Not so long ago we journalists were discussing whether the Congress of Deputies should withdraw the press credentials of certain activists and agitators disguised as informants. In the month of July, a reform of the regulations was approved to prevent the instigators of hatred from moving at will through the seat of popular sovereignty by spreading hoaxessome of them with racist, sexist and xenophobic content.
For those complicit media that have seen this decision as a false curtailment of freedom of expression and information, it is worth saying that these apprentice provocateurs should never have obtained the access credential. And taking it back just reestablish the minimum respect for good journalistic practices and the professional decorum required in an institution such as the Congress of Deputies. Puppets of power on the sidelines.
Since Donald Trump’s return to the White House, The siege on press freedom in the US is constantwith constant and live insults and threats. In addition, Trump wants the credentials and visas for foreign correspondents to be reviewed every six months. Similar is intended with permits for scientists. The next step, the most obvious, is self-censorship. Both that of informants and that of researchers, whose freedom to choose their paths is essential for advancement and progress.
Something similar is being pursued in the Pentagon, a clear center of sensitive information, where we have witnessed an almost general rebellion of the media, including those related to Trump, who have refused to abide by the new rules that are intended to be imposed. The purpose is to prohibit journalists from publishing any material that has not been approved by government officials. That is, prior censorship of content.
The Pentagon’s policy change represents an unprecedented advance in the offensive against the press and a historic change with respect to the policies of democratic governments. Specifically in the US, which paves the way and serves as a guide to others. Attacks on journalism, like free science, must be considered a national security problem because anything that undermines press freedom undermines national security. And progress.
Dozens of media outlets have announced that they will not sign the Pentagon policy. Fox, Newsmax and the Daily Caller, all conservative outlets, also reject it. And its journalists have surrendered their press credentials rather than accept the new policy. What it’s basically saying is that if you publish something that’s not in the press release, that’s not the official Pentagon statement, you can be held liable. Objective: absolute control over the free press.
It is not unusual for a government to consider the press as an adversary . The qualitative leap is that a scorched earth strategy is applied. What is uncertain is the impact it will have because the White House has rarely been successful in its efforts to censor the media. Until now, courts have been raising dams to preserve the sphere of an adversarial press as essential to democracy. Even at the height of the Vietnam War, the government was not allowed to prevent The New York Times from publishing leaked documents detailing American involvement in the conflict. Despite his sensitive nature.
In the academic field, the “Stand Up for Science” movement, organized in the United States to defend freedom, has had its replicas, for example, in France. The objective, to stop attacks against scientists and scientific researchwhich have intensified to the point of becoming a systematic attack, equivalent to a coup d’état against science.
Although Donald Trump is often portrayed as erratic (if not weathervane), his policies in this have followed a consistent trajectory. Has declared “war” on evidence-based national policymaking and to scientific diplomacy in foreign affairs, as demonstrated by several of its first actions. While the Trump administration is not the only force undermining academia globally, its actions are shocking coming from the world’s leading scientific superpower.
Neither of the world’s two main scientific superpowers—Washington and Beijing—is in a position to defend academic freedom.. China, having failed to consolidate a liberal constitutional tradition and academic independence since the 1920s, restricts academic freedom to the limits of a one-party regime.
And caught between these rival scientific giants—both partners and competitors— “old” Europe and like-minded countries remain the only actors capable of setting new standards for academic freedom. A decisive step towards its legal protection would be the formal recognition by the Nobel Committees for Peace and Science of the fundamental role of academic freedom, both in guaranteeing scientific excellence and in being a pillar of free and democratic societies.
Academic freedom in the European Union remains relatively high compared to the rest of the world. However, nine EU Member States are below the regional average, and in eight of them it has fallen over the last decade, indicating a gradual erosion of this fundamental value. Hungary ranks last among EU countries, ranking in the bottom 20% to 30% globally.
Freedom of expression, a fundamental pillar of academic freedom, has long been established as a human right, overcoming centuries of censorship and authoritarian control. Instead, academic freedom is a more recent principle that grants academics, recognized by their peers, the right and responsibility to research and teach freely in the pursuit of knowledge. Like freedom of the press for journalists, it is a right granted to a few for the benefit of all. It is not, therefore, a simple matter of credentials.
The post Coup d’état on information… and science appeared first on Veritas News.
