Relating to the recent democracy reports, Vietnam, has introduced new laws recently that punish those who publish articles that do not reveal sources.
What this suggests is a desire by leaders to limit political dissent, internet access, and free speech perhaps, following in the footsteps of China in which freedom of speech and human rights continues to be longstanding issues. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Vietnam ranks as the sixth-worst country in the world to be a blogger, behind only, Burma, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Saudi Arabia.
This raises questions of the future of Vietnam which continues to see an increase in tourism, alongside massive trade deals bringing in billions of dollars in revenue which is slowly drawing many in the general populace out of poverty.
As the Middle East is showing, an increase in education and standard of living will undoubtedly bring a desire for freedom, in which case political conditions in the country may get dramatically worse when faced with protest or some democraticization may occur.
3 responses so far ↓
Merrin // Mar 3rd 2011 at 8:51 pm
To be overly optimistic, at least the articles will be more credible. Requiring journalists to back up their assertions with sources reduces the incentive for them make bogus, unsupported claims. Although just because there is a source provided, it doesn’t necessarily mean its a good one…
lindsy // Mar 20th 2011 at 5:19 pm
I have to admit, when I read your first paragraph I didn’t really see a problem with this. Sometimes I think there should be stricter rules on journalist, but not in a way that restricts fundamental free speech.
I’m not sure that makes sense, but what I mean is that journalist should be more accurate with their sources as misleading info can sometimes have dire consequences. But I am not in favour of the part that restricts the printing of unauthorized material or the history of this restriction in this country.
We were recently discussing this in a class about terrorism and the prof said, “yeah, but if you cut off the media aspect of terrorism, you cut out the mechanism used by terrorist to achieve their goal: widespread fear”. Freedom of the press is so integral to democracy, yet there is also widespread abuse of the press by certain news companies which often present their coverage as truth.
I guess it ultimately comes down to the individual taking responsibility for their own education and not believing everything you hear. I suppose let the press and bloggers write what they want and hope that the general public can sort fact from fiction. Interesting topic though.
alex // Mar 21st 2011 at 11:27 am
To be frank, I think that it depends on context. When censorship is enforced with the sole purpose of limiting popular dissent, criticism of the government or even access to information deemed controversial, it is dangerous and it inhibits the democratic process. In the case of Vietnam, it is a communist state, and what the article suggests is that it may end up comparable to China or worst case Burma, where just being seen in the presence of a journalist poses risk of death or imprisonment.
As to the role of the media in regards to terrorism and conflict. I can’t say that I agree fully. While the media may play a role in fear mongering and thus drawing attention to a cause, it is an ambiguous label- one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter– and I doubt that media attention or lack thereof would change the strategy of many of these groups. In the case of Thailand- Southern Muslim’s have received relatively little media attention, but, the level of violence has increased tenfold in the last 1o years.
With that said, we have to wonder why Libya is now at the center of world news, while Cote D’evoir is not?
Leave a Comment