Targeting critical journalists

China is not alone in supressing news and targeting critical journalists. Media reporting on the COVID-19 crisis in Iran, not only one of the worst-hit countries but also among those that initially responded slowly to the virus’s spread, have also faced harassment and pressure from the authorities.

Using similar tactics, the government in Tehran, which has been criticized for its handling of the situation, has moved to shut down debate and quell dissent around the pandemic. The government announced it would “track” media reports and warned those found guilty of spreading what it deemed false information would face prison sentences.

Several journalists have been questioned by the country’s intelligence agency or Revolutionary Guards. Articles where the coronavirus figures contradicted the government’s official statistics have been sanctioned and journalists have been charged with “spreading rumours”.

Similar efforts have recently been seen in Egypt, another of the world’s worst violators of media freedom. On March 18, the Press Information Service withdrew the accreditation of British journalist Ruth Michaelson over her reporting on COVID-19 after an article published in The Guardian newspaper suggested infections in Egypt could be much higher than official figures.

The suppression of information on the true nature and spread of the virus undermines public confidence, slows down the search for the solutions and creates further dangers to public health.

Power grabs: emergency measures and surveillance

While there is currently a consensus that stopping the pandemic requires emergency measures, it is equally clear that the situation risks being taken advantage of by governments that will be glad for the opportunity to silence critical voices. States of emergency threaten to limit media freedom and in at least one case, suspend the right to freedom of expression altogether.

In Honduras, a country already in the midst of a serious press freedom crisis, President Juan Orlando Hernández used the emergency to suspend article 72 of the constitution which protects free expression. On March 16, the government published an executive decree initiating a state of emergency that also restricted freedom of movement, instigated curfews and revoked other articles of the Honduran constitution.

The move, roundly condemned as “disproportionate” by the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, was announced after a meeting of the Council of Ministers which by-passed parliament as it pushed through the measure.

While this remains for now an isolated incident, it will have a chilling effect on the country’s journalists. There are also serious concerns that other countries – even democratic ones – could follow suit.

Intrusive surveillance

Beyond freedom of expression, red flags have also been raised about the lasting effect that tough measures against COVID-19 could have on citizens’ right to privacy. In the last few weeks there has been an increase in the number of states testing the use of surveillance technology to track the virus.

The most high-profile case so far has been in Israel, which declared a state of emergency on Sunday, March 15. With its new powers, the government and attorney general quickly approved the use of surveillance technology, developed for counter-terrorism operations, against those who had contracted the coronavirus.

According to media reports, Prime Minister Netanyahu said Israeli authorities will use the digital technology to monitor the mobile phones of infected people. This data would be used to record where they had been and who they had met. Despite concerns over transparency and oversight, tracking by the Israel Security Agency began on March 17.

A further dozen countries are also reportedly testing similar virus-tracking software developed by the Israeli cyber company, NSO Group Ltd. The privately-owned firm has faced major scrutiny in recent months over use of its sophisticated spyware technology by foreign intelligence agencies to spy on journalists around the world.

While such tools may work to contain the spread of the disease in the short term, the long-term effects of this kind of mass surveillance on the work of journalists and broader privacy rights could be severe. In addition to data protection and privacy issues, journalists are directly threatened as they are unable to protect their sources and may feel compelled to self-censor.

Governments – authoritarian and democratic alike – are not likely to simply drop convenient surveillance infrastructure once the current crisis has passed. The danger of a serious and lasting erosion of privacy and free expression rights is therefore great. Intrusive spying capabilities cannot become the new normal and must not be put in the hands of companies with a record of illegal spy-ops.

“Fake news” overreach

Another major concern for media freedom is overly draconian measures to tackle the spread of “fake news” about the virus online. Since the outbreak, the internet has been flooded with rumours and conspiracy theories about COVID-19. Governments are right to tackle misinformation to keep the public properly informed. However, threats of criminalisation and heavy fines for publishing incorrect information about the virus could lead to self-censorship and disrupt the flow of crucial health information, further hampering efforts to contain the virus. Moreover, certain governments may be tempted to abuse the powers to suppress coverage that deviates from the official line and tries to hold them accountable for poor decisions.

Numerous international bodies have already raised the alarm over such measures. In their joint statement, the U.N., OAS, and OSCE rapporteurs said content take-downs and censorship must “meet the standards of necessity and proportionality”, adding that “any attempts to criminalise information relating to the pandemic may create distrust in institutional information, delay access to reliable information and have a chilling effect on freedom of expression”.

Despite the risks, a number of countries in Europe have already taken strong measures to address the issue. One of the first was Hungary, whose government’s own disinformation programme is well documented, has already issued take down orders to internet companies over “fake news” portals carrying sensational headlines.

Earlier this week, Bosnia also issued a new emergency decree banning the publishing of false news that caused alarm about the pandemic. Media outlets found guilty will now face fines up to €1,500-€4,500. Elsewhere, the Romanian government has also passed an emergency decree which, among other measures, allows it to order take-down notices for websites and news reports containing “fake news”.

While many of these takedown orders so far have involved posts containing blatant falsehoods, it is not difficult to see the potential for it to be abused in the future, especially in states where the ruling party is already engaged in censoring independent media.

Censors in overdrive

Similar developments have been documented in countries throughout Asia, where “fake news” censors have gone into overdrive in the last few weeks. In Malaysia, more than a dozen people have been detained by the authorities for allegedly spreading false information about the coronavirus on social media. Among them was award winning journalist Wan Noor Hayati Wan Alias, who was charged with “inciting mischief” over her social media posts about the pandemic.

Similar crackdowns have followed in India, Indonesia, Thailand and Cambodia, where dozens of people have been charged with cybercrime offences. In Vietnam meanwhile, fines have been issued for publishing information on coronavirus not verified by the government.

Elsewhere, both the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have issued stark warnings about heavy punishments for anyone spreading incorrect or unverified information about coronavirus. The same is true in Africa, where according to media reports, Kenya last week proposed a law to criminalize the spread of fake news related to the disease.

In other isolated cases meanwhile, some leaders have even used the coronavirus as an excuse to amplify their usual verbal attacks on the media. Albanian President Edi Rama, a brash critic of the country’s press, used the COVID-19 crisis to send a pre-recorded voice message to every Vodaphone handset warning people to “wash their hands against coronavirus and “protect themselves from the media”. In the U.S., meanwhile, President Trump has also utilized the coronavirus to ramp up common attacks of critical media as peddlers of “fake news”.

As in the case of surveillance, even where attempts to crack down on misinformation regarding COVID-19 are seemingly well-intentioned and aimed at protecting public health, all such measures should be carefully held to rules of proportionality and necessity.

Access to information

A final trend that has emerged involves journalists’ access to information, in the sense of access both to government decision makers as well as medical experts and those working on the frontline of the crisis. In health emergencies, the media has a key role to play in disseminating important medical information.

In some countries however, authorities have begun limiting the ability of journalists to attend press conferences and briefings. While physical distancing is understandably a concern, alternative access must be made available to ensure all media are able to attend.

In the Czech Republic, the government has cited coronavirus measures to limit numbers of journalists and select media to attend press conferences. In Albania government updates are being released via social media and closed press conferences, limiting the ability of journalists to ask questions or seek clarification.  In Slovenia, the government has also announced it will broadcast statements live on TV Slovenia via the government’s press centre, reducing the ability of journalists to ask questions.

This trend is likely to increase in countries around the world. However, such a monopolisation of information, even in an emergency, harms transparency, reduces the possibility for scrutiny, and risks reducing public trust in measures introduced by the government.