3-Apr-2020:  Global Press Freedom Index 2020 is released

The Paris based Reporters Without Borders (RSF) publishes annually a World Press Freedom Index (WPFI) purporting to evaluate the level of freedom available to the media in 180 countries. From a rank of 80 in the inaugural WPFI report, 2002, India’s rank fell to 122 in 2010 and 131 in 2012. The recently released 2020 WPFI has ranked India at 142, down 2 places from 2019, has been a subject of much discussion and debate amongst media persons, political parties, Governments, bureaucrats and also on social media, and thus merits a closer look at the WPFI methodology and functioning.

The WPFI 2020 is compiled on the basis of an online questionnaire comprising 83 questions, answered by 18 freedom of expression NGOs, many of which are funded by the RSF, and a network of around 150 correspondents, and researchers, jurists and human rights activists, usually selected by the correspondents. This qualitative questionnaire is used to calculate scores on six parameters in the index – pluralism, media independence, media environment and self-censorship, legislative framework, transparency and quality of infrastructure that support production of news and information. This score is combined with quantitative data on abuses and acts of violence against journalists, to arrive at the overall WPFI score.

Multiple countries and commentators have raised concerns with both the WPFI criteria, methodology and also about RSF’s perceived biases, lack of objectivity in ranking and lack of transparency. One of the primary concerns raised has been the opaqueness of the WPFI survey. Question-wise or category-wise scores used in computing scores for the six parameters are not made public, nor is the list of respondents provided. Similarly, clearly defined, credible sources are not available for quantitative data on abuse and violence against journalists, nor is any attempt made to clarify such data with Government or country-wise sources in any of the countries being ranked. When a limited sample of approximately 150 respondents and 18 NGOs are asked to analyse and respond to 83 questions for each country, the chances of biases and disconnect with the realities are high. On an average, 1 respondent is asked to provide parameter-wise assessments for 1 country; the implausibility of one respondent being able accurately assess press freedom in a country render the WPFI rankings highly subjective at best. Indeed, this might be one of the reasons behind RSF’s reluctance in sharing parameter scores or even anonymised country-wise responses.

Not surprisingly, a former Singapore PM had called1 the WPFI “ a subjective measure computed through the prism of western liberals.” Academics and press professionals in the UK2 have stated “ Press freedom Indices tend to default to a homogenous view of mass media which then facilitates comparison between countries. The challenge is that media is an aggregate term. It neatly compresses a dynamic and diverse range of platforms into a single variable. While this consolidated view provides a means to speak generally about a country’s “media environment,” it also masks significant differences between types of media (platforms), between outlets (within and across platforms) and between those who own and control them. ” The SAB-UNESCO Chair of Media and Democracy at Rhodes University3 had stated “the Freedom of the Press Index (Freedom House) has a neo-liberal predisposition towards the state as predatory, always encroaching on media freedom and independence” – a similar conclusion may also be drawn regarding the WPFI.

There are similar allegations of biases in some questions in the RSF questionnaire. For instance, in the question “Does media report the negative side of government policies?” a yes answer is evidence of watchdog journalism, whereas a negative answer could merely be due to a political agenda of the media organization; hence, the question may not directly indicate the biases of media organizations. Similarly, the questionnaire is limited to asking whether there are private media companies and whether they are free to determine their editorial line. There are no questions about media ownership or about their economic concentration in private hands4.

The WPFI has generally ranked lower developing countries which have government media ownership, thereby negating the state’s responsibility of being a disseminator of information and creator of awareness, especially in the global south. Conversely, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Sweden which are at the top 4 ranks of the WPFI 2020 provide direct subsidies to the press, leaving the WPFI process and methodology open to criticism on grounds of needless and indefensible differentiation between developed and developing countries. Latin American countries have often accused the RSF of spying at the behest of the US; a Secretary General of the RSF had resigned over an agreement with the Centre for a free Cuba, which has its origins in the Cuban dissident movement5.

The last annual report available on the RSF website is for 2018. As per the report, there are no members from South Asia in its Board of Directors and Administration Board. Author Taslima Nasreen is the only person of Asian origin on its Emeritus Board, despite India, China and Afghanistan being amongst its list of priority countries. The website of the RSF also does not provide details about its funding sources and quantum of funding received from various sources. Various media reports have mentioned various Governments, multilateral agencies and agencies such as Soros Foundation as its donors, raising questions about its independence, motivations and ideological moorings. The WPFI at present has little direct value for both citizens and Governments in most countries, except perhaps for the Governments which fund it.

SDG Target 16.10 enjoins governments and all stakeholders to ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements. An objective measure of press freedom across countries and a well-coordinated multi-stakeholder approach towards establishing press freedoms are essential towards improving democratic outcomes like transparency, accountability, people’s participation etc. With these overarching goals in mind, Reporters Without Borders must use its unique position and expertise to evolve a globally acceptable definition of press freedom by engaging with all countries which it ranks and strive to remove inconsistencies and biases in its ranking methodology and provide clarity on its funding sources. The UNESCO in 2012 had defined journalists as “people who observe, describe, document and analyze events and document and analyze statements, policies and any proposal that may affect society, in order to systematize that information and gather facts and analysis to inform the sectors of the society or the society as a whole6.” RSF should update its definition of press accordingly and account in its ranking methodology for differences between print, electronic and TV journalists, and social media commentators.

The Press Council of India (PCI), which acts a watchdog of the press, by the press and for the press had rejected India’s ranking in the 2018 WPFI, stating that there was a lack of clarity on the inputs for the rankings, which were based solely on perception and not on statistical data. The PCI has written a number of times since 2015 to the RSF to understand how the index is prepared and sought discussions with them to know the inputs that weighed in the ranking so that remedial steps could be taken to smoothen the functioning of the media, but has not received a reply7. At present, it appears that further engagement by the Government with the RSF may yield only marginal returns and hence, should be avoided. RSF’s opaque and biased rankings reduces its role as a major policy making aid until the RSF is able to develop a consensual definition of press freedom, along with transparent parameters and credible data sources to measure such freedoms.

18-Apr-2019: India drops down on World Press Freedom Index

India has dropped two places on a global press freedom index to be ranked 140th out of 180 countries in the annual Reporters Without Borders analysis.

The World Press Freedom Index 2019', topped by Norway, finds an increased sense of hostility towards journalists across the world, with violent attacks in India leading to at least six Indian journalists being killed in the line of their work last year.

Violence against journalists including police violence, attacks by Maoist fighters and reprisals by criminal groups or corrupt politicians is one of the most striking characteristics of the current state of press freedom in India. At least six Indian journalists were killed in connection with their work in 2018.

These murders highlighted the many dangers that Indian journalists face, especially those working for non-English-language media outlets in rural areas. Attacks against journalists by supporters of ruling BJP increased in the run-up to general elections in the spring of 2019, the analysis alleged.

Paris-based Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF), or Reporters Without Borders, is a non-profit organisation that works to document and combat attacks on journalists around the world. In its 2019 index, RSF finds that hatred of journalists has degenerated into violence, contributing to an increase in fear around the world.

In reference to India, it found an alarming rate of coordinated hate campaigns waged on social networks against journalists who dare to speak or write about subjects that annoy Hindutva.

Coverage of regions that the authorities regard as sensitive, such as Kashmir, continues to be very difficult. Foreign reporters are barred from Kashmir and the Internet is often disconnected there.

South Asia in general features poorly on the index, with Pakistan dropping three places to 142, and Bangladesh dropping four places to 150. The number of countries regarded as safe, where journalists can work in complete security, continues to decline, while authoritarian regimes continue to tighten their grip on the media.

Norway is ranked first in the 2019 Index for the third year running while Finland (up two places) has taken second place from the Netherlands (down one at 4th). An increase in cyber-harassment caused Sweden (third) to lose one place. In Africa, the rankings of Ethiopia (up 40 at 110th) and Gambia (up 30 at 92nd) have significantly improved from last year's Index. At the bottom of the Index, both Vietnam (176th) and China (177th) have fallen one place and Turkmenistan (down two at 180th) is now last, replacing North Korea (up one at 179th).

3-May-2017: World Press Freedom Index for the year 2017 has been released.

India is ranked 136, three points down from 133. The report blames the rise of Hindu nationalism for the drop in ranking.

Norway is at the top and North Korea at the bottom of the 180 long list of nations. After six years at the top, Finland has surrendered its No. 1 position due to political pressure and conflicts of interests. Sweden has risen six places to take 2nd position.

The Index’s bottom five also include Turkmenistan (178th), one of the world’s most repressive and self-isolated dictatorships, which keeps increasing its persecution of journalists, and Syria (177th), driven by a never-ending war and still the deadliest country for journalists, who are targeted by both its ruthless dictator and Jihadi rebels.

Major observations in the report:

RSF’s latest World Press Freedom Index highlights the danger of a tipping point in the state of media freedom, especially in leading democratic countries.

The obsession with surveillance and violations of the right to the confidentiality of sources have contributed to the continuing decline of many countries previously regarded as virtuous. Media freedom has never been so threatened and RSF’s “global indicator” has never been so high (3872). This measure of the overall level of media freedom constraints and violations worldwide has risen 14% in the span of five years.

The Middle East and North Africa region, which has ongoing wars in Yemen (down 4 at 166th) as well as Syria, continues to be the world’s most difficult and dangerous region for journalists.

Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the second worst region, does not lag far behind. Nearly two third of its countries are ranked below or around the 150th mark in the Index.

The Asia-Pacific region is the third worst violator overall but holds many of the worst kinds of records. Two of its countries, China (176th) and Vietnam (175th), are the world’s biggest prisons for journalists and bloggers.

It has some of the most dangerous countries for journalists: Pakistan (139th), Philippines (127th) and Bangladesh (146th).

11-Feb-2020: State of the World's Children Report 2019

As per UNICEF's State of the World's Children Report 2019, the Under 5 Mortality Rate in India is 37 per 1,000 live births against Global average of 39 per 1,000 live births in 2018, which translates to more than 8 lakhs under 5 deaths in India.

As per the Sample Registration System (SRS) 2010-13 report of Registrar General of India, major causes of child mortality in India are: Prematurity & low birth weight (29.8%), Pneumonia (17.1%), Diarrheal diseases (8.6%), Other non-communicable diseases (8.3%), Birth asphyxia & birth trauma (8.2%), Injuries (4.6%), Congenital anomalies (4.4%), Ill-defined or cause unknown (4.4%), Acute bacterial sepsis and severe infections (3.6%), Fever of unknown origin (2.5%), All Other Remaining Causes (8.4%).

As per the UNICEF 2019 report, Globalization, urbanization, inequities, humanitarian crises and climate shocks are driving unprecedented negative changes in the nutrition situation of children around the world.

Government of India has launched POSHAN (Prime Minister Overarching Scheme for Holistic Nourishment) Abhiyaan, to address malnutrition challenges in India by engaging all the important stakeholders in a convergent approach. The goals of POSHAN Abhiyaan is to prevent and reduce stunting, underweight and low birth weight by 2% per annum and the reduction of anemia by 3% per annum.

The Government of India has also launched several schemes under the aegis of Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) to tackle malnutrition in the country including Anganwadi Services, Scheme for Adolescent Girls (SAG) and Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojna (PMMVY) to improve the nutritional and health status of children in the age-group 0-6 years. The Anganwadi Services scheme provides a package of six services i.e. Supplementary Nutrition, Pre School Non-formal Education, Nutrition and Health Education, Immunization, Health checkups and referral services.

In order to address child mortality and morbidity, the Government of India is supporting all States/UTs under National Health Mission in implementation of Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, Child, Adolescent health and Nutrition (RMNCAH+N) strategy, which has following interventions:

1. Strengthening essential newborn care at all delivery points, establishment of Sick Newborn Care Units (SNCU), Newborn Stabilization Units (NBSU) and Kangaroo Mother Care (KMC) units for care of sick and small babies.
2. Home Based Newborn Care (HBNC) and Home-Based Care of Young Children (HBYC) by ASHAs to improve child rearing practices and to identify sick new-born and young children.
3. Early initiation and exclusive breastfeeding for first six months and appropriate Infant and Young Child Feeding (IYCF) practices are promoted under Mothers’ Absolute Affection (MAA) in convergence with Ministry of Women and Child Development.
4. Universal Immunization Programme (UIP) is being supported to provide vaccination to children against life threatening diseases such as Tuberculosis, Diphtheria, Pertussis, Polio, Tetanus, Hepatitis B, Measles, Rubella, Pneumonia and Meningitis caused by Haemophilus Influenzae B. The Rotavirus vaccination has also been rolled out in the country for prevention of Rota-viral diarrhoea. Mission Indradhanush is targeted to immunize children who are either unvaccinated or partially vaccinated i.e. those that have not been covered during the rounds of routine immunization for various reasons. Intensified Mission Indradhanush (IMI) 2.0 is rolled-out as per road-map for achieving 90% full immunization coverage across the country.
5. Nutrition Rehabilitation Centres (NRCs) have been set up at public health facilities to treat and manage the children with Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM) admitted with medical complications.
6. Defeat Diarrhoea (D2) initiative has been launched for promoting ORS and Zinc use and eliminating the diarrhoeal deaths by 2025.
7. Social Awareness and Actions to Neutralize Pneumonia Successfully (SAANS) initiative for reduction of Childhood morbidity and mortality due to Pneumonia.
8. Anaemia Mukt Bharat (AMB) strategy as a part of Poshan Abhiyan aims to strengthen the existing mechanisms and foster newer strategies to tackle anaemia, which include testing & treatment of anaemia in school going adolescents & pregnant women, addressing non nutritional causes of anaemia and a comprehensive communication strategy. National Deworming Day (NDD) is implemented biannually every year for deworming of children (one to nineteen year of age).
9. All the children from 0 to 18 years of age are screened for 30 health conditions classified into 4Ds - Diseases, Deficiencies, Defects and Developmental delay under “Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakaram” (RBSK) to improve the quality of survival and to reduce out of pocket expenditure of families. District early intervention centre (DEIC) at district health facility level are established for confirmation and management of the 4D’s.
10. Village Health Sanitation and Nutrition Days (VHSNDs) are observed for provision of maternal and child health services and awareness on maternal and child Health and nutrition education through mass and social media to improve healthy practices and to generate demand for service uptake.
11. Name based tracking of mothers and children till two years of age is done through RCH portal to ensure complete antenatal, intranatal, postnatal care and immunization as per schedule.
12. Promotion of Institutional deliveries through cash incentive under Janani SurakshaYojana (JSY) and Janani Shishu Suraksha Karyakaram (JSSK) which entitles all pregnant women delivering in public health institutions to absolutely free delivery including Caesarean section, post-natal care and treatment of sick infants up to one year of age. Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY) is another maternity benefit programme under which cash incentive is provided to pregnant women and lactating mothers.

15-Oct-2019: The State of the World’s Children 2019

For the first time in 20 years, UNICEF’s flagship report examines the issue of children, food and nutrition, providing a fresh perspective on a rapidly evolving challenge.

This 2019 edition of The State of the World’s Children (SOWC) examines the issue of children, food and nutrition, providing a fresh perspective on a rapidly evolving challenge. Despite progress in the past two decades, one third of children under age 5 are malnourished – stunted, wasted or overweight – while two thirds are at risk of malnutrition and hidden hunger because of the poor quality of their diets. At the center of this challenge is a broken food system that fails to provide children with the diets they need to grow healthy. This report also provides new data and analyses of malnutrition in the 21st century and outlines recommendations to put children’s rights at the heart of food systems.

The report has ranked countries in the order of ‘highest burden of death among children of under-5’ to the ‘lowest burden of death among children of under-5’. The report analyses the global state of children’s health vis-a-vis malnutrition, obesity, anaemia and other health issues.

Global scenario: One in three children under the age of five years — around 200 million children worldwide — are either undernourished or overweight. This puts them at risk of poor brain development, weak learning, low immunity, increased infections and, in many cases, death. It describes a triple burden of malnutrition: Undernutrition, hidden hunger caused by a lack of essential nutrients, and overweight among children under the age of five.

India specific:

1. In India, every second child is affected by some form of malnutrition.
2. 2. 35% of Indian children suffer from stunting due to lack of nutrition, 17% suffer from wasting, 33% are underweight and 2% are overweight.
3. Among countries in South Asia, India fares the worst (54%) on prevalence of children under five who are either stunted, wasted or overweight.
4. It has the highest burden of deaths among children under five per year.
5. One in five children under age 5 has vitamin A deficiency, which is a severe health problem in 20 states.
6. Every second woman in the country is anaemic, as are 40.5% children.
7. One in ten children are pre-diabetic.
8. Poverty, urbanisation as well as climate change are some of the factors that are driving poor diet.

Efforts by government are recognised: The report said POSHAN Abhiyaan or the National Nutrition Mission is playing a major role in improving nutrition indicators across India. The Anaemia Mukt Bharat programme to fight anaemic prevalence has been recognized as one of the best programmes implemented by governments across the world to address malnutrition. The 6X6X6 strategy (six target beneficiary groups, six interventions and six institutional mechanisms) of the programme has been highlighted for using anaemia testing and treatment as the entry point to provide information on healthy diets.

Afghanistan and Bangladesh have 49% and 46% children under five who are either stunted, wasted or overweight. Sri Lanka and the Maldives are the better performing countries in the region, at 28% and 32%, respectively.

UNICEF has laid out recommendations for nutritious, safe and affordable diets for children across the world:

1. Empower families to reduce demand for unhealthy food.
2. Incentivize food suppliers to provide healthy, affordable food.
3. Create accurate, easy-to-understand labelling.
4. Scale up nutrition by protecting water and sanitation systems.
5. Collect and analyzing quality date to track progress.