The 31e edition of World Press Freedom Day, marked on May 3, takes place this year on the mixed theme of the environmental crisis and the emergency of journalism, this profession in perpetual crisis. In the background, populism and disinformation act as a link to link the fights for a viable planet and a free press.
UNESCO, sponsor of the event, posits that disinformation strains knowledge and scientific research methods, sowing doubt in the public mind. These attacks undermine the foundations of a pluralist and informed debate, to the extent that they contribute to citizen disengagement in the fight against climate change and to the reluctance of political action. The UN institution hopes that journalists and scientists can cover environmental issues without hindrance and participate in the search for solutions.
When it comes to press freedom, journalists around the world are not all equal. Far away, we imprison, we torture, we kill journalists who dare to ask questions and demand that the powerful of this world answer for their actions.
A few examples of infinite sadness remind us of the dangerousness of this profession. In Russia, a journalist from Wall Street Journal, Evan Gershkovich, has been imprisoned for a year now under treacherous suspicions of espionage. In Israel, a democratic country, around a hundred journalists have been killed since the start of the military offensive, including around twenty in the exercise of their duties, according to observations by Reporters Without Borders (RSF). The international community, although enamored of democratic ideals, did not find the strength to be outraged.
In Iran, the two journalists who documented the brutal death of young Mahsa Amini, the starting point of the civil society uprising, paid with their freedom for this affront to the theocratic regime. Niloufar Hamedi and Elaheh Mohammadi, co-winners of the UNESCO World Press Freedom Prize in 2023, were imprisoned for more than a year following a trial in the form of a “judicial farce”, says RSF. They were released on bail last January, with a ban on leaving the country. Their fate is uncertain as they await an appeal of their original sentence of more than 10 years’ imprisonment.
The list of journalists who sacrifice their freedom, even their lives, to inform their fellow human beings about the dysfunctions of their society is long, too long. We cannot do anything other than salute the courage of those who persist and sign, ignoring the dangers.
There is no fully democratic society without a free press, it is said. Come to think of it, even democratic societies in which journalists are able to play their role of monitoring institutions without too many problems do not always manage to produce social policies that guarantee the public interest.
The example of environmental coverage, mentioned by UNESCO, is a good example. In Quebec and Canada, a clever network of researchers, journalists and NGOs are emphasizing the urgency of accelerating the pace in the fight against climate change. This rigorous, widely publicized work does not prevent governments from sometimes making irrational decisions, any more than it offers the rampart idealized by UNESCO against populism and disinformation.
We live in ease and comfort compared to many nations. In our landscape, the obstacles to the right to freedom of the press boil down to opacity, the abusive use of SLAPP suits, government negligence in the reform of laws on access to information or even the occasional rush of the control freak politician over the terms of the debate.
This bullying is unacceptable and deserves to be denounced, but it does not prevent the light from piercing the curtain of opacity. With a few exceptions, our elected officials are even allies of press freedom. They have demonstrated this, in Quebec and in Canada, by the strength of the support measures for journalism and by the consistency of their declarations to encourage the exercise of rigorous journalism.
The coming years will be marked by the rise in power of generative artificial intelligence tools and, with them, the potential for disinformation will increase tenfold. Democratic regimes, already weakened by populism, will not be immune to this defect.
For public debate to take place on sound and factual bases, we will not only need strong and responsible journalism, but also journalism that will be both understood and supported by civil society. It is up to us to strengthen the bridges between the two. In a healthy democracy, freedom of the press is everyone’s business.