Publisher's Synopsis
The communication of complex events is a uniquely human activity. Information sharing is the basis for all social interactions; the fabric of society is interwoven with and inseparable from communication. The ability to express oneself could be, and indeed is by many, considered a fundamental human right. However, this right is curtailed in certain places. It is up to those outside of these restrictive societies to report to the wider public violations of human rights.Therefore, there are two separate but equally critical components of the relationship between mass communication and human rights.The first is the idea that the freedom to communicate, in whatever form one chooses, is not only essential to the workings of society, but a fundamental human right. The second is the notion that human rights issues must be communicated to the public when those whose rights have been violated are unable to communicate themselves - it is up to journalists, non-governmental organizations and citizen journalists on social media to expose these issues.Part 1: As the glue that binds societies together, communication has evolved to signal distress as well as joy. When that glue is dissolved by those who have the power to curtail freedom of speech, voices go unheard. Distress signals are not heard by those who are in a position to effect change.We will begin this discussion with an examination of the international legal situation governing the right to communicate, the politics of which has hampered its becoming a global human right. We will then delve into case studies demonstrating where and how freedom of expression has been curtailed. While we often think of censorship and freedom of expression as a thing of the past, it will be shown that the opposite is often true; once liberal countries are becoming more restrictive. For example, there has been a surprising decline of freedom of speech and an increase in official censorship in once relatively liberal Thailand since the 2000s. Press freedom has evolved in South Africa since the abolition of apartheid in 1994, but this analysis shows another country in which restrictions are again becoming more severe. In Afghanistan, the impediments to freedom of speech are manifold, as Khalvatgar (2014) illustrates. It is perhaps unsurprising that, in addition to traditional media, social media is alsofficensored in certain places; the case of China's blocking of Twitter and Facebook is especially troubling given its large population and role in the international community. As the case study from Nepal demonstrates, it is often up to the audience to intervene when the victims of human rights violations cannot surmount the obstacles in place.While the press has traditionally been the medium via which news travels, in societies where the human right to communicate is limited it falls to international organizations to report on abuses and advocate for its victims. The killing of journalists by the terrorist organization Boko Haram has severely limited the scope of the press in Nigeria, hampering objective coverage of the atrocities committed. The international community's role in ameliorating human rights situations remains an issue, as the article documenting public discourse of human trafficking recounts. International response to human rights violations, in particular in cases in which the victims are unable to speak for themselves, leads to the second section of this book.Part 2: The role that the international community plays in determining the course of human rights violations is contested. Provided the information comes to light, public discourse does have the power to shape events; whether providing aid, ignoring the issue, conflating it or otherwise, mass communication has the ability to effect change.The framing of the story at hand plays a large part in deciding how the issue will be perceived; bias is, in some ways, inescapable. The victims themselves often have little say in how their plight is portrayed. We will begin this section with an example of a positive interaction between human rights issues and the media: an examination of how the media has condemned the xenophobic attacks that took place in 2015 in South Africa, thus shaping the public discourse and international response to the event.Unfortunately, not all media coverage has the desired effect of improving the lives of the underrepresented. The portrayal of Romani children in both the international media and in human rights organization reports has had the effect of confirming the public's negative opinion of them. The depiction of HIV sufferers in Africa has served to further stigmatize that population. By sensationalizing the success of female politicians in Pakistan, the media has discounted the very real struggle of women to assert their rights in a male-dominated society. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the media's influence is its use as propaganda in the perpetuation of human rights violations. The propaganda used by the Hutus to inflict rape and other crimes against humanity on the Tutsis during the Rwandan genocide in the mid-1990s had dire effects. While this article does not deal directly with the media, it clearly shows the results of a sustained media campaign inciting violence.On the other hand, the media and other forms of mass communication can have a positive impact for those whose human rights are at risk. In the case of Rwanda, an education entertainment media campaign has helped survivors of the ordeal cope. Media attention to abuse of the mentally ill in Indonesia has raised awareness of the issue, spurring new legislation. Local and international news media addressed HIV medication trials in Cameroon and Cambodia, with varying degrees of success; some reports were erroneous or false, but they did still serve the purpose of illuminating the public health crisis of the HIV epidemic in these countries.
