Uncomfortable. I actually think that it creates an opportunity to to make the argument that i pointed out initially, which is journalists need to defend the broader space. We can as journalists a very special rights for journalists. As long as we have those, that is all that matters. Especially because we live in a time when these roles are fluid. Ultimately the way journalists can defend their own rights and selfinterested by forming common cause with people who might have a more it doesnt mean they abandon identity as journalists. But they have to understand people expressing themselves publicly or participating in the process of gathering news and information, even if they are not doing this in a professional capacity have the same rights. You know, i think it is an interesting debate about word is journalisms top can i address that very directly in the book. At the end of the day, it is less important than recognizing what is most crucial is a broad space that defends the rights and much everybody who wants to express themselves freely operate, including journalism. You feel there is any parallel to what some, but certainly not all is simply not most News Organizations in the teachout United States did during the civil rights movement. It was explained pretty well in a book called the race. But there was that if News Organizations that were in favor of segregation. I couldnt imagine being an advocate and others use News Organizations as a tool for change because they thought the laws were just wrong. Is that a fair parallel . This is people may be familiar this book Reggie Roberts called the great speed of one pulitzer prize. Its a tremendous account of what it was like to cover the south during the civil rights era. When i read it, i had a different reaction, which was i was focused on how similar the experiences of journalists working in that environment to the ones i see journalists doing frontline reporting complaint today. Journalists were attacked. They were beaten. They were perceived as hostile outsiders and that cpj were found in that era. This would have been critically important work defending these rates. In some ways, we feel in this country we have removed from those struggles. But they were very recent and though that was when i took away from that book. That is absolutely right. The only connection i was trying to make with those journalists challenging the systems were doing so because they wouldnt see themselves as advocates, but they were using journalisms. And matt is right. I think for that whole continue on existed for as long as journalism has existed. These roles have always had fluid to a certain extent. But because of the technological environment we live with the fact people have access to this communication. It is even broader and more complex. It always been crusading journalism. Theres always been advocacy journalists on and people who use these kinds of techniques and strategies to not just document what is happening, but to promote change in one sort or another. So, at the end of the book, you have this nice long chat to your with 10 media strategy. I am just going to take them off. Ill ask you, which one do you think is hardest to accomplish and why. Expose the democracy it airs. Expose the democracy haters. Increase safety for complex reporting. Break the cycle of impunity. Keep the internet open and free. The limit government surveillance. And censorship. You think this is hard . You are not ambitious enough. Clearly defined incitement to violence. Make access to development goal. Support quality media. Though the Free Expression coalition. So my day job is to try and find verbs. Which is the hardest one in there and why is that hard. What makes you confident that its going to be a solution . Well, i think what i am doing is they didnt find areas that we need to focus on and obviously every one of those is tremendously difficult. In some ways, what excites me is the notion they are sort of link is building a coalition. That is tremendously difficult but not impossible. One thing to keep in mind is there are regional agreements, treaties and actually the Interamerican Convention of human rights is the only regional treaties that actually prohibits prior restraint. So when this hemisphere, prior restraint for censorship is prohibited by international law. But in much of the world, that is not the case. There were certain circumstances in which it is legally permitted. I think people understand intuitively what censorship is, why it is bad, why it affects them and there are countries when i talk about censorship, im talking about prior restraint. Governments using actually preventing publication or dissemination of certain kinds of information. I think there is a strategy for creating a new norm in which that kind of conduct by government would be perceived as outside the normal international framework. Its a question of using the decorations and awareness building and mobilizing people who are threatened by censorship is incredibly difficult. In some ways i think it is exciting and i also think if you take the long view it is achievable. I have a lot more questions for you. We have a microphone here. Id like to invite anyone who has questions to ask jewel. Why you are doing that, i will ask you what any individual here can do to start to chip away at any of these recommendations. We want to send people out the door or with wind at their back and determination to start attacking issues. What is one thing he did people in this room could do . Well, i think that one you know, one of the things that i see around the world when i travel as a lot of the restrictions that governments imposed on the media and justify are based on their critiques of the quality of the media and work at immediate valve. One of the things i do in the book is that kind of reject that idea of mixing those two struggles. They are set right. We have to fight to improve the quality of journalism around the world. But we cant link back to the fight for freedom of expression because we dont want to legitimate the demotion if the media performing at the highest level restrictions are justified. One of the most important things in contributions people can make, particularly those in journalism education and particularly educating students from all over the world is to create a culture of quality of journalism because i really think that is a critical defense against government encroachment on freedom of expression. Victor, i think there was somebody before you. He has been standing a chalet. Can you speak into the microphone, please . How is this issue of global censorship applied to this country . For instance, the attacks from whistleblowers and how does that apply . Good question. It absolutely applies for a number of reasons. One is there has been a significant erosion in this country of press freedoms and there is. I think that has clear Global Implications because the this standing frankly the u. S. Media culture has in the world and the First Amendment and the value with which that is regarded a journalists all over the world. Any deterioration of press freedom standards in this country give license to governments and leaders around the country to justify their restrictions by citing the examples so we are obviously very concerned by the cases you mentioned because of the example they set globally. And then there is the issue of surveillance, which we havent even touched on. That is one of the key challenges that we face. I mean, i think that theres been a lack of justifiable uproar about the nsa Surveillance Program and i think if you look at it in the global context, it recently in event talking to a former nsa official and i asked him, i said if a journalist in pakistan is talking to the taliban, what was your response to that beat . Thats the exact kind of information we can be strapped on. If we get our hands on that, would be thrilled. That journalist has absolutely no legal protection. Surveillance affects u. S. Journalist awareness created that any communication could be monitored to weave some legal productions here. Outside of this country you have none and that has created a chilling effect. Like all technology he, the nsa has this tremendous capacity to sweep up vast amounts of information you need. But its not going to be unique soon. Every country will develop greater capacity. I think journalists understand the implications and it will affect them. Actually she asked my question. I have a different way. I remember the late tommy lewis and harris and sellers. I think they both took the position that dpj should not concern what was happening in this country because you had organizations like the aclu to worry about that, but it should focus on what was happening around the world. I am just interested in your talking about how cpj has evolved from that point of view. That is appropriate at a time when cpj was small and had resources and media institutions were strong and everyone understood who was a journalist and who is not a journalist. But we live in different times. Cpj as an organization is much larger with greater capacity so theres really no excuse. A lot of the people who would like to send whose cases we might pick a might be nontraditional journalists in the packing of large institutions, but still their rights have to be a period. Still has been this progress in that specific case . Ironically there isnt a contradiction because you are right. Russia has become more repressive and more authoritarian, but the structure for control was sort of this power of the mafia state. And so there were a lot, the bodies in the street. There was a period in russia, certainly putin came to power, and prior to that where these criminal organizations were operating very openly with governments backing as protection or during the. When we saw a lot of violence against journalists. And these killings took place with not formal, not necessarily formal Government Support but certainly government indifference and sometimes active complicity. In terms of the advocacy around the case, for those of you who dont know, she was a crusading journalist who covered the conflict in chechnya, the north caucasus, she was murdered in front of her Apartment Building in moscow in 2007. And this was a killing that shocked journalists particularly around were because she was such a wellknown crusading, admired a journalist. There was an International Outcry and a lot of pressure was put on the russian government to do something about this. The unique thing about rush is at, and i think this is a legacy of the kind of soviet spies state, is the actually are very good investigators. Theyre pretty good at investigating crimes. They dont solving because theres no political will to the not bad at investigating them. I think it reached a point where putin made a calculation that the kind of structure of russia where you have these violent criminal organizations that were basically fighting over turf and territory and killing people, that was not what he wanted. He wanted a more traditional authoritarian structure, and so solving a couple of these cases was in his interest. The way i phrased it is, in russia justice is really just a crude political regulation. And in this case a calculation was that bring similar level perpetrators to justice serve the political interest of the government. My question is regarding hungry. It seems like its the new columbia or whatever, like the things are happening there right now i think youre mentioning about colombia. So it begins to shed some light on the situation and whats the road ahead for hungary . I was at columbia is the new turkey. The latest member, the democracy club. Hungary is an eu member, but the government, the leadership is basically said we have our own conception of state interests, and we are going to emulate russia more than were going to emulate the eu. So you are seeing a real crackdown on media and civil society. There was a recent protest, im sure youre aware, of a new internet tax. Its really interesting. No one was really reacting to all these threats and attacks on journalists when they started taxing the internet, that got people agitated. Thanks to my point about linking the struggle for Media Freedom to the Robert Scoble for freedom of expression. But hungary is absolutely going in the wrong direction. We just sent a mission to hungary led by our cpj board member, who is hungarian american and, obviously, knows the country well. Her report was very chilling. She wrote about it an oped for the times, but this is a country that is an eu member but it is rejecting eu values. Hi. Joel, you mentioned earlier that the Chinese Government actually has used internet to cut a better serve its stronger hold on media, but how would you see the spread of internet and the democratization of the information in the whole of china which actually is hoping spreading the news . And do you think that in the end would somehow change . Thats what i write about is a battle in china over the internet optimists. The governments of vision of the function of the internet in chinese society. So the question is, i think the leadership in china definitely embraces connectivity and they definitely understand that this is critical, critical economic engine and the also feel that this technology can serve what conceived to be the partys interest in terms of creating connections between the leadership and the population and allowing them to share their concerns with the leadership, et cetera, et cetera. So they have kind of a fairly pragmatic vision of the internet and how it can serve Chinese State interests. Theyre not like cuba or some other country like that, it really wants to shut out the internet. They want to channel it to what they perceive as their state interest. But what they dont want the internet to be for is a political organizing. Thats where they draw the line. They are also very concerned about the fact that the internet is a global system, and outside influences can penetrate china and potentially be destabilizing. So thats the way they conceptualize it, and i think whats really formidable is theyve come up with a system thats worked pretty well, that helps them achieve their stated goals of, you know, china has more people online than in the other country in the world. Obviously, its got more people so it gives it a bit of a head start but its profoundly transformed the society. And yet its managed the challenges that this conductivity has created. And i think china has a vision of what, chinas vision of the unit is built like a national highway system. Yes, it connects, but once you get and the national highway they want to have control over what happens. They want to have their own rules. Thats a vision that is very appealing to many other countries around the world, and its a vision that china has largely succeeded in making real. I think we have to acknowledge that. Do you think that diminishing economic power of Media Companies plays a role in this new censorship . And do so, how . Absolutely. I think thats fundamental. Theres a recalibration thats been taking place, the power of the media itself, and the institutional media in particular. I think especially when you talk about the threats against journalists, a lot of these repressive governments or nonstate actors, the thing that kept journalists safe working in these environments is that they were neutral. If you wanted to communicate to your own population but certainly internationally, then the only mechanism you have to do that was with journalists. The information environment is completely different now and that is no longer the case. It used to be if you get kidnapped, if your journalist and you get kidnapped by some nasty folks, your argument was, hey, if you dont let me go im not going to be able to tell your story. Thats kind of laughable now. Thats not going to get you out of any dicey situation. And its also, we just, we were in turkey and we had a meeting with president erdogan, and these meetings ive had many such meetings with heads of state, sort of ritualistic thing where they go press freedom, its important to me. And yuko weldon, why do you have all these issues and you argue . He refused to make that statement. He came into that meeting with a defiant posture, journalist, all journalists are basically attacking my government, undermining these interests, the interests of the state. And include the New York Times and cnn. Theres nobody that he had any praise for. He had nothing positive to say about journalists on press freedom and those with a shot across the bow. That was really him saying i can achieve the interests that i want to achieve. I can achieve my Political Goals without any support from the media. Because i have alternative ways of communicating. I have alternative ways of litigating domestically and internationally. So its precise because the power dynamic has shifted that journalists face greater threat both from government and nonstate actors. And thats not confined to turkey. Not at all. Its the same dynamic. The Obama Administration and the Bush Administration was very open about its ability to bypass the media and get its message is that the consequences are not violence. But in other societies they are. Hi. Im a student here. So at the same time when you see this weakening of the institutions, you also see the rights of protesting country and countries like russia, even englishspeaking, or iran or whatever and they are employing englishspeaking young journalists. How do you see this fits the thats the really interesting phenomenon and one that struggling in many ways. So governments are entering the International Media scene and doing in a way that they think advances their particular state interests, and sometimes they have very sophisticated understanding what those answers are. Aljazeera is an example. The government of qatar has invested huge amounts of money, but they see their interests advanced by having a credible independent News Organization that has global influence, whereas russia, with rt, or iran with press tv, these are government funded english Language International broadcasters. Use these platforms to engage in crude propaganda. And, frankly, this is a real challenge f