-Yeah. Although it seems paradoxical. But with a nuance. Just to report what has nothing to do with the country itself.
So it doesn’t really exist.
-Most of the Constitutions of Arab countries guarantee freedom of the press as long as it does not contradict the law. Put like that, it seems to exist. But if we look at other cases, such as the United States, what the Constitution prohibits is the issuance of any law that curtails freedom of the press. Is not the same.
-Do governments censor only journalists?
-In my NGO we support the press but also the local, authentic voices of women and other minorities. Voices that are often silenced by other actors such as culture itself.
Does culture act as a censor?
-Yeah. There are issues that for certain cultures are controversial and that is what separates them from the media focus. The LGTBI community, for example, although the government allows the subject to be discussed, society does not accept it and the subject is not discussed. Or women’s rights. There are more and more efforts to avoid these barriers but that is not enough. For there to be a free press there must be a strong civil society.
– What role do governments have in this opening process?
-They must procure the environment that allows these debates to flourish and that the press can do its job.
-Does censorship occur in the same way in left-wing governments as in right-wing governments?
-There are people on the left who violate human rights and people on the right who protect them. It depends more on the importance they give to the work of the press.
-Has the media always been so coerced?
-There are different levels. There are countries in which journalists disappear, are imprisoned or assassinated, and others in which simply the pressure makes them censor themselves. And that is no less dangerous. The fact that there are journalists who see how complicated life is for them, for example, that they suddenly detain them at the airport, do not renew their passports or send them inspections from the Treasury for having published a topic makes them not even consider doing it again . People, no matter how journalist they are, have to eat and feed their families.
-Are the governments able to paralyze these debates?
-Of course. For example, last month HRW issued a report on Human Rights in Jordan and absolutely no one in the country published anything on the subject. Another example, the strike of carriers in Tunisia did not even appear in the media, but suddenly the news was published that spoke of the end of the strike. What strike? Many people wondered. On the other hand, the more one tries to prohibit access to certain types of information, the more desire there is on the part of society to know what and why. So it’s counterproductive in a way.
-What role do social networks play at this point?
They can do a lot of good and a lot of bad at the same time. They allow voices to be raised that we would not otherwise listen to but on the other hand they are a strong emitter of false news that unfortunately many people still believe. There is still strong media illiteracy in many cultures.
-Shouldn’t it be otherwise in the historical moment with greater access to information?
-Careful. We have a lot of access to information, but it is still in the hands of barely a dozen media owners who control what is said and what is thought. They control public opinion.