ournalists all over the world are seen as the watchdogs of public interest. There is broad international consensus that journalism is “fundamental for sustainable development, human rights protection and democratic consolidation.” But it is also a universally recognised fact that journalism remains a “dangerous and too often deadly profession – and nine times out of ten, the murder of a journalist is unresolved.”

The list of international and national promises to protect journalists and media persons is long and significant. Do these promises translate into meaningful practice? Not always. According to the UNESCO Observatory of Killed Journalists, more than 1,650 journalists have been killed over the last three decades. Regard for their life and security has particularly diminished in recent years. Deaths of at least 33 journalists during regional conflicts, like the ongoing Hamas-Israel-Hezbollah war confirm the gravity of the menace. The number of injured, missing or detained journalists add to the lethality of the situation.

Security conditions in the non-conflict zones are equally ugly. In fact, these are getting worse. Recent UN reports confirm this assertion. “Threats [other than killing] against journalists, online and off-line, continue to grow, especially in non-conflict zones. Journalist imprisonment is at a record high, while online violence – particularly against women journalists – and harassment spurs on self-censorship and in some cases, physical attacks.” Attacks on journalists covering security, political, religious or social and societal issues have been rising for some time. The trend is not restricted to a particular country, region or continent. “Journalists have also increasingly been attacked while covering protests, by various actors, including both security forces and protest participants.”

Seriousness of the issue has prompted the UN secretary-general, Antonio Guterres, to say that “stop targeting truth and truth-teller. As journalists stand up for truth, the world stands with them.”

The murder of Saudi dissident and Washington Post columnist Jamal Ahmed Khashoggi in Turkey and the mysterious target killing of one of Pakistan’s leading broadcasters, Arshad Sharif in Kenya can sour relationships between sovereign states. Attacks on Pakistani journalists including Hamid Mir, Matiullah Jan, Absar Alam and Ahmed Noorani prompted Brad Adams, the Asia director of Human Rights Watch to issue a statement saying, “The frequency and audacity with which journalists are being attacked in Pakistan is appalling.” Adams also demanded that the Pakistani authorities should bring those responsible for these attacks to justice and ensure that journalists can do their jobs without fear of intimidation or reprisals.”

International censure has hardly ever moved Pakistan to make sure that journalists have the freedom to investigate, deliberate, discuss and disseminate issues of public importance. Article 19 of the UN Human Rights says everyone has a right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Similarly, Article 19 of the Pakistani constitution promises pretty much the same right albeit with conditions that seriously limit its scope.

No matter how rosy and robust the rules and regulations inventoried in the penal laws are, they are hardly any consolation to those who have been abducted, assaulted and at times exterminated. Accusing fingers are frequently pointed towards the establishment.

Threats to journalists are not confined to developing countries or under-developed societies. In modern times, even leading democratic countries have been indulging in actions that deny independent journalists opportunities to perform their professional duties. 

In August 2020, a cluster of prominent Pakistani female journalists issued a statement denouncing a “well-defined and coordinated campaign” of social media attacks, including death and rape threats against women journalists and commentators whose reporting had been critical of the government.

Failure of the state machinery to comprehensively protect the ‘watchdogs of public interests’ attracts criticism from officials of foreign governments, representatives of multilaterals and civil society activists with unpleasant repercussions. Non-journalistic international organisations like the European Union and Financial Action Task Force link their help to a country to prevalent fundamental freedoms including protection of independent media and critical media persons.

“It is disturbing to see the space for dissent and providing information of public importance rapidly shrink in Pakistan, with journalists as well as human rights defenders particularly at risk of censorship, physical violence and arbitrary detention,” commented Sam Zarifi, secretary general of the International Commission of Jurists.

Threats to journalists are not confined to developing countries or under-developed societies. In modern times, even leading democratic countries have been indulging in actions that deny independent journalists opportunities to perform their professional duties. Often leading journalists and broadcasters in the developed world have found themselves on the wrong side of the powerful vested interests. Repercussions of such interaction have always been harmful for the underdogs – the journalists.

Carlos Martinez de la Sena, programme director at the Committee to Protect Journalists, says these figures do not come as a surprise, but as the imminent culmination of a series of factors. “This happens in a context of the decline of press freedom, increasingly more authoritarian states, more aggressive states against unionism and journalism, and in the context of impunity,” he says. “So, it is not a surprise, unfortunately, that Mexico, where there is a vast prevalence in the context of impunity, leads the count.”

Dealing with the impunity element, Dinushika Dissanayake, South Asia deputy regional director at Amnesty International recently said: “If the authorities are committed to uphold their human rights obligations, they must take decisive steps against censorship, harassment and violence against journalists. For that, continued impunity must be dismantled.”

Scope for serious or investigative journalism has been shrinking for some time now as governments are opting to be authoritarian and societies are deliberately choosing to be intolerant. Former prime minister Imran Khan openly called some media houses “traitors.” He did this to the joy and jubilation of his youthful following who then trained their guns at journalists working for those media houses.

Instead of introspection and reflection about their own shortcomings, many narcissistic politicians across the world have openly criticised journalists for their presumed failures. Former Brazilian president Bolsonaro had described journalists as “despicable bastards.” Incumbent El Salvador President Nayib Bukele has called journalists “political activists for the opposition.” Similar accusations were made by the former British prime minister Boris Johnson. Police in India have questioned and arrested founder and editor of a left-leaning news website that was known for its criticism of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his policies. Nicaraguan Vice President Rosario Murillo has also described journalists as “criminals” and “information terrorists.”

Through criticism, politicians and journalists can create a better-performing polity. But not all politicians or state institutions have the stomach for critical commentary. That is where freedom of expression becomes a problem for media persons. Those in power do allow some freedom of expression. Many behave completely differently when it comes to freedom after expression.

The writer is resident editor of The News International in Islamabad