The chair of the Scott Trust has offered to meet a consortium of press freedom groups which has raised concerns over the sale of The Observer.

The board of the Trust, a limited company which owns Guardian Media Group, was expected to meet on Monday 25 November, to discuss proposals to sell The Observer to Tortoise Media.

With Guardian and Observer journalists set to hold a 48-hour strike on 4 December in protest at the deal, the Trust is under pressure to make a decision.

The Scott Trust has received a letter co-signed by the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, the European Federation of Journalists, Index on Censorship, International Press Institute and OBC Transeuropa demanding answers to six key questions about the sale of The Observer.

Tortoise Media is believed to have funding of £20m to invest in turning The Observer into a stand-alone newspaper and paywalled website. According to the FT, The Scott Trust may also provide additional investment in the deal and the body has already said it plans to retain a stake in The Observer.

The letter sent by the press freedom groups to the Trust and Tortoise Media asks the following questions:

“The Observer is the leading liberal, progressive Sunday newspaper in the UK. Given the Scott Trust’s commitment to safeguarding freedom of the press and liberal journalism, what protections will be included in any deal to protect its editorial independence?

“What safeguards regarding future ownership will be written into the sale?”

The groups also asked a question about whether the Trust has properly vetted all the potential investors, including looking at foreign business links.

The letter says: “Individuals we spoke to described Tortoise’s business plan as ‘unconvincing’ and ‘seriously under-financed’. What is the Scott Trust’s responsibility if this plan fails? Are any safeguards being included in the deal?

“Why is the sale of The Observer being discussed only with one preferred bidder instead of through an open, transparent and fair process?

“Will you allow Observer and Guardian staff to speak out freely about the impact of the deal on press freedom and UK media plurality without fear of sanction or recrimination? At present, they report being unable to voice their opinions freely or have been warned against doing so.”

Scott Trust chair Ole Jacob Sunde has written back to the groups saying: “Thank you for your letter and the questions that you raise. We will happily respond to your points. Perhaps, in the first instance, we could arrange a call so I can better understand your concerns.

“As you will know, The Guardian has been a partner to your organisations on various vital journalistic endeavours – including the anti-SLAPPS coalition. We hope you know us to share values on many areas in the media landscape.

“We take our obligations to safeguarding the future of liberal journalism very seriously and would welcome you sharing more about where you believe there’s misalignment.”

Press Gazette understands the groups have asked for written answers and cannot offer a meeting until early December.

Observer journalist Carole Cadwalladr has been told by Guardian management that her public statements about the proposed Observer deal may be in breach of her contract and has been ask to “desist” from saying anything publicly which brings Guardian News and Media “into disrepute”.

Cadwalladr was the keynote speaker on Friday 23 November at a Malta conference on media freedom run by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe during which she denounced the sale of The Observer to Tortoise as an “existential threat to our journalism”.

A spokesperson for Tortoise Media said: “We want to save The Observer, both for today’s readers and the generation to come. We have heard from a lot of Observer journalists who are excited about our ambition for the paper – and the people we bring with digital skills in podcasts, data journalism and newsletters, the investment that means new staff jobs, a much bigger editorial budget and a real plan for growth.

“We believe we can strengthen liberal journalism, adding to the range and reach of progressive voices; we can enable The Observer to reach new readers, as a Sunday newspaper with a digital life of its own; and we can renew the paper as a powerful voice in the world.”

On the subject of the letter, Tortoise said: “We have not received a letter from these bodies, but we are happy to provide assurances on editorial independence. All of our investors are fully committed to the robust principles of editorial freedom that are enshrined in our articles of association and overseen by an independent editorial board chaired by former FT editor Richard Lambert.”

The post Observer sale to Tortoise: Press freedom groups seeks answers from Scott Trust appeared first on Press Gazette.

The fiancée of murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi has said Donald Trump’s US administration still has “much to answer for” on the first anniversary of his death.

Hatice Cengiz issued a call for “justice”, “accountability” and a “long-overdue investigation” into Khashoggi’s death at the hands of Saudi agents at the kingdom’s consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, on 2 October 2018.

Her pleas were echoed by human rights and freedom of expression organisations who pushed for an impartial criminal probe ending in the prosecution of those who ordered the Washington Post columnist’s killing.

Campaign group Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontieres), laid dozens of dismembered mannequins in hi-vis jackets bearing the word “Press” on them outside the Saudi consulate in Paris yesterday.

The group said it wanted to “highlight the regime’s violations of media rights”.

Khashoggi was in self-exile in the US, having become a vocal critic of the Saudi regime, when he was killed attempting to collect divorce papers to enable him to marry Cengiz, who was waiting outside the consulate for him.

Once inside, Khashoggi was tortured and killed by group of Saudi agents, whom the kingdom claims went rogue. Evidence seen by BBC Panorama points to them having been sent as a hit squad, however.

A recording heard by a Turkish newspaper revealed the journalist used his last words to plead: “Don’t cover my mouth. I have asthma, don’t do it. You’ll suffocate me.”

Khashoggi’s body has never been found, with reports that he was likely dismembered and burned in a large oven at the Saudi consulate general’s Istanbul residence.

Writing in the Guardian today, Cengiz said justice for her fiance’s murder has so far “not been forthcoming”.

“Instead, I have noticed two things,” she wrote. “First, among some, an outpouring of international sympathy, declarations of regret and sorrow at the killing of my fiance.

“But from others silence, broken only by the weakest of criticisms of the Saudi government – when to speak out would matter most.

“Here the Trump administration – which has the most power to effect change – has much to answer for. It has said nothing. Nothing close to the denunciation and promise of scrutiny that it is morally right to make.”

Cengiz today stood outside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul as she did one year ago – but this time she was accompanied by those paying their respects to Khashoggi, including Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos and Agnes Callamard, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings.

Hatice Cengiz, fiancee of the murdered Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos are flanked by attendees, including UN special rapporteur Agnes Callamard (right) as they gather around a monument during a ceremony marking the first anniversary of Khashoggi’s killing at the Saudi consulate, in Istanbul, Turkey on 2 October, 2019. Picture: Reuters/Umit Bektas

Callamard said in a report, published in June, that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman should face further investigation over the murder, adding that there is “credible evidence, warranting further investigation” that he and other high-level Saudi officials may be liable.

Bin Salman said last week that he accepted “full responsibility” for the killing as a leader in Saudi Arabia, but denied ordering it to take place.

Cengiz praised Callamard as “a woman brave enough to point the finger” and said governments that ignored the conclusion of her report should be questioned and criticised.

“Indeed, we should be wary of any government that ignores hard facts and the conclusions of our global institutions, as well as those who run costly PR campaigns to hide their wrongdoing,” she said.

Washington Post publisher and chief executive Fred Ryan was also present at the memorial service in Istanbul, which was hosted by a number of NGOs including RSF and Amnesty International.

Ryan said: “At the Washington Post, we deeply mourn Jamal’s loss. His readers knew him as a talented columnist, and those who worked with him knew him as a trusted colleague and a dear friend.

“It is meaningful that we are joined today by Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post. Jeff has been resolute in standing up for courageous and independent journalism around the world.”

He praised Cengiz for searching “unceasingly” for answers about her fiance’s death, and sharing his “message about the importance of a free press”.

The Washington Post today published a special memorial section in print and online, and ran a full-page print ad honouring his memory and saying: “His life was taken, but his pursuit of the truth lives on.”

Full-page advert honouring the memory of Jamal Khashoggi in the Washington Post on 2 October 2019. Picture: The Washington Post

A group of 19 non-governmental organisations, including Amnesty International, Article 19, English PEN and the Index on Censorship, have signed a call for action to both the international community and Saudi Arabia.

They want international governments and the UN to “take action to ensure that a further impartial, prompt, thorough, independent and effective criminal investigation” is opened.

They also called for them to ensure that “all perpetrators of the crime, including those at the head of the chain of command, are identified and prosecuted in a fair and transparent trial” without the threat of the death penalty.

Saudi Arabia has charged 11 people and is seeking the death penalty for five of them, but has faced criticism for holding the trial of the unnamed defendants behind closed doors.

The NGOs also called for an “immediate moratorium” on all arms sales and exports of surveillance technology to Saudi Arabia and the introduction of a UN resolution establishing a monitoring mechanism over the human rights situation in the country.

They urged Saudi Arabia to return Khashoggi’s remains to his family, invite independent international experts to oversee investigations into his murder, and cooperate with the UN to ensure those responsible are brought to justice.

The country should also release all journalists, writers and human rights defenders it has detained, guarantee the rights of such workers, and drop the death penalty, they said.

The International Press Institute has separately written to King Salman of Saudi Arabia to raise concerns about the “slow pace of prosecution” in the case and the “extremely disturbing” secrecy around it, urging him to support a UN-led criminal investigation as per Callamard’s recommendations.

IPI executive director Barbara Trionfi wrote: “The international community has lost faith in Saudi Arabia’s justice system.

“The only way to reverse this is for your government to take immediate and concrete steps to bring all those responsible for the murder.”

The International Federation of Journalists also demanded an “international and independent investigation”.

The group’s general secretary, Anthony Bellanger, said: “If the perpetrators are not held to account, oppressive governments of the world will see it as a green light to commit crimes against a journalist with impunity. We won’t allow it.”

Reporters Without Borders laid dozens of dismembered mannequins wearing “press” armbands outside Saudi Arabia’s consulate in Paris on 1 October 2019 to mark the anniversary of Jamal Khashoggi’s death. Picture: Reporters Without Borders

Explaining the reasoning behind its mannequin protest in Paris, RSF said: “Mexico’s drug cartel killers been dismembering journalists and leaving their remains on garbage dumps for years, but who would have imagined that government agents might be capable of killing and dismembering a journalist within a diplomatic compound?

“And yet this is what happened to Khashoggi…”

The group’s secretary general Christophe Deloire said the murder of Khashoggi and subsequent investigation “testify to barbaric practices and an unacceptable level of impunity”.

“We expect a full accounting, and we think that sentencing perpetrators to death would just be a way to silence them forever, to conceal the truth.

“This appalling crime has revealed Saudi Arabia’s policy for silencing journalists to those who were unaware, a policy based on torture, abduction and even outright murder.”

Picture: Reuters/Umit Bektas

The post Pleas for ‘justice and accountability’ one year on from Jamal Khashoggi murder appeared first on Press Gazette.

The Government’s proposed new online safety laws pose a threat to freedom of expression in the UK, a campaign group has claimed.

Index on Censorship said the risk from the Online Harms White Paper could also extend abroad if other countries follow in the UK’s footsteps.

The proposed regulatory framework, published in April and now out for consultation, will impose a statutory “duty of care” on companies that “allow users to share or discover user-generated content or interact with each other online”.

This covers social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, but also extends to search engines, messaging services, online forums and file hosting sites.

Firms must take reasonable steps to keep their users safe online and tackle illegal and harmful activity on their platforms or face heavy fines and even personal criminal liability for senior management.

In a briefing published yesterday, Index on Censorship, which has filed an official alert with the Council of Europe over threats to media freedom in the White Paper, said the proposed sanctions would “create a strong incentive for companies to remove content”.

It also criticised the “harms” laid out in the White Paper – some of which are legal activities or material – for not being clearly defined.

Joy Hyvarinen, Index’s head of advocacy, warned: “The proposals in the government’s online harms white paper risk damaging freedom of expression in the UK, and abroad if other countries follow the UK’s example.”

The White Paper suggests either an independent regulator could be set up or new powers could be given to an existing regulator, such as Ofcom, to cover online material.

Sarah Connolly, director of security and online harms at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, told the Westminster Media Forum last month that the White Paper is still out for public consultation and the remit of an independent regulator has not yet been decided.

But, in response to a question about whether any freedom of expression safeguards will be put in, she added: “It has always been and will always be our intention to bake in freedom of expression.

“This is not about taking down swathes of things, it’s just not about incentivising companies to take down more than they leave up. What it is, is targeted as much as possible on harmful content.”

Illegal content, such as terrorist and child abuse material, would need to come down “quite quickly” but there is a “set of things in the middle where risk and proportion matter an awful lot” that will be down to the discretion of the regulator, Connolly said.

A transcript of the Westminster Media Forum, which may contain inaccuracies, was published yesterday following the event on 7 May.

Hyvarinen, who also attended the forum, told it that the proposed sanctions in the White Paper were not “very compatible with a vibrant marketplace of ideas”.

She compared it to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act which was given Royal Assent earlier this year after some journalistic safeguards were added in response to lobbying from press campaigners.

“There’s the background of this very draconian anti-terror legislation,” Hyvarinen said.

“And now the proposals in the Online Harms White Paper, we see that as restricting the space for ideas online more and more… and for debate.

“I was glad to hear Sarah [Connolly] emphasising freedom of expression as being very embedded in the White Paper proposals, but that’s not something that’s very clear when you read the White Paper.

“The White Paper is clear that… the regulator will have a legal duty to have regard to innovation, but when the White Paper speaks about freedom of expression, it’s expressed as a general duty.

“The word legal is not there… it’s a general duty… to respect users’ rights such as rights to privacy and freedom of expression. So it’s not at the same level of priority, or at least not presented [as such].”

She went on: “Index is concerned about the Online Harms White Paper, we certainly think that the proposals in that create or risk creating a very strong incentive for online platforms to remove and restrict content because the duty of care is combined with substantial fines and possibly even criminal, personal criminal liability for senior managers and that is going to create an incentive to when in doubt, err on the side of caution, take away information, restrict information.”

Picture: Lisa Fotios/ Pexels

The post Proposed online safety laws pose threat to freedom of expression in UK, campaign group claims appeared first on Press Gazette.

The vast majority of senior local news journalists are concerned they do not have the resources to hold power to account in the way they once did, a new survey by the Society of Editors and Index on Censorship has revealed.

Of the 45 SOE members who took part in the study (both current and former journalists), 97 per cent shared this concern, of which 70 per cent said it worried them “a lot”.

The survey, which was carried out in February, also found that half of those who took part said their biggest fear about the future of local journalism was that no-one will be doing the “difficult” stories.

This compared to about 40 per cent who were most worried about the public’s right to know disappearing, and less than ten per cent who feared local news will “just cover light, fun stories” in future.

Society of Editors executive director Ian Murray (pictured) told Press Gazette he was not surprised by the result of the survey, given the industry’s response to the Cairncross Review earlier this year.

“I think it is a wake-up call,” he said. “The local press can do more to sound the alarm within their communities. There is a reluctance, I’m sure, to take the debate out there within local communities to say we are under threat.”

Murray added: “I think as an industry the regional press should shout a bit more. We have one week a year, which is Local Newspaper Week (now rebranded as Journalism Matters), which is fantastic, but that’s one week.

“I think it needs to be more, perhaps a monthly digest like ‘look what we wouldn’t have known if we hadn’t told you’.

“Yes, of course the local media industry should be hammering on the doors of politicians, should be hammering on the doors of people like us at the Society of Editors saying ‘speak up for us’, but they also need to be blowing their own trumpets in the communities saying: ‘Look what we do for you, support us’.”

Twenty of the senior editorial staff who took part in the survey felt only half as much local news in their area is covered compared with a decade ago.

Specific worries included court coverage, with 18 per cent of editors saying they “hardly ever” cover courts and 74 per cent saying their publication reports from court once a week, and council reporting.

Nottingham Post editor Michael Sassi told the survey: “There’s no doubt that local decision-makers aren’t subject to the level of scrutiny they once were.”

Index on Censorship also commissioned a Yougov poll which asked 1,840 British adults their thoughts about local journalism.

The poll found that 40 per cent of over-65s think the public knows less about what is happening in communities where a local newspaper has closed, compared with 28 per cent of 18 to 24-year-0lds.

Meanwhile 26 per cent of over-65s said politicians have too much power in those areas, compared with only 16 per cent of young people saying the same.

Index on Censorship said the figures showed a “striking” age divide as older people worry most about local news.

Index on Censorship editor Rachael Jolley said: “Big ideas are needed. Democracy loses if local news disappears. Sadly, those long-held checks and balances are fracturing, and there are few replacements on the horizon.

“Proper journalism cannot be replaced by people tweeting their opinions and the occasional photo of a squirrel, no matter how amusing the squirrel might be.”

“If no local reporters are left living and working in these communities, are they really going to care about those places? News will go unreported, stories will not be told, people will not know what has happened in their towns and communities.”

The full report can be found in Index on Censorship’s spring magazine.

Picture: Society of Editors

The post Vast majority of senior journalists fear they have lost ability to hold power to account as before, survey shows appeared first on Press Gazette.

A report on threats facing members of the press in Europe has criticised UK politicians for having “smeared journalists and media outlets critical of them” and dismissing news reports as “fake news”.

It claims remarks from “leading political figures in countries from the UK to Hungary” have “created an environment in which reporters are demonised, and thereby more vulnerable to abuse online and off”.

The report, overseen by Index on Censorship and funded by the European Commission, is based on a survey of more than 3,000 press freedom violations across 35 European countries over the past four years.

Demonising the Media: Threats to journalists in Europe, took data from the IOC’s Mapping Media Freedom project which logged press freedom violations between May 2014 and July 2018.

The report also found the UK was the fourth largest source of online harassment complaints, behind Spain, Italy and Croatia.

Discussing the threat UK national security laws posed to the press, the report read: “Governments are using terror laws to spy on journalists.

“In 2014, the UK police admitted that it used powers under terror legislation to obtain the phone records of Tom Newton Dunn, political editor of The Sun newspaper, to investigate the source of a leak in a political scandal.

“Police used powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which circumvents another law that requires police to have approval from a judge to get disclosure of journalistic material.”

The grabbing of Newton Dunn’s phone records led to Press Gazette’s Save Our Sources campaign which won a change in the law to require judicial sign off for any police request to spy on journalists’ call records.

The report identified five key threats to media across the continent: counter-terrorism bills, political interference, social media harassment, tightened government control of public broadcasters, and protests.

Vonny Moyes, a columnist for Scottish newspaper The National, said comments by leading UK Conservatives on one of her columns amplified abuse towards her and “exposed her to more direct harassment than usual”.

An anonymous Twitter user, who had previously trolled Moyes over her columns, targeted her in 2016 by posting private photos of her on the social media platform.

Labour and the Scottish National Party were said by the report to have been among several political parties on the continent that had engaged in “political interference” with the media.

Although not explicitly named in the report, Index on Censorship has told Press Gazette it also believes the Conservative Party to have engaged in political interference.

It said these methods could be subtle or overt, such as “behind-the-scenes phone calls to an editor” or “preventing a journalist affiliated with particular outlets from attending a press conference”.

Attempts to smear journalists, news outlets “and in some cases an entire industry in order to sow doubt about the veracity of their reporting” is another form of political interference identified by the report.

“The goal of controlling information flow remains the same,” it said.

The report warned that in the UK “journalists may be locked in side rooms or barred from attending conferences” and that this was an “all-too-common occurrence across the continent”.

IoC has confirmed examples of political interference from the UK’s three largest political parties, which were reported in the Mapping Media Freedom database but were not directly referenced in its report. They included:

• Cornwall Live journalists prevented from covering Theresa May visit
• Conservative-run Thurrock council allegedly approved plans to restrict access of journalists who don’t “reflect its position”
• Labour leader says parts of British press “spread lies and half-truths” 
• Corbyn’s press team ban Buzzfeed from campaign events
• Reporters barred from Alex Salmond press conference

Neither the Conservatives, Labour or the SNP have replied to Press Gazette’s request for comment on the report’s claims.

The report warned that counter-terrorism bills and national security laws were used to silence public interest journalism in “worst-case scenarios”. It identified 39 cases where attempts were made to prosecute journalists that published embarrassing government leaks.

In a statement, IoC chief executive Jodie Ginsberg said: “The huge number of [reported incidents] outlines that threats to media freedom are occurring across the EU, not just in countries perceived to be on the fringes of the community.

“Demonising the Media details the key issues that we’ve identified: From national security legislation being used to silence investigative journalists to the undermining of the editorial independence of public broadcasters across the continent.

“All of this has taken place amid the toxic atmosphere journalists are confronting on a global scale.”

On social media, the report authors recognised that platforms could help the press share content and connect with readers, but is said that sexual harassment and death threats were a “widespread and pernicious issue that journalists across the continent confront on a daily basis”.

Women in the media received the most threats through social media, it said.

Read the full Demonising the Media: Threats to journalists in Europe report.

Picture: Reuters/Yves Herman

The post Labour, Tories and SNP named in report on threats to journalists for ‘political interference’ with media appeared first on Press Gazette.

Nine press freedom and human rights campaign groups have jointly urged the House of Lords to rethink new counter-terror laws that “risk chilling free speech and curbing journalistic inquiry”.

The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill would restrict freedom of expression and press freedom, threaten the protection of journalistic sources and limit the right to access information online, the groups said.

Index on Censorship, Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontieres), Committee on the Administration of Justice  Liberty, Article 19, National Union of Students, Big Brother Watch, Rights Watch UK and Open Rights Group shared the joint statement today ahead of the bill’s next appearance on Monday at the House of Lords committee stage.

Rebecca Vincent, UK bureau director for RSF, said: “This bill has extremely worrying implications for press freedom and the protection of journalistic sources.

“We have underscored our concerns over a number of specific clauses that should be struck, or at a very minimum, amended to include clear exemptions for journalistic activities.

“We call on Lords to carefully scrutinise this problematic bill and amend it to ensure that it does not contribute to further deterioration of UK press freedom.”

Clause 1 of the bill would criminalise expressing an opinion that is “supportive” of a proscribed terrorist organisation if the person does so in a way that is “reckless” and encourages someone else to support a group.

The campaigners said: “The vaguely defined offence comes far too close to making opinion a crime.

“It would shut down democratic debate: who would dare to argue in favour of removing an organisation from the proscribed list if you risk ten years in prison?”

Clause 3 would make it a crime to view online content that is likely to be useful for terrorism, even if you have no terrorist intent, and carries a maximum prison sentence of 15 years.

The clause carries a “reasonable excuse” defence, but the campaign groups said it would make the work of investigative journalists and academic researchers “difficult or impossible”.

The bill was debated in the Commons last month when Security Minister Ben Wallace told MPs the “reasonable excuse” defence covers “individuals who have a valid reason to enter and remain in a designated area, such as to provide humanitarian aid, to work as a journalist, or to attend a funeral of a close relative”.

However, SNP MP Gavin Newlands suggested the new offence was not “necessary or proportionate” and could lead to journalists choosing not to travel to affected areas.

Section 3 of the bill would bring in a “vaguely defined” crime of “hostile activity”, the campaigners said, alongside wide-ranging new powers to stop, search and detain.

The groups shared concerns that this could mean a journalist taking a domestic flight could be stopped without any suspicion of wrongdoing, while it would be an offence for the journalist not to answer questions or hand over materials, with no protection for confidential sources.

Special rules would apply in the border area in Northern Ireland, meaning that anyone could be stopped, whether the person was planning to cross the border or not.

Joy Hyvarinen, head of advocacy at Index on Censorship, said: “The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill would change the law on freedom of expression in Britain, restrict press freedom, damage academic research and endanger fundamental rights.

“The bill is fatally flawed and we urge the House of Lords to ensure that the government rethinks the bill”.

Gracie Bradley, policy and campaigns manager at Liberty, added: “By criminalising activities like overseas travel and browsing the web, this bill risks chilling free speech and curbing journalistic and academic inquiry.

“The Lords should reject it and the ill-judged expansion of power that it represents. It will not make us more safe, but it will make us less free.”

Thomas Hughes, executive director of Article 19, said the “extremely broad offences” within the proposed bill have “the potential to chill free speech and impede the right to seek information for people in the UK”.

He added that the Government has “not convincingly shown any need” for introducing these new offences.

Jim Killock, executive director of Open Rights Group, said: “’One click’’ criminalisation of viewing streamed content is not the answer to online radicalisation.

“It may be unclear to journalists or academics that they have a ‘reasonable excuse’ to view such content, and keep them from investigating serious issues.”

Picture: UK Parliament

The post Campaign groups urge Lords to rethink new counter-terror laws with ‘extremely worrying implications for press freedom’ appeared first on Press Gazette.

Yemeni journalist Abdulaziz Muhammad al-Sabri details the dangers of reporting in his country. Interview by Laura Silvia Battaglia.

Abdulaziz Muhammad al-Sabri (pictured) is smiling, despite everything.

But he cannot fail to feel depressed when he sees the photos taken a few months ago, in which he is holding a telephoto lens or setting up a video camera on a tripod.

“The Houthis confiscated these from me,” he said. “They confiscated all my equipment. Even if I wanted to continue working, I wouldn’t be able to.”

Al-Sabri is a Yemeni journalist, filmmaker and cameraman, and a native of Taiz, the city that was briefly the bloodiest frontline in the country’s civil war. He has worked in the worst hotspots, supplying original material to international media like Reuters and Sky News.

“I have always liked working in the field,” he said. “And I was really doing good work from the start of the 2011 revolution.”

But since the beginning of the war, the working environment for Yemeni journalists has progressively deteriorated.

In the most recent case, veteran journalist Yahia Abdul-raqeeb al-Jubaihi faced a trial behind closed doors and was sentenced to death after he published stories critical of Yemen’s Houthi rebels.

Many journalists have disappeared or been detained, and media outlets closed, in the past few years.

“The media industry and those who work in Yemen are coming up against a war machine which slams every door in our faces, and which controls all the local and international media bureaus,” said al-Sabri.

“Attacks and assaults against us have affected 80 per cent of the people employed in these professions, without counting the journalists who have already been killed, and there have been around 160 cases of assaults, attacks and kidnappings.

“Many journalists have had to leave the country to save their lives. Like my very dear friend Hamdan al-Bukari, who was working for Al-Jazeera in Taiz.”

Al-Sabri said he wanted to tell his story to Index on Censorship without leaving out details “because there is nothing left for us to do here except to denounce what is going on, even if nobody is listening to us”.

He spoke of systematic intimidation by the Houthi militias in his area against journalists in general and in particular against those who work for the international media.

“In Taiz they have even used us as human shields,” he said. “Many colleagues have been taken to arms depots, which are under attack from the [Saudi-led, government-allied] coalition, so that once the military target has been hit, the coalition can be accused of killing journalists.”

This sort of intimidation is one of the reasons why researching and reporting on the conflict is very difficult.

Said al-Sabri: “In Taiz and in the north, apart from those working for al-Masirah, the Houthis’ TV station, and the pro-Iranian channels, al-Manar and al-Alam, only a few other journalists are able to work from here, and those few, local and international, are putting their necks on the line.

“You’re lucky if you can make it, otherwise you fall victim to a bullet from the militias, attacks, kidnappings. Foreigners are unable even to obtain visas because of the limitations imposed by [Abdrabbuh Mansour] Hadi’s government and the coalition.

“The official excuse is that the government ‘fears’ for their lives, since if they were kidnapped, imprisoned or died in a coalition bombardment, it would be the Yemeni government’s responsibility.”

Al-Sabri has personal experience of the violence against journalists in Yemen. In December 2015, he was wounded in the shoulder by a sniper who was aiming at his head. On another occasion, he was kidnapped, held at a secret location for 15 days, blind-folded, threatened with death and tortured.

This article will be published in full in the summer issue of Index on Censorship magazine. Subscribe online or follow @index_magazine.

Picture: Index on Censorship

The post Journalist shot while reporting from Yemen warns media are ‘coming up against a war machine’ in the country appeared first on Press Gazette.

There have been more than 3,100 recorded threats to press freedom across Europe and its neighbouring states in the last three years, according to a new online tool that maps incidents.

The Mapping Media Freedom tool identifies threats, violations and limitations faced by members of the press throughout European Union member states, candidates for entry to the EU and neighbouring countries.

Of the total recorded, less than 2 per cent took place in the UK, which saw 59 cases of press freedom being threatened.

Among them is the decision by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s team to ban Buzzfeed from campaign events and reports of journalists being intimidated while reporting on the Scottish Independence referendum.

Others include job cuts at newspaper offices and instances of police abuse of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), as reported by Press Gazette.

The Met Police’s decision to prevent Press Gazette from submitting further Freedom of Information requests about its use of RIPA powers on the grounds that it was being “vexatious” is also included.

France has recorded 170 threats to press freedom, with Paris alone recording 114 incidents, and Germany has 94. Among the highest are Turkey, with 494 incidents and Russia with 341. Lowest is Norway with just two cases.

The mapping project — which is co-funded by the European Commission — is operated by Index on Censorship in partnership with the European Federation of Journalists and Reporters Without Borders.

Jodie Ginsberg, Index on Censorship chief executive, said: “The precarious state of press freedom across Europe is underlined by the volume of verified incidents added to Mapping Media Freedom since it began collecting data.

“In just the last year, journalists have experienced violence from right-wing groups, criminal charges under anti-terrorism legislation and death threats. This atmosphere is undermining the public’s right to information.”

The Mapping Media Freedom tool will be officially launched at the Swedish Ambassador’s Residence in London on 21 June.

The launch will include a panel discussion, including Times columnist David Aaronovitch, on threats to press freedom in Europe and what can be done to protect journalists’ freedom of expression.

Search recorded incidents of press freedom restrictions online. 

The post More than 3,000 threats to press freedom put on the map in new online project appeared first on Press Gazette.

Murder, assault and imprisonment are among the “growing spectrum of threats” faced by journalists in Europe, according to Index on Censorship.

The press freedom group has been logging incidents via its Mapping Media Freedom website and listed 1,387 challenges to press freedom in 2016.

These included:

• 205 assaults
• 336 arrests and detentions
• 178 criminal charges
• 390 reports of intimidation
• 102 incidents of censorship
• And nine journalists who were killed as a result of their work.

Hannah Machlin of the Mapping Media Freedom project said: “The spectrum of threats is growing, the pressure on journalists increasing and the public right to transparent information is under assault.

“People who are simply trying to do their job are being targeted like never before.”

Those killed include Pavel Sheremet, an investigative journalist killed by an explosive device on his way to work in Ukraine. In Holland Martin Kock, founder of a blog about the Dutch criminal underworld, was shot dead in his car.

In Turkey alone some 225 journalists were detained by the state last year.

Many Turkish journalists have been arrested on suspicion of publishing propaganda supportive of the alleged organiser of last year’s attempted coup.

In Turkey a further 2,500 journalists are estimated to have lost their jobs as a result of the shutting down of media outlets in the wake of the coup.

In Italy there were 62 reports of journalists being threatened, many by criminal syndicates.

The MMF annual report states: “From legal and administrative measures blocking access to the undermining of anonymity for sources to physical assault and killing, the decline of media freedom in the region calls for immediate action to restore European standards for the protection of journalism, ensure the safety of media workers and safeguard a pillar of
democracy.

“It is crucial for European leaders to refrain from adopting new legislation restricting journalists’ access, introducing penalties on reporting or endangering the protection of sources.

“The abuse of national security and terror legislation to prosecute journalists must end, with judicial reviews and appropriate training of
law enforcement agencies when necessary. Authorities should launch swift investigations into acts of violence and intimidation of media workers.”

The post Murder, assault and imprisonment among ‘growing spectrum of threats’ facing journalists in Europe appeared first on Press Gazette.

The Times journalist who uncovered the Rotherham child abuse scandal has said under Section 40 it would be “inconceivable” that the paper would have run its front-page story naming one of the abusers.

Andrew Norfolk also said Section 40 represented the first time in his 27-year career as a journalist that legislation would “actually make it near impossible to do my job”.

The Government is currently consulting on whether to enact Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act which states news publishers would be liable to pay the legal fees of both sides if taken to court unless they are signed up to a Royal Charter-recognised regulator. The consultation closes on 10 January.

Impress has official recognition under the Royal Charter process. The Independent Press Standards Organisation, which represents the majority of news publishers, has said it will not apply for recognition.

Speaking on the BBC Radio 4 Media Show, Norfolk said: “Although the public may sometimes believe we just shove anything in a newspaper that we see fit to print, the hurdles that we have to go over in order to get to a position of publishing an article that makes such a serious allegation against one individual are very high and last a long time.

“They involve an awful lot of meetings with lawyers. They lead to some key decisions being taken about what we can safely publish without risking huge libel damages.

“When we take that risk, like we did in naming this man, we do so because we believe we have the information that enables us to support every single sentence that is going to be written about that man and to defend it if necessary in court.

“If section 40 comes in, it is inconceivable that we would even have published that article in the first place.”

He added: “I think it is inconceivable that [publishers becoming more risk averse] wouldn’t be the inevitable outcome [of section 40 being commenced]. Each decision is a balancing exercise. It’s a decision: can we defend this? because if we can we will not have to pay the costs because we will win the case.

“If there’s an in-built guarantee that we will have to pay the costs of both cases even if we win, how can that not affect a decision taken by a commercial media organisation, no matter how deep its pockets?”

Former Labour home secretary and phone-hacking victim Lord Blunkett also spoke out on the show against Section 40 coming into effect.

He said: “It’s actually a ridiculous situation for local and regional newspapers where people will be able to take them on knowing that the press will have to pick up the tab, whether the individual wins or loses, and that is a massive hole in the system.

“So Section 40 is important for the reasons you have described. It is the foundation, the lynch pin, but it’s flawed.”

He added: “I know there’s a campaign going on [against section 40]. No I’m not comfortable [being a part of it] but that doesn’t stop me from believing that there’s a very good left of centre, liberal argument for a free press and to try and find a solution that isn’t even more detrimental to that print media which somehow we need to hang on to.”

Hacked Off campaigner and professor of communications at Westminster University, Steven Barnett, said he had no sympathy for the argument that Section 40 would chill investigative journalism.

Speaking in reference to the Times investigation into the Rotherham sex abuse ring, he said: “All that publication needs to do is join a recognised regulator and not only would they be protected from for that story but they would protected for stories like Jimmy Saville who they argued they couldn’t tackle when he was doing his worst.

“Incidentally the NUJ [National Union of Journalists] which speaks for 50 to 60,000 journalists supports Section 40 and so does Sir Harold Evans, patron of Index on Censorship (IoC), so does Tom Stoppard – there are free speech advocates who realise the good that it can do.”

Jodie Ginsbourg, chief executive of Index on Censorship,  said: “The reasons why organisations like Index, which is not just a free expression body but also a publisher which would be subject to Section 40, will not join a regulator like Impress is because we don’t believe that the state should have any involvement in regulation whatsoever and it doesn’t matter how much Hacked Off talks about the fact that the Press Recognition Panel Royal Charter are arms length – there shouldn’t be a fingernail of state involvement in regulation of the press.

“It’s fundamental to an independent media and we argue for it in many countries and it’s very important that we argue for it here too.”

The post Times naming of Rotherham child abuser would be ‘inconceivable’ under Section 40, says Andrew Norfolk appeared first on Press Gazette.