freedomhouse.org FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Michael Goldfarb (212) 514-8040 x308

NEW YORK, April 30, 2003 -- Press freedom suffered notable worldwide deterioration in 2002, due in part to political and armed conflicts and increased government-backed restrictions on independent media outlets, Freedom House announced in a major study released today.

Among the most serious developments were major setbacks for press freedom in Russia, Ukraine, and Venezuela.

The study, Freedom of the Press 2003: A Global Survey of Media Independence, pfs2003 (application/pdf, 821 KB)

reveals that some press restrictions took place in fledgling democracies, demonstrating that the media are one of the most vulnerable sectors in societies still struggling to reform.

The entire report, which contains country-by-country analysis, can be found on Freedom House's web site at www.freedomhouse.org/pfs2003/pfs2003.pdf

The survey assesses the degree of press freedom in every country in the world and rates each country as Free, Partly Free, or Not Free.

Overall, the study reveals that 11 countries--Armenia, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Jordan, Nepal, Panama, Peru, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Venezuela--declined in category, while only 2 countries--Fiji and Sri Lanka--increased.

Of 193 countries surveyed (including the Israeli-Administered Territories/Palestinian Authority), 78 (41%, representing 20% of the world's population) were rated Free, with no significant restrictions on the news media; 47 (24%, or 38% of the global population) were rated Partly Free and are characterized by some media restrictions; and 68 (35%, or 42% of the world's population) were rated Not Free, with state control or other obstacles to a free press.

The proportion of the world's population considered Not Free increased by four percent from 2001

"Freedom House is deeply concerned by this significant decline in press freedom," said Freedom House Executive Director Jennifer Windsor. "Of particular concern is that some countries that are nominally democratic do not feature vibrant independent media due to heavy government interference. This only reinforces the key role independent media play in keeping governments accountable," she said.

Political instability and civil conflict took a serious toll on press freedom in 2002. Media in countries such as Colombia, Nepal, and Venezuela--which all declined to Not Free--faced broader restrictions on permissible coverage and intimidation by government officials. Violent attacks against the press by some or all parties to a conflict led to significant declines in the level of press freedom as fear led to self-censorship. Those who infringe on the media's rights are often not punished for their actions, perpetuating a climate of impunity.

Ongoing armed conflicts in Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire and in the Israeli-Administered Territories/Palestinian Authority led to further declines in their numerical scores.

Democracy's Fragility

There were also worrying signs in 2002 in some of the world's more fragile democracies and transitional societies, where media do not enjoy protections from government interference normally featured in established democracies. Restrictive legislation and politicized judiciaries still prevail in some of these countries, such as in Russia, where the government of Vladimir Putin clamped down on independent media.

In Venezuela, a protracted political crisis led to serious harassment of the media by supporters of President Hugo Chavez, resulting in the country's shift into the Not Free category.

"One of the most worrying aspects of this deterioration in press freedom is that state-directed intimidation of and attempts to influence the media are being perpetrated by democratically elected governments that seem to be increasingly unwilling to tolerate critical coverage," said Karin Karlekar, the survey's managing editor.

Bright Spots

Two countries--Sri Lanka and Fiji--registered positive category shifts during the year. Sri Lanka improved from Not Free to Partly Free as the ceasefire agreement between the government and the Tamil Eelam rebel group increased the range of permissible coverage and press access to areas formerly under rebel control. In Fiji, greater political stability helped to reduce overt harassment of the media and to move the country from Party Free to Free.

While insufficient for category shifts, progress was nonetheless registered in Angola and Chad, where civil wars have ended, and in Somalia and Afghanistan, which have seen the growth of independent media outlets. The passage of reformist media legislation in Bosnia, the former Yugoslavia, Azerbaijan, and Bahrain contributed to noticeable improvements in press freedom in those countries.

Regional Trends

Americas: Of the 35 countries of the Americas, 18 (52%) are Free, 13 (37%) are Partly Free, and 4 (11%) are Not Free. Many of the world's declines were registered in the Americas, with Colombia and Venezuela joining Cuba and Haiti in the Not Free category. Peru regressed to Partly Free after the government leveled charges against the media for libel and for reporting on corruption. Panama also moved to Partly Free due to a widespread legal campaign against journalists by public officials, as did the Dominican Republic, due to selective placement of official advertisements in newspapers and increased concentration of media ownership.

Asia Pacific: Of 39 Asian Pacific countries, 18 (46%) are rated Free, 7 (18%) are Partly Free, and 14 (36%) are Not Free. While Sri Lanka improved to Partly Free and Fiji to Free, Nepal fell to Not Free in the midst of a violent Maoist insurgency. In Thailand, which declined from Free to Partly Free after two international publications were banned, local media faced official pressure to soften critical reporting, and several editors were forced to resign. The restrictions in Thailand came as Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra increased executive powers and moved to prevent media coverage of official corruption.

Central & Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union: Of the 27 countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, 9 (33%) are rated Free, 8 (30%) are Partly Free, and 10 (37%) are Not Free. Russia's and Armenia's ratings declined from Partly Free to Not Free after each country's government shut down leading independent television broadcasters. Ukraine also moved to Not Free after several journalists were targeted by politically motivated libel lawsuits and obstructive tax audits. Russian and Ukrainian reporters who investigated official corruption were routinely intimidated and sometimes violently attacked. Three journalists in Russia were murdered.

Middle East & North Africa: Of the 19 Middle Eastern and North African countries, only one (5%), Israel, is rated Free. Two countries (11%), Kuwait and Morocco, are Partly Free, while sixteen (84%) are Not Free. The Middle East is the only region with an average rating of Not Free. Jordan moved to Not Free after journalists there were prosecuted for criticizing the government. A notable decline took place in Tunisia, where authorities sentenced an Internet writer to two years in prison for spreading "false information." Several journalists were shot while covering the violence in the West Bank.

Sub-Saharan Africa: Of 48 Sub-Saharan African countries, 8 (17%) are rated Free, 16 (33%) Partly Free and 24 (50%) Not Free. In Zimbabwe, the government of Robert Mugabe passed draconian legislation that further restricted the ability of both foreign and local reporters to work freely. Eritrea--where all private newspapers have been banned and several journalists remain jailed--continued a year-old crackdown against independent media, ostensibly on national security grounds.

Western Europe: Of 25 Western European countries, 24 (96%) are rated Free. One country (4%), Turkey, is rated Partly Free. None is rated Not Free.

Freedom House, a non-profit, non-partisan organization, monitors political rights and civil liberties worldwide. In addition to its annual Freedom of the Press survey, it also publishes Freedom in the World, an annual global survey measuring freedom in every country, and Nations in Transit, a comprehensive comparative survey of the post-Communist states of Eastern and Central Europe and the former Soviet Union.

--end--

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 By: Manuel Rueda

Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) analyst Manuel Rueda writes: Venezuela’s Bolivarian government is once again performing a balancing act ... and this time free speech hangs perilously on the line. In an effort to make media coverage more representative of a wider section of Venezuelan society, if not explicitly fair to both the government and the country’s middle class opposition, government legislators and cabinet officers are pushing for a series of laws to regulate TV and radio programming. But critics of the proposed reforms argue that attempts to regulate media content will only discourage any prospect of quality reporting and ultimately will do little to enable Venezuela’s poor to better voice their views.

Venezuela’s print & broadcast media has certainly not conducted itself in the most democratic of ways. Its news columns ... which heavily favor the opposition ... often turn unprofessional.

Government officials have solid evidence to charge that the media’s current behavior jeopardizes democratic institutions.

Venezuela’s four major private television networks control at least 85% of the market and their producers have lashed out at President Chavez with punishing, though not always merited, political low blows.

For two months, they helped fuel an economically devastating and socially destabilizing general strike aimed at ousting Chavez from office, in which they heavily promoted opposition leaders while systematically slandering the President and ignoring events favorable to his side.

Government functionaries are quick to argue that such media organizations have degraded democratic dialogue by indulging in political haranguing, while turning their back on their responsibility to provide truthful information. Many international journalists from some of the world’s most prestigious news organizations concur that Venezuela’s media has become a heavily biased advocacy group in favor of the opposition.

In a media climate that disregards the concerns of Venezuela’s poor and often provokes strife, government officials are faced with the challenge of encouraging participative and democratic public debate. In response, they have proposed laws mandating that radio and TV stations spend more time educating society with balanced material. One provision demands strict quotas for daily programming reserving at least three hours for education and another three for national music shows daily.

The Dangers of Supervising the Press

But will attempts to forcefully mandate more balanced programming schedules encourage the media to better educate society?

In fact, they are being met with resistance by Venezuela’s media leaders, who see these proposals as a cynical plot to stifle criticism of the Chavez administration. Critics argue that, if passed, these laws will be ineffective at changing the media’s combative role. Looking back on their creativity exhibited during the opposition’s anti-Chavez ad campaign, it is not hard to imagine children TV shows with a political edge and folk music programs that scream out against the revolution’s politics.

What will be the government’s likely reaction?

Federal prosecutors will certainly be willing and able to take TV and radio stations to court and dispute a series of nebulous definitions of what is “cultural” and “educational.” This would then leave Venezuela’s at times corrupt judicial system to determine the proper definition of “socially responsible” programming.

Rulings aimed at regulating media content will keep courts busy, but are not likely to encourage high grade investigative journalism nor prompt alternative points of view.

Another proposed law would penalize producers and journalists for coverage that incites “disrespect” against public officials. This may lead to regrettable abuses on free speech in a country where an alarming number of intimidation incidents against journalists have been reported by international observers over the past year. The law may keep critical journalists investigating dubious government activities tied up in court disputes, thus hampering informed dialogue on the country’s social and economic grievances.

A Modest Proposal

Rather than controlling media content, the government would do more for the democratization of public opinion by focusing on reforms that modestly diffuse and pluralize media ownership.

Social, economic and political concerns affecting Venezuela’s shanty towns and rural areas, for example, are often overlooked by mainstream media outlets that cater to middle class interests. The government-owned TV network does scarcely better at addressing these concerns as it routinely dumbs down political dialogue in its efforts to praise the ruling party’s agenda.

Media ownership can be extended to Venezuela’s poor through the creation of community-run radio stations. While hardly rivaling the audience of Venezuela’s well-established networks, these outlets could begin to empower the poor by voicing their daily concerns and present a whole range of political views.

To the government’s credit, some provisions in the “laws of social responsibility” do make an attempt to promote grassroots media. One of these calls for the establishment of a national institute for radio and television that would provide training and technical support to independent producers.

But reforms to encourage the proliferation of grassroots media must be taken further, as this is not only necessary, but politically feasible. By providing the populace with alternate sources of information, community media outlets could help neutralize concerns over media monopolization, which in part motivate government efforts to police media content.

A government that feels less pressured to closely monitor airwaves would certainly benefit Venezuela’s private TV stations, which in many cases have incited hostilities through their inflammatory coverage of the facts. It would be wise for them to help fund independent media in a show of reconciliation and commitment to the authentic development of free speech.

Most importantly, participatory democracy will benefit from concrete initiatives to financially assist independent media, which will likely encourage local political feedback by voicing the daily grievances of humble citizens, promoting participation in town meetings and sparking dialogue between local political rivals.

But how to fund grassroots media?

These outlets must remain free from financial manipulation by government sectors or corporate elites anxious to convert them into political franchises. It is a task that government, private sector, civil society and international organizations must jointly undertake as an opportunity not to be missed. The benefits of empowering the poor to actively participate in democratic debate will by far outlast any reforms that simply put reins on freedom of speech.

This analysis was prepared by Manuel Rueda, a research associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), founded in 1975, as an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. You may email Manuel Rueda at coha@coha.org  or phone +1 (202) 216-9261, fax (202) 223-6035 -- www.coha.org

<a href=www.mediainfo.com>Editor & Publisher On Line APRIL 18, 2003 By Mark Fitzgerald

CHICAGO -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's government recently added newsprint to the list of goods that can be imported by newspapers that have been rationing their dwindling supply since last November.

Newspapers had accused Chavez of taking revenge for their opposition to his rule by effectively banning newsprint imports through currency controls.

Even with newsprint on the "importable" list, the complex currency regulations are still stymieing newspapers' efforts to obtain dollars to pay for the commodity, Rafael Poleo, editor of the daily El Nuevo Pais told E&P Online. Venezuelan dailies are eliminating pages and are now as thin as they were during World War II, said Poleo, who indicated he has enough newsprint to last until about June.

To read more on this story, see the latest Americas Extra column.

Source: <a href=www.mediainfo.com>Editor & Publisher On Line

Detroit Free Press April 17, 2003

APPLIANCES

Maytag to cut 500 jobs

Maytag Corp. announced plans to cut 500 jobs as the appliance maker reported a 39-percent drop in first-quarter earnings.

Benton Harbor-based Maytag said earnings for the three months ending March 31 were $34.5 million, or 44 cents per share, down from $56.8 million, or 73 cents per share in the first quarter of 2002. The consensus among analysts surveyed by Thomson First Call was for first-quarter earnings of 57 cents per share.

AUTOS

Lear earnings up; outlook poor

Lear Corp. said Wednesday its quarterly earnings jumped 46 percent, but it slashed its full-year outlook due to U.S. automakers' production cutbacks.

Lear, which makes seating, instrument panels, electrical components and other interior systems, is among the suppliers that have benefited most from an industry trend toward outsourcing the assembly of larger modules and systems.

The Southfield-based supplier said its first-quarter net income climbed to $67.9 million, or $1.01 a share, from $46.4 million, or 70 cents a share, in the same period a year ago, boosted by new business, a stronger euro and better operating efficiencies.

Analysts' consensus estimate was $1 a share, according to Thomson First Call.

Delphi profit rebounds

Delphi Corp. posted a quarterly profit of $127 million Wednesday, reversing a year-earlier loss due to restructuring charges.

Troy-based Delphi boosted its earnings despite an increase of about $120 million in employee benefit costs, including pension and health care, Delphi Chief Financial Officer Alan Dawes told Reuters.

A stronger-than-expected rise of 19.2 percent in sales to customers other than former owner General Motors Corp. helped results. Non-GM sales of $2.6 billion accounted for a record 37 percent of its total revenues of $7.2 billion.

5 vehicles pass crash tests

Five newly designed cars and sport-utility vehicles performed well in high-speed crash tests by the insurance industry, including a Cadillac sedan that was redesigned after it failed to win the highest rating.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which released the test results Wednesday, tested three SUVs and three luxury sedans by crashing each vehicle into a barrier at 40 miles per hour. The vehicles were angled so the driver's side got the brunt of the force.

Five vehicles that were newly designed for the 2003 model year received the highest rating. Those were the midsize Volvo XC90 SUV, the smaller Honda Element and Mitsubishi Outlander SUVs and the Cadillac CTS and Infiniti Q45 cars.

The sixth vehicle tested, the 2002 Acura RL, which was designed several years ago, received the second-highest rating of "acceptable." Insurance Institute President Brian O'Neill said the front of the Acura collapsed too far into the vehicle, damaging the legs of the crash-test dummy.

Environmental group targets Ford

An environmental group is urging the U.S. Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation of Ford Motor Co., accusing the automaker of hiding safety-related information from regulators and the courts.

The Environmental Working Group says its request is bolstered by a South Carolina case alleging that Ford paid an expert witness to change his testimony in a 1993 suit involving the Bronco II sport-utility vehicle.

Monday, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs in that original case could sue Ford again because of the expert witness' testimony.

Kathleen Vokes, a Ford spokeswoman, rejected the Environmental Working Group's claims, saying they are based on incomplete information from court papers.

BANKS

Comerica profit declines 18%

Comerica Inc. said first-quarter profit fell 18 percent as the company wrote off more bad loans and lending income fell.

Net income dropped to $176 million, or $1 a share, from $214 million, or $1.20, a year earlier, the Detroit-based company said in a statement. That beat the 99-cents a share average estimate of analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial.

Comerica is writing off more bad loans and increasing its loan-loss reserve at a time when rivals such as Bank One Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. recorded fewer loan losses. Comerica's customers are struggling through a weak economy and are having difficulty keeping up with loan payments, triggering more defaults.

BEVERAGES

Coke revenue up; stock falls

Soft-drink giant Coca-Cola Co. posted a jump in first-quarter revenue and a net profit Wednesday but reported weaker-than-expected sales in North America and many other markets, sending its shares down by more than 6 percent.

The world's No. 1 soft drink maker said it had been hurt by the war against Iraq, a lengthy national strike in Venezuela, a shift in the timing of the Easter holiday and other problems in its more than 200 markets around the world.

MANUFACTURING

Loss widens at Champion

Champion Enterprises Inc., the nation's leading builder of prefabricated homes, posted a wider net loss for the latest quarter Wednesday and said it doesn't expect to be profitable this year due to industry uncertainties.

Sales fell 21.5 percent to $209.2 million from $266.6 million. Champion said its quarterly revenue was off 64 percent from its peak in 1999.

The Auburn Hills-based company reported a net loss of $24.4 million, or 52 cents a share, for the first quarter that ended March 29, compared with a narrower loss of $11.8 million, or 25 cents a share, a year ago.

TECHNOLOGY

Apple not bidding for music unit

Apple Computer Inc. Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs said the company has never made any offer to buy a big music company.

Vivendi Universal SA, the world's second-largest media company, said Apple might bid $6 billion for its Universal Music Group unit. Vivendi director Claude Bebear said in an interview that Apple "will probably make an offer for the music business, for about $6 billion."

Meanwhile, Apple said its net income fell 65 percent from a year ago as revenue was little changed. For its fiscal second quarter ended March 29, Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple said it had net income of $14 million, or 4 cents a share, compared with year-ago net income of $40 million, or 11 cents a share.

Revenue fell to $1.48 billion from $1.50 billion.

Analysts polled by tracking firm Thomson First Call had forecast Apple to post a profit, on average, of 2 cents a share, within a range of 1 cent to 4 cents, on revenue of $1.46 billion.

All content © copyright 2003 Detroit Free Press and may not be republished without permission.

<a href=www.zwire.com>zwire Alex Lekas April 16, 2003

It is the right to free speech and expression that makes America different from Iraq, for instance; you can protest your government's actions and live to tell about it.

I may disagree with them, but I'll also defend their right to speak their minds, even if what they say makes me mad.

Protests, speeches, marches, and banners don't make the participants treasonous or traitorous anymore than changing the name of deep-fried potatoes to freedom fries makes sanctimonious politicians patriotic.

It is the right to free speech and expression that makes America different from Iraq, for instance; you can protest your government's actions and live to tell about it.

Still, there is some misunderstanding about the First Amendment. The right to say something does not have a corresponding requirement that people hear it. There is also the possibility that your free speech or expression may have some consequences. Blocking roads and bridges might lead to you being arrested; your comments may lead radio stations to pull your records or the public to avoid your albums, movies, or television shows; and, waving signs in front of the Market House may lead those who disagree to shout insults at you. Finally, if you're going to protest, is it too much to ask that you bring forth a good argument? To date, you've not done a good job:

We're against Mr. Bush's war. Motivated by a visceral dislike for the President, these folks are more interested in the defeat of the Republican Party than the Republican Guard.

Inspectors should have been given more time. Twelve years, people; 12 years.

Thousands of innocent civilians will be killed. Thousands of Iraqis, perhaps millions, have already been killed, and by their own government.

This war is about oil. If it were, we would just invade Canada and Venezuela, each of which is a far greater supplier to the US than is Iraq.

This is bleeding money from domestic priorities. The primary role of the federal government is to provide for the common defense and ensure domestic tranquility.

Iraq is no threat to us. An already belligerent regime with a history of attacking its neighbors only becomes bolder if allowed to develop weapons of mass destruction. Would you have the same conviction about a nuclear Iraq?

Signs referring to Bush and Britain's Tony Blair as Hitlers and calling the US a terrorist nation. The attempt to draw moral equivalency between the two sides is so intellectually bankrupt it's not worth rebutting.

What about North Korea? This is not a bad question, and it speaks precisely to why we're in Iraq. North Korea, now with nuclear capability, is the result of the same hand wringing, pleading, negotiating, and capitulating anti-war protesters wanted regarding Iraq.

We're opposed to military intervention, period. Not a very practical stance, but at least pacifism is principled. Those preaching it, however, should use a language other than English, because if their point of view had prevailed in the past, who knows what we would be speaking today.

We're against the war but support the troops. Sorry, you can''t have it both ways. It's logically impossible to oppose an action while simultaneously to support those executing it. You can, however, hope for a swift conclusion with as few casualties as possible.

At this point, it's reasonable to ask exactly what is being protested? The coalition is not going to retreat or withdraw. The battle plan and strategy can certainly be debated, and plenty of retired and armchair generals are doing that, but that's just a question of tactics.

Continued protesting against the action itself leaves anti-war voices sounding as though they hope coalition forces are defeated, and while that may qualify as free speech, it is beyond that which I'm willing to defend.

Post your opinion and share your thoughts with other readers!

Name: Vickie Pleiss Date: Apr, 16 2003 Thank you, thank you, thank you! I absolutely agree! Is the idea of personal accountability really so foreign to so many? If they protest...it's part of their freedoms. If I don't agree with their protests, I'm intollerant. If they use their position as a forum for political opinion, that is absolutely their right...but it is MY right to NOT agree, or watch their movies or purchase their CD's. Our politicians are held accountable for their words AND actions. So are we...we are free to say and do as we please (within legal limits) but must also be willing to live with the consequences of our actions and our words. Again, thank you!