“You’re not from the FAZ or another major media outlet.” This incidental comment during our research for our factcheck on the rise in cholera numbers resonates in our minds and illustrates a bitter reality: journalists outside of large editorial offices are fighting against invisibility and a lack of respect.
Our research work during the factcheck, in which we checked a claim of an article published by Tagesschau about the rising cholera numbers, was a long process. Emails were sent to tropical institutions, health authorities, the World Health Organization, Unicef, tropical specialists, professors, and researchers, among others, in the hope of getting trustworthy and honest views and opinions. However, our efforts fell on deaf ears and pursuing sources became a long-winded process.
The difficulties in obtaining relevant information were reflected in our email correspondence and in many telephone calls. Our frustration at the lack of cooperation from the various institutions was enormous. In several phone calls, we were told that answering our questions meant too much internal work and that we would not receive a prompt response or any response at all due to the lack of prestige of an Editorial Department behind us. The following statement was made during a phone call: “You’re not from the FAZ or any other major media outlet.” To be honest, this sentence felt like a punch in the gut. Were we doing some research for the factcheck on behalf of a larger editorial team? No. Does that make the work of independent journalists any less valuable or significant? No.
Freedom of the press is defined as the fundamental right of media and journalists to gather, produce, publish and disseminate information without undue interference or censorship by the state. This right is an important component of freedom of expression and democracy, as it ensures that the public has access to a wide range of information and opinions.
The impact on the press and freedom of information became very obvious to us in this case: The health system crisis not only creates an information gap, but also creates a divide between large newsrooms and smaller groups of journalists. The limited availability of resources means that independent journalists like us, who ask urgent questions to experts, are often overlooked. Attempts to contact institutions that normally serve as a first source of information have become closed doors.
When it comes to freedom in the service of democracy, Prof. Dr. Andrea Czepek defines freedom of the press as part of the freedoms of communication, which include the more general freedoms of expression, speech and information. Czepek points out that although independence from government and economic influence is part of the definition, freedom of the press is not just about that. The media reflect the diversity of society (pluralism), enable free access to information and promote the involvement of citizens (participation) – all in fulfillment of their function in democracy.
The restriction of press freedom is not only a challenge for journalists, but could also have a fundamental impact on society. The question therefore certainly arises as to how restricted freedom of information affects people’s trust in the media and what consequences this could have for democracy. This aspect should continue to be critically reflected upon as we advocate for a free press in times of crisis.
In the silence of the information gap, the future calls for transparency. Together we have to fight to ensure that independent journalism does not fall silent, but is heard as a voice of change.
RESEARCH | ARTICLE © Sonja Gretkowski and Nora Lohner Jade University of Applied Sciences, Germany
Leave our comments, thoughts, and suggestions in the box below. Take note: your response is moderated.