New Zealand’s Press Freedom Rank
I’ve received a reply from Reporters Sans Frontières about why New Zealand’s press freedom index rank slipped this year.
RSF preface their comments by saying that in the past New Zealand’s ratings have been “especially good, even perfect”. The two reasons given for our drop are
- tensions and pressure around the Mohammed cartoons [when Helen Clark attacked the Dominion Post and The Press for printing the cartoons, saying the issue “is not one of freedom of the press but of taste and judgement and the cartoons will do nothing to bring communities together”], and
- TVNZ’s Board being hauled before Parliament’s Privileges Committee during the Ian Fraser affair.
RSF gave New Zealand black marks for having Parliament interfering in the running of TVNZ (interference from the politically appointed Board was Fraser’s original reason for resigning) and then, when the TVNZ Board punished Fraser for what he’d said to the Select Committee, the Greens defended Parliament’s punishment of TVNZ’s Board on freedom of speech grounds.
Both of these comments are about government meddling in the media. The temptation to meddle will always be there for politicians who think they know best, but clearly the meddling is more effective when the medium in question is state-owned.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:07 am
Good work, Bernard.
October 27th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Bernard, you sure agree that the PM should be able to criticise stories and even ask of newspapers to have taste and judgment. That’s part of free speech as well.
I think the real issue with her statement was the idea that you shouldn’t print things, else you might get violent reactions. The whole self censorship out of fear.
Free speech cuts both ways I would say.
So did you just print part of their response, or everything? I agree with their assessment, but the justification isn’t worded carefully enough it seems to me.
October 27th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
I have posted everything that RSF sent me - their comments were very brief. The commentary before and after the two points is mine, as is that inside the square brackets.
Helen Clark should be allowed to express her opinion like anyone else. The problem occurs if she uses her role as Prime Minister (and hence possessor of government force) to try and limit what newspapers print.
Prior to Clark’s comments the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had warned the editor of the Dominion Post that “there could be repercussions,” presumably to force self-censorship, and subsequently the Race Relations Commissioner said the events “highlight[ed] the need for further dialogue on the freedom of the press, and how that right is exercised responsibly.”
These all add up to government pressure to restrict what is published and to push the idea the free expression should be subservient to other goals like selling sheep meat to Iran or not hurting anyone’s feelings.
Salman Rushdie, who knows a thing or two about being threatened by Muslims, said, “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.”
October 27th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Bernard: “the idea the free expression should be subservient to other goals like selling sheep meat to Iran or not hurting anyone’s feelings.”
Excellent point, very well expressed. That was indeed the angle I was trying to find.
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:23 am
Looking for information and found it at this great site…o