"x x x.
Is it possible to measure press freedom?
I had asked the question in the early eighties when some publishers ventured to give critics some space to report and comment on sensitive political issues while Mr. (Ferdinand) Marcos was still in power. The threat of some government agency inviting one for questioning or of being arrested or detained without warrant remained in full force.
Government wags argued that the critical sector of the press was proof of the regime’s respect for press freedom. I thought however that then press critics proved only that there were people with enough gumption or cheek to test the limits of official tolerance.
How is it possible to measure press freedom given such a system? There was no easy way of doing this, no metrics available to serve as proof. There was no kit that one could use to test this condition.
In a later period, democracies have taken to different styles with various applications for limits and restraints, respected organizations have done just that, applying various questions to measure precisely the freedom given to an independent press.
The practice has not been without its critics. But their reports continue to be consulted just the same. A quick research on the Internet reveals various groups focusing on different aspects of press practice.Freedom House (FH) provides the most comprehensive study, and its examination of media freedom as only one aspect of freedom in general. The methodology for press freedom employs a detailed inquiry into three general conditions: the legal, political, and economic environments affecting the press and journalists. The findings are applied to rank the country in a global scale as Free, Partly Free andNot Free.
In Southeast Asia, FH’s Freedom in the World 2012 study pronounced Indonesia as Free, the Philippines and Thailand as Partly Free; along with Singapore and Malaysia. This larger report examines the state of political rights and civil liberties. Overall rankings place countries in a global list of 195 countries, and some ranks are occupied by two or more countries.
There are those who question the inclusion of Singapore and Malaysia in the same Partly Free class as Thailand and the Philippines in the broader ranking of Freedom. The legal and political systems of the former are fundamentally opposed to fostering a free and independent press system, a requisite presence in a truly free society. FH observes this critically by letting Malaysia and Singapore slip into theNot Free category in the more focused global ranking of press freedom. However, FH also lets Thailand fall into same class of having an unfree press.
It is not surprising that the ranking would raise the hackles of press freedom advocates in the region. But FH takes pains to justify their findings.
In Thailand, reasons included lese-majeste cases, the shutdown of websites, the pressures exerted on journalists and news organizations covering the political tension between political parties and movements. With its constitutional provision for press freedom unchanged, perhaps, these failings should be understood as serious glitches that arise from the political tumult that held over the country. But surely, the study should have also observed the continuing perseverance of the free press in the mainstream.
Rankings always rankle. It does not seem appropriate to show as most of these studies do how well the developed democracies do in comparison to more recently established free press systems.
In a recent meeting of the Southeast Asian Press Alliance, academics, journalists and press freedom advocates proposed to develop metrics more cognizant of the difficulties of institutional development. A regional study should include indicators that expand the inquiry into other aspects that reflect on media development, effective self-regulation, the role of news associations and press freedom advocates, the capacity of journalists and media organizations to fight back or to resist repression, or to seek alternative venues for the flow of political information.
With or without further indicators, I am forced to ask—how free can a society be if it does not allow or even enable and strengthen a free press?
A bit of further thought on the subject also raises a parallel or is it a counter question—How much freedom does a press need to help enhance the state of political and civil rights in general, so these can be enjoyed not only by the press but by all citizens? How much press freedom is necessary to help create a working democracy, or to infuse some quality in public life?
