AFTER DEADLY ’06, JOURNALISTS NEED PROTECTION
By Adam Himmelberger, The Daily Campus; SOURCE: Univ. of Connecticut STORRS, Conn.

The Daily Campus via U-Wire
University Wire
January 25, 2007 Thursday

The recent assassination of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink is
another tragic case of violence against the media and the silencing
of journalists who produce controversial work unpopular with certain
groups or governments. Dink’s murder is a somber reminder that the
liberal degree of free speech often taken for granted in America is
not universal. It further highlights the dangers journalists face
around the world, from reporting in hazardous environments to extreme
punitive measures for attempting to uncover the truth.

2006 was the deadliest year for journalists and media workers. The
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) reported "at least 155
murders, assassinations and unexplained deaths." Some were accidental
at the hands of U.S. soldiers, others were politically motivated hits
and still others were committed by gangsters or warring factions,
according to the IFJ report.

The majority of news media deaths have taken place in Iraq, which has
become the deadliest war for journalists and the most dangerous place
to work over the course of American involvement in the region. But
even outside of classifiable conflict zones, there still lies danger
for those seeking to report, convey, uncover or express an idea.

The Turkish-Armenian editor was often the target of prosecution and
threats due to his "iconoclastic journalism, particularly on the
mass killings of Armenians in the early 20th century," according to
the Committee to Protect Journalists’ (CPJ) Web site. The Turkish
government does not acknowledge these World War I killings as
genocide, which continues to cause great tension between Turks and
Armenians. Dink’s friend Andrew Finkel said Dink "was in favor of
Turkish and Armenian neighbors being able to look each other in their
face and recognize their past histories," according to CNN.

Dink’s murder is reminiscent of numerous other journalists’ deaths,
including the high profile murder of Russian journalist, Anna
Politkovskaya, in October 2006. Many strongly believe she was murdered
because of her outspoken criticism of the Kremlin and its policies
toward Chechnya. Tuesday, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
reported Russian officials announced Chechen police might have been
behind Politkovskaya’s murder because she was going to publish an
article about the polices’ alleged involvement in torture. A caveat
at the end of the story reminded this is only one of several theories
behind the murder. Free thinkers and journalists have encountered
hardships in both Russia and Turkey. Article 301 of Turkish law
makes it a crime to "insult Turkishness," a charge many writers in
Turkey have been accused of, including Dink. Intellectuals all over
the world have called for it to be repealed. In Russia, the Kremlin
has drawn harsh criticism from the U.S. and other countries for its
tight control and censorship of the media.

The suppression of free speech, as well as journalistic pursuits,
is not unique to these two countries by any stretch of the imagination.

The Philippines has some of the strictest libel laws in the world,
through which politicians often invoke in order to squash bad press and
punish writers. Mexico has surpassed Columbia has the deadliest country
in the Americas for journalists, a sign of the illegal drug industry
and other criminal activities shifting, or more accurately, expanding
closer to the markets. Even the United States, the quintessential
example of Constitutionally-protected freedom of speech and the press,
is far from perfect.

Needless to say, despite the inherent dangers of reporting or speaking
one’s mind in certain countries, more needs to be done to protect
these courageous individuals whose work is vital to the citizens of
the world. Non-profit, international non-government organizations
such as the CPJ and the IJF, lobby governments to ensure the safety
of journalists, raise money for victim’s families and publicize and
condemn the deaths or censorship of news media workers around the
globe. The United Nations was finally persuaded on Dec. 23, 2006
to issue resolution 1738, condemning attacks against journalists
in conflict situations. The resolution demanded all parties and
states in armed conflict treat journalists as civilians, comply with
international law in protecting journalists and prosecute those who
violate this, according to the U.N.’s Web site.

However, as is the case with international law, there are limitations
to what NGOs and resolutions can accomplish. Sadly, so long as there
are those working to uncover the truth, check the privileged or expose
the ruthless, there will be the privileged, powerful and ruthless
working to kill the story — even if it means killing the writer. And
so long as there is armed conflict, there will be civilian killings,
no matter what international law may say. A more modern way of looking
at the increasing violence against the media across the globe is to
realize many simply do not like what the general media have come to
represent. There is a stigma attached to the general news coverage
of bias, unfairness and propaganda. If groups in some regions of
the world do not want to be written about, or take issue with their
coverage, they may resort to eliminating the source of their concern —
the writer.

In Dink’s case, he used his columns appearing in his newspaper to
write about a tense history between two ethnic groups with the hope
that one day they could peacefully come to terms with the past and
harmoniously exist together as neighbors. For this, he was shot by
someone who disagreed. Even in death however, the work of journalists
and other free-thinkers endures. Their missions must be taken up by
others. If this fails to happen, the stories will die.