How the COVID crisis led to crackdowns on journalism and press freedom around the world

COVID-19 has encouraged encroachments on media freedom.

In this extract from a new report published by the Thomson Reuters Foundation (TRF), I share the experiences of TRF alum over the past year, as well as key insights from other experts, on these developments.

Writing in Foreign Policy at the end of June 2020, Sushma Raman, executive director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, reflected on “the global deterioration of press freedom”, adding that “an increasing number of attacks on the media have come in places where press freedom was once enshrined”.

One of the primary reasons for attacking, or threatening, journalists is to try and influence their reporting. As Gavin Rees, director of Dart Centre Europe, has explained:

“The basic headline is that if somebody is threatening you, they are trying to get into your head and to destroy your resilience. That’s what they are doing; they are trying to shut you up, either by death threats or by some other forms of disparaging or threatening comment or behaviour.”

Political figures in countries ranging from the United States and Mexico through to the Philippines and Hungary have all sought to erode confidence in the media, in trends that pre-date the pandemic, by criticising journalists and the wider profession.

It should be noted that other institutions and ‘experts’ have been similarly undermined, and that multiple surveys show low levels of trust in institutions.

COVID-19 may further exacerbate these pressure points.

Image: People read the newspaper at a news stall in Dhaka, Bangladesh. EPA/MONIRUL ALAM Via The Irish Times

UNESCO warns that besides “the importance of the media and of access to verified information” government responses to the coronavirus crisis “could lead to more restrictions and danger to journalists, and the suppression of the rights of the press to impart information and the rights of people to seek and receive information”.

Governments around the world have tried to “control the narrative” through a variety of means including new legislation and efforts to reduce media freedom.

As a result, many journalists have had to navigate reduced access to health agencies, government press conferences and COVID-19 data, alongside restrictions on where and when they can report (for example, in hospitals, or due to curfews). In numerous countries, it has also become harder to question policy decisions and public health practices.

Lay-offs in newsrooms may further intensify these challenges, as outlets operate with fewer reporters and their financial situation worsens. One potential consequence of these developments is that it may make news outlets more susceptible to external pressures, and it may be harder to push back with more limited resources.

Government data and officials

It remains to be seen whether some of the issues that journalists are currently traversing as a result of COVID-19 — including changes to response times for freedom of information requests, restricted access and curbs to freedom of movement, as well as other emergency measures — will remain in place after the crisis is under control. For now, however, there’s no doubt that this backdrop is making a difficult job even harder.

In Egypt, a report on how official figures may be severely underestimating the actual infection rate of COVID-19 led to Guardian journalist Ruth Michaelson having to leave the country. She had lived in and reported from Egypt since 2014.

“The report proved explosive,” Michaelson wrote, “with Egypt’s health ministry labelling it ‘a complete disgrace to health’.” In an article for Deutsche Welle she explained how online trolls attacked The Guardian and the scientists she had interviewed for the story, “before the Egyptian State Information Service revoked my press accreditation and the Egyptian security services demanded my immediate expulsion from Egypt”.

“Officials were furious at the scientists,” she said, “and accused me of ‘spreading panic’ for citing the scientists’ report, later published in the medical journal The Lancet.”

“Journalists and most Egyptians do not trust the Ministry of Health’s data on COVID-19 cases because many infected people do not report their infection.

Also, the Ministry of Health spokesman most of the time refuses to respond to the journalists’ questions… For example, when I asked for the rates of infection in every governorate, he — as usual with most journalists — declined to comment.”

- Newspaper journalist, Egypt

As one Kenyan journalist shared with us, reporters are often having to contend with the twin challenges of “restrictions in access to information by authorities” and “threats from authorities when investigating capacities in human resources and finance in response to the pandemic”.

One participant in TRF’s Coronavirus Crisis Reporting Hub — an initiative equipping journalists with the skills and information needed to report on the pandemic’s impact on economies, health care systems and communities — shared how they’d witnessed this type of scenario firsthand.

“My project was to investigate the quality of food distributed during the COVID 19 crisis. Even though the story was fully balanced I was labelled anti-government by the Office of the Prime Minister and threatened. My station stood its ground because of the facts of the story.”

- TV news reporter, Uganda

Concerns about the accuracy of data, the risk of it being politicised, issues of access, and who should ‘own’ and distribute it, can be seen globally. These problems impact on the ability of journalists — and the public — to fully grasp the reality of what is happening in their country.

In response, some outlets are taking matters into their own hands.

Image: Push notifications announcing that Brazilian media companies are working together to share COVID-19 data.

Six mainstream Brazilian news outlets reported in June that they would work together to compile and release joint statistics.

The move followed concerns, expressed by researchers, about the coronavirus data released by the health ministry.

Elsewhere, even if there is access to data, understanding and interpreting it can be equally difficult.

Darren Long, creative director at the South China Morning Post, explained to the Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ) that official coronavirus figures for China were “misleading” due to holes in the data. “For instance, his team knew that the government did not include asymptomatic cases in the total case count until April 1, but it didn’t know if the government counted victims with underlying conditions as COVID-19 deaths,” said the CPJ.

The Wall Street Journal, Economist and the BBC are just some of the outlets to have highlighted inconsistencies in data collection in different countries.

Alongside this, in the age of COVID the protection of sources (in terms of both data and people) has become even more important, especially in the light of government responses to points of view that may challenge official narratives.

Privacy International has rounded up some examples of these types of incidents, including Turkey investigating doctors who discussed coronavirus in media interviews.

Image: AFP photojournalist Alberto Pizzoli and anesthesiologist Doctor Marino De Rosa wearing their PPE at San Filippo Neri hospital, Rome. (File/AFP) Via Arab News.

Undue pressure and influence

Questions related to coronavirus testing and cases, as well as the trustworthiness of government data and information, can also be explored in the context of how politicians are potentially trying to ‘spin’ the crisis.

Fact-checking public figures is a key task for many journalists, but it’s often not an easy one.

Cristina Tardáguila, Associate Director of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), observes that “COVID-19 is the biggest challenge fact-checkers have ever faced”.

“This is not politics,” she says. “We have to work fast because health issues can really cause harm. When you debunk something related to politics, half of the country doesn’t care about what you say. But when you talk about health, everybody cares. So the pressure for us to be fast is very high.”

Yet, as we have seen, there are some concerns that it can prove difficult to be critical of how your government is handling the situation, which may be exacerbated by issues such as incomplete (or unclear) data, access to political leaders and their criticism of your reporting.

“In the first few weeks, there was a rush of news around the clock but not enough analysis of what was going on. As media outlets got on a surer footing, they were confronted with another dilemma — do they take government-disseminated information at face value, or do they question the soundness of policy decisions?

Each path comes with its own costs because the authoritarian governments in this region do not take kindly to criticism.”

- Indochina bureau chief

In those circumstances, efforts by news outlets to address this, or to even ask questions about the government’s approach, have often resulted in retaliatory measures. Examples include:

• Iran — the Jahan-e Sanat newspaper was shut down after publishing an interview with an epidemiologist in which they claimed: “The figures announced by the officials on coronavirus cases and deaths account for only 5% of the country’s real tolls.”
• Tanzania — Kwanza Online TV was suspended for 11 months by the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority after “generating and disseminating biased, misleading and disruptive content”. The move came after the station shared a health alert on Instagram from the US Embassy, noting the Tanzania government had not published any numbers on COVID-19 cases or deaths since 29 April.
• Zambia — authorities shut down Prime TV, an independent television news channel, after cancelling its broadcasting licence. Amnesty reports the cancellation came after an alleged refusal by the station to air government COVID-19 campaigns, as the advertising-funded station was still owed money from previous state advertising campaigns.

Image: Kwanza TV’s offending Instagram post, a reshare from the US Embassy in Tanzania. The caption offers a summary of the Health Alert for Swahili readers.

Not surprisingly, these responses can exacerbate some of the mental health issues already touched on in this report, which are faced by many journalists.

“I covered all the materials about embezzlement of budget funds, lack of medicines in hospitals and pharmacies, the stalemate that people faced — I felt a lot of psychological pressure on myself from the authorities.”

- Russian journalist

New laws and legislation

Oman and several other Middle Eastern countries have taken a different approach. While not enforcing media closures per se, they dramatically reduced the distribution of news in physical form, ostensibly for public health reasons.

In March, the Supreme Committee for dealing with COVID-19 in Oman issued a decision to: “Stop the printing of newspapers, magazines and publications of all kinds and preventing their circulation, and preventing the sale and circulation of newspapers, magazines and publications issued outside the Sultanate.”

Jordan, Morocco and Yemen followed suit. CPJ commented that, according to local news reports, “the suspensions cover both independent and state-owned media outlets, and were imposed to limit spreading the virus during the printing, delivery, and distribution of the papers, according to those reports”.

Alongside closures and other forms of pressure exerted on news outlets and journalists, ostensibly under the guise of COVID-19, some governments have also moved to tighten laws around press freedom and ‘fake news’.

Taking their cues from leaders in the United States, Mexico, Brazil and numerous other countries, the term ‘fake news’ has often been weaponised by political leaders. New cyberlaws and regulations mean that journalists risk jail time if they tell stories deemed to be ‘fake news’.

As the IPI notes, an emergency decree signed by the Romanian president in March “gives authorities the power to remove report[s] or close websites that spread ‘fake news’ about the virus, with no opportunity to appeal”.

“This restriction can be used to efficiently control [the] media and the public narrative,” Attila Biro of the RISE Romania journalism platform told them.

Biro, who in 2018 was detained in Bulgaria while investigating a story about possible fraud involving European Union funds, commented that these new moves have “nothing to do with public safety and will seriously restrict the ability of the media to do its job properly”.

By summer 2020, IPI had identified 17 countries — ranging from Cambodia to Jordan and Thailand — where these types of pandemic-era regulations had been passed.

Alongside these efforts, other countries have passed emergency legislation that can give the government new powers over the media.

“The government of Azerbaijan has used the COVID-19 pandemic to suppress the freedom of media. Starting from March, strict quarantine started in Azerbaijan. As a result, only journalists with labour contracts can travel outside Baku or work in Baku to cover the stories. Because of Azerbaijan’s situation, many journalists don’t have a labour contract and hide their identity to work.

Even though some journalists had contracts, they still couldn’t be outside for more than two hours… The only way to get information was directly from patients, but many were not willing to talk. The few stories on the internet that went public proved the terrible situation in the country. All work was only possible via the internet and no fieldwork.”

- Journalist, Azerbaijan

New laws and decrees in places such as Puerto Rico, Vietnam and Tajikistan have typically said that the purpose of these rules is to stop the spread of misinformation or false information that may provoke panic. However, in doing so, countries have often suspended existing laws related to media freedom and freedom of expression, and frequently fallen back on vague cyberlaws. There are fears that these emergency powers could become the norm.

In Thailand, a decree gave Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha power “to censor or shut down media if deemed necessary”. Broad-ranging emergency powers have also been given to leaders in Hungary, the Philippines and elsewhere.

Unchecked, and without the international community throwing a spotlight on these moves, we may see more of these kinds of unilateral efforts.

“When independent media is silenced, governments are able to promote self-serving propaganda rather than facts,” writes Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch. “Of course, a free media is not a certain antidote,” he added. “Responsible government is also needed… But at least a free media can highlight such irresponsibility; a silenced media allows it to proceed unchallenged.”

Safety and harassment

The presence, and enforcement, of legislation such as that described above can act as a further means to apply pressure, and journalists may find themselves working in an environment in which they experience criticism and interference from a range of sources.

Ana Lali?, a reporter for the Serbian news website Nova.rs, is just one journalist to have fallen foul of these rules. In April, she was detained after publishing a story describing a hospital in Northern Serbia as being “at breaking point” due to the lack of PPE.

Global Voices notes that the move came after the hospital pressed charges “due to inaccurate, unverified and malicious reporting by the Nova.rs portal about the work of this health institution”. Lali? was later released but the charges were not initially dropped.

Evidence indicates that in the COVID era worrying long-term trends related to diminished media freedom — and the safety of journalists — have accelerated. Journalists have been physically attacked, doxed, detained and arrested, while covering the crisis.

Elements of these issues are captured by IPI and other organisations. As of mid-November 2020, IPI had recorded 473 media freedom violations around the world that could be linked to COVID-19 coverage.

Image via the International Press Institute (IPI).

Their website provides details on each of these cases, including those in which journalists have clashed with governments during this crisis. Examples include:

• Algeria — accusations by the Minister of Communication that the media was spreading falsehoods about COVID-19. Journalists were threatened with jail time.
• Cambodia — the publisher of the Khmer Nation newspaper was arrested for criticising the prime minister, via their personal Facebook account, for not helping people struggling with debts during the crisis.
• Mexico — the Reforma newspaper was threatened for coverage of the president and his management of COVID-19, with a man purporting to be from an organised crime group threatening to “blow up” its newsroom.

Further examples of pressure being exerted on journalists during the COVID crisis can be seen in numerous nations, including:

• Indonesia — Journalists have been arrested for criticising government responses to the pandemic.
• Senegal — An attack on the offices of the newspaper Les Echos in August “is the fourth in a series of violence against media professionals and their properties since the outset of the coronavirus pandemic”, notes Article 19, a British-based human rights organisation.
• Armenia — State of Emergency-related press restrictions have resulted in the police ordering 22 different media outlets to remove or edit material they considered misleading or incorrect about the coronavirus.

These developments take place against a backdrop of wider concerns that the coronavirus may be used, particularly by authoritarian-minded leaders, to expand their powers.

Within this, one area of concern focuses on how ‘track and trace’ apps — tools primarily designed to map and monitor the spread of the pandemic — are a potential data source that could be used for more nefarious purposes. Recognising this, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) urged government leaders to ensure that this data is “not used to spy on journalists or violate the confidentiality of their sources”.

Others have argued that once the coronavirus crisis has dissipated, these tracking mechanisms — like wider emergency decrees and legislation related to the freedom of the press and information during the pandemic — must cease, so they do not become part of the ‘new normal’. Whether that happens or not, of course, remains to be seen.

“Authoritarians hate to squander an emergency,” Joshua Kurlantzick, a senior fellow for Southeast Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations, cautioned earlier this year. “In the pandemic, they’ve found the perfect one.”

This is an extract from a new report on The Impact of COVID-19 on Journalism in Emerging Economies and the Global South, published by the Thomson Reuters Foundation. You can read the Executive Summary here, as well as chapters related to Reporting from the Frontline, and Combatting the Infodemic.

The full report can be seen below.

About the Author

Damian Radcliffe is the Carolyn S. Chambers Professor in Journalism, a Professor of Practice, an affiliate of the Department for Middle East and North Africa Studies (MENA), and a Research Associate of the Center for Science Communication Research (SCR) at the University of Oregon.

Alongside holding the Chambers Chair at the University of Oregon’s School of Journalism and Communication (SOJC), he is also a Fellow of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, an Honorary Research Fellow at Cardiff University’s School of Journalism, Media and Culture Studies, and a fellow of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA).

An experienced digital analyst, consultant, journalist, and researcher, Damian has worked in editorial, research, policy, and teaching positions for the past two decades in the UK, Middle East, and USA. This includes roles in all media sectors (commercial, public, government, regulatory, academic, and nonprofit/civil society) and all platforms (print, digital, TV and radio).

Follow him on Twitter @damianradcliffe