No Change In “Hostile” Country

Michael Hedges February 17, 2014 - Follow on Twitter

The advertising people are fond of repeating that measurement is the currency of media. Indexes do, in fact, help focus attention. Everything is traded on rankings, particularly change. It works for stock traders and anybody else betting on the future.

Belarus is a nation stuck in time. Little has changed in the landlocked country bordering Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine and Russia since the days of the Soviet Union. It is a museum, of sorts, housing that era’s social, economic and political artifacts. The past in Belarus seems to live forever.

The media sector in Belarus is today much as it has been since the fall of the Soviet Union, largely State owned and completely State controlled. President Alexander Lukashenko, in power for 20 years, cedes nothing amidst recurring calls to step toward European-style media practice. London-based media watching NGO Index On Censorship (Index) published this month a withering report on the media environment in Belarus, “one of the most restrictive and hostile media environments in Europe.” (See introduction to Belarus: Time for Media Reform here)

Since President Lukashenko’s reelection in 2010, generally seen as a sham, his authoritarian regime has evoked economic constraints on independent news outlets. Official media outlets are generously supported through State budgets. There are no independently owned and operated television channels. Most newspapers are privately owned, nominally, but Index noted the vast majority are entertainment and advertising sheets. The State controls to a considerable extent the flow of ad revenue to newspapers. The State also controls newspaper distribution and, of course, broadcast licensing.

“The most significant difference between the state-owned media and the privately owned media is that there is almost no mention of the activities of the political opposition,” explains the Index report, “while the independent media provides significant coverage of the activities of opposition political parties but also independent trade unions, civil society organizations and activists.”

Independent media in Belarus struggles but isn’t dead. The existing Law on Mass Media requires registration of all privately held media outlets and has been used to punish those errant. Last November the Belarus Information Ministry began rumblings about “extending” the law formally to online media. Already in place are regulations requiring internet service providers (ISPs) to maintain records of who visits which websites.

Perhaps as a result – and internet access is about 50% in Belarus – it’s Russian websites such as the Facebook-equililent Vkontakte and mail.ru that attract most visitors and dedicated news portals are not particularly popular.

Media freedom in Belarus received dishonorable mention in the Reporters sans Frontieres (RSF) 2014 World Press Freedom Index, also released this month. “In Belarus, independent journalists continue to fight on unequal terms against ‘Europe’s last dictatorship’ and its propaganda,” said the RSF summary. “Those who cover street protests are routinely detained. The KGB and the judicial authorities often use ‘combating extremism’ as a pretext for silencing those who refuse to toe the official line. A book containing the winning photos of the 2011 Belarus Press Photo competition was banned in 2013 and one of the leading independent publishing houseswas stripped of its license. The magazine Arche and independent media based abroad such as Belsat TV are subjected to all sorts of administrative harassment.” Belarus earned 157th ranking among 180 countries, no change from last year’s index.

Of the countries bordering Belarus, Poland ranks 19th, up from 22nd, Lithuania 32nd, up from 33rd, Latvia 37th, up from 39th, Ukraine 127th, down from 126th and Russia 148th, no change. Finland, the Netherlands and Denmark were again ranked in the top three. Turkmenistan, North Korea and Eritrea were, again, ranked dead last.

All measures of press and media freedom are qualitative rather than quantitative, relying on local experts and observers. Lower rankings for the UK and US – 33rd from 30th for the UK, 46th from 33rd for the US - were related to government response to the Edward Snowden NSA leaks. “By identifying journalism with terrorism with such disturbing ease, the UK authorities are following one of the most widespread practices of authoritarian regimes,” said the RSF report.

“In the United States, the hunt for leaks and whistleblowers serves as a warning to those thinking of satisfying a public interest need for information about the imperial prerogatives assumed by the world's leading power,” said RSF. The UK and US are now closer to Belarus according the the RSF Index.

According to RSF, the Communist Party of China through the State Council Information Office banned publication of the 2014 World Press Freedom Index, which ranked China 175th.

Index on Censorship presents the report on media in Belarus in Brussels, Wednesday February 19th.

See also in ftm Knowledge

Press/Media Freedom - Challenges and Concerns

Press and media freedom worldwide is facing challenges from many corners. As authoritarian leaders impose strict control over traditional and new media with impunity, media watchers have concerns for democracy. This ftm Knowledge file accounts the troubles of this difficult decade. 88 pages. PDF (December 2011)

Order here