Guinea's Media Future Debated Amid Ongoing Broadcast Bans
Guinea's media regulator concluded the 'Forum on the Future of the Press,' an event aimed at revitalising the country's media landscape. However, six prominent news outlets remain blocked, highlighting the ongoing challenges to press freedom under the military-led government.
The Ministry of Information and Communications Technology revoked the broadcasting licences of FIM FM, Espace FM, Sweet FM, Djoma FM, Djoma TV, and Espace TV, citing 'non-compliance with the content of the specifications.' These outlets have been off the air since December 2023, when authorities initially suspended them for 'security reasons.'
The Union of Press Professionals of Guinea reported that over 700 media workers have lost their jobs due to these closures. The SPPG described the government's actions as 'repressive' and warned of a 'social and humanitarian disaster,' threatening an indefinite general strike if the bans are not lifted.
ADVERTISEMENT
Prime Minister Amadou Oury Bah defended the government's stance, referencing the role of partisan media in historical conflicts such as the 1994 Rwandan genocide and post-election violence in Ivory Coast. He emphasised the need to prevent mechanisms that could undermine national stability.
The High Authority of Communication , Guinea's media regulator, has faced criticism for its handling of the situation. Djoma Média's director-general, Kalil Oularé, expressed surprise at the suspension, noting that no prior summons or explanations were provided. The HAC is traditionally expected to give prior notification and justification for such decisions.
International organisations have condemned the government's actions. The Committee to Protect Journalists called for the immediate reinstatement of the affected media outlets, stating that the revocation of licences is an alarming effort to censor the news in Guinea. Reporters Without Borders reported that several radio stations have been jammed, with some broadcasting military music instead of regular programming.
Access to social media platforms, including WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, has also been restricted since November 2023, further limiting the public's access to information. These platforms are only accessible through virtual private networks .
The government's crackdown extends beyond media outlets. Investigative journalist Habib Marouane Kamara was abducted in December 2024 by men in security forces uniforms in Conakry. Kamara, editor-in-chief of lerevelateur224.com, was beaten unconscious and taken away, with his whereabouts remaining unknown. This incident underscores the increasing media suppression under Guinea's military regime.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arabian Post
2 days ago
- Arabian Post
TikTok Eliminates #SkinnyTok Amid Mounting Pressure Over Harmful Diet Content
TikTok has removed the hashtag #SkinnyTok from its platform, responding to escalating concerns over content promoting extreme weight loss and disordered eating behaviours. Users searching for the term are now redirected to resources offering support for body image and eating disorders. The decision follows sustained scrutiny from European regulators, particularly in France, where officials have criticised the platform for enabling the spread of content that glamorises unhealthy body standards. Clara Chappaz, France's Minister for Digital Affairs, characterised the removal as a 'collective victory' and reiterated her commitment to safeguarding minors online. TikTok stated that the hashtag had become associated with content violating its community guidelines by promoting dangerous dieting practices, including extreme calorie restriction and excessive water consumption. Although the platform had previously attempted to mitigate exposure by restricting such content to users over 18 and adjusting search suggestions, many harmful videos continued to circulate. ADVERTISEMENT The platform has faced criticism for featuring influencers like Liv Schmidt, who promoted these dangerous practices. Her content was eventually removed after media scrutiny, and she later lost her monetisation privileges on Instagram as well. Despite the removal of the hashtag, concerns persist. Typing 'SkinnyTok' into the app now redirects users to wellness advice, but similar harmful content still thrives under altered or misspelled hashtags. Advocates argue that while the ban is a positive step, it is insufficient to address the broader issue of harmful content on the platform. TikTok's actions come amid a broader push by the European Union to hold social media platforms accountable for harmful content. The European Commission has been investigating TikTok's risk management of addictive design and harmful content since February 2024. The platform's decision to ban #SkinnyTok may be seen as an effort to demonstrate compliance with regulatory expectations. Experts warn that the proliferation of content promoting disordered eating on social media platforms like TikTok can have serious consequences for young users' mental health. Studies have shown that exposure to such content can lead to increased body dissatisfaction and a higher risk of developing eating disorders. Health professionals emphasise the need for more robust content moderation and greater awareness of the dangers posed by these online communities.
Gulf Today
7 days ago
- Gulf Today
Germany plans to tax Google, Facebook
Germany's Culture Ministry is planning to bring a law to tax the American online giants like Alphabet of Google and Meta of Facebook. The rate of taxation is to be 10 per cent. The grounds on which taxation is to be imposed are interesting and even new. German Culture Minister Wolfram Weimer told the magazine, Stern, 'These corporations do billions in business in Germany with extremely high profit margins and benefit enormously from the country's media and cultural output as well as its infrastructure – but they pay hardly any taxes, invest too little, and give far too little back to the country.' There is more than an element of truth in Weimer's statement. Google and Facebook thrive much from the media content that populates their platforms, which is one of the reasons that millions of Net users throng them, to get the news in a jiffy as it were. Both Google and Facebook do not create an iota of their own content. They thrive on what they take from others, either directly or through their own users. Australia overcame the problem by giving in to the demand of newspapers and other old media, that Google should pay them for using their content. Weimer is stating the fact that the online platforms are using cultural output of the country – whether it be music, films, art – and they do not do anything to sustain the cultural events. Similarly, the Internet penetration in the country and the infrastructure that sustains it is what enables millions of Germans to use Google and Facebook, and it is on the large number of users that these online companies earn their revenues. It is but reasonable that the online companies should be made to pay taxes of some kind. Weimer has even suggested voluntary contribution on the part of Google and Facebook. But this may be impracticable. No company will be willing to make voluntary contribution in lieu of taxes. The American online platforms have an advantage over national players because they have worldwide footprint because of the investments they made in the search engines reaching the ends of the globe as it were. They are indeed reaping benefits from it. But do they have an obligation to the regions and countries in which they operate? Google and Facebook can argue that they have built the cyber bridges to connect the different places, and they are allowing a free use of it. The owners of these platforms would not let these sites remain free if they were not earning enough revenue in billions of dollars. If they did not make money, they would have imposed some user-charges from the thousands of millions who use them around the globe. They can say that they have boosted other businesses through the space they have opened up for other businesses. These arguments do not however discredit the demand for tax payments from national governments. That these online payers use national airwaves is a fact. It can be argued that it is the telecom companies in these countries which have the right to charge these companies. But the search engines with enormous Cloud or memory power which sustain these platforms do cost enough money, but the revenue generated by advertisers outstrips the investment and costs of maintenance. National governments have a legitimate right to demand tax from the online platforms because they operate within the sovereign territory of a country. Facebook and the Google do not have the solidity of an iPhone, but they are at the same time cyber-products. They can be treated as taxable products or services. The rate of taxation should remain flexible enough so that the thriving business of connecting people is not affected or dampened.
Arabian Post
30-05-2025
- Arabian Post
Israeli Genocide In Gaza Is A Reminder Of Atrocities Perpetrated By Nazis On Jews
By P. Sudhir Yaqeen Hammad, a 12-year-old Palestinian girl, was shredded into pieces by an Israeli missile attack on her residence. Yaqeen has been aptly called the Anne Frank of Gaza. Like Anne, who kept a diary in an attic in a Holocaust-ravaged, Nazi-occupied neighbourhood, Yaqeen documented the horrors around her. Her diaries – digital this time – became a record of the brutalities faced by her people. Ironically, the present-day Israeli Zionists, who invoke the Holocaust to justify their moral rationale for the State of Israel and recount their suffering, are now adopting similar oppressive attitudes. Yaqeen moved from one refugee camp to another, shot videos, and posted them on Instagram, bringing global attention to the gruesome realities in Gaza. More than a media activist, she was also involved in humanitarian aid, helping thousands of hapless Palestinians in war-ravaged Gaza. The phrase 'live-streamed genocide' has gained currency – coined by Amnesty International – thanks to brave social media activists like Yaqeen. The targeting of children in Gaza is not accidental; it is the outcome of a sinister ideology that labels even innocent children as collaborators of Hamas. This notion is deeply ingrained in the hysteria whipped up by Zionist politicians. Moshe Feiglin, a close associate of the Netanyahu government, even stated emphatically: 'Every baby in Gaza is an enemy.' The depravity of such statements is unprecedented. Some extremists have gone so far as to support wiping out all such children as a military objective. The latest Israeli plan reportedly involves deploying reinforced army units to capture and 'clean out' Gaza's 365 square kilometres – 70 per cent of which has already been turned into 'no-go zones' for Palestinians. Most of Gaza's population could be pushed to Rafah, the southernmost city, which has itself been virtually razed. Cities like Khan Younis and Deir al-Balah are now synonymous with daily destruction. Perhaps the most disturbing element of the Israeli plan is the forced relocation of Palestinians into Israeli-controlled zones, ironically termed 'humanitarian zones.' There, ration packets are distributed by private security contractors tied to Israeli-vetted aid organisations. Aid has been politicised and militarized – used as a tool for coercion. This design enables a protracted occupation, with Palestinians confined to increasingly smaller areas and Israel controlling all access to necessities. Reportedly, Donald Trump even involved himself personally in setting up an aid organisation outside UN oversight to carry out this militarised aid programme. Netanyahu's cabinet has code-named the military mission 'Gideon's Chariots.' Whether it is truly intended to pressure Hamas into releasing hostages or simply a cover for collective punishment is clear from the scale of destruction. However, the intensity of the military operation has forced some changes in western leadership's tone. In a joint statement, the UK, France, and Canada condemned the humanitarian crisis, calling it 'intolerable.' They questioned the inadequacy of the food aid plan and said: 'We condemn the abhorrent language recently used by Israeli government officials. Permanent forced displacement is a breach of international humanitarian law.' While initially supporting Israel's right to self-defense after Hamas' October 7 attack, they now strongly oppose the expansion of military operations in Gaza. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated: 'Humanitarian aid must never be politicised,' emphasizing that the only viable resolution is a two-State solution. Yet, in the absence of US pressure – especially with Donald Trump's silence – it is uncertain whether Netanyahu will heed this advice. Francesca Albanese, the UN's Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, was forthright: 'Most member states remain inactive at best or are actively aiding and abetting Israel's criminal conduct.' She referred particularly to western and some Gulf nations. She also warned that Israel risks becoming a pariah state, given its relentless assault not only on Palestinians but also on the United Nations. It is clear that this tragedy stems from the complicity – wilful or not – of nations that backed the 1948 UN plan creating Israel. The Zionist ideology of ethnic cleansing was evident from the outset. Jewish historian Ilan Pappé, whose family suffered during the Holocaust, detailed these intentions in his book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, beginning with the 1948 Nakba. This design is now unfolding – with Donald Trump's grandiose plan to turn Gaza into a tourist riviera adding insult to injury. We must understand why Israel is pursuing this hysterical campaign in Gaza post–October 7. Regardless of Hamas' military capacity, their actions challenged the myth of Israel's security invincibility. This campaign could not have proceeded without active western complicity – especially from the US. Without a civilized State-to-State relationship between Israelis and Palestinians, military might can never secure lasting peace. What we have witnessed in India is also unprecedented. Historically, Indian leadership – from Gandhi to Nehru – unambiguously supported the Palestinian cause. There was a national consensus. However, the rise of Hindutva forces has changed this completely. Hindutva and Zionism share a common ideology: religious identity-based nationhood morphing the very nature of the State. They are ideological soulmates. From the early days of the RSS, its leaders admired Zionist ideology. Contemporary Hindutva, fuelled by Islamophobia, is now supporting Israel's campaign of destruction. This alliance seeks to redefine the conflict – not as one for Palestinian liberation, but as a religious war between Jews and Muslim Palestinians. This narrative is bolstered by growing military and security partnerships between Modi's India and Netanyahu's Israel. The task ahead is clear: international solidarity with Palestine is growing. Signs of shifting western response suggest that in the 21st century, Gaza has become an existential test for modern civilization. Indian people must mobilise and pressure the Modi government to denounce Israel's intolerable actions. The responsibility rests with us all. (IPA Service)
