In the absence of systematic analyses of the development of press freedom measures, uncertainties in their reliability have persisted. A study undertaken by a team of American researchers and now published in the International Communication Gazette shows the consistency and accuracy of the major press freedom indicators.

Lee Becker and Tudor Vlad of the University of Georgia, and Nancy Nesser of James Madison University conducted an analysis of four major indicators of press freedom [by Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders (RSF), IREX and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)] that reveals considerable consistency among the four.

“For many years, the Freedom House measures were the only ones available. Many people have assumed a strong country bias, but we did not find one. The consistent findings are very reassuring,” Becker, co-author of the study, told RAP 21.

While the evaluation points at the accuracy of current indicators of press freedom, the authors did not stop short of suggesting improvements in their monitoring.

“The measures focus heavily on governmental constraints or the absence of them. We pointed out that other kinds of measures are needed, such as measures that indicate how much true independence media have,” Becker said. “Media may lack governmental constraints but still lack true independence because they do not have an adequate advertising base, or because they do not have adequately trained and compensated journalists.”

In addition, with most major press freedom indicators coming from western countries, Becker responded about possible implications for Africa.

“We did find some evidence of a country bias, but the evidence of consistency is more impressive. The suggestion is that the concept of press freedom has become a nearly universal one. It certainly makes sense, however, for an African agency to offer its own perspective on the monitoring process.”

Becker added that shortcomings in the definition of the theoretical concepts used should be addressed, stressing the importance of bringing citizen groups into the debate.

“I think everyone can engage in dialogue about the meaning of press freedom, but I would encourage in particular citizen groups to voice their concerns,” said Becker. “Much of what has been done has been from the perspective of media organizations, but a free press serves the general public, so ideas from the general public about what should be expected of the media are particularly welcome. Such a process might well identify differences in audience needs and wants, and these could be incorporated into the discussion of press freedom.”

An online version of the article published in the International Communication Gazette can be found at http://gaz.sagepub.com/cgi/content/....