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
The US Department of Defense recently released this year’s “Report on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China.” This annual report provides a comprehensive overview of China’s military capabilities, strategic objectives and evolving global ambitions. Taiwan features prominently in this year’s report, as capturing the nation remains central to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) vision of the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” a goal he has set for 2049. The report underscores Taiwan’s critical role in China’s long-term strategy, highlighting its significance as a geopolitical flashpoint and a key target in China’s quest to assert dominance
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
RSS