The Global Threat to Press Freedom

Why access to information is the most important human rights issue of our time.

BY LEE BOLLINGER | JANUARY 21, 2011

With Hu Jintao on a state visit to Washington this week, there has been much public comment on the need for U.S. President Barack Obama to stress to his Chinese counterpart how important it is for China to improve its record on human rights and commitment to greater political freedom. In their joint press conference on Jan. 19, Obama took pains to show his concern, telling reporters, "I have been very candid with President Hu about these issues." For his part, Hu accepted the need for progress and dialogue but insisted that China would follow its own development path.

But their statements -- and the media's reporting of the visit -- fall short by treating "human rights" as an isolated issue. Human rights are important, to be sure, but the present conversation is too vague and, for many Americans, not immediately relevant to our own lives. The very practical point it misses is that the outside world's access to information about China, and therefore global economic interests, are compromised by denials of free speech and free press in foreign lands.

It is understandable that those of us who have grown up with an unmatched level of freedom may believe that censorship in other countries is morally wrong, but does not directly affect us as citizens in a democracy. But the fact is that globalization and new technology -- two of the defining developments of this era -- have fundamentally blurred the distinction between us and the rest of the world when it comes to free speech and free press.

Globalization is, of course, many things, but it is principally an economic phenomenon -- enabled by the opening of markets in countries across the world, driven by the quest for profits in business and finance, and facilitated by the lowering of barriers to trade and investment. Consistent with the nature of entrepreneurial activities, it is all moving with enormous and unprecedented speed. Suddenly, approximately half the revenues of the S&P 500 companies come from outside the United States, half of the debt of the U.S. government is held in foreign hands, and everyone seems to be betting on the Chinese consumer (along with those in India, Brazil, and elsewhere) for economic growth over the next decade.

These forces and events are transforming, or at least significantly affecting, the lives of just about everyone everywhere. Although there are many benefits to humanity from this course of modern civilization, there are clearly issues to be addressed, choices to be made. We will undoubtedly continue to debate the details of various policy responses, but no one can plausibly question that massive problems like global recession or climate change require collective public action, just as similar problems did on a national scale in the 20th century.

Above all else we need accurate information, smart ideas, and a means of discussion to accompany these forces of globalization. To that purpose we need to build up the very successful institutions we have developed over time to perform those specific functions. One thinks, first and foremost, of the press and universities, both of which are (at their best) dedicated to making a professional judgment about what is important for us to know and then providing us with that knowledge. We are, indeed, fortunate to have new technologies of communication ready to serve these needs. But we are confronted with the question of whether the new digital marketplace of ideas is capable of supporting the quality of information and civic discourse that is required to address the challenges we face.

It would be a serious mistake to think that the so-called "citizen journalists" -- important as they are to public debate -- can entirely replace large, professional institutions organized to report the news, any more than the rise of "citizen scholars" could duplicate the work of our best research universities. The benefits of scale, professionalism, and institutional support are significant when it comes to covering actions of governments or multinational corporations. As WikiLeaks has vividly illustrated, there is a very big difference between posting unedited diplomatic communications on a website and taking the time and judgment to provide context, insight, and, perhaps most compellingly, a sense of responsibility to both soldiers and sources around the world -- as trusted news organizations do every day.

PETER PARKS/AFP/Getty Images

 

Lee Bollinger is president of Columbia University.

TOCHARIAN

12:07 AM ET

January 22, 2011

In the beginning was the Word

I agree with many points made in this excellent article. I believe not just in the motto "Information should be Free and Universal", but also that elected governments in democratic countries have the obligation and the right to create and foster an environment where information can freely flow across the globe. Market forces or rigid political and religious ideologies should not be the determining factors when it comes to the right of every human being to be able to access information, now that we have the technological means to achieve that ideal. I admit that human beings are still gullible to propaganda and brainwashing but I believe that irrational mass-hysteria can at least be ameliorated if information moves more freely across the globe. BBC, VOA, PBS etc. are institutions that deserve public support as much as schools, public libraries, universities or even the military!

 

ALISON C

12:54 PM ET

January 22, 2011

What about guide books and travel reviews?

I would have thought that many of these countries would be hoping to encourage visitors - both on business and tourists. It would serve them badly if travel writers are to be subjected to stringent censorship and restrictions.

 

LDCHISLE

2:36 PM ET

January 22, 2011

True, but sad reality

I undoubtedly agree with the premis of this post and of the comments made by TOCHARIAN. Freedom of information is vital to maintaining transparent and accountable national and international institutions. For all the criticism recently directed at Wikileaks ultimately, the original intention of Julian Assange was to provide the world with just what this post is advocating we need- greater public freedom/access to information that will act as an additional oversight mechanism to hold governments and corporations to account in their "behind closed doors" decision making. Undoubtedly there has been some fall back and unfortunately, Wikileaks is becoming more and more of an international gossip forum but it nonetheless continues to provide a crucial service at an international level where it provides a forum of information distribution which is especially for individuals in countries where freedom of information and freedom of the press are not prioritized.

What I take issue with are the assumptions underlying Bollinger's comment that in this globalized world our unmatched level of freedom is being eroded by the censorship practices of foreign governments and thus it is now in our own self interest to pressure other states to provide greater access to information. First, I think it naive to assume that we have unmatched levels of freedom. Yes publicly and rhetorically western states allow for the "free flow of information" however that information is free flowing in these parts of the world remains an untrue and idealistic fact. The lack of disclosure of western governments is likely precisely what drove Assange's initial motivations to create Wikileaks. Second, this assumption that we are free because we have greater political freedoms reflects the western obsession with the prioritization of civil and political rights over economic, social and cultural rights highlighted by cultural relativists. America's isolationist policies in regards to Cuba reflect that exact attitude. Finally, the statement that I found morally disconcerting, yet that is sadly still a realistic reflection of individuals' and states' motivations, is that the only reason why we are now concerned about the degree of access to information in other states is because now in this globalized world with international travel and investment, restrictions on the ability of foreign citizens to access information in turn restricts our ability to access that information. This realist, self-motivated argument is one that is all too often resorted to in human rights discourse- we will only take decisive action in limiting human rights violations when it is in our own self interest to do so. This self interests is usually economically defined and we will turn a blind eye to human rights violations, be they limiting freedom of speech/information or torturing citizens until these actions affect our pocketbooks.

 

HUGH SANSOM

5:49 AM ET

January 27, 2011

Bollinger Repeats Common Falsehoods — Shameful

Lee Bollinger repeats the standard falsehood that Wikileaks published "unedited diplomatic communications." The obvious question is whether he does so knowingly, in which case he is lying. But even if he did not do so, as he must concede, a student doing likewise would face harsh criticism or worse.

The more important issue is Bollinger's tacit endorsement of a the common elitist (and it is elitist) media and academic line in the US — a very self-serving line — that We the People must be held by the hand in our evaluation of facts. Bollinger, of course, is a lawyer by training, and his interest is less in truth than it is in winning a case. The case he wants to win here is one of preserving power in the hands of those who already have it -- but very selectively so across nations. Like the power elite in the United States, he wants existing power structures preserved in the US, Europe, Japan, etc. — the power of his friends and associates. As for power in, say, Iraq or Syria or China. . . . That's another story.

Finally, it is worth considering the economic issue to which Bollinger alludes. If The New York Times, CNN, NPR, and so on — if — they were doing the work they _claim_ to be doing, then would there be any market for Wikileaks? The fact is that _no_ major American news organization is doing anything that resembles serious, probing, incisive investigative reporting when it comes to US foreign policy — or many, if any, other subjects. It is quite amazing to compare what is taught at places like the Columbia School of Journalism with what is actually practiced by US news organizations. Wikileaks and the much of the alternative internet news community exists in no small measure because of the glaring failures of American news organizations — on the Middle East, on the financial crisis, on major issues of domestic politics, and on and on and on. Yet, even after the striking failures, Columbia can still organize a discussion on Wikileaks without inviting even _one_ representative of _any_ internet news organization — much less one that has drawn the virulent misrepresentations of the kind Bollinger repeats about Wikileaks.