Silencing the opposition is a pretty obvious PR strategy. Information
control can take many forms — the Russian law forbidding the voices of
Chechen rebels from appearing on air or in print, the crushing fines
levied against some Serbian media or the classic methods of beating,
killing, exiling or jailing a reporter who tells the wrong story.
In ostensibly free-press democracies like the United States and Britain,
dissidents and critics usually claim they are silenced by less direct
means: certain media outlets, and particular perspectives and biases,
dominate all others. Within the "mainstream" media, some individuals and
groups are given authority and credence, while others are denigrated or
ignored. Of course, advertisers and financial sponsors also play a part
in deciding what and who gets heard.
Now, however, some journalists in Britain and the United States are
claiming that censorship has taken a more physical form. In recent
political demonstrations, they have been victims of violence even after
identifying themselves as correspondents. Sometimes they were attacked
and arrested by police, and at other times they got into confrontations
with protesters.
What explains the violence? Some observers suggest that for the police,
it's not about censoring news of dissent as much as avoiding coverage of
their own actions. As for clashes with activists, some protesters are
hostile to mainstream media because they don't trust them to get the
story right.
These days, thanks to affordable video equipment and the Internet,
activists don't have to rely on big media to get the story — they are
seizing the means of newsmaking for themselves. These same technological
advances are empowering a greater range of independent media outlets
than ever before, seeking to provide an alternative to the mainstream.
Go to a protest and the streets are filled with cameras.
Could this be blurring the line between journalism and activism? Police
in the U.K. have arrested journalists at protests on the suspicion that
they were really activists. At the same time, activist groups have taken
up the rallying cry for media as a form of political engagement. Reports
by independent news outlets are often dismissed as too politicized, as
biased themselves.
When journalists ride the bus of a political candidate and laugh at his
jokes, they're considered doing their job. When a journalist rides on a
bus full of activists on their way to a civil disobedience, is she more
suspect?
Journalists' organizations around the world tally the numbers of
journalists attacked annually and get differing figures. Who gets
included? There may be practical criteria such as guild membership and
employment, but if someone is using media as a witness to stop violence
or to bring justice, should it matter whether they work for CNN or Earth
First?
Objectivity and advocacy, professionalism and censorship, free press and
press protections — perhaps its time we cast a critical eye on all these
terms.
Andrew Walsey reports on the police arrests of journalists at British
protests, and MediaChannel affiliates explore the issues. We invite you
to take up the debate in our Forum.
- Aliza Dichter, Editor
