A Discussion at the International Press Institute

         After journeying through an unassuming grey gate and halfway up a spiral staircase, I found myself in the offices of the International Press Institute. A few twists and turns through various rooms found my way through the labyrinthine space and into a back room where my classmates and I had the opportunity to be a part of a discussion with Barbara Trionfi, the interim executive director at IPI. After brief introductions (and some pretty wonderful croissants), she delved into the topic of press freedoms and how the western idea of freedom of the press as a fundamental right doesn’t always line up cohesively with the values of every culture. It seems some societies’ morals put so much value on the respect of authority that the freedom to be able to criticize, even insult authority is out of the equation. The question then arose of whether certain governments were using culture as a reason to keep such complete control over their country, and eventually drifted to the direct topic of government control in various places. Some countries with heavy government control have a seemingly democratic system that is spoiled by commercialism. Although citizens may be free to think what they wish, the media that informs their thinking is heavily censored, and unbiased true journalism is rare if found at all. There seem to be quite a few indirect but visible methods of censorship exercised by various authorities as well, the most surprising of which was the case of a government controlled paper industry in Latin America. The publishers that get the most paper are the ones saying what the government wants the people to hear; however, if someone prints what the authorities deem unfavorable, then their only access to needed materials is taken away.

            Overall, the visit to IPI was very pleasant and filled with extremely interesting conversation topics that are sure to fuel future writings. 

Censorship in China and the Occupy Hong Kong movement

Gary King, Jennifer Pan, and Margaret E. Roberts of Harvard University published their study in the American Political Science Review in 2013. This particular study delves into methods of government censorship – specifically those exercised by the Chinese government. From website banning to keyword blocking, the authors took an impressively in depth look at Chinese censorship methods and posts from the country’s various social media sites. After analyzing all of this, they hypothesize that the Chinese government censors posts with “Collective Action Potential”, or the danger of protests and demonstrations. It makes sense that such a government would want to quash the thing that, historically, has been the Achilles heel for many an authoritarian regime.

            But then how did the Occupy Hong Kong movement slip through the censors? How did so many people come together to demand democracy if it is so allegedly difficult to express oneself through social media without being censored? Let me quickly remind you that this study – although extensively researched, well-written, and detailed – was conducted in 2012 and published in May 2013. I have no qualms regarding the credibility and aptitude of these authors; however, the truths of the past can be misleading when looking for the truths of today.

            In September 2013, just a few months after the aforementioned study was published, China made Facebook available to a small area in Shanghai. Today Facebook and other social media avenues are available to the citizens of Hong Kong, which would explain the organization of a mass pro-democracy movement. Evidence of the Occupy Hong Kong movement (often called the ‘Umbrella Revolution’) is definitely visible online. People organize on Facebook to bring yellow ribbons, umbrellas, and banners to various events, and you can even listen to their unofficial anthem on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na2mR9mvDoU

In essence, comparing this study with the Umbrella Revolution is not a question of right or wrong but of facts in time.

My home country is very enthusiastic about the subject of freedom in regards to…. well, everything, really. The United States of America was built upon ideals of freedom to act, to speak, to express, to worship; however, it has become clear that freedom and tolerance are two separate things entirely.

            It seems that the biggest hurdle a serious journalist (that is, one who desires to report the unbiased truth) needs to bypass in America is that of commercialism and the ignorant citizen. The practice of purchasing an actual physical copy of a newspaper is becoming less and less prevalent in my home town of Houston and many other cities as well. Those still printing have turned to celebrity reports, expanded sports sections, and entertainment news in order to appeal to a broader pool of customers. A beautiful and insightful piece detailing horrors of the Boko Haram in Senegal may be pushed aside or to the back page to make room for yet another fluff piece about the movie The Interview that is guaranteed to get reader’s attention. Whether that is also influenced by governmental pressures or dealings, I cannot say. I can, however, say for certain that the average American’s increasingly short attention span can and has been detrimental to those wishing to report deep, insightful truths. 

In our (rightfully founded) empathy and support for those closer to home, we appear to have overlooked the sufferings of others in this world;

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/16/world/africa/boko-haram-rampage-in-nigeria-is-shown-in-satellite-images-groups-say.html?_r=0

Although, unfortunately, it is seeming more and more difficult to keep track...

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

-Voltaire

            If you asked any number of random people on the street if they were in favor of freedom of speech, odds are the majority would be supportive. Everyone has the ability to think and speak for themselves – possessing freedom of speech simply means that some high governmental authority is allowing you to do this in public, free of consequence…well, free of consequence from that specific authority, at least. Unfortunately there are, as we have witnessed through recent events, those who see themselves fit to play god and rob others of the gift of boundless expression.

            I have heard the opinion of those who question not Charlie Hebdo’s right to express opinion, but their justification in provoking such a volatile situation. If they had been attacked before, why would they continue to satirize the world, upsetting many in the process? Does freedom of speech, freedom of the press include a right to offend? Is Omer el-Hamdoon, president of the Muslim Association of Britain, correct in his assertion that offending for the sake of offense is not freedom of speech?

            But I worry that a silent press would be misconstrued as one supportive of and subservient to those offended. As soon as one does something, alters thoughts or actions for someone, in consideration of something, there is an acknowledgement of influence and agreement between the two parties. If a bully gets their way, they will expect nothing less than the compliance of the victim. By trying to change the victim, we are condoning the actions of the bully. For example, if someone is sexually harassed should we tell them not to provoke that person again, or should we try to prevent others from harassing in the future? If satirical cartoon artists are murdered should we quiet ourselves and warn others not to be as provocative, or should we teach that violence is not the way to a peaceful, understanding future?

Silence is a quick and easy solution to a microscopic aspect of a bigger problem.

“We realize the importance of our voices only when we are silenced”

-Malala Yousafzai