Biodun Iginla, BBC News

Biodun Iginla, BBC News
Showing posts with label The Wall Street Journal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Wall Street Journal. Show all posts

Friday, February 21, 2020

ANALYSIS: Pressure and expulsions: the trials of foreign media in China


ADVERTISING
Shanghai 
China's expulsion of three Wall Street Journal reporters this week over a headline that displeased Beijing highlights the precarious status of foreign journalists working in the country.
Foreign news organisations face myriad obstacles including cumbersome regulations, threats to revoke credentials, surveillance, arbitrary detention and sometimes even violent intimidation.
At the same time, China has taken advantage of press freedom overseas to build up its state-controlled media presence worldwide.
ADVERTISING
Here are some of the hurdles faced by foreign media organisations and journalists:
- The 'J' visa -
The first obstacle is obtaining a special journalist visa to enter China, a wait that can stretch for months.
Applications are sometimes then abruptly denied without explanation, possibly due to an applicant's work elsewhere. These "J" visas must be renewed annually.
Several high-profile news organisations have reported renewals being denied or delayed until the last minute -- including for journalists from the New York Times and Bloomberg, who covered corruption issues in the Communist Party elite.
The Foreign Correspondents Club of China (FCCC) says at least nine journalists have been effectively expelled or denied new visas since 2013.
- Access: denied -
Reporting is a frustrating pursuit, with access to tightly controlled official events routinely denied and interviews with government officials rarely granted.
Information requests often result in instructions to "send a fax", which are rarely answered.
Interviews with private Chinese citizens or businesses can take weeks or months to secure, and these are often abruptly cancelled by interviewees claiming cryptically that "it's inconvenient" -- code for not wanting to upset authorities.
Foreign media also must submit questions in advance for major press conferences.
Access tightens even further before sensitive events such as major Communist Party meetings or anniversaries like the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown.
Reporters Without Borders ranks China 177 out of 180 nations for press freedom -- two spots better than North Korea. It has dropped steadily this decade.
- Knock, Knock -
Authorities employ multiple obstacles against reporters in the field.
Hotels must report any guest checking in on a journalist visa to local police.
They will frequently be paid a visit by police who photograph passports and press cards and give orders to delete pictures or video.
Journalists are frequently told to leave an area due to various obscure regulations, because it has been "closed" to outsiders, or to protect the reporter's own "personal security."
A persistent journalist runs the risk of several hours' detention -- especially in sensitive areas such as the restive far-western Xinjiang region -- and may be pressured to write "confessions" of reporting misconduct.
The FCCC advises carrying a print-out of China's own official rules that declare broad rights for foreign journalists, but these are often simply waived away by local authorities.
News organisations have documented numerous examples of sources, interviewees, or their own Chinese assistants facing pressure and intimidation from authorities not to cooperate with foreign media.
Journalists are routinely shadowed by police or other suspected security agents, and many have related anecdotal evidence indicating that their phones or messaging apps may have been compromised.
- Land of the free -
By contrast, Beijing has poured billions into expanding its state-run media footprint worldwide to control the global narrative about China, and has eagerly utilised American openness -- where Chinese reporters can work and travel freely -- as part of this drive.
The State Department can withdraw press accreditation from Chinese journalists who file false reports or violate conduct rules, but it says "reporting, editorial opinion or content of questions will never be grounds".
But the US is raising its guard.
Chinese media must already declare funding sources and that they are linked to "a foreign principal".
And new rules announced Tuesday label five major Chinese state-run outlets as "party-state propaganda" subject to additional requirements, but they impose no new reporting restrictions.
Analysts believe the expulsion of the three WSJ journalists was really in retaliation to the US measure.
Beijing linked it to a headline in an op-ed that it deemed racist even though the reporters were not involved in the article.

Monday, September 23, 2019

ANALYSIS: Donald Trump: The Ukrainian connection

by Melissa Gruz and Biodun Iginla, The Economist Intelligence Unit News Analysts
How close does the Ukraine scandal bring Donald Trump to impeachment?

Democrats are torn: the president may have abused his office, but be unimpeachable
EACH TRUMP administration scandal is different, but the questions they invite are the same. Has another president done something similar before? Does this scandal involve a breach of the law, or merely of norms and precedent? Where does this rank on the Trump-o-Meter, with fibbing about the size of the crowd at his inauguration at one end and obstruction of justice at the other? Finally, if you heard that a president had done something but you were not told which president, how would you judge the behaviour? If Donald Trump did indeed put pressure on the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, to produce material that would embarrass a political rival, might that be the worst Trump scandal yet, as Max Boot, an ex-Republican who is generally a reliable guide, wrote in the Washington Post? Or is it not even worthy of comment, as most Senate Republicans seem to believe—at least in their public statements?
Begin with what we know. In August the government of Ukraine received news that the White House had frozen a package of military aid to the value of $250m. This was unexpected because Congress had already appropriated the money, and because the aid supported America’s interests in Ukraine, which are to see a country that is as peaceful and stable as possible. A month earlier, Mr Trump had spoken to Ukraine’s newly elected president to congratulate him on his election win. Something said by Mr Trump in that call reportedly gave rise to a formal complaint from a whistleblower in America’s intelligence services. We do not know for sure what that something was, but the Wall Street Journal has reported that Mr Trump asked Mr Zelensky about eight times during the call to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of the Democratic front runner for the presidential nomination, who had business interests in Ukraine. Mr Trump has recently admitted that he raised the issue of corruption with Mr Zelensky.

The contents of that call were probably part of the whistleblower’s complaint, which itself is now at the centre of a wrangle between the White House and Congress. The law states that such reports are passed from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to Congress. The Trump administration is arguing that the law has been incorrectly applied, and that in any case, the president’s calls with foreign leaders should enjoy executive privilege. The administration may offer a compromise of sorts, by releasing the transcript of the call but not the whole of the whistleblower’s report.
That would not clear the matter up. So far most of the focus in the American press has been on the contents of that one phone call. Was the freezing of the money explicitly linked to the investigation of Hunter Biden? Probably not. The Economist’s reporting suggests that the call was characteristically Trumpian, but that there is no smoking gun in the transcript. A former lawyer to the president, Michael Cohen, has spoken of how he often makes his wishes plain without making explicit requests or orders.
From the Ukrainian perspective, the main channel through which Mr Trump applied pressure to help him out politically was via his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. Shortly after the call between the two leaders, Mr Giuliani travelled to Madrid to meet an adviser to Mr Zelensky, Andriy Yermak. He urged the Ukrainian government to investigate the younger Mr Biden and dangled the possibility of a state visit to Washington, DC, as an inducement. Mr Giuliani has since said that he was acting merely in his role as the president’s private lawyer. But this distinction, if it existed, was lost on the Ukrainian government.
The reason this scandal rises above the level of Mr Trump’s others is that, on the face of it, the president appears to have acted against America’s national interest—by freezing aid to a vulnerable ally—in order to pursue a vendetta against a political rival at home. If the administration suggested that the military aid would come if Ukraine’s government investigated the younger Mr Biden—if you give us the dirt we give you the guns—that would be tantamount to extortion.
Even without such an explicit assurance, it looks as if the president failed to put America first, and also used taxpayer’s money to put pressure on a foreign government to produce material that would help his re-election campaign. If in 2015 Barack Obama had given the government of Azerbaijan the impression that American aid was contingent on digging up dirt on Mr Trump’s property deals there, would that have been a betrayal of the trust that America put in him? Yes it would.
That is why more Democratic members of the House of Representatives are now talking about impeachment. There are three groups: the convinced impeachers, who have argued for getting rid of Mr Trump almost from day one; the House leadership, which believes that impeaching Mr Trump in the House and then seeing him acquitted in the Senate (where Republicans have a majority) would be a political own-goal; and the reluctant impeachers, who are willing to believe that impeachment is not in their narrow political interests but believe that to duck impeachment because it is politically inconvenient would be to shirk the role the founders gave to Congress. This is the group to watch closely over the next few days.
As for the Senate, the numbers lined up against any possible impeachment trial are still stacked in Mr Trump’s favour. The Hunter Biden story is hugely helpful for Mr Trump and gives Republicans another genuine scandal to talk about when the subject of Ukraine comes up. Because that the vice-president’s son, who does not know a great deal about hydrocarbons, sat on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, drawing a salary of as much as $50,000 a month, while his father was not just the sitting vice-president but was responsible for the White House’s Ukraine policy was, if not illegal, then the kind of misjudgment that only seems normal for those who have grown accustomed to the cash-for-influence industry in Washington, DC. In moral terms, what Hunter Biden did or did not do in Ukraine has nothing to do with whether the president offered the president of Ukraine guns for “oppo research”. In political terms, the two are linked.
That leaves American politics in a bind. The president may have abused his office. Yet if he has, nothing much can be done about it. Even if the numbers change and the House votes to impeach, Mr Trump will probably be exonerated in the Senate. Mr Trump would be unimpeachable. The glimmer of light is that the scrutiny Mr Trump is being subjected to now over his dealings with Ukraine might make him think twice about doing something similar in the future.

Thursday, June 20, 2019

NY Times publisher says Trump "escalated attacks" with treason claim


Sulzbergertook the helm of America's most prestigious newspaper last year, and has since made a series of rebukes to Trump in defence of free press
Sulzbergertook the helm of America's most prestigious newspaper last year, and has since made a series of rebukes to Trump in defence of free press GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP/File
ADVERTISING
New York 
The publisher of the New York Times hit back Thursday at accusations of treason by Donald Trump, saying it "crosses a dangerous line in the president?s campaign against a free and independent press."
Writing in the Wall Street Journal and not his own newspaper, Arthur Sulzberger warned there was "no more serious charge a commander in chief can make against an independent news organization".
ADVERTISING
"He?s gone from misrepresenting our business, to assaulting our integrity, to demonizing our journalists," the publisher wrote. "Now the president has escalated his attacks even further, accusing the Times of a crime so grave it is punishable by death."
Sulzberger's commentary was in response to comments by Trump on Twitter last Saturday where he said the Times had committed "a virtual act of treason" after it reported that the US is stepping up digital incursions into Russia's electric power grid.
The action is intended partly as a warning, but also to leave the US poised to conduct cyberstrikes in the event of a major conflict between the US and Russia, the newspaper report said.
"Do you believe that the Failing New York Times just did a story stating that the United States is substantially increasing Cyber Attacks on Russia. This is a virtual act of Treason by a once great paper so desperate for a story, any story, even if bad for our Country.....? Trump tweeted, adding that "Anything goes with our Corrupt News Media today."
Sulzberger said his newspaper had contacted the White House prior to publishing and been assured by Trump's aides that the article raised no national security concerns.
The "treason" comments marked the latest in a series of attacks by the US president on media outlets -- particularly those that have run investigative reports into Trump and his administration -- which Sulzberger says have created a climate where trust in the media is declining and violence against journalists is on the increase.
He also warned of an "aggressive legal campaign against journalists" being waged by the White House.
Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, or A.G. as he is known, took the helm of America's most prestigious newspaper last year, and has since made a series of rebukes to Trump in defence of free press.
In 2018 the Times shared, with The Washington Post, a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its alleged connections to the Trump campaign.
"Mr. Trump?s campaign against journalists should concern every patriotic American," Sulzberger wrote Thursday. "A free, fair and independent press is essential to our country?s strength and vitality and to every freedom that makes it great."