RSF categorization of the US has to be properly addressed!

Without defending the inhuman killings of journalists around the world, as well as free citizens in some places by persons without respect for the dignity of human life, it must be stated that the recent classification of the United States among countries most dangerous for journalists is quite questionable. Reading through the analysis published by ‘Reporters without borders’ (RSF), certain questions come to mind as regards the methods and pattern of analysis used, the focal point of these analysis, the individual or corporate incidences/cases analysed, and how their results were reached.

Besides flouting the huge freedom journalists enjoy in the United States, irrespective of some questionable coverages as well as political biases and backlashes which have gone on for quite a while especially in recent times by some left-leaning media agencies, the method and level of analysis, ought to be much more extensive and proto investigative. These cases ought to be fully verified and the causes of death properly linked to the channels through which it came rather than charging an entire nation for a crime neither the government nor citizenry were a part of.

Secondly, what was the scope and focal point of this analysis so reached?
It appears that while stucking the spear infront of the US, RSF actually either deliberately or not ignores the several much popular abuses and hostilities towards journalists in countries like Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Nigeria and several other countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America etc.

In view of this the focal point of these analyses must also be faulted. Besides looking at the death index, the atmosphere and practical government measures/constitutional provisions ought to have been inquired into also.

This would mean that a more detailed analysis for judging hostilities to journalists ought to include at least practical governmental instances of protection or abuse of journalistic privileges, constitutional provisions or legislative edicts as well as its practicability, realistic atmosphere (I.e the extent to which a Journalist in practical terms is able to carry out journalistic activities without harassment or restrictions) etc.

These above mentioned points ought to have been duly considered and not just the isolated consideration of whether or not a journalist was killed and how many they were.

Thirdly the nature and circumstances of these analyses (especially as regards death rate), as well as the suspected culprits ought to be properly inquired into and not just only facts of whether or not folks were killed, without perfectly categorising the cause of death according to individual, group, or governmental factors. Thus preventing a national outlook from being created for an individualistic crime.

Conclusively while extolling the great sacrifice journalist pay to keep our world together, it would be much more beneficial if RSF work on her analytical purview, and focus her energies on non-exonerative as well as perfectly inclusive and well catagorized analysis, which would prevent the designation of a country for individualistic and never nationally perpetuated crimes.

There should be no sacred cows no microscopic worms in these analysis, it has to be all-inclusive, all-encompassing and properly detailed.

About the Author
S Ovwata Onojieruo is a Theologian and Political scientist, with major interest in Political theory, Middle-east politics (especially as it affects the Jewish state), and international relations. He currently works as an High school tutor/debate coach, and can be reached on twitter @OvwataS
Related Topics
Related Posts
Comments