Speeches
Remarks By Charge D’Affaires Theodore Allegra In Honor Of World Press Freedom Day
May 04, 2009
Your Excellencies, Members of the Press, Ladies and Gentlemen:
World Press Freedom Day is observed each year to remind us of the important role of press freedom to good governance and democracy. It is now commonplace to acknowledge that freedom of the media – a right protected by the United National Universal Declaration of Human Rights – is the hallmark of a free society. But while that acknowledgment may be commonplace, in many places its practice is not. And that’s why it’s important to underscore today the simple notion that wherever media freedom is under siege, all other human rights are under threat.
This notion is especially relevant to today’s subject: “Dialogue, Equity, Mutual Understanding and Reconciliation.” In our 21st Century world, the free flow of information and ideas can be a powerful force for understanding and positive change. An independent media fosters active debate, exposes abuses of authority, fights corruption, challenges assumptions, and can be a forum to express different points of view peacefully -- particularly on behalf of those who are marginalized in society. A free press is also key to the transparency and accountability necessary to sustain economic development. Above all, the media can and should play a role in facilitating communication between public figures and the public. And nowhere is that more relevant – and more important – than in enhancing the media’s role in communications between politicians and the public they are elected to serve.
In the United States, the 2008 national election campaign was viewed by many as a change of historic proportion from the business of politics as usual. Throughout the process, there were numerous accusations of media bias, unfair coverage, and even racism. And while similar criticisms have been a hallmark of most recent national election campaigns in America, this time it was different: very few of these issues gained traction with the American public, and none of them ended up in court. What changed? This issue will likely be reviewed and debated by a generation of academics and media analysts, but let me offer a few observations.
At the beginning of the election season, many Americans were no doubt bracing themselves for another all-out battle in the media where insults and slurs were routine – just like in prior election campaigns. Indeed, in some ways the American media marketplace encourages it with 24-hour news coverage that highlights dramatic provocation which, in turn, demands equally dramatic provocation in response. But President Obama took a different route to the White House by using the theme of change, which included a real change in the way he addressed his competitors, as well as the issues. The President stressed that civility and respect would be the foundation of his message. Even when many predicted he would revert to media politics as usual when the going got tough, he did not. And much of the world saw that, although vigorous political dialogue certainly remains a hallmark of media coverage in America and elsewhere, discussions of issues are more productive and effective in informing the public than are personal attacks.
These experiences also provide an important lesson for the theme of this morning’s session: The Role of the Media in Intercultural Dialogue. Just last week, a poll in the United States found that Americans’ view on race has shifted in a positive direction and that there is a greater sense of unity, particularly among the African-American and Caucasian populations. The U.S. media is largely responsible for this shift, because it provided the public space in which inter- and intra-cultural dialogue could take place. Without responsible media organizations to moderate this discussion, most Americans would have had little opportunity to voice their views, nor would they have seen how other communities grapple with the same issues. Charges of racism and bias were very common in the newspapers and television early in the U.S. election cycle. But media attention quickly forced Americans to overcome initial differences and achieve a thoughtful dialogue on race relations, which may well provide lasting benefit to everyone in America.
The media has played a similar role in Cambodia to foster intercultural dialogue. Two weeks ago, we completed a project designed to bring the Cham and Khmer Islam communities together with counterparts in law enforcement. During a series of workshops, we discussed similarities and differences between Cambodia’s Buddhist and Islamic communities, as well as common misconceptions that exist. We worked many of these issues behind closed doors, but the Cambodian media raised awareness of this effort for the entire country to appreciate: good journalists asking good questions allowed a wide audience to see the effort the government has made to integrate the Islamic community, and our shared challenge with the government now is to find creative ways to use the media to continue that effort.
We have also had success in bridging the gap in understanding between Cambodians and Americans – CTN’s popular segment on the Peace Corps showed Cambodia that although our cultures are very different, we have much in common. And, of course, there are some Americans who really do enjoy eating prahok!
Beyond the intercultural context, the United States vigorously promotes media freedom as a core component of our assistance and training programs in Cambodia. In June, we will sponsor a course designed to for journalists reporting on economic and environmental topics – two issues of critical importance now to Cambodia and the world. In July, we will provide spokesperson training for government media officers; this is designed to increase the dialogue between ministries and journalists so that the public is kept better informed about government policies and action.
But while I have talked of progress, we must not forget on this day to honor those for whom progress remains elusive. Across the globe, rulers who seek to wield unchecked power see the free media as a threat and try to control, constrain, or silence it. Some of the repressive methods used against media outlets and journalists are: restrictive media and Internet laws; burdensome regulations, taxes and fees; broad libel and defamation laws applied for political reasons; efforts to narrow media diversity and block citizen access to independent views; direct censorship or intimidation; and targeting journalists or Internet bloggers for harassment, imprisonment, physical attack, or even murder. It is fitting today that we recognize the men and women who make the sacrifices and endure the dangers simply to report the truth. As President Obama noted on Friday: “This is a day in which we celebrate the indispensable role played by journalists in exposing abuses of power, while we sound the alarm about the growing number of journalists silenced by death or jail as they attempt to bring daily news to the public.”
I would thus like to reaffirm the strong commitment of the United States to the cause of media freedom worldwide. We will continue to champion media freedom through our diplomatic efforts and through our exchange and assistance programs in Cambodia and elsewhere. We must all recognize that press freedom goes hand in hand with good government, despite the healthy tension that is designed to exist between the two, and despite the messy environment that it sometimes creates. As we do so, it is useful to recall that this tension is certainly nothing new. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, once wrote: “I deplore the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them.” Tough words, to be sure. Yet, Jefferson added: “The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right. Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
Thank you all for your attention.
