorical and explicit declaration that the 'Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....' Democracy is government by choice and people cannot exercise their choices if they are not told about all the available alternatives. Let alternative views be expressed and protected. Moreover, freedom of speech assures individual self-fulfilment. If a citizen is not allowed to express his emotions, his opinions, his frustration, and his happiness he will not feel self-fulfilled. University owners must understand that such suffocated individuals cannot produce scholarly research as knowledge cannot be created in a controlled environment. We produced greats such as Aryabhata, Chanakya, Gargi Vachaknavi and Charaka because the education in our ancient gurukuls was not controlled by the state. Within the portals of universities, all kinds of ideas, which include repulsive ones, must be expressed. Today, our universities are over regulated and grossly underfunded. Expression and the truth Freedom of expression helps us in attaining the truth. It was Milton who said, 'Though all winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple, who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter'. In an age of fake news, let everyone speak so that people can decide for themselves who is speaking the truth. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. of the United States rightly observed that in a capitalist market place, the 'best test of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of market'. Thus, an expression of all views would basically serve the government's cause in fencing off people from what is false. This is nobody's case that freedom of speech is an absolute right. Indeed, no one should indulge in unnecessary talk. The exercise of right must be aimed to serve the constitutional objects of free speech, i.e., the search for truth and helping people in forming opinions about governmental actions and thereby ensuring sovereign people's participation in the governance. The extent of restrictions The Constitution permits only 'reasonable restrictions' on the freedom of speech and expression. The all-important word 'reasonable' was inserted by the first constitutional Amendment in 1951. These restrictions can be in the interests of sovereignty and the integrity of India, security of state, public order, decency, morality, friendly relations with foreign countries, and defamation or incitement of an offence. 'Public order and friendly relations with foreign states' too were inserted in 1951. Interestingly, restrictions in the interests of 'sovereignty and integrity' were inserted by the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963. No restriction on freedom of speech can be imposed even by the government through an executive order. Restriction on free speech requires legislation. To satisfy the test of 'reasonableness', courts invoke the 'doctrine of proportionality'. In Anuradha Bhasin vs Union Of India (2020), the Supreme Court not only held the right to Internet as a part of free speech but also reiterated that the restrictions on free speech can be imposed after considering alternative measures. It added that such restrictions must be legitimate, necessary and least intrusive. It is the state which has the burden of proof in establishing that the restriction is proportionate, and thus reasonable. No institution has any right to restrict anybody's freedom of speech on any ground other than the ones mentioned in Article 19(2). Thus, restrictions cannot be imposed by any institution just because it is a private educational institution or because it is bound by the regulatory control of regulatory bodies. These are lame excuses that do not have a leg to stand on. The Supreme Court, in Dr. Janet Jeyapaul vs S.R.M. University and Anr. (2015), had held private universities as 'state' because they too discharge 'public functions' and thus, any arbitrary dictate by them would be hit by Article 14, i.e., the right to equality which includes the right against arbitrariness. Returning to the issue of an author/writer facing the consequences, the law is crystal clear — if his speech is not protected by the Constitution, no one can or should defend him. But when the speech is well within constitutional limits, ideally, the institution should not disown him as it would not only demotivate the faculty but also result in a situation where such an institution would not be able to attract outstanding scholars. A student is the real conscience keeper of a university. Private educational entrepreneurs must know that the Supreme Court has had the consistent view that education is an occupation and not a business. Let us celebrate a diversity of opinions as in a vibrant democracy, every opinion counts and the university truly signifies a universe of knowledge. Faizan Mustafa is a constitutional law expert and Vice-Chancellor of Chanakya National Law University, Patna, Bihar. The views expressed are personal
Time of India
26-05-2025
- Time of India
US public media shutdown hits harder in Turkey
US President 's shutdown of US media outlet Voice of America, or VOA, has had a particularly strong impact in countries like Turkey where press freedom has long been under threat. As a result of the Trump administration's defunding of the US government-funded international news service on March 14, the organization has effectively ceased operations. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now News websites in all languages have not been updated for more than two months. Broadcasts on television and radio have either stopped completely or switched to music-only programming. Before suspending service, VOA, which was often one of the rare sources of uncensored news in countries like Turkey, broadcast in 49 languages to a weekly audience estimated at 354 million people worldwide. Banned in Turkey Turkey, where approximately 90% of major media outlets are government-controlled, banned access to the Turkish-language website of VOA in 2022, alongside all language versions of Deutsche Welle, or DW. Since then, VOA had been trying to reach its audience in Turkey via a "mirror" website that reproduced the content of the original platform, until Trump shuttered the broadcaster completely in mid-March. Media rights group Reporters Without Borders, or RSF, ranks Turkey 159th out of 180 countries in its 2025 World Press Freedom Index, citing ongoing repression of journalists. There are currently 17 journalists in prison in Turkey. RSF Turkey representative Erol Onderoglu told DW that international media organizations like VOA, the BBC and DW have emerged as "constructive" role models in recent years, as the country's increasingly polarized press environment has seen a significant decline in quality and freedom. The Turkish-language services of international broadcasters gained prominence as independent media in Turkey have diminished. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Their newsrooms are based abroad but the language services also employ a small number of reporters within the country. "VOA has also played an important role in opening the voice of Turkey's civil society movement and journalism community to the outside world and breaking the effects of isolation," Onderoglu said. VOA Turkish was one of the most important sources for audiences in Turkey, especially regarding developments between Ankara and Washington. "Whenever there was a development in the US that could put the Erdogan government in a difficult position — for instance, an allegation that could lead to sanctions on Turkey over Iran — the first website I would check was VOA's," one of VOA's Turkish audience told DW. Journalists at risk Following Trump's decision to halt federal funding to the parent agency of VOA, most of the Washington-based news service's roughly 1,300 staffers were placed on administrative leave as a first step toward termination. A group of VOA employees affected by the March executive order has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing the president of executive overreach. A federal appeals court in early May blocked a ruling that had ordered the Trump administration to put VOA employees back to work. Following the appeal court's decision on World Press Freedom Day, the Trump administration has accelerated efforts to carry out the layoffs. Nearly 600 contractors, who received termination notices on May 15, were instructed to return their press credentials, badges and other VOA property by May 30. Some affected employees are J-1 visa holders and face imminent deportation, with only 30 days to leave the US. VOA Director Michael Abramowitz, also one of the plaintiffs in the court case, said that many of those journalists "have escaped tyranny in their home countries to tell America's story of freedom and democracy." On Thursday, Abramowitz noted that the May 3 decision remained in effect after the appeals court rejected a request for an en banc review, a full reconsideration by all eleven judges — and warned that the Trump administration could push for further layoffs. An unwanted 'voice' silenced Speaking to DW, a Turkey-based VOA employee recalled the day the broadcaster abruptly shut down operations: "Our colleagues in Washington were asked to vacate their offices during working hours. Their badges were seized. They didn't even wait for the end of the day. News operations came to a sudden halt. We couldn't even complete the reports we were working on." The journalist, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that VOA stood out in a media environment increasingly under pressure from "an authoritarian regime." "It was perceived as a threat by the ruling party, facing both access bans and smear campaigns by pro-government outlets targeting VOA staff. In that sense, it's likely that the government welcomed the shutdown of VOA," they said. The VOA has also produced broadcasts critical of the US governments, they pointed out: "For example, when experts criticized the US in analyses of Turkish-American relations, such comments were never censored." Trump's 'war' on journalism Antoine Bernard, director of advocacy and strategic litigation at RSF, told DW that Trump's attempts to shut down VOA must be understood in the larger context of "his war on the press." "He has targeted public media funding, launched politically motivated investigations into media he doesn't like, and banned journalists from the White House for refusing to use the exact words he wants them to use. Quite simply, he does not tolerate independent media", he said. RSF recently warned of "an alarming deterioration in press freedom" in the US under President Trump. The organization highlighted how Trump exacerbated already difficult conditions by cutting off US financial support for state-funded broadcasters such as VOA and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). Earlier this month, Trump signed yet another executive order seeking to slash funding for the US' Public Broadcasting Service, or PBS and National Public Radio, or NPR. The Trump administration also launched Federal Communications Commission investigations into major media outlets, including ABC News, CBS News, PBS and NPR.
Mint
21-05-2025
- Mint
Julian Assange open to political action as Cannes hosts documentary
By Hanna Rantala and Miranda Murray CANNES, France (Reuters) -WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is at the Cannes Film Festival this week for the documentary "The Six Billion Dollar Man," is thinking about how to become politically active again once he has fully recovered from prison, said his wife, Stella. Assange, 53, returned to his native Australia after pleading guilty last June under an agreement with U.S. officials to one count of illegally obtaining and disclosing national security materials. The plea ended Assange's five-year stay in a British prison, which followed seven years at the Ecuador embassy as he sought to avoid extradition to Sweden on sexual assault allegations. Assange denied those allegations and called them a pretext to extradite him to the United States over WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks in 2010 released hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. military documents on Washington's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - the largest security breaches of their kind in U.S. military history - along with swaths of diplomatic cables. "He was in a very grave situation in the prison. He's recovering from that," Stella Assange told Reuters in Cannes. "But now he's coming to understand how grave the situation outside (prison) is and thinking, making plans to find the means of what to do about it," she added. "He's very, very concerned about the state of the world and the state that we're all in right now," said Stella, who met Assange in London in 2011 while working as part of his legal team. Julian and Stella Assange, wearing a brooch with a picture of British designer Vivienne Westwood holding a sign saying "Stop Killing," walked the red carpet on Wednesday evening. Julian has so far not spoken at any of his appearances. The documentary from Emmy-winning director Eugene Jarecki takes on the tone of a high-tech international thriller to recount Assange's fight against extradition, using WikiLeaks footage and archives, and previously unpublished evidence. Jarecki, who began filming before Assange was released, said he never expected to see him walk around Cannes as a free man. By inviting Assange, the festival was sending a message about the need for freedom of information and a free press, Jarecki told Reuters, as those values are in decline in many parts of the world according to an index from Reporters without Borders. The director called Assange "a canary in the coal mine" in foretelling the U.S. government's current moves to exert more control over media access to U.S. President Donald Trump. "If we had taken that bit more seriously, we might have seen a bunch of this coming," said the U.S. director. Assange's lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, told Reuters that the film portrayed the WikiLeaks founder as he should be shown. "This film is absolutely necessary in terms of telling the story of free speech and what Julian Assange, his case means for the world, not just for him, but for the world," she said. (Reporting by Hanna Rantala and Miranda Murray; Editing by Sandra Maler)
