US President Donald Trump has labeled news outlets the “enemy of the people.”
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has called journalists “putrid” and “immoral,” and accused them of mounting “sensationalist attacks” against him.
Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has labeled them “nobodies, conservatives, know-it-alls, hypocrites,” as well as “fifi” (bourgeois, pretentious) and “chayoteros” (a term implying that they take bribes).
Populist leaders love the mass media, which enable them to spread their own ideas, but they hate journalism, which asks challenging questions and aims to hold them accountable. That is precisely why it must be defended.
Trump, Bolsonaro and Lopez Obrador — who, despite having differences, share nationalist views, populist tactics and anti-democratic inclinations — have hardly limited themselves to rhetorical attacks.
The Trump administration has severely curtailed press access to the White House. It has also revoked or suspended the press credentials of many journalists, based on reasoning so faulty or opaque that judges have ordered them restored.
Now, Trump has made another ominous break from tradition.
Copies of a diverse array of magazines and newspapers, from the Financial Times to the New York Post, have long been delivered to the White House daily. This is standard operating procedure in a democracy: Hubs of power must be well informed, and that means subscribing to all kinds of media, regardless of their editorial lines.
However, Trump decided in October that neither the Washington Post nor the New York Times — both of which he has often accused of bias and dishonesty — would be delivered to the White House any longer.
“They’re fake,” he asserted in the Fox News interview where he announced his intentions.
The Trump administration is urging other federal agencies to also cancel their subscriptions.
A week after Trump’s decision, Bolsonaro followed suit, canceling all government subscriptions to Folha de Sao Paulo, one of Brazil’s most respected newspapers.
“I don’t want to know about Folha de Sao Paulo,” Bolsonaro said, adding that reading that paper “poisons my government.”
Advisers, he said, could always go to the newsstand and buy a copy — “I hope they don’t accuse me of censorship” — but no public funds would be spent on it.
“And,” he concluded threateningly, “who advertises in Folha de Sao Paulo pays attention, right?”
Meanwhile in Mexico, Lopez Obrador has slashed the government’s media advertising budget, directing the cuts at papers critical of the government, such as Reforma.
He has leveled unsubstantiated accusations against Reforma that it favored previous administrations and is working for secret interests.
The move’s implications are particularly significant in Mexico, where media are often dependent on government ads.
Mexico is also among the world’s most dangerous countries for journalists. It is unlikely to be made safer by a president who regards them as adversaries.
Using the state to punish specific media outlets for taking an unflattering editorial line is the purview of dictators. Turning newspaper subscriptions, media advertising and journalist access into a weapon amounts to an assault on freedom of the press, expression and information, which obviously poses a serious threat to democracy.
For example, former Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, who ruled for 14 years, relentlessly attacked the press, attempting to undermine its credibility and paint it as an enemy of the people.
By pushing his own version of events and creating a hostile environment for independent news media, he achieved “communication hegemony.”
Chavez’s successor, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, has followed the same playbook.
In the past few years, more than 50 newspapers stopped publishing print editions, lowered their publication frequency from daily to weekly, or drastically reduced their page counts and print runs, partly because exchange controls have blocked imports of newsprint.
Add to that direct government pressure, such as lawsuits, and economic collapse, including hyperinflation, and Venezuela’s free media have been all but decimated.
It is no coincidence that Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro has suffered from catastrophic economic policies, large-scale corruption and pervasive cronyism. Today, Venezuela is a full-fledged dictatorship, where the government’s political opponents are detained and protesters face brutal repression.
Venezuela is thus an object lesson in why attacks on media by Trump, Bolsonaro and Lopez Obrador must be taken seriously. All media, both targeted and favored, should fight back, including by seeking injunctions in national and international courts.
Journalists and others, such as academic associations, can pursue local-level initiatives aimed at defending the rights and freedoms of citizens and media.
Non-governmental organizations can also help, not only by unequivocally expressing their opposition, but also by collecting and publicizing data on media freedom.
Civil society should contribute its own full-throated defense of media, with citizens engaging in joint initiatives with media and their defenders.
An enemy of the free press is an enemy of democracy. We cannot say they did not warn us.
Andres Canizalez, a Venezuelan journalist, political scientist and researcher at Universidad Catolica Andres Bello, is the founder of Venezuela’s first fact-checking organization, Cotejo.info.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Chinese state-owned companies COSCO Shipping Corporation and China Merchants have a 30 percent stake in Kaohsiung Port’s Kao Ming Container Terminal (Terminal No. 6) and COSCO leases Berths 65 and 66. It is extremely dangerous to allow Chinese companies or state-owned companies to operate critical infrastructure. Deterrence theorists are familiar with the concepts of deterrence “by punishment” and “by denial.” Deterrence by punishment threatens an aggressor with prohibitive costs (like retaliation or sanctions) that outweigh the benefits of their action, while deterrence by denial aims to make an attack so difficult that it becomes pointless. Elbridge Colby, currently serving as the Under
The Ministry of the Interior on Thursday last week said it ordered Internet service providers to block access to Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English) for a year, citing security risks and more than 1,700 alleged fraud cases on the platform since last year. The order took effect immediately, abruptly affecting more than 3 million users in Taiwan, and sparked discussions among politicians, online influencers and the public. The platform is often described as China’s version of Instagram or Pinterest, combining visual social media with e-commerce, and its users are predominantly young urban women,
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi lit a fuse the moment she declared that trouble for Taiwan means trouble for Japan. Beijing roared, Tokyo braced and like a plot twist nobody expected that early in the story, US President Donald Trump suddenly picked up the phone to talk to her. For a man who normally prefers to keep Asia guessing, the move itself was striking. What followed was even more intriguing. No one outside the room knows the exact phrasing, the tone or the diplomatic eyebrow raises exchanged, but the broad takeaway circulating among people familiar with the call was this: Trump did
RSS