Loading summary
Transcript66 lines
- [00:05]
Narrator
The Swiss Connection Science podcast is back with brand new stories. They're all connected by one overarching the climate challenges we face today and the smart solutions that can help us tackle them. This season, we're diving into the depths of Swiss lakes, where invasive mussels are threatening the delicate indigenous ecosystem. We'll also travel to the Arctic to discover how ancient ice can reveal vital clues for pioneering climate research. And we'll explore the critical world of the semiconductor industry, looking at its global importance and Switzerland's potential role within it. All this and more is coming soon in the new season of the Swiss Connection Science Podcast. Swissinfo podcasts.
- [01:02]
Imogen Folkes
This is Inside Geneva. I'm your host, Imogen folks, and this is a production from Swiss Info, the international public media company of Switzerland. In today's program, well, it's fake news,
- [01:17]
Antoine Bernard
you know, it's just so. It's so fake. That's why the media has so little credibility.
- [01:23]
Irene Khan
The role of journalism has never been more important. The role of journalist has never been under such pressure. And the sector itself is suffering. So these are very, very important times to take a deep breath and make sure that freedom of expression and media freedom as part of that is protected because it is an extremely important pillar of democracy.
- [01:45]
Narrator
Thousands of mourners marched behind Amal Hilal's
- [01:48]
Imogen Folkes
coffin at a funeral procession in the
- [01:50]
Narrator
journalist's hometown in southern Lebanon.
- [01:53]
Imogen Folkes
Khalil was killed in a house where she took cover from a strike while reporting on the Israel Hezbollah war.
- [01:59]
Antoine Bernard
We are now in times where facts have become a target. Hence journalists have become more of targets. And this means that they are the ones suffering most of the polarization, the growing polarization of the public debate.
- [02:22]
Chris Morris
But the legacy Trump hating press, your politically motivated animus for President Trump nearly completely blinds you from the brilliance of our American warriors. Well, good afternoon, everybody. Visiting the Munich Security conference, Vance lectured them. The threat that I worry the most about vis a vis Europe is not Russia, it's not China, it's not any other external actor. And what I worry about is the threat from within. A stunned room listened as Vance berated his hosts, Germany for allegedly silencing voices on the far right ahead of a key election. Regulating information is a really difficult thing to do. Well, getting the right balance between the absolute need to protect freedom of expression, but also the need to protect people from harm online is really difficult.
- [03:15]
Irene Khan
Well, I think the most important thing that can be done here is to ensure that journalists can work independently. That means without undue political influence or pressure, that they are safe and that their access and their sources are protected.
- [03:41]
Imogen Folkes
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva. I'm Imogen folks and in today's program going to mark Press Freedom Day that takes place on May 4th each year. So just a few days away, we've got three amazing interviews for you.
- [03:57]
Antoine Bernard
I am Antoine Bernard. I'm the Director of Advocacy and assistance at Reporters Without Borders, meaning that I lead RSF global advocacy, litigation assistance and digital operation.
- [04:09]
Chris Morris
I'm Chris Morris. I am the chief executive of Full Fact. We're a charity based in London. And before that I was for a very long time a foreign correspondent with the BBC, including 10 years in two different stints in Europe.
- [04:24]
Irene Khan
I am Irene Khan, the UN Special Rapporteur, which means the independent expert on freedom of opinion and expression.
- [04:32]
Imogen Folkes
We're going to look at the challenges to press freedom, from violent attacks to punitive lawsuits.
- [04:38]
Antoine Bernard
We are now in times where facts have become a target, hence journalists have become more of targets. And this means that they are the ones suffering most of the polarization, the growing polarization of the public debate.
- [05:01]
Imogen Folkes
We'll discuss the flood of mis and disinformation that threatens to obscure fact based professional journalism.
- [05:08]
Chris Morris
If people don't believe you, they won't trust you. And if there's no trust, then no consent. And that's where democracy genuinely starts to falter. I do think we're actually fighting for the kind of societies we want to be. And partly we're fighting against bad actors wherever they may come from. And partly we are fighting against the big tech companies who are the most powerful organizations the world has ever seen.
- [05:32]
Imogen Folkes
And we'll be unpicking the important differences between press freedom and freedom of speech.
- [05:39]
Irene Khan
You have the First Amendment warriors talking about, you know, freedom of speech without any limit. But what they actually mean is freedom of speech for me, but not for you. Because when that happens, when you have freedom of speech without any barriers, then what happens is there's a surge of hate speech attacks against migrants, attacks, terrible misogynist attacks against women politicians.
- [06:05]
Imogen Folkes
First, let's hear from Antoine Bernard of Reporters Without Borders. RSF's annual World Press Freedom Index is due out this week and Antoine began by telling me the report will reflect some very worrying trends indeed.
- [06:21]
Antoine Bernard
We'll be publishing the World Press Freedom Index 26 edition on 30 April. That publication comes in a extremely deteriorated context for journalists and journalism. Journalism is confronted altogether with four crises at the same time. A crisis of protection, a legal crisis with law instrumentalized against journalists, a crisis of sustainability which is economic and the tech crisis all in all, which means the development of platforms that are equally instrumentalized against journalism. So the context is extremely difficult.
- [07:00]
Imogen Folkes
Let's look at the stark examples and those are physical threats. We're seeing more and more journalists killed. And it seems if we look at the Middle east by countries which trumpet their democracies and their commitment to freedom
- [07:26]
Antoine Bernard
of the press, indeed we are now in times where facts have become a target, hence journalists have become more of targets. And this means that they are the ones that are suffering most of the polarization, the growing polarization of the public debate. It can have terrible consequences for journalists covering conflicts. We consider ourselves there is a before and after Gaza after October 7th in Gaza started a tragedy for journalism and journalists. Our field work took us to monitor more than 250 cases of Jenna's killed and even more tragically a minimum of 62among them whom we have what we call reasonable grounds to believe have been intentionally targeted because or during their journalistic activity. Of course we're investigating and litigating, meaning we're triggering prosecutors on those cases. But it's too slow, it's too unlikely. The judicial answer is not proportionate to the gravity of this situation. In non conflict times, including democratic societies, journalists are targeted more because it has become politically rewarding to target journalists in the political debate. So yes, there is paralyzation. Yes, journalists are being more targeted and all in all the consequences for citizens their own right to information, which is wicked.
- [09:24]
Imogen Folkes
What do you think professional journalists, long standing media organizations can do to defend themselves? I'm thinking specifically of the United States where we see one lawsuit after another, which we know, I observe myself, has what we call the famous chilling effect on what we do.
- [09:52]
Antoine Bernard
Absolutely. It has become extremely challenging and complex to be able to react. So RSF has, has a very clear strategy. We are not satisfied with only reacting. We are 100% committed to fighting back. Meaning in the case of journalists suffering crimes, international crimes in particular, investigating, triggering prosecutors. We've been triggering criminal prosecutors in several tens of countries or international courts in the US we are having a very interesting litigating experience. We decided to oppose in court the executive order to dismantle usagm. So we went alongside journalist of Voice of America triggering the federal judge who's been delivering positive decision in favor of US and journalists opposing what has been done and also contributing to sensitizing members of Congress in deciding to resume the funding of usagm.
- [11:03]
Imogen Folkes
I'm really interested when you talk about not just being reactive, but proactive and fighting back because I do wonder whether media organizations and journalists, have we been a bit slow to see the danger, particularly when we think of the world we live in now with AI and social media.
- [11:27]
Antoine Bernard
Certainly we've been slow. We, I mean we journalists and journalism. Yes, we've been slow. We're not the only ones, especially when you refer to social media platforms. For years they've been seen as the alpha and omega of the new global information space. Fantastic. It took quite a long time and a few scandals that journalists have revealed for democracies to realize that that was for profit companies that were making just business on using our data and actually now pursuing a political agenda. So fighting back on that means for RSF two things. One, going to court. Actually we've been fighting criminal complaints, including against ex Twitter for aiding and abating actually the Kremlin's war propaganda scheme through what is called as the Matryoshka scheme or the Doppelganger schemes. But the other way forward is to develop a new mode of protection. It's not only about generalist safety, it's about having guaranteed citizens rights to access a plurality of trustworthy media of trustworthy sources of information. That is the main problem globally. There are 75% of our fellow citizens in the world that have a huge or a major problem to access media. And this has come all say into democratic societies where we see how platforms have captured our information space. We succeeded into this thanks to a very important development in EU law. That's the European Media Freedom Act.
- [13:18]
Imogen Folkes
I'm quite interested in the tension between, particularly the way that the phrases are used now what is termed in particularly in the United States, free speech and press freedom. Because we have on social media and the tech giants basically saying anybody can say whatever they like, even if it's highly offensive, incitement to violence, incitement to sexual violence. The very same people don't really seem to support press freedom.
- [13:52]
Antoine Bernard
It's really interesting that you highlight that point. I would have done it indeed, because for rsf, it's an absolutely major issue that needs to be addressed. First Amendment protects free speech and freedom of the press. Very strangely, the second part of the sentence has been disappearing from the political language that has been used and interestingly used by President Trump, equally by President Putin, equally by a number of far right leaders in democracies, equally by Erdogan, Sisi and Xi Jinping. That's a very commonality between them, according to whom everything is justified in the name of free speech and freedom of expression. Accordingly, we journalists and RSF in particular, by the way, have turned into the new censors. Censorship is us following that course of thinking. So it is a real challenge. We need to explain and journalists need to show why and how practicing journalism cannot be turned into a freedom of expression only challenge. It is a commitment to facts. So it's quite different from the mere freedom of expression fundamental, of course, of any citizen. It's different.
- [15:37]
Imogen Folkes
Antoine Bernard of Reporters Without Borders. His point about facts brings me to our next guest because as any professional journalist listening will know, facts have become something of a flexible commodity. We all remember White House adviser Kellyanne Conway defending President Trump when, during his first term, some journalists questioned the truth of his statements. The president was, Conway said, presenting alternative facts. How can we have an informed debate about the big challenges we face in if we can't agree on basic facts, which are supposed to be neutral evidence and science based, not changeable because of political whims? Chris Morris, former journalist, now heads Full Fact, an organization dedicating to finding and exposing mis and disinformation in a bid to challenge the harm it can do.
- [16:38]
Chris Morris
We started with a fairly narrow remit, actually. This was back in 2010. It was set up essentially to think about trying to raise standards in public life with the slightly revolutionary idea that if politicians said something that wasn't true, they should correct the record and apologize. So it was very much focused on British politics and getting politicians to correct the record, checking their facts and making sure that they essentially help raise standards in public life. Because I think the general argument was that with public office comes public responsibility. Obviously in the 15, 16 years since then, the canvas on which we paint has become just a little bit broader. Social media, generative AI, everyone's their own content creator, the whole Internet flooded with false and misleading information. So we do a much wider range of things now. We did a lot on health issues during the pandemic, as I guess everyone did. But increasingly the stuff we're doing is looking at generative AI, whether it's on text, image or audio. And I guess we see our role as trying to persuade people that there is still some kind of shared reality on which we can have important national or international debates, because the fear is that we get to a place where no one believes anything they read or see or hear anywhere anymore.
- [18:02]
Imogen Folkes
That specifically AI is something I want to come onto in a minute. But as you said, things have actually really changed from 2010 to 2026. Do you think that now the chances of getting the public to agree that this is actually a Fact are less
- [18:24]
Chris Morris
than, then, you know, I think there are minorities, you could argue substantial minorities, but minorities nonetheless, who like to shout each other from each side of the social media chasm, yelling and getting angry. And as you say, we have our facts, you have your facts, Never the twain shall meet. I do still think there's, if you like, a silent majority who understand that it's important that we share some facts. We can have very different opinions. But if you can't have public debate based on some sort of shared body that stands up to statistical scrutiny, then you've got a big problem. Because if people don't believe you, they won't trust you. And if there's no trust, then there's no consent. And that's where democracy genuinely starts to falter. And it can sound a bit melodramatic to say that, but I do think we're actually fighting for the kind of societies we want to be. And partly we're fighting against bad actors wherever they may come from. And partly we are fighting against the big tech companies who are the most powerful organizations the world has ever seen. I mean, I'm reading a book at the moment, it's all about the history of the nation state. And it makes the point that the big tech companies are the most powerful new geopolitical entities since the nation states were created in the 18th century. That's the kind of revolutionary moment we are at. And while those companies can do some good things, the products they make, the algorithms they are based on, are all about engagement, not about factuality, because engagement is what makes money. And as societies, we think, I think that we have to sort of take back control of that, but. And say no, we don't want that. We actually want societies that are based on some sort of intelligent conversation and debate.
- [20:08]
Imogen Folkes
So if we agree that limits to press freedom or disinformation getting in the way of professional journalists being trusted, as they were traditionally, the tech giants, they know their power. What would you say, do you think is the biggest threat? Is it big tech? Is it authoritarian government? I mean, we see there's virtually no freedom of the press in Russia now. Orban was making. Having a good crack at it. And we see in the US as well that the, the White House is bullying and threatening the media.
- [20:44]
Chris Morris
Yeah, I think, I guess we're kind of used to it in Russia, aren't we? Obviously, the big surprise, the shock last year, was it happening in the United States, and the fact that Vice President Vance came to Europe in, what was it, February last year, I think and essentially said you in Europe, you're censoring your own people. Anyone checking facts is censoring their own people. Misinformation is an old, I think he called it an ugly Soviet era word. And anyone using it is trying to tell you what to think. That was pretty depressing.
- [21:13]
Imogen Folkes
Shocking, actually. I found it.
- [21:15]
Chris Morris
Well, it was shocking and it had an impact on the tech companies who suddenly became flag waving American companies determined to stay out of the crosshairs of the White House, if you like. If you talk about press freedom, the idea that you have a US administration saying checking facts is censorship, that's pretty chilling. And something in the end that we have to fight against. I mean, as I say, we're a charity. Impartiality is part of our charitable object. But we are always very clear. We will not be impartial on the principle that facts matter. And if there are people who speak against them and say that they're not important and that all that matters is the narrative, whether it's fact or fiction, then that's something that we will kind of plant a flag in the sand to oppose.
- [21:59]
Imogen Folkes
So there was a moment, though, wasn't there, when the big Silicon Valley tech companies were moving or being pressured towards more probity. And that seems to have faded.
- [22:12]
Chris Morris
It appears to be cyclical with the, the whims of whoever's sitting in the White House. When there was concern about the accuracy of information on social media, they responded. But they were essentially given the green light last year by the second Trump administration to ignore things like moderating content. It was, it was a very kind of ultra capitalist, free for all version of looking after information. And one thing it's really important to understand, because if you're talking about press freedom, regulating information is a really difficult thing to do. Well, getting the right balance between the absolute need to protect freedom of expression, but also the need to protect people from harm online is really difficult. We've seen those debates in Britain during the passage of what's become the Online Safety Act. There have been similar debates across Europe with EU legislation like the Digital Services Act. The current American administration hates legislation like that.
- [23:09]
Imogen Folkes
Oh yeah. That's why they are so critical of Europe. It's got nothing about, it's not really got anything to do with losing our civilization. It's got to do with letting their big tech companies roam free.
- [23:22]
Chris Morris
Exactly. And I think therefore, we as society should decide how we want to do that. You know, as I say, if regulating information is really difficult, I would rather it be done by the Representatives we all elect to our parliaments than by tech executives in Silicon Valley or indeed in Beijing. Because at the moment we are subcontracting too many of those decisions to the tech executives and essentially their bottom line always will be, I understand it, they are companies designed to make a profit. Their bottom line is the share price
- [23:56]
Imogen Folkes
coming back to what some people call us or what you used to be and I still am the legacy media. You know, you imagine yourself in a dinosaur suit. I just wonder, you know, you worked for the BBC. Have these companies missed a trick? Were they not able to see what could develop with social media? And now AI I think they saw it.
- [24:22]
Chris Morris
But I always regarded the BBC as a bit of a supertanker. It doesn't change course very quickly. I now work in a little speedboat. We're not as big as they are, we're never going to have as much impact, but we can zip around a bit more quickly, we can change direction, we can be more, more agile. What I think is both because of the politics but also really because of the technology. I think historians will look back in a couple of hundred years and see this period, from roughly the beginning of this century for until when, until maybe the middle of the century as a genuine revolutionary period. I don't know what, I'm not sure what they're going to call it, but it is one of those moments that historians will look back on. So it's really hard for individuals sometimes to see that and sometimes the most visionary ones are the ones who make the most money and they're not always running public service broadcasting organisations.
- [25:09]
Imogen Folkes
But I'm also wondering whether there has not been a good enough defence of the profession of journalism. Have the big media companies not defended enough what it is they do?
- [25:22]
Chris Morris
I think they could have done a better job. I also think there have been extended long running campaigns against them, people who seek to undermine them. And one thing I say quite a lot is, look, skepticism is good, right? Asking questions is really good. It's kind of what democracies are based on. But those who seek to undermine things like public service media organizations, things like that idea of a shared reality we can all debate. They want that skepticism to drip over into cynicism because when you make people really cynical then they don't care. That's, I think, the dividing line we are rapidly approaching. Let's keep the skepticism, let's not make everyone so cynical that they just give up. I think we're in danger of getting to that point. I just don't believe we Are there yet? And there's a bit of an arms race when it comes to information. I think we have to accept at the moment the bad guys are winning because every time you put up another good defense, it might be something like, let's find an ingenious way to watermark original video so people can see whether it's been altered or not by AI. But every time somebody does that within days, and it's sometimes just a teenager in their back bedroom, people find a way around it and find a way to subvert new defenses. So that essentially that kind of cut and thrust is going on all the time. But I also think technology is producing, you know, let's not just bash technology. The new technology around at the moment is amazing. It has the potential to transform so many parts of our society for good. But it also brings with it massive challenges. It's really interesting right right now, one of the things a lot of people are thinking about is how you train the large language models. You know, the models which sit behind things like ChatGPT or Gemini or Claude. And during the last elections in Germany, for example, there were thousands and thousands of websites created. It looked like it was almost certainly a Russian influence operation. And the people creating those websites didn't actually care if anyone went to read them. They just figured out if we create enough of them, they will be sucked up into the training models for the large language models and then get spat out at the other end. Because if you put garbage in somewhere, you're going to get garbage out. And so it's not just about are people even going to these places anymore? It's is it being used to train the places where people are going for information, which increasingly is going to be those new chat interfaces based on generative AI. So all sorts of challenges. But I spent a lot of time reporting from around the world, went to some quite bad places, as you know, Imogen and I just came out of all that still believing there are more good people in the world than bad. And if you can train the models to do bad things, you can also train them to do good things. And that's one of the things we actually do. At full fact, we're seen as a fact checking charity. But we do way more than just if you like waiting for bad information to appear and then sort of whack a mole style knocking on the head and say, no, that's incorrect. We do try and get involved with things like training those models in the first place place to make sure good information emerges.
- [28:25]
Imogen Folkes
Chris Morris of Full Fact. And I'd urge anyone curious to know more about how facts are checked or doubtful about some of the claims we hear these days from government leaders. Take a look at full facts website. Now for our final interview, we'll talk to you. Irene Khan, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression. She's been taking a close interest in the challenges currently facing journalists and shares the concerns we heard from Antoine Bernard and Chris Morris. So what I began by asking her, can we, or indeed the UN do to defend journalism?
- [29:10]
Irene Khan
Well, I think the most important thing that can be done here is to ensure that journalists can work independently. That means without undue political influence or pressure, that they are safe and that their access and their sources are protected. And also I think what needs to be done more and more is also ensuring that the media sector stays healthy. It is under huge pressure from digital technology. It's losing revenue. And of course, the financial viability of the sector also affects media freedom very much. And we've seen, for example, what is called media deserts in the US and some other countries where local media has disappeared. News is coming through digital platforms to people, even in remote villages in Africa and Asia. So there's a huge revolution that's going on in the media sector that makes the life of journalists on the ground, in the field very, very difficult. At the same time, the importance of journalism is going up. We only have to look at the stories that investigative journalists are daily breaking about the ways in which governments are failing to live up to their obligations, the way in which companies and the way in which corruption is sweeping large swaths of our politics and our economies. So the role of journalism has never been more important. The role of journalists has never been under such pressure, and the sector itself is suffering. So these, these are very, very important times to take a deep breath and make sure that freedom of expression and media freedom as part of that is protected by, because it is an extremely important pillar of democracy.
- [31:08]
Imogen Folkes
Let's look specifically at attacks. Seems some of them targeted attacks in which journalists are killed. How would you like to get accountability for that? Should we see perhaps specifically the killing of journalists as a. As a war crime?
- [31:27]
Irene Khan
Well, certainly in armed conflicts, journalists are treated under international humanitarian law as civilians, and targeting of civilians is a war crime. So targeting of journalists should be seen, is seen by law as a war crime. The problem is that opportunities to actually prosecute and hold the parties to the conflict accountable isn't there. That's the real problem. And that impunity then encourages more killings. We have seen that in Gaza. We've seen in Gaza, actually, on the one hand, Israel blocking access of international media, that exposes local journalists to even greater pressure. And yet when those local journalists have been doing their jobs, they have been killed like flies. They've been targeted, deliberately targeted, which Israel has admitted in a number of cases on the grounds that they were directly participating in hostilities. But Israel has consistently failed to provide convincing evidence of such participation. So it's basically been assassination. Israel has had a free hand at assassinating many journalists.
- [32:38]
Imogen Folkes
But is there more that we could
- [32:40]
Irene Khan
do to get accountability for that? Certainly, I think there's much more that can be done. First of all, putting pressure on Israel to investigate, to allow independent investigation of these killings. That I don't think the international community has done much on that. And certainly the allies of Israel could have and should do much more to put pressure. I'm using Israel as an example. But we have seen this happening also in the context of Ukraine. We've seen this happening in other parts of the world, too. And of course, there are journalists killed outside conflict in domestic situations. For example, in Mexico, when they investigated drug cartels, they come under pressure. And when those cartels kill journalists, it's the failure of the state, failure first to protect them and secondly failure then to hold the perpetrators accountable. So there's a double failure. They're happening both in times of war and in times of peace.
- [33:41]
Imogen Folkes
We could just broaden this conversation out a bit to other types of pressure on journalists. We've seen it basically in shutdown of independent media in Russia, for example, attempts in Hungary. Now in the United States, we see the law being used to prosecute journalists and that some of these media organizations are kind of bowing to the pressure. What do you think we can do about that?
- [34:11]
Irene Khan
Well, I think you've raised a very interesting problem. You know, when a journalist is killed, it hits the news, and therefore there's a lot of negative public opinion against the killers, against the government. But when either governments or companies or private individuals use the law to harass journalists, then that doesn't hit the news. Increasingly, what we are seeing, and you've given the example of the US which is particularly blatant, increasingly we are seeing rich, powerful individuals, oligarchs or politicians or even celebrities bringing outrageous claims for defamation in court against journalists. So these are called strategic litigation against public participation. Slap. What happens is if an individual journalist is sued for a few million dollars, it destroys the individual. Individual journalists are not very rich, as you probably know from your own experience. And then of Course, media companies get worried, editors become cautious. And so it has a huge chilling effect. And most of these cases that are brought are not brought in order to actually pursue a violation of rights. It's basically brought to chill expression and to intimidate journalists. So every time you pick up your pen or the laptop, start working on the laptop, you know, you are thinking, are you saying something here that could actually upset someone wealthy, powerful, and that person will come against. Against you? We've seen cases of individuals, for example, in the uk but now what we are seeing in the US Is a concerted attempt by the most powerful man in the U.S. the president of the United States, actually bringing cases against media companies, $2 billion against the wall Street Journal, for example. Although, to also be fair to the US System, the courts have rejected that particular case. And I hope the courts will come back very strongly because this is also an abuse of the judicial system. It's an abuse of journalism, but it's also an abuse of the judicial system. When cases like this come, it distorts the whole meaning of justice, of course. It adds to the burden to the workload of courts, and it sends a huge message to people, journalists, the public, that justice can be manipulated for the rich and wealthy.
- [36:37]
Imogen Folkes
How do you assess the debate over freedom of expression, though? I mean, you are the special Rapporteur for freedom of expression. Part of your role is to examine where it's being repressed and how it can be upheld. And yet we have this pressure on journalists to keep them quiet, it seems. And yet this other debate around what in America we call it free speech, that people should be allowed to say whatever they like. We've had the. The vice president, J.D. vance, last year berating Europe, telling us that free speech was being undermined. How do you see that debate? Because it's, it's a tricky one if you're the Special Rapporteur for freedom of expression.
- [37:24]
Irene Khan
Indeed it is, because it turns freedom of expression on his head, actually. Because what is actually happening here, yes, you have the First Amendment warriors talking about freedom of speech without any limit. But what they actually mean is freedom of speech for me, but not for you. Because when that happens, when you have freedom of speech without any barriers, then what happens is we have seen a surge of hate speech attacks against migrants, terrible misogynist attacks against women politicians, women leaders, and of course, against religious and ethnic groups. So you have, in that environment, with freedom of speech, with no holds barred, you actually, it is again used by powerful speakers with pulpits, political or otherwise. They use Their freedom of speech to attack other people. And that intimidates groups. And we've actually seen a chilling of speech that happens because these groups are marginalized and they feel under attack and they can't participate in public life. So you actually reduce diversity in public life. Unfortunately, that's the approach that is being followed particularly very aggressively by the United States. I'm just coming from Germany, where the AfD wanted to meet with me. And they have also argued along the US Lines that they feel they are being censored by the government when they cannot say what they want. That is why under international law, freedom of expression is a limited right. It's a broad right, but it can be restricted in order to protect the rights and reputation of other people. It can be restricted in order to protect national security, public order, public health, as we saw during COVID and public morals. These are tricky grounds because public morals creates problems. But what international law, of course, also says is that these restrictions must be necessary and proportionate, and they must be lawful, which means they must be clear, they must be precise, so that, you know, there isn't a huge area left, discretion left, for the government to abuse the laws. But freedom of expression can be restricted, and it must be prohibited. Not just restricted, prohibited when it amounts to advocacy of racial, religious, and national hatred and also misogyny to incite violence against groups. So incitement is not free speech. Hate speech is not free speech. And these limits need to be respected, because otherwise you don't have an equal level playing field of freedom of expression. You know, the powerful or vindictive groups, certain, I would call, say the far right or the far left in the political field, various groups with power in their hands, various groups with big megaphones in their hands go out and can intimidate others. So what we want is a level playing field and safe spaces where all kinds of people can express their views, because otherwise it's not democratic.
- [40:33]
Imogen Folkes
You mentioned the level playing field there. I mean, journalists always. It's our job to ask questions. Do we need to ask some questions of ourselves? Have we been too slow to counter this argument about free speech, which is coming primarily from the tech giants who are in a way in competition with us? Are there things that we could do better to defend ourselves?
- [40:59]
Irene Khan
Yes, I think certainly you can. I would say that as the journalists, you have to recognize the challenges of technology that is coming from ChatGPT to all sorts of things. And I think you need to be prepared for this new world. What you have is actually your ability to select Information to investigate, to probe. I don't think AI will replace that. So I think you need to take confidence from that and you need to actually probably work better among yourselves. Journalists tend to be loners, tend to be competitive, and I think the profession as such now has to create a much more collaborative and cooperative approach to address what I mentioned earlier, the financial viability, because if you're not financially viable, you're not going to be able to compete with big tech.
- [41:47]
Imogen Folkes
So, as we heard from all three of our guests today, big challenges facing journalism. Still, in the hope of ending on a more optimistic note, I asked Antoine, Chris and Irene what they would celebrate on Press Freedom Day.
- [42:02]
Antoine Bernard
I am very motivated by how I see journalists renewing their journalism, demonstrating bravery, courage, imagination in the most dangerous and complex situations globally and finding ways to continue reporting facts to their audience. Because this is what they are just obsessed with, bringing facts to their audience. And that is extremely, extremely rewarding and moving.
- [42:38]
Chris Morris
I was recently at the International Journalism Festival in Perugia. You know, it's beautiful Italian hilltop city where once a year journalists from all over the world gather to sort of trying to talk about all these issues. And the one thing that struck me, you know, towards the end of my journalistic career was the energy, the enthusiasm and the brilliance, if you like, of a younger generation. So I think if there's one thing I would celebrate on Press Freedom Day is there will be another generation, there is another generation arriving with new ideas, with new ways to use technology effectively who are going to carry the torch forward. So I, as I say before, I am an optimist. I've always been a glass half full person, if you like, and there are battles ahead, but I think they are battles we can win and they're certainly worth winning.
- [43:25]
Irene Khan
I think you have to celebrate the courage of journalists. When I think of this local journalists that going out into dangerous places. When I think about those journalists who have put their lives on the line for their profession every day, I think we have to celebrate their courage. We have to celebrate their courage and we have to stand up and say, journalism is not a crime, it's an essential pillar of democracy. And all of us will be affected if journalism, if that pillar is weakened. So it matters to all of us to support journalists, independent public interest journalists, I would say.
- [44:07]
Imogen Folkes
And that brings us to the end of this edition of Inside Geneva. My thanks to Antoine, Chris and Irene for their time and their perspectives. Join us next time when we focus on landmines. The convention banning anti personnel landmines is credited with saving thousands of lives. So why are some countries abandoning it and what are the consequences?
- [44:31]
Landmine Expert
I've spent over 30 years in this sector, and for 25 years, years we were really winning the battle. We were clearing way more mines and way more explosive devices than were being used. And in the last five years, we have seen that reversed catastrophically. And it is going to cost many millions, if not billions of dollars to clean up the mess that has been made in the last five years. Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe, and the fact that at the moment there are billions of square meters of land that are kind of suspected of being contaminated, that means that land can't be farmed. That absence of productivity is affecting global food prices. It's affecting every person in the world. You're paying more for your bread, more for your pasta, more for your fuel because of the actual and the perceived mine contamination problem in Ukraine.
- [45:26]
Imogen Folkes
That's out on the May 12th. Do join us then on Inside Geneva. A reminder you've been listening to Inside Geneva, a Swiss info production. You can subscribe to us and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Check out our previous episodes, how the International Red Cross Unites Prisoners of War with Their Families or why Survivors of Human Human Rights Violations Turn to the UN In Geneva for Justice. I'm Imogen, folks. Thanks again for listening.