It’s the beginning of the new year and a good time to start a discussion on freedom of press. Early last year, Reporters Without Borders (RWB) published its annual report on freedom of the press around the world and out of the 180 countries covered, India has been ranked at 140. Spoiler alert – that’s not a good thing.

While Finland has managed to, once again, be ranked at the top, India’s ranking is a cause for concern. Still, at least things aren’t as bad as they are in Eritrea, the bottom ranked nation on the list. We can take some comfort from the fact that countries like Malaysia (147), Pakistan (158) and China (175) lie between us and the fledgling African nation rooted at the bottom of the barrel. However if one is to accept the role of the press as the fourth pillar of democracy, then there’s a need for introspection.

Finland, India and Eritrea are all independent countries, so what is it that makes one more conducive to freedom of the press than the other two? We spoke to journalists from all three countries to get a better understanding.

“In Finland, the government believes that more and more information should be made available to the public,” says Juha Rekola, International Representative of the Union of Journalists in Finland, while speaking with Newslaundry.

In stark contrast to this, the Eritrean government, which has been in a constant state of conflict with Ethiopia for many years now, shut down all independent media in August, 2001. In an environment like this, it came as little surprise that our Eritrean contact replied to our queries only under the condition of complete anonymity.

She says, “Eritrea doesn’t have the traditional form of press freedom, in the sense that the television, local newspapers and radio is all run by the government.” However, while the lack of independent news in most cases negatively impacts a country’s press freedom ranking, our source was quick to defend her country’s actions. “The crackdown on the private press was because they were accused of receiving funds from foreign governments and were using those funds to incite destabilisation.” A line that sounds eerily similar to that used by various governments around the world to crack down on dissenting voices.
Meanwhile, in India, the Constitution doesn’t specifically provide for the Freedom of Press. However, it has been included as part of the Freedom of Speech and Expression under the Article 19 of the constitution. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, journalist and author, wasn’t too fussed about the report. “Freedom of press in India is better off than many parts of the world, but that’s not to say that we don’t need any improvement.” Thakurta felt that if India was to improve its ranking with regards to press freedom, then amending our defamation laws would be a good first step. “Defamation should be made a civil offence and not a criminal offence. These suits are used to intimidate and harass people.”

Another important point to note is the fact that, in India, radio has a far wider reach than any other avenue of media and yet, private radio stations are not allowed to broadcast news. This is not the case in Finland. “It’s an obligation to broadcast all sorts of material, including news,” says Rekola, “and both Television and Radio stations are given licences only if they agree to do so.”

According to Mandira Sarkar, a Radio Jockey in Guwahati, “The power of radio is only being realised now. The government has realised that commercial stations have a massive reach. Which is why you now see how radio is being used extensively by the present government.”

As for freedom of press on the web in India, let’s just say that around 309 specific items, those including URLs, Twitter accounts, blogs, and so on, have been blocked or banned in the recent past. The IT Act contains numerous provisions that can be used to censor online content – notably in Sections 66A, 69A and 79. Section 66A has probably received the most media attention over the last year or so owing to the many arrests made under this section (notably the arrest of two teenage girls in Palghar, Maharashtra in November 2012).

In Finland, internet penetration is more than 90 per cent and to add to that, the government has also declared a speed of 1 Megabyte per second to be a basic human right. Finnish law does make provisions for the blocking of websites containing child pornography.

Most online law enforcement is done in relation to protecting minors from obscene material, cyber bullying. Censorship of opinion is minimal as Finland considers free and pluralist media an important means for debate among citizens.

While, India may be less than perfect and Finland seems like a utopia of free expression, internet in Eritrea is a predictably lamentable concept. The penetration of the Internet is minimal (0.9 per cent). And even then, netizens have access to just government approved web-content.

While the government of India has just recently blocked 32 websites like DailyMotion and Vimeo, as they were allegedly carrying anti-India material from terror groups such as ISIS (Islamic state of Iraq and Syria), the Eritrean government too has blocked websites like YouTube. Despite the brief picture that the world paints of the internet conditions in Eritrea, our contact has, predictably, defended the country’s stand. “There are no internet restrictions,” she says.

Finland also claims to have a much better control over the separation between church and state. “Owners have no say in the editorial department and neither is the content affected due to the advertiser’s interests,” says Rekola, “Sometimes media in Finland can be accused of being pro-capitalism. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t enough representation of different views.”

Even though Finland has been in the leading position for four years now, Rekola says that he’d be a little surprised to see Finland on the top in the report that would come out next year. “We’re obviously doing something right but that doesn’t mean that we don’t have issues. We have two major problems: One, media is highly concentrated in Finland and two, defamation suits.  But, obviously, other countries have problems even worse than ours and that’s what keeps us ahead in comparison.”

While Rekola is modest in his appraisal of Finland’s press freedom situation, our Eritrean source is much more hopeful of improvement. “I believe the condition of press freedom in Eritrea will change almost immediately after the Ethiopian threat is eliminated. In other words, if Ethiopia would stop its illegal occupation of Eritrean sovereign territory, it would create an environment where press freedom and democracy could flourish again,” she said.

One thing that Rekola said, that most journalists would agree with, is that the people’s right to know and also their right to privacy, is what that creates contradiction in terms of what should be made public and what should remain private.

But that’s not the only colour of the Rubik’s cube that needs solving. Obviously, the legislative framework of a country, the literacy rate, infrastructure, corruption etc. are the other areas that determine the freedom of press in a country. These are areas that we definitely need to work on.