I would like to thank the organizers of this event and the IPI National Committee in Norway for this opportunity to address the participants of the Norwegian Editors Forum and celebrate with you International World Press Freedom Day.

Before presenting one by one what IPI has found to be the top ten threats to press freedom in the past years, let me try to explain the difficulty of identifying, evaluating and measuring elements that affect the degree of press freedom that a society enjoys and how misleading attempts to present a simplified version of something that is extremely complex may be.

Which are the elements that affect freedom of the press? What is their relative importance? And how does their interaction reinforce the consequences of the one or the other elements on people’s ability to access independent information?

Why is the rise to power of a media magnate, such as Silvio Berlusconi, extremely concerning for Italy’s credibility as a democracy; while the election of Michael Bloomberg, owner of one of the biggest news and information companies in the US, as mayor of New York and his potential candidacy as President or Vice-President of the USA, not a concern in terms of media independence? It is because many other elements in the Italian media landscape reinforce the problem generated by Berlusconi’s double role as a media magnate and head of state. These include a widespread lack of editorial independence, a traditional direct influence of the political parties over the public broadcaster that pre-dated Berlusconi’s political success; the fact that over 75% of the Italian people form their political opinions on the basis of information and opinions presented on the national television channels; and finally the fact that the entire broadcasting sector is dominated by the duopoly of Berlusconi’s Mediaset television network and the public broadcasting network. It is the combination of all these elements that generate serious concerns for independent information in the country.

Or take Russia, where ever since the brutal murder of journalist Anna Politkowskaya was broadly reported in the world’s news, many have expressed concern about violence against journalists in the country. And rightly so! But what few people know is that a similar number of journalists were killed in the past 5-10 years in India or in Brazil. And yet why is the press freedom situation in Russia far more alarming that the one in India, or in Brazil? Because so many other elements of the Russian media landscape contribute to an information that is nether free nor independent. It’s not only the fear of violence that affects journalists working in Russia. It’s the economic pressure exerted by an elite that control the economy and is close to those in power. It’s a culture of secrecy brought about by antidemocratic laws, harassment of journalists, fear, and an entire system that makes any form of investigative journalism impossible. IPI Russian Board Member Galina Sidorova, talking about the difficulty of practicing investigative journalism in Russia, said at an IPI event a few months ago: “Sensitive information about official wrongdoing is revealed to the media only when and if somebody in a powerful position has an interest in having that information exposed. Otherwise, the media will not know about it or will not be able to report about it.”

This kind of manipulation of media content is the outcome of many elements where violence is only one and not necessarily the most relevant one.

Stating in absolute terms that murders of journalists affects press freedom more than prison sentences against them is not accurate. Stating that secrecy laws affect press freedom more than state ownership of the media is problematic. Ant it is problematic to say that press freedom is more challenged in Pakistan, where 16 journalists were killed last year, than in Sri Lanka, where no journalist was killed last year.

Any thorough analysis of the press freedom situation in a country is necessarily complex. And media’s attempt to simplify it by reducing it to figures of journalists killed, journalists in prison, harassed… is necessarily deceptive.

Numbers are important, systematic collection of information is a key element of any research study, but the figures themselves will not give us any knowledge about press freedom threats around the world. It is the analysis of such figures that can shed some light.

A scientist called Alan Perlis once said “Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Geniuses remove it.”

I hope we are no fools and I fear we may not be geniuses, so we are stuck with complexity. At IPI we try to explain the complexity, to spell it out. Through reports such as the IPI World Press Freedom Review, our press freedom missions, conferences, we discuss the individual elements that contribute to a given media landscape; we try to give them weight and meaning, to put them into context. We look at the difference between the three murders of journalists that took place in India last year, the three murdered in Colombia and the three in Nigeria.

This list of top ten threats to press freedom in 2010-11 that I present today is a first attempt to categorize all our finding and give them structure. Is an attempt, which certainly needs improvement and perfectioning, to combine the figures we have collected and place them into context, and therewith generate new knowledge and understanding. It is our first attempt to be “geniuses” and turn complexity into simplicity.

The IPI list of top ten press freedom threats is not prioritized. We believe that all these elements equally affect press freedom in the world.

What have been the 10 greatest threats to press freedom last year?

We have talked about violence against journalists, which certainly has great repercussions on press freedom and independent reporting.

1)  Targeted murders and violence against journalists by state or non-state actors with the aim of silencing their reporting

102 journalists were killed in 2010 because of their profession, the second highest number in the past ten years. The systematic violence against journalists leads to high levels of self-censorship about issues of public concern and the consequent loss of information by a society. Many journalists get killed either reporting from a dangerous environment, a conflict, or while investigating illegal activities. In some cases, the murderers even leave messages next to the body of the journalist, aiming at discouraging anybody else from reporting on a given issue.

“Stop cooperating with Los Zetas,” – a drug cartel in Mexico – was the message left next to the dead body of Mexican journalist José Luis Cerda Meléndez in March 2011. “If you don’t stop publishing news, you will die.” Was a note found next to the body of Indian journalist Umesh Rajput earlier this year.

52 journalists were killed in Mexico in the past ten years. 12 of them only in 2010. As a result, today, events taking place in certain regions of Mexico – those near the border with the USA and those where the drug cartels are most active – often remain unreported. Journalists have lost so many colleagues that many of them have given up trying to present local events. This lack of information affects political decision in Mexico, possibly even in US foreign policy and it becomes impossible to define a strategy to fight drug trafficking in and outside of Mexico without key information about local developments.

In Colombia, where only few years ago – in the last 1990s and early 2000s – many journalists were killed due to their reports about the illegal activities of the local drug cartels, today we register only few deaths. What has changed? Indeed the both authorities and journalists have taken measures to limit this violence. But most importantly, journalists simply do not report any more about certain issues. Self-censorship has become the solution to the violence.

In Sri Lanka, journalists were frequent targets during the civil conflict between the government and the Tamils. IPI dealt with murder, imprisonment and disappearances of journalists in Sri Lanka almost on a daily basis. Today, those journalists who are either critical of the government or close to the Tamil movement, have been forced into exile and very few remain in the country to offer an alternative view of events to the government’s one.

The loss of information generated by violence against journalists is immense, not only in times when journalists are targeted, but also afterwards.

Press freedom is also greatly threatened by the

2) Use of state security and anti-sedition laws beyond their legitimate purpose to prosecute journalists or impose restrictions on the publication of information

Great part of the journalists currently in prison around the world have been sentenced for endangering state power, treason, sedition and violating the country’s security laws.

Laws included in many country’s penal codes give the state special powers to defend itself in case of a violent revolution. The vague wording of such laws allows states to use them to clamp down also on pacific dissent and the peaceful expression of criticism towards the state, which should be a legitimate element of the democratic process.

The ongoing current imprisonment of over 57 journalists in Turkey is shocking and disturbing. In Turkey, another over 800 cases are pending against journalists and media houses. Many of the journalists have been charged with violating national security laws, which carry harsh punishment and allow for long detention. An IPI World Press Freedom Hero, Nedim Sener, is currently being detained on unknown charges.

In China, 34 journalists and bloggers are in prison, mostly for challenging state security, after they criticized the government’s reaction to the earthquake in Sichuan, the working condition in the coal mines in North-East China, or they called for democratization and exposed human rights violations.

In Zambia, in January 2011, two journalists from The Post newspaper were charged with sedition in connection with their reports on protests for greater autonomy in the Western Province.

Only two weeks ago, a Burundi state prosecutor asked a panel of judges to hand journalist Jean-Claude Kavumbagu the maximum life sentence on a charge of treason. Kavumbagu has been imprisoned since July 2010 over a column critical of the country’s security forces.

While national security laws generally foresee longer prison terms, also common is the

3) Use of criminal defamation laws and lese majéste laws to prosecute journalists

While broadly considered outdated, criminal defamation and lese majéste laws – which criminalize those who insult heads of states – are extremely widespread. Most European countries still keep them in their books and in many former colonies have laws criminalizing the offence of lese majéste as a heritage from the colonial powers. Current leaders have no interest in scrapping such laws and use them to protect their own interests and clamp down on dissent.

Criminal defamation laws, which foresee prison terms for information deemed insulting and against somebody’s reputation, are even more common. Very few countries had scratched criminal defamation from their books, I favor of civil remedies for this offence.

Examples from the use of these laws around the world are numerous. I will mention a few that came to IPI’s attention only in the past two months.

Successive governments in Thailand have often abused the lese majeste laws to silence criticism, most recently also to clamp down on last year’s anti-government protests. Thai webmaster, Thanthawut Taweewarodomkul, was sentenced to 13 years in prison in March 2011, ten of which for violating the country’s lese majéste laws in connection with material posted on a website.

Last week, thirteen radio stations were shut down by the Thai government for airing a speech by an opposition politician deemed insulting to the monarchy.
Elsewhere, also in April this year, Senegalese editor and investigative journalist Abdou Latif Coulibaly was found guilty of criminal defamation in connection with reports about official corruption and was handed down a prison sentence and a fine.
In Belarus, the correspondent of Poland’s biggest newspaper, Gazeta Wyborcza, was recently imprisoned on charges of criminal defamation in connection with articles deemed insulting to President Lukashenko.

In early March, an Angolan journalist was sent to prison for one year on criminal defamation charges over his coverage of a sexual harassment scandal that implicated the province’s top judicial official.

Two weeks ago, Equador President Correa filed a criminal libel suit against a journalist and three members of the board of directors of El Universo stating that an opinion piece “on purpose, immorally, and maliciously insults [him], with the only intention of affecting [his] prestige, honor, and good name.”

This is to give you an idea of how common is the use of criminal defamation laws to silence journalists. On one hand criminal defamation is a disproportionate response to the need to protect reputations; on the other, legal defense is expensive and court cases affect media outlet also from an economic perspective.

Criminal defamation and state security laws are not the only laws used to imprison journalists.

4) Arbitrary detention of journalists in violation of the rule of law

is an effective way to silence critical journalists.
In Turkey, many of the 57 journalists in prison have been held in jail for months awaiting trial China, Iran, Vietnam, Eritrea, Burma, Ethiopia and many other countries hold journalists in prison, often sentenced in fast proceedings behind close doors.

Most disturbing is the case of journalist Eynulla Fatullayev, the editor of an independent newspaper in Azerbaijan, strongly critical of the government. After the murder of journalist Elmar Huseynov in 2005, Fatullayev investigated and reported on financial links between the Interior Minister, Ramil Usubov, and a former public official believed by some to have been involved in Huseynov’s murder.

Fatullayev was charged with criminal defamation, thrown into prison in 2007, where he has been since then. The OSCE, the Council of Europe and recently the European Court of Human Rights ordered Azerbaijan to release Fatullayev. Azerbaijan’s authorities dropped the criminal defamation charges, but immediately charged him with drug possession, after prison guards said they discovered heroin in his prison cell.

In countries where the rule of law is not respected and the judiciary is not independent, jailing a journalist who is too critical is extremely easy.

Also related to a country legal system is the next threat to press freedom:

5) Legal frameworks that grant only limited access to information (lack of a freedom of information act and presence secrecy laws)

Access to information is a great problem in most of the world and journalists generally have to find alternative ways to access information of public interest. The importance of wristleblowers and inside sources of information for journalists is immense. However it is extremely dangerous for journalits to relay on internal informants, in particular for information that should be released by the authorities through legal means.

Furthermore, shiled laws that allow journalists to keep thier sources confidential are an exception. Even in the United States, they do not apply at the federal level.
In January this year, UK’s MI5 and MI6 put forward a proposal to extend courtroom secrecy to civil trials. Lawyers have expressed the opinion that this would restrict the right of the media to act as the “eyes and ears” of the public.

In Italy, following the exposure of scandals involving Prime Minister Berlusconi, Parliament has been trying to pass a piece of legislation that would limit the ability to wire-tap conversations for investigative purposes and, for journalists, to report on ongoing investigations.

Elsewhere, in South Africa, a proposed Protection of Information Bill has come under great criticism for threatening to restrict press freedom and access to information. The draft bill does not include a public interest clause as a defense in disclosing confidential documents and foresees lengthy prison sentences.

In Indonesia the government has attempted to pass a state secrecy bill, that, critics say, would represent a return to the authoritarian era under former dictator Suharto, hampering the democratic process that began in 1998 under the principles of freedom, transparency and accountability.

Transparency is a key element of democracy and what enables people to be informed about issues of public interest.

Following the Wikileaks controversy, observers have expressed concerns that the US government and many others will use the Wikileaks release as a reason to increase secrecy, either through legislation, or simply through greater control and implementation of more secure systems.

Moving away from the legal framework, the next threat to press freedom is represented by:

6) State control of the broadcasting sector through a direct influence on the bodies in charge of regulating its functioning (lack of independence in decisions related to the allocation of frequencies, governance, editorial policies)

With television and radio as the main sources of information in big parts of the world, many governments have chosen to liberalize the print media in sign of democratisation, while however keeping tight control of the broadcasting sector.

Not only in undemocratic countries – China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Burma, the Central Asian Republics – governments hold control of the broadcast media, but also here in Europe. On one hand public broadcasting systems can hardly be truly independent from the government or the political parties in Parliament that regulate thier activities. On the other hand the statutory agencies in charge of regulating the airwaves and allocating frequencies to different public and private channels are often independent only on paper, but in fact influenced by those in power.

The degree to which government’s control of the broadcasting sector affects press freedom depends on many other elements. A situation in which the state or political parties have the possibility to influence the content of the public broadcaster affects press freedom in the moment the remaining players in the broadcasting sector are also not independent.

There is no need to say that in less democratic countries, the direct control by the government both of state television and the allocation of licences is immense.

Political influence on the media is widespread and problematic. But is not the only kind of external pressure on the media.

7) Undue economic pressure on media content as a consequence of the control of the advertising market by an oligarchy (close to those in power)

also, in some case, threatens press freedom.

At IPI we tend to define as ”independent” any media outlet that is not directly controlled by the state or a political party. The economic model in which media outlets are supported in part by sales and subscriptions, but mostly by advertising, is, I would say, the best model we have found so far to ensure independent reporting. But it is not perfect and, in particular in markets where the economy is concentrated and close to the political power, this leads to unacceptable interference and eventually a threat to press freedom.

In Russia, the entire economic system is in the hands of a rather small group of businesspeople, the oligarcs, many of whom are close to either Putin or Medvedev. In a situation where the political and economic interests are so linked together, media’s ability to criticize or expose wrongdoings of either government representatives or representatives of the business elite is non-existant. Any such criticism is immediately met with witholding of advertising and eventually leads to the closure of the media outlet.

In October 2010, the Russian edition of Newsweek ended publication. Russia Newsweek was seen as a strong promoter of independent news and a critic of the Kremlin and not only had great difficulties finding local adevertisers to support the magazine, but numerous bilboad companies in Moscow refused to carry advertisers of the newspaper itself. Indeed the magazine was shut down for economic reasons, but the economic difficulties were a consequence of its critican content.

Pressure by advertisers can also lead to self censorship about issues of public interest. A recent example comes from Japan, where some journalists have reportedly complained that freelancers and foreign journalists have been excluded from press conferences on issues related to the recent nuclear catastrophe, while reports in the country’s biggest media outlets were heavilly self-censored as a consequence of pressure by media owners who hoped to preserve their portion of the 120 million Euro that Tepco, the operator of the atomic power plants, spends every year in media advertisments.

Moving on to more sensitive issues, press freedom is greatly threatened also by those who question the universality of press freedom as a human rights, often on the basis of a culturally relativistic approach. Therefore:

8) Use of perceived or real cultural or religious sensitivities to stifle journalism and free expression

Questioning the universality of human rights, and press freedom among them, has served as a justification for many repressive political systems. The idea that press freedom does not belong to a certain culture or a certain society is not unknown also here in Europe where in Germany, France, Austria, for example, journalists have been affected by laws forbidding the denial of the holocaust. Even questioning the official figures relate to the holocaust is a criminal offence and is punished with prison sentences. These laws, that alledgedly find a justification in the country’s history, actually prevent discussions through the media about a very sensitive issue, such as the holocaust.

On a separate issue, of greater concern have been attempts, in part successful, by a number of UN member states to adopt resolutions condemning the defamation of religion. IPI has strongly opposed such resolutions, which represent a serious threat to press freedom and introduces a concept that does not exist in international jurisprudence, that has always interpreted defamation as being directed toward persons, not ideas. If ideas can not be questioned, press freedom is in great danger.

Such efforts at the UN level were translated into stronger domestic anti-blasphemy and defamation of religion laws in some countries, used to imprison journalists and dissidents.

In July last year, defending Ruanda controversial genocide denial laws, Rwandan foreign minister Louise Mushikiwabo stated that: “Journalism, like politics, is local.” She explained that Rwanda has a very delicate social balance and the government must take measures that would not be acceptable in the West in order to ensure that the horrific genocide of 1994 is never repeated.

In February this year, two journalists – Agnès Uwimana, former editor of the now-defunct private weekly Umurabyo, and former Deputy Editor Saidati Mukakibibi – were handed down respectively 17 and 7 years in prison for genocide denial in a series of articles in 2010.

Two more issues that I believe need to be mentioned as part of the top 10 list of threats to press freedom. We at IPI are often confronted not only with repressive governments that clamp down on press freedom, not only with external influence from the political and economic elites, but also with an audience, with readers that question the value of press freedom itself, if this means to allow journalists to publish sensational news, often inaccurate and in some cases even in exchange for money or gifts.

The failure of media consumers to appreciate the value of press freedom is a major threat as it provides government the necessary support to pass restrictive laws through a democratic process.

This is why we have found that the

9) Lack of media professional ethics that undermines media credibility and wakens the value of press freedom as a fundamental right

represents a threat to press freedom.

In Italy, if the much-criticized Wiretap Law, that would greatly limit the ability to carry out investigations and inform the people about official wrongdoing, comes into effect, it will be with the support of the people who are tired of reading in the newspapers the transcripts of private conversations of some politicians related to issues which are definitely not of public interest.

In India, a country with a strong press freedom tradition, last year a major corruption scandal was exposed. This revealed a cooperation between powerful lobbyists and some of the country’s most respected journalists to influence the government’s policies in favour of some private companies.

These revelations greatly reduced public support for media, journalists and press freedom in India, with very dangerous consequences.

One more example: Wikileaks. When in the second half of 2010 Wikileaks became the target of strong criticism by governments, many news and press freedom groups, while aknowledging the importance of the work carried out by Wikileaks and its promotion of what has been called ”radical transparency”, also criticized Wikileaks failure to adhere to media professional ethical standards by publishing information withouitr following an editorial process and revealing the names of the informants in Afghanistan.

Under international law, press freedom has very few limitations. Sensational, biased and other forms of information generally deemed unethical is also protected information. But without public support, press freedom will not be protected. And unethical media behavior seldom receives public support.

One last threat needs to be mentioned as new ways to distrbute news and information bring about new opportunities and new challenges:

10) State censorship of Internet content for political purposes

The Internet has represented for many years and in many countries the only possibility to publish uncensored information. In Russia, in the Central Asian Republics, in China, Iran, Vietnam, Laos, Tunisia, Cuba and many other countries, the Internet has made it possible for otherwise forbidden information and opinions to be distributed.

With the current growth in the number of Internet users worldwide, which has doubled over the past five years, governments seek new ways to censor internet content.

As the protests in the Middle East and North Africa have shown, social media have become important platform to spread dissenting opinions and governments have started targeting the new platforms as part of their censorship strategies.

Furthermore, bloggers and Internet journalists are regularly harassed and imprisoned.

For countries where the Internet is the only hope for alternative information, its censorship represents a serious violation of people’s right to access information.

Thank you!