April 28, 2026 • 45 mins
On Inside Geneva this week, we mark Press Freedom Day. Is there anything to celebrate?
Irene Khan, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression: “The role of journalists has never been under such pressure, and the sector itself is suffering. So these are very, very important times to take a deep breath and make sure that freedom of expression, and media freedom as part of that, is protected, because it is an extremely important pillar of democracy.”
Increasingly, journalists are being attacked simply for reporting the facts.
Antoine Bernard, Reporters Without Borders: “We are in times where facts have become a target; hence, journalists have become more of a target, and this means that they are the ones who are suffering most from the growing polarisation of the public debate.”
And are people manipulating press freedom and freedom of expression?
Chris Morris, CEO, Full Fact: “Regulating information is a really difficult thing to do well. Getting the right balance between the absolute need to protect freedom of expression and the need to protect people from harm online is really difficult.”
Irene Khan, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression: “You have the First Amendment warriors talking about freedom of speech without any limit. But what they actually mean is freedom of speech for me, but not for you. Because when that happens, when you have freedom of speech without any barriers, then what happens is that we’ve seen a surge of hate speech, attacks against migrants, and terrible misogynist attacks against women politicians.”
Join host Imogen Foulkes on Inside Geneva.
Get in touch!
- Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
- Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/
Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_06 (00:00):
SwissInfo podcasts.
This is Inside Geneva.
I'm your host, Imogen Folkes,and this is a production from
SwissInfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
(00:23):
In today's program.
SPEAKER_02 (00:25):
Well, it's fake news.
You know, it's just so it's sofake.
That's why the media has solittle credibility.
SPEAKER_05 (00:32):
The role of journalism has never been more
important.
The role of journalists hasnever been under such pressure,
and uh the sector itself issuffering.
So these these are very, veryimportant times to take a deep
breath and make sure thatfreedom of expression and media
freedom as part of that isprotected because it is an
extremely important pillar ofdemocracy.
SPEAKER_00 (00:54):
Thousands of mourners marched behind Imal
Halil's coffin at a funeralprocession in the journalist's
hometown in southern Lebanon.
Khalil was killed in a housewhere she took cover from a
strike while reporting on theIsrael-Hezbollah war.
SPEAKER_04 (01:07):
We are now in times where facts have become a
target.
Hence, journalists have becomemore of targets.
And this means that they are theones suffering most of the
polarization, the growingpolarization of the public
(01:29):
debate.
SPEAKER_08 (01:30):
But the legacy Trump-hating press.
Your politically motivatedanimus for President Trump
nearly completely blinds youfrom the brilliance of our
American warriors.
SPEAKER_07 (01:43):
Well, uh good afternoon, everybody.
SPEAKER_08 (01:44):
Visiting the Munich Security Conference, Vance
lectured them.
SPEAKER_07 (01:48):
The threat that I worry the most about vis-a-vis
Europe is not Russia, it's notChina, it's not any other
external actor.
And what I worry about is thethreat from within.
SPEAKER_03 (02:10):
Regulating information is a really
difficult thing to do well.
Getting the right balancebetween the absolute need to
protect freedom of expression,but also the need to protect
people from harm online isreally difficult.
SPEAKER_05 (02:23):
Well, I think the most important thing that can be
done here is to ensure thatjournalists can work
independently.
That means without unduepolitical influence or pressure,
that they are safe and thattheir access and their sources
are protected.
SPEAKER_06 (02:49):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Folks, and in today'sprogramme we're going to mark
Press Freedom Day.
That takes place on May 4th eachyear.
So just a few days away, we'vegot three amazing interviews for
you.
SPEAKER_04 (03:05):
I am Antoine Bernard.
I'm the director of advocacy andassistance at Reporters Not
Borders, meaning that I lead RSFGlobal Advocacy, Litigation,
Assistance, and DigitalOperations.
SPEAKER_03 (03:18):
I'm Chris Morris.
I am the Chief Executive of FullFact.
We're a charity based in London.
And before that, I was for avery long time a foreign
correspondent with the BBC,including uh 10 years in two
different stints in Europe.
SPEAKER_05 (03:33):
I am Irene Khan, the UN Special Rapporteur, which
means the independent expert onfreedom of opinion and
expression.
SPEAKER_06 (03:40):
We're going to look at the challenges to press
freedom from violent attacks topunitive lawsuits.
SPEAKER_04 (03:46):
We are now in times where facts have become a
target.
Hence, journalists have becomemore of targets.
And this means that they are theones suffering most of the
polarization, the growingpolarization of the public
(04:08):
debate.
SPEAKER_06 (04:09):
We'll discuss the flood of miss and disinformation
that threatens to obscurefact-based professional
journalism.
SPEAKER_03 (04:17):
If people don't believe you, they won't trust
you.
And if there's no trust, thenthere's no consent.
And that's where democracygenuinely starts to falter.
I do think we're actuallyfighting for the kind of
societies we want to be.
And partly we're fightingagainst bad actors, wherever
they may come from.
And partly we are fightingagainst the big tech companies
who are the most powerfulorganizations the world has ever
(04:40):
seen.
SPEAKER_06 (04:40):
And we'll be unpicking the important
differences between pressfreedom and freedom of speech.
SPEAKER_05 (04:47):
You have the First Amendment warriors talking about
freedom of speech without anylimit.
But what they actually mean isfreedom of speech for me, but
not for you.
Because when that happens, whenyou have freedom of speech
without any barriers, then whathappens is there's a surge of
hate speech, attacks againstmigrants, attacks, terrible
(05:09):
misogynist attacks against womenpoliticians.
SPEAKER_06 (05:13):
First, let's hear from Antoine Bernard of
Reporters Without Borders.
RSF's annual World Press FreedomIndex is due out this week.
And Antoine began by telling methe report will reflect some
very worrying trends.
SPEAKER_04 (05:29):
Indeed, we'll be publishing the World Press
Freedom Index 26th edition on30th April.
That publication comes in anextremely deteriorated context
for journalists and journalism.
Journalism is confrontedaltogether with four crises at
the same time (05:47):
a crisis of protection, a legal crisis with
law instrumentalized againstjournalists, a crisis of
sustainability, which iseconomic, and a tech crisis all
in all, which means thedevelopment of platforms that
are equally instrumentalizedagainst journalism.
So the context is extremelydifficult.
SPEAKER_06 (06:08):
Let's look at the stark examples, and those are
physical threats.
We're seeing more and morejournalists being killed.
And it seems if we look at theMiddle East, by countries which
trumpet their democracies andtheir commitment to freedom of
(06:34):
the press.
SPEAKER_04 (06:35):
Indeed, we are now in times where tax have become a
target, and journalists havebecome more of targets.
And this means that they are theones that are suffering most of
(06:56):
the polarization, the growingpolarization of the public
debate.
It can have terribleconsequences for journalists
covering conflicts.
We consider at ourselves thereis a before and after Gaza.
After October 7th in Gazastarted a tragedy for journalism
(07:18):
and journalists.
(07:47):
Of course, we're investigatingand litigating, meaning we're
triggering prosecutors on thosecases.
But it's too slow, it's toounlikely that the judicial
answer is not proportional tothe gravity of the situation.
In non-conflict times, includingdemocratic societies,
(08:10):
journalists are targeted morebecause it has become
politically rewarding to targetjournalists in the political
debate.
So yes, there is pluralization.
Yes, journalists are being moretargeted, and all in all, the
consequences for citizens.
Their own right to information,which is wicked.
SPEAKER_06 (08:33):
What do you think professional journalists,
long-standing mediaorganizations can do to defend
themselves?
I'm thinking specifically of theUnited States, where we see one
lawsuit after another, which weknow I observe myself, has what
(08:57):
we call the famous chillingeffect on what we do.
SPEAKER_04 (09:00):
Absolutely.
It has become extremelychallenging and complex to be
able to react.
So RSF has a very clearstrategy.
We are not satisfied with onlyreacting.
We are 100% committed tofighting back.
Meaning, in the case of uhjournalists suffering crimes,
(09:22):
international crimes inparticular, investigating, uh
triggering prosecutors.
We've been triggering criminalprosecutors in several tens of
countries or internationalcourts.
In the US, we are having a veryinteresting litigating
experience.
We decided to oppose in courtthe executive order to dismantle
(09:45):
USAGM.
So we went alongside ajournalist of Voice of America,
triggering the federal judge,who's been delivering positive
decisions in favor of us andjournalists, opposing what has
been done, and also contributingto sensitizing members of
(10:06):
Congress in deciding to resumethe funding of USAGN.
SPEAKER_06 (10:11):
I I'm really interested when you talk about
not just being reactive butproactive and fighting back.
Because I do wonder whethermedia organizations and
journalists have we been a bitslow to see the danger,
particularly when we think ofthe world we live in now with AI
(10:33):
and social media.
SPEAKER_04 (10:35):
Certainly we've been slow.
We, I mean, we journalists andjournalism, yes, we've been
slow.
We're not the only ones,especially when you refer to
social media platforms.
For years, they've been seen asthe alpha and omega of the new
global information space.
Fantastic.
It took quite a long time, and afew scandals that journalists
(11:00):
have revealed for democracies torealize that that was for-profit
companies that were making justbusiness on using our data and
actually now pursuing apolitical agenda.
So fighting back on that meansfor RSF two things.
One, going to court, actually,we've been fighting criminal
(11:21):
complaints, including against exTwitter, for aiding and abating
actually the Kremlin's warpropaganda scheme through what
is called as the Matrioshkascheme or the Doppelganger
scheme.
But the other way forward is todevelop a new mode of
protection.
(11:41):
It's not only about journalistsafety, it's about having
guaranteed citizens' rights toaccess a plurality of trustless
media, of trustless sources ofinformation.
That is the main problemglobally.
There are 75% of our uh uhfellow citizens in the world
(12:04):
that have a huge or a majorproblem to access media, and
this has come also intodemocratic societies where we
see how platforms have capturedour information space.
We succeeded in this thanks to avery important development in EU
law, that's the European MediaFreedom Act.
SPEAKER_06 (12:26):
I'm quite interested in the tension between,
particularly the way that thephrases are used now, what is
termed in particular in theUnited States, free speech and
press freedom, because we haveon social media and the tech
giants basically saying anybodycan say whatever they like, even
(12:48):
if it's highly offensiveincitement to violence,
incitement to sexual violence.
The very same people don'treally seem to support press
freedom.
SPEAKER_04 (13:00):
It's really interesting that you highlight
that point.
I would have done it indeedbecause for RSA it's an
absolutely major issue thatneeds to be addressed.
The First Amendment protectsfree speech and freedom of the
press.
Very strangely, the second partof the sentence has been
disappearing from the politicallanguage that has been used, and
(13:26):
interestingly, used by PresidentTrump equally by President
Putin, equally by a number offar right leaders in
democracies, equally by Erdogan,Sisi, and Xi Jinping.
That's a very commonalitybetween them, according to whom
(13:47):
everything is justified in thename of free speech and freedom
of expression.
Accordingly, we journalists andRSF in particular, by the way,
have turned into the newcensors.
Censorship is us following thatcourse of thinking.
So it is a real challenge.
(14:09):
We need to explain, andjournalists need to show why and
how practicing journalism cannotbe turned into a freedom of
expression only challenge.
It is a commitment to facts, soit's quite different from the
(14:33):
mere freedom of expression,fundamental, of course, of any
citizen.
It's different.
SPEAKER_06 (14:45):
Antoine Bernard of Reporters Without Borders.
His point about facts brings meto our next guest.
Because as any professionaljournalist listening will know,
facts have become something of aflexible commodity.
We all remember White Houseadvisor Kellyanne Conway
defending President Trump whenduring his first term some
(15:07):
journalists questioned the truthof his statements.
The president was, Conway said,presenting alternative facts.
How can we have an informeddebate about the big challenges
we face if we can't agree onbasic facts, which are supposed
to be neutral, evidence, andscience-based, not changeable
(15:30):
because of political whims.
Chris Morris, former journalist,now heads Full Fact, an
organization dedicating tofinding and exposing myths and
disinformation in a bid tochallenge the harm it can do.
SPEAKER_03 (15:47):
We started with a fairly narrow remit, actually.
This was back in 2010.
It was set up essentially tothink about trying to raise
standards in public life withthe slightly revolutionary idea
that if politicians saidsomething that wasn't true, they
should correct the record andapologize.
So it was very much focused onBritish politics and getting
politicians to correct therecord, checking their facts,
(16:09):
and making sure that theyessentially help raise standards
in public life.
Because I think the generalargument was that you know, with
public office comes publicresponsibility.
Obviously, in the 15, 16 yearssince then, the canvas on which
we paint has become just alittle bit broader.
Social media, generative AI,everyone's their own content
(16:32):
creator, the whole internetflooded with false and
misleading information.
So we do a much wider range ofthings now.
We did a lot on health issuesduring the pandemic, as I guess
everyone did, but increasinglythe stuff we're doing is looking
at generative AI, whether it'son text, image, or audio.
And I guess our we see our roleas trying to persuade people
(16:57):
that there is still some kind ofshared reality on which we can
have important national orinternational debates.
Because the fear is that we getto a place where no one believes
anything they read or see orhear anywhere anymore.
SPEAKER_06 (17:10):
That specifically AI is something I want to come on
to in a minute.
But as you said, things haveactually really changed from
2010 to 26.
Do you think that now thechances of getting the public to
agree that this is actually afact are less than then?
SPEAKER_03 (17:33):
You know, I think there are minorities, you could
argue substantial minorities,but minorities nonetheless who
like to shout at each other fromeach side of the social media
chasm, yelling and gettingangry.
And as you say, we have ourfacts, you have your facts,
never the twain shall meet.
I do still think there's, if youlike, a silent majority who
(17:55):
understand that it's importantthat we we share some facts.
We can have very differentopinions, but if you can't have
public debate based on some sortof shared body of that stands up
to statistical scrutiny, thenyou've got a big problem.
Because, you know, if peopledon't believe you, they won't
trust you.
And if there's no trust, thenthere's no consent.
And that's where democracygenuinely starts to falter.
(18:17):
And it can sound a bitmelodramatic to say that, but I
do think we're actually fightingfor the kind of societies we
want to be.
And partly we're fightingagainst bad actors, wherever
they may come from, and partlywe are fighting against the big
tech companies who are the mostpowerful organizations the world
has ever seen.
I mean, I'm reading a book atthe moment, it's all about the
(18:38):
history of the nation-state, andit makes the point that the big
tech companies are the mostpowerful new geopolitical
entities since the nation-stateswere created in the 18th
century.
That's the kind of revolutionarymoment we are at.
And while those companies can dosome good things, the products
they make, the algorithms theyare based on are all about
(19:01):
engagement, not aboutfactuality, because engagement
is what makes money.
And as societies, we think, Ithink, that we have to take back
control of that bit and say, no,we don't want that.
We actually want societies thatare based on some sort of
intelligent conversation anddebate.
SPEAKER_06 (19:17):
So if we agree that limits to press freedom or
disinformation getting in theway of professional journalists
being trusted as they weretraditionally, the tech giants,
they know their power.
What would you say do you thinkis the biggest threat?
Is it big tech?
Is it authoritarian government?
(19:38):
I mean, we see there's virtuallyno freedom of the press in
Russia now.
Orban was making having a goodcrack at it, and we see in the
US as well that the the WhiteHouse is bullying and
threatening the media.
SPEAKER_03 (19:52):
Yeah, I think I guess we're kind of used to it
in Russia, aren't we?
Obviously, the big surprise shotlast year was it happening in
the United States.
And the fact that Vice PresidentVance came to Europe in what was
it, February last year, I think,and essentially said, you in
Europe, you're censoring yourown people.
Anyone checking facts iscensoring their own people.
(20:13):
Misinformation is an old, Ithink he called it an ugly
Soviet-era word, and anyoneusing it is trying to tell you
what to think.
That was pretty depressing.
Shocking, actually, I found it.
Well, it was it was shocking,and it had an impact on the tech
companies who suddenly becameflag-waving American companies
determined to stay out of thecrosshairs of the White House,
if you like.
(20:34):
But if you talk about pressfreedom, the idea that you have
a US administration sayingchecking facts is censorship,
that's pretty chilling.
And something, in the end, thatwe have to fight against.
I mean, as I say, we're acharity, impartiality is part of
our charitable objectives.
But we are always very clear wewill not be impartial on the
principle that facts matter.
(20:55):
And if there are people whospeak against them and say that
they're not important and thatall that matters is the
narrative, whether it's fact orfiction, then that's something
that we will kind of plant aflag in the sand to oppose.
SPEAKER_06 (21:08):
So there was a moment, though, wasn't there,
when the big Silicon Valley techcompanies were moving or being
pressured towards more probity.
And that seems to have faded.
SPEAKER_03 (21:20):
It appears to be cyclical with the the whims of
whoever's sitting in the WhiteHouse.
When there was concern about umthe accuracy of information on
social media, they responded.
But they were essentially giventhe green light last year by the
second Trump administration toignore things like moderating
content.
It was it was a very kind ofultra capitalist free for all
(21:43):
version of looking afterinformation.
And one thing it's reallyimportant to understand because
if you're talking about pressfreedom, regulating information
is a really difficult thing todo well.
Getting the right balancebetween the absolute need to
protect freedom of expression,but also.
The need to protect people fromharm online is really difficult.
(22:04):
We've seen those debates inBritain during the passage of
what's become the Online SafetyAct.
There have been similar debatesacross Europe with like EU
legislation, like the DigitalServices Act.
The current Americanadministration hates legislation
like that.
Oh, yeah.
That's why they are so criticalof Europe.
SPEAKER_06 (22:20):
It's got nothing about it, it's not really got
anything to do with losing ourcivilization.
It's got to do with lettingtheir big tech companies roam
free.
SPEAKER_03 (22:30):
Exactly.
And I think therefore we associety should decide how we
want to do that.
You know, as I say, ifregulating information is really
difficult, I would rather it bedone by the representatives we
all elect to our parliamentsthan by tech executives in
Silicon Valley or indeed inBeijing.
Because at the moment we aresubcontracting too many of those
(22:53):
decisions to the techexecutives.
And essentially their bottomline always will be, I
understand it, they arecompanies designed to make a
profit.
Their bottom line is the shareprice.
SPEAKER_06 (23:04):
Coming back to what some people call us, or what you
used to be, and I still am, thelegacy media.
You know, you imagine yourselfwith a in a dinosaur suit.
I just wonder, you know, youworked for the BBC.
Have these companies missed atrick, were they more able to
(23:25):
see what could develop withsocial media and now AI?
SPEAKER_03 (23:30):
I think they saw it, but I always regarded the BBC as
a bit of a super tanker.
It doesn't change course veryquickly.
I now work in a littlespeedboat.
We're not as big as they are,we're never going to have as
much impact, but we can ziparound a bit more quickly, we
can change direction, we can bemore agile.
What I think is both because ofthe politics, but also really
because of the technology, Ithink historians will look back
(23:52):
in a couple of hundred years andsee this period from roughly the
beginning of this century foruntil when?
Until maybe the middle of thecentury, as a genuine
revolutionary period.
I don't know what, I'm not surewhat they're going to call it,
but it is one of those momentsthat historians will look back
on.
So it's really hard forindividuals sometimes to see
that.
And sometimes the most visionaryones are the ones who make the
(24:13):
most money, and they're notalways running public service
broadcasting organizations.
SPEAKER_06 (24:17):
But I'm also wondering whether there has not
been a good enough defense ofthe profession of journalism.
Have the the big media companiesnot defended enough what it is
they do.
SPEAKER_03 (24:31):
I think they could have done a better job.
I also think there have beenextended long-running campaigns
against them, people who seek toundermine them.
And one thing I say quite a lotis look, skepticism is good,
right?
Asking questions is really good.
It's kind of what democraciesare based on.
But those who seek to underminethings like public service media
(24:53):
organizations, things like thatidea of a shared reality we can
all debate, they want thatskepticism to drip over into
cynicism.
Because when you make peoplereally cynical, then they don't
care.
That's, I can't think, thedividing line we are rapidly
approaching.
Let's keep the skepticism lots,let's not make everyone so
cynical that they just give up.
(25:13):
I think we're we're in danger ofgetting to that point.
I just don't believe we arethere yet.
And there's a bit of an armsrace when it comes to
information.
And I think we have to accept atthe moment the bad guys are
winning because every time youput up another good defense, it
might be something like, let'sfind an ingenious way to
watermark original videos sopeople can see whether it's been
(25:33):
altered or not by AI.
But every time somebody doesthat within days, and it's
sometimes just a teenager intheir back bedroom, people find
a way around it and find a wayto subvert new defenses.
So that essentially that kind ofcut and thrust is going on all
the time.
But I also think technology isproducing, you know, let's not
just bash technology.
The new technology around themoment is amazing.
(25:55):
It has the potential totransform so many parts of our
society for good, but it alsobrings with it massive
challenges.
It's really interesting, rightnow, one of the things a lot of
people are thinking about is howyou train the large language
models, you know, the modelswhich sit behind things like
ChatGPT or Gemini or Claude.
And during the last elections inGermany, for example, there were
(26:19):
thousands and thousands ofwebsites created.
It looked like it was almostcertainly a Russian influence
operation.
And the people creating thosewebsites didn't actually care if
anyone went to read them.
They just figured out if wecreate enough of them, they will
be sucked up into the trainingmodels for the large language
models and then get spat out atthe other end.
Because if you put garbage insomewhere, you're going to get
(26:40):
garbage out.
And so it's not just about arepeople even going to these
places anymore?
It's is it being used to trainthe places where people are
going for information, whichincreasingly is going to be
those new chat interfaces basedon generative AI.
So all sorts of challenges.
But I spent a lot of timereporting from around the world,
(27:01):
went to some quite bad places,as you know, Imogen.
And I just came out of all that,still believing there are more
good people in the world thanbad.
And, you know, if you can trainthe models to do bad things, you
can also train them to do goodthings.
And that's one of the things weactually do at full fact.
You know, we're seen as afact-checking charity, but we do
a way more than just, if youlike, waiting for bad
(27:22):
information to appear and thensort of whack-a-mole style
knocking on the head and saying,No, that's incorrect.
We do try and get involved withthings like training those
models in the first place tomake sure good information
emerges.
SPEAKER_06 (27:33):
Chris Morris of Full Fact.
And I'd urge anyone curious toknow more about how facts are
checked or doubtful about someof the claims we hear these days
from government leaders, take alook at Full Facts website.
(27:54):
Now for our final interview,we'll talk to Irene Kahn, the UN
Special Rapporteur on Freedom ofExpression.
She's been taking a closeinterest in the challenges
currently facing journalists andshares the concerns we heard
from Antoine Bernard and ChrisMorris.
So what, I began by asking her,can we, or indeed the UN, do to
(28:17):
defend journalism?
SPEAKER_05 (28:19):
Well, I think the most important thing that can be
done here is to ensure thatjournalists can work
independently, that meanswithout undue political
influence or pressure, that theyare safe and that their access
and their sources are protected.
(28:40):
And also, I think what needs tobe done more and more is also
ensuring that the media sectorstays healthy.
It is under huge pressure fromdigital technology, it's losing
revenue, and of course, thefinancial viability of the
sector also affects mediafreedom very much.
(29:01):
And we've seen, for example,what is called media deserts in
the US and some other countrieswhere local media has
disappeared.
News is coming through digitalplatforms to people, even in
remote villages in Africa andAsia.
So there's a huge revolutionthat's going on in the media
sector that makes the life ofjournalists on the ground in the
(29:26):
field very, very difficult.
At the same time, the importanceof journalism is going up.
We only have to look at thestories that investigative
journalists are daily breakingabout the ways in which
governments are failing to liveup to their obligations, the way
(29:46):
in which companies and the wayin which corruption is sweeping
large swaths of our politics andour economies.
So the role of journalism hasnever been more important.
The role of journalists hasnever been under such pressure,
and the sector itself issuffering.
So these are very, veryimportant times to take a deep
(30:06):
breath and make sure thatfreedom of expression and media
freedom as part of that isprotected because it is an
extremely important pillar ofdemocracy.
SPEAKER_06 (30:16):
Let's look specifically at attacks, it
seems some of them targetedattacks in which journalists are
killed.
How would you like to getaccountability for that?
Should we see perhapsspecifically the killing of
journalists as a war crime?
SPEAKER_05 (30:36):
Well, certainly in armed conflicts, journalists are
uh treated under internationalhumanitarian law as civilians,
and targeting of civilians is awar crime.
So targeting of journalistsshould be seen, is seen by law
as a war crime.
The problem is thatopportunities to actually
prosecute and hold the partiesto the conflict accountable
(30:59):
isn't there.
That's the real problem.
And that impunity thenencourages more killings.
We have seen that in Gaza.
We've seen in Gaza, actually, onthe one hand, Israel blocking
access to international media.
That exposes local journaliststo even greater pressure.
And yet, when those localjournalists have been doing
(31:20):
their jobs, they have beenkilled like flies.
They've been targeted,deliberately targeted, which
Israel has admitted in a numberof cases on the grounds that
they were directly participatingin hostilities.
But Israel has consistentlyfailed to provide convincing
evidence of such participation.
So it's basically beenassassination.
(31:41):
Israel has had a free hand atassassinating many journalists.
SPEAKER_06 (31:46):
But is there more that we could do to get
accountability for that?
SPEAKER_05 (31:51):
Certainly.
I think there is much more thatcan be done.
First of all, putting pressureon Israel to investigate, to
allow uh independentinvestigation of these killings.
That I don't think theinternational community has done
much on that.
And certainly the allies ofIsrael could have and should do
(32:12):
much more to put pressure.
I'm using Israel as an example,but we've seen this happening
also in the context of Ukraine.
We've seen this happening inother parts of the world too.
And of course, there arejournalists killed outside
conflict in domestic situations.
For example, in Mexico, whenthey investigate drug cartels,
uh, they come under pressure.
(32:33):
And when those cartels killjournalists, it's a failure of
the state.
Failure first to protect them,and secondly, failure then to
hold the perpetratorsaccountable.
So there's a double failurethere happening both in times of
war and in times of peace.
SPEAKER_06 (32:50):
We could just broaden this conversation out a
bit to other types of pressureon journalists.
We've seen basically a shutdownof independent media in in
Russia, for example, attempts inHungary.
Now in the United States, we seethe law being used to prosecute
(33:11):
journalists, and that some ofthese media organizations are
kind of bowing to the pressure.
What do you think we can doabout that?
SPEAKER_05 (33:19):
Well, I think you've raised a very interesting
problem.
You know, when a journalist iskilled, it hits the news, and
therefore there's a lot of uhnegative public opinion against
uh the killers against thegovernment.
But when either governments orcompanies or private individuals
use the law to harassjournalists, then that doesn't
hit the news.
(33:40):
Increasingly, what we areseeing, and you've given the
example of the US, which isparticularly blatant,
increasingly we are seeing rich,powerful individuals, oligarchs
or politicians, or evencelebrities bringing outrageous
claims for defamation in courtagainst journalists.
(34:00):
So these are called uh strategiclitigation against public
participation slap.
What happens is if an individualjournalist is sued for a few
million dollars, it destroys theindividual.
Individual journalists are notvery rich, as you probably know
from your own uh experience.
And then, of course, mediacompanies get worried, editors
(34:21):
become cautious, and so it has ahuge chilling effect.
And most of these cases that arebrought are not brought in order
to actually pursue a violationof rights.
It's basically brought to chillexpression and to intimidate
journalists.
So every time you pick up uhyour pen or the laptop, start
working on the laptop, you know,you are thinking, are you saying
(34:44):
something here that couldactually upset someone wealthy,
powerful, and that person willcome against you?
We've seen cases of individuals,for example, in the UK, but now
what we are seeing in the US isa concerted attempt by the most
powerful man in the US, thepresident of the United States,
actually bringing cases againstmedia companies,$2 billion
(35:08):
against the Wall Street Journal,for example.
Although, to also be fair to theUS system, the courts have
rejected that particular case.
And I hope the courts will comeback very strongly because this
is also an abuse of the judicialsystem.
It's an abuse of journalism, butit's also an abuse of the
judicial system.
When cases like this come, itdistorts the whole meaning of
(35:31):
justice.
Of course, it adds to theburden, to the workload of uh
courts, and it sends a hugemessage to people, journalists,
the public, that justice can bemanipulated for the rich and
wealthy.
SPEAKER_06 (35:45):
How do you assess the debate over freedom of
expression, though?
I mean, you are the specialrapporteur for freedom of
expression.
Part of your role is to examinewhere it's being repressed and
how it can be upheld.
And yet we have this pressure onjournalists to keep them quiet,
(36:07):
it seems.
And yet this other debate aroundwhat in in America we we call it
free speech, that people shouldbe allowed to say whatever they
like.
We've had the vice presidentJ.D.
Vance last year berating Europe,telling us that free speech was
being undermined.
How do you see that debate?
(36:27):
Because it's it's a tricky oneif you're the special rapporteur
for freedom of expression.
SPEAKER_05 (36:32):
Indeed it is, because it turns freedom of
expression on his head,actually.
Uh, because what is actuallyhappening here, yes, you have
the First Amendment warriorstalking about freedom of speech
without any limit.
But what they actually mean isfreedom of speech for me, but
not for you.
Because when that happens, whenyou have freedom of speech
without any barriers, then whathappens is there's we have seen
(36:56):
a surge of hate speech, attacksagainst migrants, terrible
misogynist attacks against womenpoliticians, uh, women leaders,
and uh, of course againstreligious uh and ethnic groups.
So you have in that environmentwith uh freedom of speech with
no holes barred, uh, youactually, it is again used uh by
(37:17):
powerful speakers with uhpulpits political or otherwise,
they use their freedom of speechto attack other people, and that
intimidates groups.
And we've actually seen achilling of speech that happens
because these groups aremarginalized and they feel under
attack and they can'tparticipate in public life.
(37:39):
So you actually reduce diversityin public life.
Unfortunately, that's theapproach that is being followed
particularly very aggressivelyby the United States.
I'm just coming from Germany,where uh the AFD wanted to meet
with me, and they have alsoargued along the US lines that
they feel they are beingcensored by the government when
they cannot uh say what theywant.
(38:00):
That is why, under internationallaw, freedom of expression is a
limited right.
It's a broad right, but it canbe restricted in order to
protect the rights andreputation of other people.
It can be restricted in order toprotect national security,
public order, public health, aswe saw during COVID, and public
(38:21):
morals.
These are tricky grounds becausepublic morals uh creates
problems.
But what international law, ofcourse, also says is that these
restrictions must be necessaryand proportionate, and they must
be lawful, which means it mustbe clear, they must be precise,
so that you know there isn't ahuge area left of discretion
(38:41):
left for the government to abusethe laws.
But freedom of expression can berestricted and it must be
prohibited, not just restricted,prohibited when it amounts to
advocacy of racial, uh,religious and national hatred
and also misogyny to uh inciteviolence against groups.
So incitement is not freespeech, hate speech is not free
(39:05):
speech, and these limits need tobe respected because otherwise
you don't have an equal uh levelplaying field of freedom of
expression.
You know, the powerful orvindictive groups, certain I
would call um, say the far rightor the far left in the political
(39:25):
field, various uh groups withpower in their hands, various
groups with big megaphones intheir hands go out and can
intimidate others.
So, what we want is a levelplaying field and safe spaces
where all kinds of people canexpress their views because
otherwise it's not uhdemocratic.
SPEAKER_06 (39:42):
You mentioned the level playing field there.
I mean, journalists always, it'sour job to ask questions.
Do we need to ask some questionsof ourselves?
Have we been too slow to counterthis argument about free speech,
which is coming primarily fromthe tech giants who are in a way
in in competition with us?
(40:03):
Are there things that we coulddo better to defend ourselves?
SPEAKER_05 (40:08):
Yes, I think certainly you can.
I would say that as thejournalists, you have to
recognize the challenges oftechnology that is coming from
uh ChatGPT to all sorts ofthings.
And I think you need to beprepared for this new world.
What you have is actually yourability to select information,
to investigate, to probe.
I don't think AI will replacethat.
(40:30):
So I think you need to uh takeconfidence from that and you
need to actually probably workbetter among yourselves.
Journalists tend to be loners,tend to be competitive.
And I think the profession assuch now has to create a much
more collaborative andcooperative approach to address
what I mentioned earlier, thefinancial viability.
(40:50):
Because if you're notfinancially viable, you're not
going to be able to compete withbig tech.
SPEAKER_06 (40:55):
So, as we heard from all three of our guests today,
big challenges facingjournalism.
Still, in the hope of ending ona more optimistic note, I asked
Antoine, Chris, and Irene whatthey would celebrate on Press
Freedom Day.
SPEAKER_04 (41:10):
I am very motivated by how I see journalists
renewing their journalism,demonstrating bravery, courage,
imagination in the mostdangerous and complex situations
globally, and finding ways tocontinue reporting facts to
(41:32):
their audience because this iswhat they are just obsessed with
bringing facts to theiraudience, and that is extremely,
extremely rewarding and moving.
SPEAKER_03 (42:09):
So I think if there's one thing I would
celebrate on Press Freedom Day,is there will be another
generation, there is anothergeneration arriving with new
ideas, with new ways to usetechnology effectively who are
going to carry the torchforward.
So I, as I say before, I am anoptimist, I've always been a
glass half-full person, if youlike.
And there are battles ahead, butI think there are they are
(42:31):
battles we can win and they'recertainly worth winning.
SPEAKER_05 (42:34):
I think you have to celebrate the courage of
journalists.
When I think of those localjournalists that are going out
into dangerous places, when Ithink about those journalists
who have put their lives on theline for their profession every
day, I think we have tocelebrate their courage.
We have to celebrate theircourage, and we have to stand up
and say journalism is not acrime.
It's an essential pillar ofdemocracy.
(42:56):
And all of us will be affectedif journalism, if that pillar is
weakened.
So it matters to all of us tosupport journalists.
Independent public interestjournalists, I would say.
SPEAKER_06 (43:35):
So why are some countries abandoning it and what
are the consequences?
SPEAKER_01 (43:40):
I've spent over 30 years in this sector, and for 25
years, we were really winningthe battle.
We were clearing way more minesand way more explosive devices
than were being used.
And in the f last five years wehave seen that reversed
catastrophically.
And it is going to cost manymillions, if not billions, of
dollars.
To clean up the mess that hasbeen made in the last five
(44:02):
years.
Ukraine is the breadbasket ofEurope, and the fact that at the
moment there are billions ofsquare meters of land that are
suspected of being contaminatedmeans that land can't be farmed.
That absence of productivity isaffecting global food prices.
It's affecting every person inthe world.
You're paying more for yourbread, more for your pasta, more
(44:23):
for your fuel because of theactual and the perceived mine
contamination problem inUkraine.
SPEAKER_06 (44:34):
That's out on May 12th.
Do join us then on InsideGeneva.
A reminder you've been listeningto Inside Geneva, a Swiss Info
production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
(44:56):
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
SwissInfo podcasts.
This is Inside Geneva.
I'm your host, Imogen Folkes,and this is a production from
SwissInfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
(00:23):
In today's program.
SPEAKER_02 (00:25):
Well, it's fake news.
You know, it's just so it's sofake.
That's why the media has solittle credibility.
SPEAKER_05 (00:32):
The role of journalism has never been more
important.
The role of journalists hasnever been under such pressure,
and uh the sector itself issuffering.
So these these are very, veryimportant times to take a deep
breath and make sure thatfreedom of expression and media
freedom as part of that isprotected because it is an
extremely important pillar ofdemocracy.
SPEAKER_00 (00:54):
Thousands of mourners marched behind Imal
Halil's coffin at a funeralprocession in the journalist's
hometown in southern Lebanon.
Khalil was killed in a housewhere she took cover from a
strike while reporting on theIsrael-Hezbollah war.
SPEAKER_04 (01:07):
We are now in times where facts have become a
target.
Hence, journalists have becomemore of targets.
And this means that they are theones suffering most of the
polarization, the growingpolarization of the public
(01:29):
debate.
SPEAKER_08 (01:30):
But the legacy Trump-hating press.
Your politically motivatedanimus for President Trump
nearly completely blinds youfrom the brilliance of our
American warriors.
SPEAKER_07 (01:43):
Well, uh good afternoon, everybody.
SPEAKER_08 (01:44):
Visiting the Munich Security Conference, Vance
lectured them.
SPEAKER_07 (01:48):
The threat that I worry the most about vis-a-vis
Europe is not Russia, it's notChina, it's not any other
external actor.
And what I worry about is thethreat from within.
SPEAKER_03 (02:10):
Regulating information is a really
difficult thing to do well.
Getting the right balancebetween the absolute need to
protect freedom of expression,but also the need to protect
people from harm online isreally difficult.
SPEAKER_05 (02:23):
Well, I think the most important thing that can be
done here is to ensure thatjournalists can work
independently.
That means without unduepolitical influence or pressure,
that they are safe and thattheir access and their sources
are protected.
SPEAKER_06 (02:49):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Folks, and in today'sprogramme we're going to mark
Press Freedom Day.
That takes place on May 4th eachyear.
So just a few days away, we'vegot three amazing interviews for
you.
SPEAKER_04 (03:05):
I am Antoine Bernard.
I'm the director of advocacy andassistance at Reporters Not
Borders, meaning that I lead RSFGlobal Advocacy, Litigation,
Assistance, and DigitalOperations.
SPEAKER_03 (03:18):
I'm Chris Morris.
I am the Chief Executive of FullFact.
We're a charity based in London.
And before that, I was for avery long time a foreign
correspondent with the BBC,including uh 10 years in two
different stints in Europe.
SPEAKER_05 (03:33):
I am Irene Khan, the UN Special Rapporteur, which
means the independent expert onfreedom of opinion and
expression.
SPEAKER_06 (03:40):
We're going to look at the challenges to press
freedom from violent attacks topunitive lawsuits.
SPEAKER_04 (03:46):
We are now in times where facts have become a
target.
Hence, journalists have becomemore of targets.
And this means that they are theones suffering most of the
polarization, the growingpolarization of the public
(04:08):
debate.
SPEAKER_06 (04:09):
We'll discuss the flood of miss and disinformation
that threatens to obscurefact-based professional
journalism.
SPEAKER_03 (04:17):
If people don't believe you, they won't trust
you.
And if there's no trust, thenthere's no consent.
And that's where democracygenuinely starts to falter.
I do think we're actuallyfighting for the kind of
societies we want to be.
And partly we're fightingagainst bad actors, wherever
they may come from.
And partly we are fightingagainst the big tech companies
who are the most powerfulorganizations the world has ever
(04:40):
seen.
SPEAKER_06 (04:40):
And we'll be unpicking the important
differences between pressfreedom and freedom of speech.
SPEAKER_05 (04:47):
You have the First Amendment warriors talking about
freedom of speech without anylimit.
But what they actually mean isfreedom of speech for me, but
not for you.
Because when that happens, whenyou have freedom of speech
without any barriers, then whathappens is there's a surge of
hate speech, attacks againstmigrants, attacks, terrible
(05:09):
misogynist attacks against womenpoliticians.
SPEAKER_06 (05:13):
First, let's hear from Antoine Bernard of
Reporters Without Borders.
RSF's annual World Press FreedomIndex is due out this week.
And Antoine began by telling methe report will reflect some
very worrying trends.
SPEAKER_04 (05:29):
Indeed, we'll be publishing the World Press
Freedom Index 26th edition on30th April.
That publication comes in anextremely deteriorated context
for journalists and journalism.
Journalism is confrontedaltogether with four crises at
the same time (05:47):
a crisis of protection, a legal crisis with
law instrumentalized againstjournalists, a crisis of
sustainability, which iseconomic, and a tech crisis all
in all, which means thedevelopment of platforms that
are equally instrumentalizedagainst journalism.
So the context is extremelydifficult.
SPEAKER_06 (06:08):
Let's look at the stark examples, and those are
physical threats.
We're seeing more and morejournalists being killed.
And it seems if we look at theMiddle East, by countries which
trumpet their democracies andtheir commitment to freedom of
(06:34):
the press.
SPEAKER_04 (06:35):
Indeed, we are now in times where tax have become a
target, and journalists havebecome more of targets.
And this means that they are theones that are suffering most of
(06:56):
the polarization, the growingpolarization of the public
debate.
It can have terribleconsequences for journalists
covering conflicts.
We consider at ourselves thereis a before and after Gaza.
After October 7th in Gazastarted a tragedy for journalism
(07:18):
and journalists.
(07:47):
Of course, we're investigatingand litigating, meaning we're
triggering prosecutors on thosecases.
But it's too slow, it's toounlikely that the judicial
answer is not proportional tothe gravity of the situation.
In non-conflict times, includingdemocratic societies,
(08:10):
journalists are targeted morebecause it has become
politically rewarding to targetjournalists in the political
debate.
So yes, there is pluralization.
Yes, journalists are being moretargeted, and all in all, the
consequences for citizens.
Their own right to information,which is wicked.
SPEAKER_06 (08:33):
What do you think professional journalists,
long-standing mediaorganizations can do to defend
themselves?
I'm thinking specifically of theUnited States, where we see one
lawsuit after another, which weknow I observe myself, has what
(08:57):
we call the famous chillingeffect on what we do.
SPEAKER_04 (09:00):
Absolutely.
It has become extremelychallenging and complex to be
able to react.
So RSF has a very clearstrategy.
We are not satisfied with onlyreacting.
We are 100% committed tofighting back.
Meaning, in the case of uhjournalists suffering crimes,
(09:22):
international crimes inparticular, investigating, uh
triggering prosecutors.
We've been triggering criminalprosecutors in several tens of
countries or internationalcourts.
In the US, we are having a veryinteresting litigating
experience.
We decided to oppose in courtthe executive order to dismantle
(09:45):
USAGM.
So we went alongside ajournalist of Voice of America,
triggering the federal judge,who's been delivering positive
decisions in favor of us andjournalists, opposing what has
been done, and also contributingto sensitizing members of
(10:06):
Congress in deciding to resumethe funding of USAGN.
SPEAKER_06 (10:11):
I I'm really interested when you talk about
not just being reactive butproactive and fighting back.
Because I do wonder whethermedia organizations and
journalists have we been a bitslow to see the danger,
particularly when we think ofthe world we live in now with AI
(10:33):
and social media.
SPEAKER_04 (10:35):
Certainly we've been slow.
We, I mean, we journalists andjournalism, yes, we've been
slow.
We're not the only ones,especially when you refer to
social media platforms.
For years, they've been seen asthe alpha and omega of the new
global information space.
Fantastic.
It took quite a long time, and afew scandals that journalists
(11:00):
have revealed for democracies torealize that that was for-profit
companies that were making justbusiness on using our data and
actually now pursuing apolitical agenda.
So fighting back on that meansfor RSF two things.
One, going to court, actually,we've been fighting criminal
(11:21):
complaints, including against exTwitter, for aiding and abating
actually the Kremlin's warpropaganda scheme through what
is called as the Matrioshkascheme or the Doppelganger
scheme.
But the other way forward is todevelop a new mode of
protection.
(11:41):
It's not only about journalistsafety, it's about having
guaranteed citizens' rights toaccess a plurality of trustless
media, of trustless sources ofinformation.
That is the main problemglobally.
There are 75% of our uh uhfellow citizens in the world
(12:04):
that have a huge or a majorproblem to access media, and
this has come also intodemocratic societies where we
see how platforms have capturedour information space.
We succeeded in this thanks to avery important development in EU
law, that's the European MediaFreedom Act.
SPEAKER_06 (12:26):
I'm quite interested in the tension between,
particularly the way that thephrases are used now, what is
termed in particular in theUnited States, free speech and
press freedom, because we haveon social media and the tech
giants basically saying anybodycan say whatever they like, even
(12:48):
if it's highly offensiveincitement to violence,
incitement to sexual violence.
The very same people don'treally seem to support press
freedom.
SPEAKER_04 (13:00):
It's really interesting that you highlight
that point.
I would have done it indeedbecause for RSA it's an
absolutely major issue thatneeds to be addressed.
The First Amendment protectsfree speech and freedom of the
press.
Very strangely, the second partof the sentence has been
disappearing from the politicallanguage that has been used, and
(13:26):
interestingly, used by PresidentTrump equally by President
Putin, equally by a number offar right leaders in
democracies, equally by Erdogan,Sisi, and Xi Jinping.
That's a very commonalitybetween them, according to whom
(13:47):
everything is justified in thename of free speech and freedom
of expression.
Accordingly, we journalists andRSF in particular, by the way,
have turned into the newcensors.
Censorship is us following thatcourse of thinking.
So it is a real challenge.
(14:09):
We need to explain, andjournalists need to show why and
how practicing journalism cannotbe turned into a freedom of
expression only challenge.
It is a commitment to facts, soit's quite different from the
(14:33):
mere freedom of expression,fundamental, of course, of any
citizen.
It's different.
SPEAKER_06 (14:45):
Antoine Bernard of Reporters Without Borders.
His point about facts brings meto our next guest.
Because as any professionaljournalist listening will know,
facts have become something of aflexible commodity.
We all remember White Houseadvisor Kellyanne Conway
defending President Trump whenduring his first term some
(15:07):
journalists questioned the truthof his statements.
The president was, Conway said,presenting alternative facts.
How can we have an informeddebate about the big challenges
we face if we can't agree onbasic facts, which are supposed
to be neutral, evidence, andscience-based, not changeable
(15:30):
because of political whims.
Chris Morris, former journalist,now heads Full Fact, an
organization dedicating tofinding and exposing myths and
disinformation in a bid tochallenge the harm it can do.
SPEAKER_03 (15:47):
We started with a fairly narrow remit, actually.
This was back in 2010.
It was set up essentially tothink about trying to raise
standards in public life withthe slightly revolutionary idea
that if politicians saidsomething that wasn't true, they
should correct the record andapologize.
So it was very much focused onBritish politics and getting
politicians to correct therecord, checking their facts,
(16:09):
and making sure that theyessentially help raise standards
in public life.
Because I think the generalargument was that you know, with
public office comes publicresponsibility.
Obviously, in the 15, 16 yearssince then, the canvas on which
we paint has become just alittle bit broader.
Social media, generative AI,everyone's their own content
(16:32):
creator, the whole internetflooded with false and
misleading information.
So we do a much wider range ofthings now.
We did a lot on health issuesduring the pandemic, as I guess
everyone did, but increasinglythe stuff we're doing is looking
at generative AI, whether it'son text, image, or audio.
And I guess our we see our roleas trying to persuade people
(16:57):
that there is still some kind ofshared reality on which we can
have important national orinternational debates.
Because the fear is that we getto a place where no one believes
anything they read or see orhear anywhere anymore.
SPEAKER_06 (17:10):
That specifically AI is something I want to come on
to in a minute.
But as you said, things haveactually really changed from
2010 to 26.
Do you think that now thechances of getting the public to
agree that this is actually afact are less than then?
SPEAKER_03 (17:33):
You know, I think there are minorities, you could
argue substantial minorities,but minorities nonetheless who
like to shout at each other fromeach side of the social media
chasm, yelling and gettingangry.
And as you say, we have ourfacts, you have your facts,
never the twain shall meet.
I do still think there's, if youlike, a silent majority who
(17:55):
understand that it's importantthat we we share some facts.
We can have very differentopinions, but if you can't have
public debate based on some sortof shared body of that stands up
to statistical scrutiny, thenyou've got a big problem.
Because, you know, if peopledon't believe you, they won't
trust you.
And if there's no trust, thenthere's no consent.
And that's where democracygenuinely starts to falter.
(18:17):
And it can sound a bitmelodramatic to say that, but I
do think we're actually fightingfor the kind of societies we
want to be.
And partly we're fightingagainst bad actors, wherever
they may come from, and partlywe are fighting against the big
tech companies who are the mostpowerful organizations the world
has ever seen.
I mean, I'm reading a book atthe moment, it's all about the
(18:38):
history of the nation-state, andit makes the point that the big
tech companies are the mostpowerful new geopolitical
entities since the nation-stateswere created in the 18th
century.
That's the kind of revolutionarymoment we are at.
And while those companies can dosome good things, the products
they make, the algorithms theyare based on are all about
(19:01):
engagement, not aboutfactuality, because engagement
is what makes money.
And as societies, we think, Ithink, that we have to take back
control of that bit and say, no,we don't want that.
We actually want societies thatare based on some sort of
intelligent conversation anddebate.
SPEAKER_06 (19:17):
So if we agree that limits to press freedom or
disinformation getting in theway of professional journalists
being trusted as they weretraditionally, the tech giants,
they know their power.
What would you say do you thinkis the biggest threat?
Is it big tech?
Is it authoritarian government?
(19:38):
I mean, we see there's virtuallyno freedom of the press in
Russia now.
Orban was making having a goodcrack at it, and we see in the
US as well that the the WhiteHouse is bullying and
threatening the media.
SPEAKER_03 (19:52):
Yeah, I think I guess we're kind of used to it
in Russia, aren't we?
Obviously, the big surprise shotlast year was it happening in
the United States.
And the fact that Vice PresidentVance came to Europe in what was
it, February last year, I think,and essentially said, you in
Europe, you're censoring yourown people.
Anyone checking facts iscensoring their own people.
(20:13):
Misinformation is an old, Ithink he called it an ugly
Soviet-era word, and anyoneusing it is trying to tell you
what to think.
That was pretty depressing.
Shocking, actually, I found it.
Well, it was it was shocking,and it had an impact on the tech
companies who suddenly becameflag-waving American companies
determined to stay out of thecrosshairs of the White House,
if you like.
(20:34):
But if you talk about pressfreedom, the idea that you have
a US administration sayingchecking facts is censorship,
that's pretty chilling.
And something, in the end, thatwe have to fight against.
I mean, as I say, we're acharity, impartiality is part of
our charitable objectives.
But we are always very clear wewill not be impartial on the
principle that facts matter.
(20:55):
And if there are people whospeak against them and say that
they're not important and thatall that matters is the
narrative, whether it's fact orfiction, then that's something
that we will kind of plant aflag in the sand to oppose.
SPEAKER_06 (21:08):
So there was a moment, though, wasn't there,
when the big Silicon Valley techcompanies were moving or being
pressured towards more probity.
And that seems to have faded.
SPEAKER_03 (21:20):
It appears to be cyclical with the the whims of
whoever's sitting in the WhiteHouse.
When there was concern about umthe accuracy of information on
social media, they responded.
But they were essentially giventhe green light last year by the
second Trump administration toignore things like moderating
content.
It was it was a very kind ofultra capitalist free for all
(21:43):
version of looking afterinformation.
And one thing it's reallyimportant to understand because
if you're talking about pressfreedom, regulating information
is a really difficult thing todo well.
Getting the right balancebetween the absolute need to
protect freedom of expression,but also.
The need to protect people fromharm online is really difficult.
(22:04):
We've seen those debates inBritain during the passage of
what's become the Online SafetyAct.
There have been similar debatesacross Europe with like EU
legislation, like the DigitalServices Act.
The current Americanadministration hates legislation
like that.
Oh, yeah.
That's why they are so criticalof Europe.
SPEAKER_06 (22:20):
It's got nothing about it, it's not really got
anything to do with losing ourcivilization.
It's got to do with lettingtheir big tech companies roam
free.
SPEAKER_03 (22:30):
Exactly.
And I think therefore we associety should decide how we
want to do that.
You know, as I say, ifregulating information is really
difficult, I would rather it bedone by the representatives we
all elect to our parliamentsthan by tech executives in
Silicon Valley or indeed inBeijing.
Because at the moment we aresubcontracting too many of those
(22:53):
decisions to the techexecutives.
And essentially their bottomline always will be, I
understand it, they arecompanies designed to make a
profit.
Their bottom line is the shareprice.
SPEAKER_06 (23:04):
Coming back to what some people call us, or what you
used to be, and I still am, thelegacy media.
You know, you imagine yourselfwith a in a dinosaur suit.
I just wonder, you know, youworked for the BBC.
Have these companies missed atrick, were they more able to
(23:25):
see what could develop withsocial media and now AI?
SPEAKER_03 (23:30):
I think they saw it, but I always regarded the BBC as
a bit of a super tanker.
It doesn't change course veryquickly.
I now work in a littlespeedboat.
We're not as big as they are,we're never going to have as
much impact, but we can ziparound a bit more quickly, we
can change direction, we can bemore agile.
What I think is both because ofthe politics, but also really
because of the technology, Ithink historians will look back
(23:52):
in a couple of hundred years andsee this period from roughly the
beginning of this century foruntil when?
Until maybe the middle of thecentury, as a genuine
revolutionary period.
I don't know what, I'm not surewhat they're going to call it,
but it is one of those momentsthat historians will look back
on.
So it's really hard forindividuals sometimes to see
that.
And sometimes the most visionaryones are the ones who make the
(24:13):
most money, and they're notalways running public service
broadcasting organizations.
SPEAKER_06 (24:17):
But I'm also wondering whether there has not
been a good enough defense ofthe profession of journalism.
Have the the big media companiesnot defended enough what it is
they do.
SPEAKER_03 (24:31):
I think they could have done a better job.
I also think there have beenextended long-running campaigns
against them, people who seek toundermine them.
And one thing I say quite a lotis look, skepticism is good,
right?
Asking questions is really good.
It's kind of what democraciesare based on.
But those who seek to underminethings like public service media
(24:53):
organizations, things like thatidea of a shared reality we can
all debate, they want thatskepticism to drip over into
cynicism.
Because when you make peoplereally cynical, then they don't
care.
That's, I can't think, thedividing line we are rapidly
approaching.
Let's keep the skepticism lots,let's not make everyone so
cynical that they just give up.
(25:13):
I think we're we're in danger ofgetting to that point.
I just don't believe we arethere yet.
And there's a bit of an armsrace when it comes to
information.
And I think we have to accept atthe moment the bad guys are
winning because every time youput up another good defense, it
might be something like, let'sfind an ingenious way to
watermark original videos sopeople can see whether it's been
(25:33):
altered or not by AI.
But every time somebody doesthat within days, and it's
sometimes just a teenager intheir back bedroom, people find
a way around it and find a wayto subvert new defenses.
So that essentially that kind ofcut and thrust is going on all
the time.
But I also think technology isproducing, you know, let's not
just bash technology.
The new technology around themoment is amazing.
(25:55):
It has the potential totransform so many parts of our
society for good, but it alsobrings with it massive
challenges.
It's really interesting, rightnow, one of the things a lot of
people are thinking about is howyou train the large language
models, you know, the modelswhich sit behind things like
ChatGPT or Gemini or Claude.
And during the last elections inGermany, for example, there were
(26:19):
thousands and thousands ofwebsites created.
It looked like it was almostcertainly a Russian influence
operation.
And the people creating thosewebsites didn't actually care if
anyone went to read them.
They just figured out if wecreate enough of them, they will
be sucked up into the trainingmodels for the large language
models and then get spat out atthe other end.
Because if you put garbage insomewhere, you're going to get
(26:40):
garbage out.
And so it's not just about arepeople even going to these
places anymore?
It's is it being used to trainthe places where people are
going for information, whichincreasingly is going to be
those new chat interfaces basedon generative AI.
So all sorts of challenges.
But I spent a lot of timereporting from around the world,
(27:01):
went to some quite bad places,as you know, Imogen.
And I just came out of all that,still believing there are more
good people in the world thanbad.
And, you know, if you can trainthe models to do bad things, you
can also train them to do goodthings.
And that's one of the things weactually do at full fact.
You know, we're seen as afact-checking charity, but we do
a way more than just, if youlike, waiting for bad
(27:22):
information to appear and thensort of whack-a-mole style
knocking on the head and saying,No, that's incorrect.
We do try and get involved withthings like training those
models in the first place tomake sure good information
emerges.
SPEAKER_06 (27:33):
Chris Morris of Full Fact.
And I'd urge anyone curious toknow more about how facts are
checked or doubtful about someof the claims we hear these days
from government leaders, take alook at Full Facts website.
(27:54):
Now for our final interview,we'll talk to Irene Kahn, the UN
Special Rapporteur on Freedom ofExpression.
She's been taking a closeinterest in the challenges
currently facing journalists andshares the concerns we heard
from Antoine Bernard and ChrisMorris.
So what, I began by asking her,can we, or indeed the UN, do to
(28:17):
defend journalism?
SPEAKER_05 (28:19):
Well, I think the most important thing that can be
done here is to ensure thatjournalists can work
independently, that meanswithout undue political
influence or pressure, that theyare safe and that their access
and their sources are protected.
(28:40):
And also, I think what needs tobe done more and more is also
ensuring that the media sectorstays healthy.
It is under huge pressure fromdigital technology, it's losing
revenue, and of course, thefinancial viability of the
sector also affects mediafreedom very much.
(29:01):
And we've seen, for example,what is called media deserts in
the US and some other countrieswhere local media has
disappeared.
News is coming through digitalplatforms to people, even in
remote villages in Africa andAsia.
So there's a huge revolutionthat's going on in the media
sector that makes the life ofjournalists on the ground in the
(29:26):
field very, very difficult.
At the same time, the importanceof journalism is going up.
We only have to look at thestories that investigative
journalists are daily breakingabout the ways in which
governments are failing to liveup to their obligations, the way
(29:46):
in which companies and the wayin which corruption is sweeping
large swaths of our politics andour economies.
So the role of journalism hasnever been more important.
The role of journalists hasnever been under such pressure,
and the sector itself issuffering.
So these are very, veryimportant times to take a deep
(30:06):
breath and make sure thatfreedom of expression and media
freedom as part of that isprotected because it is an
extremely important pillar ofdemocracy.
SPEAKER_06 (30:16):
Let's look specifically at attacks, it
seems some of them targetedattacks in which journalists are
killed.
How would you like to getaccountability for that?
Should we see perhapsspecifically the killing of
journalists as a war crime?
SPEAKER_05 (30:36):
Well, certainly in armed conflicts, journalists are
uh treated under internationalhumanitarian law as civilians,
and targeting of civilians is awar crime.
So targeting of journalistsshould be seen, is seen by law
as a war crime.
The problem is thatopportunities to actually
prosecute and hold the partiesto the conflict accountable
(30:59):
isn't there.
That's the real problem.
And that impunity thenencourages more killings.
We have seen that in Gaza.
We've seen in Gaza, actually, onthe one hand, Israel blocking
access to international media.
That exposes local journaliststo even greater pressure.
And yet, when those localjournalists have been doing
(31:20):
their jobs, they have beenkilled like flies.
They've been targeted,deliberately targeted, which
Israel has admitted in a numberof cases on the grounds that
they were directly participatingin hostilities.
But Israel has consistentlyfailed to provide convincing
evidence of such participation.
So it's basically beenassassination.
(31:41):
Israel has had a free hand atassassinating many journalists.
SPEAKER_06 (31:46):
But is there more that we could do to get
accountability for that?
SPEAKER_05 (31:51):
Certainly.
I think there is much more thatcan be done.
First of all, putting pressureon Israel to investigate, to
allow uh independentinvestigation of these killings.
That I don't think theinternational community has done
much on that.
And certainly the allies ofIsrael could have and should do
(32:12):
much more to put pressure.
I'm using Israel as an example,but we've seen this happening
also in the context of Ukraine.
We've seen this happening inother parts of the world too.
And of course, there arejournalists killed outside
conflict in domestic situations.
For example, in Mexico, whenthey investigate drug cartels,
uh, they come under pressure.
(32:33):
And when those cartels killjournalists, it's a failure of
the state.
Failure first to protect them,and secondly, failure then to
hold the perpetratorsaccountable.
So there's a double failurethere happening both in times of
war and in times of peace.
SPEAKER_06 (32:50):
We could just broaden this conversation out a
bit to other types of pressureon journalists.
We've seen basically a shutdownof independent media in in
Russia, for example, attempts inHungary.
Now in the United States, we seethe law being used to prosecute
(33:11):
journalists, and that some ofthese media organizations are
kind of bowing to the pressure.
What do you think we can doabout that?
SPEAKER_05 (33:19):
Well, I think you've raised a very interesting
problem.
You know, when a journalist iskilled, it hits the news, and
therefore there's a lot of uhnegative public opinion against
uh the killers against thegovernment.
But when either governments orcompanies or private individuals
use the law to harassjournalists, then that doesn't
hit the news.
(33:40):
Increasingly, what we areseeing, and you've given the
example of the US, which isparticularly blatant,
increasingly we are seeing rich,powerful individuals, oligarchs
or politicians, or evencelebrities bringing outrageous
claims for defamation in courtagainst journalists.
(34:00):
So these are called uh strategiclitigation against public
participation slap.
What happens is if an individualjournalist is sued for a few
million dollars, it destroys theindividual.
Individual journalists are notvery rich, as you probably know
from your own uh experience.
And then, of course, mediacompanies get worried, editors
(34:21):
become cautious, and so it has ahuge chilling effect.
And most of these cases that arebrought are not brought in order
to actually pursue a violationof rights.
It's basically brought to chillexpression and to intimidate
journalists.
So every time you pick up uhyour pen or the laptop, start
working on the laptop, you know,you are thinking, are you saying
(34:44):
something here that couldactually upset someone wealthy,
powerful, and that person willcome against you?
We've seen cases of individuals,for example, in the UK, but now
what we are seeing in the US isa concerted attempt by the most
powerful man in the US, thepresident of the United States,
actually bringing cases againstmedia companies,$2 billion
(35:08):
against the Wall Street Journal,for example.
Although, to also be fair to theUS system, the courts have
rejected that particular case.
And I hope the courts will comeback very strongly because this
is also an abuse of the judicialsystem.
It's an abuse of journalism, butit's also an abuse of the
judicial system.
When cases like this come, itdistorts the whole meaning of
(35:31):
justice.
Of course, it adds to theburden, to the workload of uh
courts, and it sends a hugemessage to people, journalists,
the public, that justice can bemanipulated for the rich and
wealthy.
SPEAKER_06 (35:45):
How do you assess the debate over freedom of
expression, though?
I mean, you are the specialrapporteur for freedom of
expression.
Part of your role is to examinewhere it's being repressed and
how it can be upheld.
And yet we have this pressure onjournalists to keep them quiet,
(36:07):
it seems.
And yet this other debate aroundwhat in in America we we call it
free speech, that people shouldbe allowed to say whatever they
like.
We've had the vice presidentJ.D.
Vance last year berating Europe,telling us that free speech was
being undermined.
How do you see that debate?
(36:27):
Because it's it's a tricky oneif you're the special rapporteur
for freedom of expression.
SPEAKER_05 (36:32):
Indeed it is, because it turns freedom of
expression on his head,actually.
Uh, because what is actuallyhappening here, yes, you have
the First Amendment warriorstalking about freedom of speech
without any limit.
But what they actually mean isfreedom of speech for me, but
not for you.
Because when that happens, whenyou have freedom of speech
without any barriers, then whathappens is there's we have seen
(36:56):
a surge of hate speech, attacksagainst migrants, terrible
misogynist attacks against womenpoliticians, uh, women leaders,
and uh, of course againstreligious uh and ethnic groups.
So you have in that environmentwith uh freedom of speech with
no holes barred, uh, youactually, it is again used uh by
(37:17):
powerful speakers with uhpulpits political or otherwise,
they use their freedom of speechto attack other people, and that
intimidates groups.
And we've actually seen achilling of speech that happens
because these groups aremarginalized and they feel under
attack and they can'tparticipate in public life.
(37:39):
So you actually reduce diversityin public life.
Unfortunately, that's theapproach that is being followed
particularly very aggressivelyby the United States.
I'm just coming from Germany,where uh the AFD wanted to meet
with me, and they have alsoargued along the US lines that
they feel they are beingcensored by the government when
they cannot uh say what theywant.
(38:00):
That is why, under internationallaw, freedom of expression is a
limited right.
It's a broad right, but it canbe restricted in order to
protect the rights andreputation of other people.
It can be restricted in order toprotect national security,
public order, public health, aswe saw during COVID, and public
(38:21):
morals.
These are tricky grounds becausepublic morals uh creates
problems.
But what international law, ofcourse, also says is that these
restrictions must be necessaryand proportionate, and they must
be lawful, which means it mustbe clear, they must be precise,
so that you know there isn't ahuge area left of discretion
(38:41):
left for the government to abusethe laws.
But freedom of expression can berestricted and it must be
prohibited, not just restricted,prohibited when it amounts to
advocacy of racial, uh,religious and national hatred
and also misogyny to uh inciteviolence against groups.
So incitement is not freespeech, hate speech is not free
(39:05):
speech, and these limits need tobe respected because otherwise
you don't have an equal uh levelplaying field of freedom of
expression.
You know, the powerful orvindictive groups, certain I
would call um, say the far rightor the far left in the political
(39:25):
field, various uh groups withpower in their hands, various
groups with big megaphones intheir hands go out and can
intimidate others.
So, what we want is a levelplaying field and safe spaces
where all kinds of people canexpress their views because
otherwise it's not uhdemocratic.
SPEAKER_06 (39:42):
You mentioned the level playing field there.
I mean, journalists always, it'sour job to ask questions.
Do we need to ask some questionsof ourselves?
Have we been too slow to counterthis argument about free speech,
which is coming primarily fromthe tech giants who are in a way
in in competition with us?
(40:03):
Are there things that we coulddo better to defend ourselves?
SPEAKER_05 (40:08):
Yes, I think certainly you can.
I would say that as thejournalists, you have to
recognize the challenges oftechnology that is coming from
uh ChatGPT to all sorts ofthings.
And I think you need to beprepared for this new world.
What you have is actually yourability to select information,
to investigate, to probe.
I don't think AI will replacethat.
(40:30):
So I think you need to uh takeconfidence from that and you
need to actually probably workbetter among yourselves.
Journalists tend to be loners,tend to be competitive.
And I think the profession assuch now has to create a much
more collaborative andcooperative approach to address
what I mentioned earlier, thefinancial viability.
(40:50):
Because if you're notfinancially viable, you're not
going to be able to compete withbig tech.
SPEAKER_06 (40:55):
So, as we heard from all three of our guests today,
big challenges facingjournalism.
Still, in the hope of ending ona more optimistic note, I asked
Antoine, Chris, and Irene whatthey would celebrate on Press
Freedom Day.
SPEAKER_04 (41:10):
I am very motivated by how I see journalists
renewing their journalism,demonstrating bravery, courage,
imagination in the mostdangerous and complex situations
globally, and finding ways tocontinue reporting facts to
(41:32):
their audience because this iswhat they are just obsessed with
bringing facts to theiraudience, and that is extremely,
extremely rewarding and moving.
SPEAKER_03 (42:09):
So I think if there's one thing I would
celebrate on Press Freedom Day,is there will be another
generation, there is anothergeneration arriving with new
ideas, with new ways to usetechnology effectively who are
going to carry the torchforward.
So I, as I say before, I am anoptimist, I've always been a
glass half-full person, if youlike.
And there are battles ahead, butI think there are they are
(42:31):
battles we can win and they'recertainly worth winning.
SPEAKER_05 (42:34):
I think you have to celebrate the courage of
journalists.
When I think of those localjournalists that are going out
into dangerous places, when Ithink about those journalists
who have put their lives on theline for their profession every
day, I think we have tocelebrate their courage.
We have to celebrate theircourage, and we have to stand up
and say journalism is not acrime.
It's an essential pillar ofdemocracy.
(42:56):
And all of us will be affectedif journalism, if that pillar is
weakened.
So it matters to all of us tosupport journalists.
Independent public interestjournalists, I would say.
SPEAKER_06 (43:35):
So why are some countries abandoning it and what
are the consequences?
SPEAKER_01 (43:40):
I've spent over 30 years in this sector, and for 25
years, we were really winningthe battle.
We were clearing way more minesand way more explosive devices
than were being used.
And in the f last five years wehave seen that reversed
catastrophically.
And it is going to cost manymillions, if not billions, of
dollars.
To clean up the mess that hasbeen made in the last five
(44:02):
years.
Ukraine is the breadbasket ofEurope, and the fact that at the
moment there are billions ofsquare meters of land that are
suspected of being contaminatedmeans that land can't be farmed.
That absence of productivity isaffecting global food prices.
It's affecting every person inthe world.
You're paying more for yourbread, more for your pasta, more
(44:23):
for your fuel because of theactual and the perceived mine
contamination problem inUkraine.
SPEAKER_06 (44:34):
That's out on May 12th.
Do join us then on InsideGeneva.
A reminder you've been listeningto Inside Geneva, a Swiss Info
production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
(44:56):
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.