We need the messenger

“No man delights in the bearer of bad news,” wrote Sophocles 25 centuries ago in his play Antigone. Today, this seems truer than ever.

The response to the COVID-19 crisis has not only restricted our freedom of movement, it has also been a challenge to other fundamental human rights. Over the past months, we have seen several instances where decrees or special legislation have resulted in restricting the rights of journalists to report on the pandemic. My Office has also intervened on numerous cases of journalists being victims of insults, threats or attacks when covering stories on confinement measures. The modern-day bearers of news have suffered an avalanche of threats from many sides.

There is no doubt that fighting the current pandemic has presented an unforeseen and unparalleled challenge. Governments worldwide have been faced with the enormous task of steering their communities through one of the biggest crises of our time, often having to base their decisions on little, fast evolving and contradictory information.

The authorities and public health officials around the world have been concerned, legitimately, about the spread of disinformation during the pandemic. However, restricting information is never the proper answer to addressing our safety concerns.

Human health depends not only on readily accessible health care, it also depends on access to accurate information about the nature of the threats and the means that are available to protect oneself, one’s family, and one’s community. Restricting the free flow of information in China at the beginning of the pandemic, for instance, did not contribute to protecting the population in the country or the wider world, quite the contrary.

As much as I am convinced that authorities will lose trust with the public if they are perceived as trying to hide information, I am even more convinced that rumours are best tackled by ensuring free access to pluralistic sources of information.

Over the last months, I have intervened on many occasions, in a preventive manner, calling for the reversal of, or the cautious and proportional use of regulatory measures. I would like to thank those States that have reversed or withdrawn overly restrictive measures, and all those that have actively engaged in a constructive dialogue with my Office.

The best way to address disinformation remains to counter it by ensuring that diverse and quality information is available to the public.

Beyond the pandemic, States should therefore take steps to ensure an enabling environment for pluralistic and independent media, as well as educational settings that promote media literacy, providing individuals with critical-thinking tools for the digital age.

In times of great challenges and crisis, we need reliable information, professional standards of journalism, fact-checking initiatives and sustainable media.

Unfortunately, many media outlets are struggling financially after weeks of restrictions that have resulted in huge losses in their advertisement revenues. Some States have already reacted with economic relief programmes, which could serve as examples. Multilateral forums like the OSCE must be a platform for the exchange of good practice and lessons learned.

For if we lose the voices of professional pluralistic and independent journalists, who will take their place? Good news or bad, we need the messenger.