Daily Archives: March 26, 2012

Despite President Saakashvili's record of reforms, Georgia consistently ranks low on press freedom indices. Similar news reports on the country's three main TV stations are the latest hint of a tightly controlled media.

Earlier this month, newscasters on Georgia's three main TV channels, Rustavi 2, Imedi TV and the public broadcaster Channel 1, read out very similar reports on a controversial death in police custody. The incident has renewed suspicion that the government of President Mikheil Saakashvili maintains firm control of its media, despite its publicly declared commitments to democratic reform.

The news story was about how opposition politicians, linked to Saakashvili's main political rival, billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, had supposedly politicized the death of 46 year-old Solomon Kimeridze. Authorities maintain Kimeridze, a burglary suspect, tripped and fell three floors to his death while in police custody. The story focused on the opposition politicians' reactions, which journalists portrayed as inappropriate, and only briefly mentioned the fact that the politicians were questioning the suspicious circumstances of a man's death in police custody.

Each of the three TV stations used nearly identical video footage and news scripts.

Journalist Nino Zuriashvili wasn't surprised by the similar broadcasts

According to the watchdog group Transparency International, such "coordinated news coverage is a strong indication for a lack of editorial independence of the country's major broadcasters." For independent journalists and ordinary citizens in Georgia, that's not surprising.

"This is not the first time. It happens a lot that the sequence of news stories and the topics of these stories are the same on different channels," said Nino Zuriashvili, an investigative journalist who worked for Rustavi 2 until it dropped its popular investigative program when Saakashvili was elected president in 2004.

Little trust in information

The private owners of Rustavi 2 and Imedi TV have close ties to the Saakashvili administration, while Channel 1 is state-owned. These three are the only nation-wide channels that provide news programs. They never broadcast news negative to the government. Instead the president's ribbon-cutting ceremonies and speeches are covered extensively.

There have been protests calling for more balanced coverage by Georgia media

Read more:
Little media freedom in Saakashvili's Georgia

Priorities ... Leung Chun-ying. Photo: Reuters

BEIJING: Hong Kong's newly elected leader, Leung Chun-ying, has promised to defend its people's ''freedom'' after winning the special administrative region's chief executive election and ending a campaign marred by political scandals and street protests.

Mr Leung, widely seen as Beijing's preferred choice, offered two deep bows on stage as the result was announced.

''I promise that all the freedom enjoyed by Hong Kong people won't change,'' Mr Leung said yesterday. ''We need to defend our core values and to work aggressively to solve many problems.''

Advertisement: Story continues below

Campaigning has been marred by demonstrations by protesters angry at not being able to vote and the level of control exerted by Beijing.

Hong Kong's 7 million people have no direct say in their election. Only those on Hong Kong's 1193-strong election committee, largely made up of tycoons and business elite, are allowed to vote. Candidates must also be approved by Beijing before being allowed on the ballot.

But Beijing is understood to prefer to back a candidate who has a strong level of public support. Initially considered the underdog, Mr Leung, who received 689 of the 1132 valid votes cast, benefited from a string of salacious scandals to engulf early frontrunner and long-time politician Henry Tang.

Mr Tang finished with 285 votes. A third candidate, the pro-democracy Albert Ho, received 76 votes.

Revelations of Mr Tang's marital infidelity, and that he had illegally built a sprawling basement under his family villa without lodging the required taxes, dominated headlines in the robust Hong Kong media and saw China's support shift towards Mr Leung.

View post:
Freedom tops new HK leader's priorities

U.S. President George W. Bush walks past Vietnamese choir members after services at Cua Bac Cathedral in Hanoi, Vietnam on Nov. 19, 2006. His visit coincided with the State Department removing Vietnam from a list of religious freedom abusers, an action that still divides the community of International Religious Freedom advocates.

AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

Enlarge photo

Editor's note: This is the second of two articles on escalating threats to religious freedom and U.S. efforts to control those threats. Yesterday we outlined current problems and the competing values at home and abroad that make effective action difficult. Today, we survey U.S. policy responses since 1998, with emphasis a contentious governmental structure and strategic divisions among religious religious liberty advocates.

Part one: Religious freedom as a core human right: A three-sided, global debate

As Michael Cromartie concluded a February 2006 meeting with a high-ranking government official in Bangladesh, the two walked to the elevator. The official was in a friendly mood and offered to buy dinner the next time he was in Washington. "But meanwhile," he added as Cromartie stepped into the elevator, "get us off that damn list!"

The "list" appeared in the annual report issued by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and Cromartie was the commission's chairman at the time. The commission comprises half of a U.S. policy response to religious persecution abroad that was established by Congress in 1998. The other half is an Ambassador-at-large for International Religious Freedom embedded in the State Department. Together, these two bodies aim to catalog and expose abuses, keep American foreign policy focused on the issue and help nations improve the climate of religious freedom inside their borders.

Severe cases go on a list of Countries of Particular Concern, a finding that triggers flexible sanctions. For 14 years, the commission has recommended countries for the list and has placed less severe cases on a watch list. Only the State Department can actually designate a nation as a Country of Particular Concern.

In December, the controversial International Religious Freedom Commission was nearly allowed to expire when a last-minute congressional compromise saved it. At the same time, the Obama administration has significantly downgraded the role of the religious freedom ambassador in the State Department, critics say, leaving the agenda adrift there. The tale of these two entities demonstrates how international religious freedom became a core human right in U.S. foreign policy, though one whose place remains insecure and contentious.

Distrust leads to duality

Follow this link:
U.S. religious-freedom efforts split on policies and structures

U.S. President George W. Bush walks past Vietnamese choir members after services at Cua Bac Cathedral in Hanoi, Vietnam on Nov. 19, 2006. His visit coincided with the State Department removing Vietnam from a list of religious freedom abusers, an action that still divides the community of International Religious Freedom advocates.

AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

Enlarge photo

Editor's note: This is the second of two articles on escalating threats to religious freedom and U.S. efforts to control those threats. Yesterday we outlined current problems and the competing values at home and abroad that make effective action difficult. Today, we survey U.S. policy responses since 1998, with emphasis a contentious governmental structure and strategic divisions among religious religious liberty advocates.

Part one: Religious freedom as a core human right: A three-sided, global debate

As Michael Cromartie concluded a February 2006 meeting with a high-ranking government official in Bangladesh, the two walked to the elevator. The official was in a friendly mood and offered to buy dinner the next time he was in Washington. "But meanwhile," he added as Cromartie stepped into the elevator, "get us off that damn list!"

The "list" appeared in the annual report issued by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and Cromartie was the commission's chairman at the time. The commission comprises half of a U.S. policy response to religious persecution abroad that was established by Congress in 1998. The other half is an Ambassador-at-large for International Religious Freedom embedded in the State Department. Together, these two bodies aim to catalog and expose abuses, keep American foreign policy focused on the issue and help nations improve the climate of religious freedom inside their borders.

Severe cases go on a list of Countries of Particular Concern, a finding that triggers flexible sanctions. For 14 years, the commission has recommended countries for the list and has placed less severe cases on a watch list. Only the State Department can actually designate a nation as a Country of Particular Concern.

In December, the controversial International Religious Freedom Commission was nearly allowed to expire when a last-minute congressional compromise saved it. At the same time, the Obama administration has significantly downgraded the role of the religious freedom ambassador in the State Department, critics say, leaving the agenda adrift there. The tale of these two entities demonstrates how international religious freedom became a core human right in U.S. foreign policy, though one whose place remains insecure and contentious.

Distrust leads to duality

See the original post:
International religious freedom efforts split on policies and structures