IREX
International Research & Exchanges Board

MSI Africa 2006-2007

E-mail this pageE-mail this page

ETHIOPIA

Introduction

Overall Country Score:  1.24

Ethiopia currently ranks among one of the worst countries in the world to be an independent-minded journalist, according to many international observers and in the words of the Ethiopian MSI panelists. One noted, “It’s only journalists working for government media who may be enjoying their freedom, but even then they have to stick to what the government wants. They cannot report independently.” International NGOs observing press freedom have returned dismal ratings for Ethiopia: Freedom House’s 2007 Freedom of the Press report rates it “not free” and tied for 170th out of 195; Ethiopia is on the International Press Institute’s Watch List; Reporters Without Borders ranked Ethiopia 150th out of 169 in their 2007 Worldwide Press Freedom Index.

Following the November 2005 crackdown on political opposition, the government has interpreted laws to curtail press freedom and the freedom of speech in an even more draconian manner than experienced before. The government has branded independent and critical journalists as “members of the opposition.” Journalists are routinely detained, jailed, prosecuted for crimes such as “outrages against the constitution” and “incitement to genocide,” and handed heavy prison sentences. Government security forces have dispersed demonstrating journalists and other members of the civil society with excessive force, including live ammunition.

The lucky ones are those who have managed to escape arrests and are currently in exile in America, Europe, and elsewhere. Among those is the entire leadership of the Ethiopia Free Press Association.

Despite the pressures from both local and international human rights groups, the government of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi has continued violating and suppressing freedoms such as speech, the media, and association. Representatives of international organizations such as the International Federation of Journalists that have tried to work with the private media have been denied entry visas. Recently the government released several journalists from jail; while this attracted widespread international coverage, those released were forced to sign documents admitting crimes that they had not committed and making public apologies to the government. A few months later, other journalists were facing jail time and being detained.

Such repression has left the private press weak. The media in Ethiopia is dominated by the government. Panelists rated Objective 1, freedom of speech, very poorly—0.19—in recognition of the situation. Similarly, Objective 3, plurality of news, scored a 0.99 because of government control or influence of a significant portion of news reaching citizens. However, vestiges of better times remain, and these could serve as the nucleus of growth should the government relax its control of the media. This is reflected in scores between 1.64 and 1.71 for Objectives 2, 4, and 5, professional journalism, business management, and supporting institutions.

IREX’s partner conducting the MSI study for Ethiopia, the Eastern Africa Journalists Association, tried unsuccessfully to obtain visas to enter the country and hold a panel discussion. We opted instead to conduct the study by e-mail. Several panelists withdrew because they feared the government monitors their e-mail communications. However, we were able to obtain a limited number of completed questionnaires with scores included. The comments in this chapter represent both remarks written by the panelists and independent research. Furthermore, due to the oppressive political environment, panelists for Ethiopia agreed to participate only on condition of anonymity.

Objective 1: Free Speech

Score: 0.19

Panelists rated all indicators poorly, and a few were at or barely above 0. This was true for Indicators 4, 6, and 7, crimes against journalists, libel laws, and access to public information. Indicator 9, free entry to the journalism profession, approached a score of 0.5; even in this area proposed laws, if adopted, threaten to affect this negatively in the future.

Article 29 of the 1995 constitution guarantees press freedom and freedom of speech. The BBC World Service Trust’s African Media Development Initiative report on Ethiopia (AMDI), prepared by Gebremedhin Simon Gebretsadik in 2006, notes that press freedom is also reaffirmed by Press Proclamation No. 34/1992 that says the media may “operate freely and responsibly without censorship.” However, panelists wrote that the reality on the ground is quite different. The application of existing media laws is very draconian, with harsh provisions that the government uses to close down media outlets and arrest journalists. Government security agencies harass journalists and members of civil society who advocate freedom and the rights of political opposition. Journalists have languished in prison without any clear charges, and some were forced into exile. Even in exile they do not feel safe; one panelist living in Nairobi for the past five years said he still lives in fear.

The International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX) has documented the measures taken by the government to control private media through fear and arrest. On April 9, 2007, IFEX reported the release of eight editors and publishers held for “outrages against the constitution or constitutional order,” “impairment of the defensive power of the state,” and “attempted genocide.” They had been in detention for 17 months on these charges stemming from articles criticizing government actions in the May 2005 elections.

While lauded for the release of these journalists, just three months later IFEX reported, on July 12, a prosecutor’s request for the death penalty to be imposed against four journalists convicted of “attempting to overthrow the government,” “treason,” and “inciting violence.” IFEX later reported, on July 20, that the journalists had been pardoned by the government after the court had decided on sentences as harsh as life in prison a few days before.

Although in the end all journalists were released, having spent over a year in prison awaiting trial or, worse, having been convicted, faced the death penalty in an unpredictable court, and waited several days to receive a lengthy prison sentence before finally being pardoned would almost certainly give these journalists pause before writing critical stories again. Meanwhile, the government has sent a clear message yet can say to the public that it acted to protect the interests of journalists and press freedom.

According to its web site (http://www.eba.gov.et), the Ethiopian Broadcast Authority (EBA) oversees broadcasting and issues, suspends, and revokes licenses. The legislation that now regulates it, Broadcasting Service Proclamation No. 533/2007, states EBA will “ ensure the expansion of a high standard, prompt and reliable broadcasting service that can contribute to political, social and economic development and to regulate same.” In section 4 (1) and (2) the law makes EBA an “autonomous federal agency having its own legal personality” but “accountable to the Ministry [of Information].” Section 9 states that its board is “appointed by the Government on the recommendation of the Minister.”

The panel members stated, in their questionnaires, that licensing of media outlets is purely political and entry into the media industry is not easy. They wrote that the government insists on knowing who the people are—and what their political leanings are—behind an application to open a broadcast outlet before granting a license. According to one panelist, “To get a license for a media house, you have to be a strong supporter of the current government and once it’s discovered that you have stopped this support you can easily lose the license.”

According to the panelists, intimidation, arrests, torture, and other extreme measures are the order of the day in a journalist’s life. However, this is done in a controlled manner by the state; the violence is not, strictly speaking, “criminal.” Panelists agreed that the government, through its security agencies, perpetrate the violence. One panelist wrote, “The government has used armed ‘thugs’ to shoot and disperse peaceful demonstrations organized by civil society organizations to demand for their rights.” Another panelist wrote, “Those who are behind [these crimes] walk away freely.

While those arrested are often charged with fantastic crimes, as described above, libel laws carrying criminal penalties, including prison sentences, are also a threat. One panelist wrote “Libel is both criminal and civil and it’s always upon journalists to prove their innocence once arrested on such charges.”

State media receive preferential legal treatment. State television enjoys a monopoly and state-run radio (including that owned by the ruling party) constitutes a near monopoly. Journalists working for state media are not prosecuted for libelous stories about opposition figures. State media also enjoy privileged access to information; although this can allow for state media to “scoop” private media, the information must be presented according to government wishes and it is only information that the government is eager to release.

Discussing access to information, one panelist wrote “Access to public information by private media is not easy.” Another noted, “There is no access to public information and there are a number of laws in place to protect this information from flowing out, like the Public Secrecy Act.”

On paper, however, the government should comply with requests for information from the media. AMDI points out that Article 8(1) of the Press Proclamation supports media access to public information and that Article 19 of the Proclamation mandates cooperation between government officials and the media to make certain the public is aware of government operations.

Although there are no restrictions on media access to international news sources, the business and financial environment is typically not favorable to doing so. Journalists, like other citizens, are free to access the Internet for news.

Panelists wrote that entry into the journalism profession is free. However, the government tends to brand journalists other than those that work for the government or are friendly to the ruling party as members of the opposition. Freedom House reports that the government limits coverage of official events to government journalists, although in recent years this restriction had “loosened.” One panelist noted that given the current situation, the government is indirectly determining who studies journalism: unless one intends to support the government, most now fear becoming journalists.

Objective 2: Professional Journalism

Score: 1.67

Indicators in this objective were generally spread out. Panelists rated Indicators 3 and 4, self-censorship and journalists cover key events, a point lower than the average. Scoring best was Indicator 7, modern facilities and equipment.

Regarding fair, objective, and well sourced reporting, AMDI reports that the appearance of new print media has resulted in a commensurate of journalistic activity. They also characterize the quality of reporting as “highly uneven.” Their interviewees gave differing opinions ranging from “[reporting] lacking in ethics, independence and professionalism,” to “concerted efforts are being made by journalists to improve standards in the sector.”

Panelists for the MSI generally shared the opinion stated by one: “The situation is very bad, in that the few practicing journalists are all government supporters who spread state propaganda.” Even if that is an overstatement, with literacy rates below 50 percent by CIA estimates, and broadcasting dominated by the state, the majority of journalists’ reports reaching and “informing” the population is likely to be neither fair nor objective. One panelist noted, “True, we had well trained journalists, but all of them were forced into exile in Europe, UK, USA and other Western countries.”

Formerly active journalists’ associations drafted and adopted a code of ethics that meets international standards. Many journalists, particularly veteran journalists, are aware it exists and are familiar with its provisions. However, with the leadership of journalists’ associations in exile maintaining and implementing a code of ethics is impossible.

The US Department of State’s 2007 Human Rights Practices Report on Ethiopia notes that journalists engage in self‑censorship regardless of whether they work for the government or private media. One MSI panelists wrote, “There is a lot of self-censorship at all levels because journalists and editors want to keep their jobs in government media.”

Not all media cover all key events. For one, the government selectively invites a few journalists, especially those working for state, to official events. Further, events outside of Addis Ababa and a few other cities will only receive coverage if the government has an interest in so doing. State media are the only ones with the resources and, in some areas, permission to do so. For example, the State Department’s Report tells of reporters for the New York Times being detained in May 2007 for reporting from the Ogaden region—where a separatist conflict is being waged—without permission. It is unlikely that the government would allow private media access (if it could afford to send a reporter) to the region to report on this conflict, and state media would do so only if it suited the needs of the government.

Regarding journalists’ salaries, one panelist wrote, “The pay levels for those working for the government media is high, but other journalists who are still in Ethiopia are jobless as government closed private media houses.” AMDI paints a somewhat different picture. Their research found average monthly salaries to be $80 in the government media and $50 to $60 in private media. This compares to $90 as the starting salary of a teacher.

News and educational programs are given less space and time in newspapers and on the radio and television stations than entertainment and advertisements. Panelists said this is because of the economic interests of the media owners who want to maximize profit.

Panelists reported that the existing media have good facilities and produce technically sound work. AMDI echoed this characterization, noting improved production quality on ETV as a result of state-of-the-art equipment.

Objective 3: Plurality of News Sources

Score: 0.99

Overall, panelists noted that there is some plurality of news sources and that private broadcasters produce their own news to a limited degree. They therefore scored Indicators 1 and 5 well ahead of the average, although still less than 2. However, particular weaknesses were noted in Indicators 2, 3, and 4, citizen access to media, state media reflect the political spectrum, and independent news agencies.

The Ministry of Information’s web site lists a total of 64 newspapers and 23 magazines, including sports and other specialty publications. Three newspapers are listed as daily, and two of these are state-owned. AMDI reports that some newspapers “disappear” when there is no compelling news, such as elections. National and local governments control a number of radio stations; the ruling party controls one as well despite regulations preventing political organizations from obtaining broadcast licenses. AMDI lists two community radio stations that it says are not “linked to the state,” operating in Dire Dawa and Yirgalem. It noted that a third community station, Radio Harar, closed for lack of funding. Television is still the sole domain of the state, with one national channel, ETV.

Ethiopia’s first two private commercial radio stations, Sheger Radio and ZAMI, began test broadcasting in Addis Ababa in October 2007. According to an October 7, 2007 report in Addis Fortune, Sheger will focus on music and entertainment, while ZAMI will provide news and talk shows 24 hours per day. ZAMI’s manager is a radio personality from state-run Radio Ethiopia, Mimi Sebihatu, although no evidence exists that the station will be pro-government in nature. In an interview conducted by the privately owned, pro-government1 news agency Walta, Sebihatu discussed issues of editorial independence, which she stressed the station will maintain. 2

Panelists wrote that people in cities enjoy better access to media than people living in rural areas. In rural areas, they noted, very few can afford print media and therefore depend more on broadcast media, which is cheaper for them. Reinforcing this point, the BBC Ethiopia Country Profile observes, “Press circulation is largely confined to the literate urban elite.” Radio Ethiopia and Radio Fana, run by the ruling party, reach 80 percent of the territory, according to AMDI. Panelists reported that Internet access is available in cities at affordable rates.

Sources of international news are available to the public, but this is not without difficulties. AMDI reports that various subscription satellite services such as South Africa’s DStv or ArabSat are available. Panelists wrote that these are affordable only “for a few.” Foreign radio programs are broadcast into Ethiopia, but in November 2007 VOA reported that its signal was being jammed. Several panelists also reported that some people fear accessing foreign news, including on the Internet, because they fear being “monitored by state agents.”

State media, both print and broadcast, is fully controlled by the government, although it employs professionals to staff and manage it. Panelists characterized these as “government mouthpieces.” They noted that state media do not cover opposition activities, except in a negative way. AMDI reports that the 1999 Broadcasting Proclamation and Article 29 of the constitution require that publicly funded media be made available to all viewpoints.

Two news agencies exist, Ethiopian News Agency, which is state owned, and Walta Information Centre, which is private. The media also depend on foreign news agencies, such as AFP, AP, and Reuters, for information.

Private radio broadcasting is new in Ethiopia but evidence suggests that those that exist produce their own news and information programs. How much the content differs from the point of view expressed in state broadcasting remains to be seen.

“Media ownership is not very clear, but even then there are very few people with interest in this information,” wrote one panelist. AMDI echoed this sentiment, noting that there is a “lack of transparency around ownership, it is not known whether ownership is diverse or concentrated in a few hands.” However, one panelist wrote, “Media ownership is known by those interested in it.”

The US State Department reports that the law prohibits foreign ownership of broadcasting and bars organizations receiving foreign financial or managerial assistance from receiving broadcast licenses. The law also prohibits politically or religiously affiliated broadcasting.

Social interest programs and news in minority languages exist. AMDI notes that Radio Ethiopia broadcasts are prepared in five local languages plus Arabic, English, and French. It says that Radio Ethiopia includes a weekly program focusing on women and allows NGOs to air programming related to their development work. Other shows cover topics such as HIV/AIDS. AMDI also points out that some newspapers have followed suit by providing regular coverage of women’s or religious issues.

Objective 4: Business Management

Score: 1.64

Panelists did not have much to say about this objective beyond “Things have collapsed in Ethiopia and we cannot talk about independent media.” Their point was that the limited business environment makes operating—and achieving editorial independence through financial strength—nearly impossible. Further, the polarization of political life that has trickled down to the media results in business management taking a back seat to other considerations. Most indicators scored close to the average, although Indicators 6 and 7, market research and circulation and audience measurement were noticeably lagging behind. Indicator 5, private media do not receive state subsidies, was fairly well ahead of the average.

AMDI research shows that many newspapers are small, with about 3,000 copies printed. Few newspapers have substantial private investment, although AMDI notes The Reporter and Addis Admass as exceptions. Freedom House reports that Ministry of Information requirements to maintain a minimum bank balance of about $1100 adds to the difficulties private newspapers have staying solvent. AMDI also makes note that the small advertising dissuades private investment in both print and broadcast.

Panelists noted that the government does not provide any subsidies to private media outlets. One wrote, “…instead government’s interest is closing down all media houses it thinks are publishing or airing alternative views.”

As regards market research and measurement of audience or verification of circulation figures, AMDI reported that this is generally not taking place. It notes that ETV and Ethiopia Radio profess to doing audience research, but that most of the results are not made public and, what is released, shows “…poor quality due to lack of research expertise.”

Objective 5: Supporting Institutions

Score: 1.71

What strength is shown by the score for this objective is carried by scores in Indicators 4 and 5, academic journalism programs and short-term training. On the lower end, panelists scored Indicator 6, apolitical sources of printing and newsprint, about a point lower.

There are very few professional media associations. The government has made it difficult for those that exist to operate freely. These associations have tried under very difficult circumstances to fight for the rights of their members, but panelists noted that the government brands them opposition political parties. The result has been harassment, torture, and arrests of association leadership. One panelist wrote, “We had some professional associations like the Ethiopian Free Press Association who were doing a good job defending and fighting for our rights, however, all its leaders were put on a government wanted list and forced into exile.”

Regarding NGO activity, one panelist wrote, “…there were a few NGOs that were dealing in press freedom defense, but most of them have closed because government labeled them opposition supporters.” International and regional NGOs are active however. One of these, the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Network, has on several occasions protested violations of journalists’ rights to the government. AMDI reports that international NGOs have been involved in reviewing draft legislation and other activities.

The panelists stated that academic institutions, both private and state, offer quality degree and diploma courses in journalism and mass communications. AMDI notes that the School of Journalism and Communication at Addis Ababa University offers undergraduate and graduate programs and that four other universities have relatively new journalism departments.

Panelists said inexpensive in-service training opportunities for those without formal academic training exists. AMDI reports that Addis Ababa University and various NGOs offer training for practicing journalists.

Panelists observed that media distribution channels, such as kiosks, are in private hands, but the government has at times interfered with the ability of private newspapers to access these. Freedom House notes that the government owns all printing facilities capable of handling newspapers and that it often declines to print certain private newspapers.

Panel Participants

Due to the oppressive political environment, panelists for Ethiopia agreed to participate only on condition of anonymity.

The Ethiopia study was coordinated by, and conducted in partnership with, the Eastern Africa Journalists Association.

  1. According to the BBC Ethiopia Country Profile, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/1072164.stm

  2. http://www.waltainfo.com/AudioVideo/nov/zami.asx