The International Press Institute is the organization that is operating as the global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists. The focus of organization work is the enhancement of professionalism and journalist standards and the media freedom. IPI has two types of reports that are annual and that cover almost all countries of the world. The first report is the Death Watch that gives data on the number of killed journalist and media professionals in individual countries and gives brief description of the way those killings happened. Their other report is the press freedom report. This report is updated annually and covers 176 countries. The report is comprised of general summary, regional overviews that are summarizing main trends for each of six regions of the world, and the country reports that are the bulk of the report. It is not very clear how the reports are made and who provides the information. From the report it can be concluded that IPI staff in Geneva makes the reports. Reports for the last five years are available on the IPI web site. Reports are descriptive and from them it is not possible to find out what was the source of information used.
Since the focus of organization is not only the media freedom, but also journalistic standards and professionalism, the reports are not only about media freedom. But the differences in the approach between the countries are visible. The reports that are dealing with countries that do not have at all, or at least do not have significant problems with media freedom, are focusing on the standard and quality of journalistic work, accessibility of information and legal framework that regulates these issues. They also tend to be critical about media behavior when they believe that professional errors have been committed. But they also deal with any problem, whether in the legal framework or in the practice that can restrict access to information or limit the space of action of journalist.
The reports that are dealing with the countries that are dealing with the countries that have problems with media freedom are oriented mainly on the issues of media freedom, and the issues of standards and professionalism are not very pronounced. The reports covering these countries are dealing with the legal framework and the restrictions that are present in it, with special focus on anti defamation laws, laws limiting access to information and laws restricting publication of information of certain type. They also record occurrence of different forms of violence and harassment against journalists, especially deaths. Sometimes they go into quite detail in presenting individual cases. Special attention is paid to violence or pressures exercised by government, like detentions, arrests and trials of journalists. Other data include information on less violent but still highly restrictive pressures on journalists and media by different institutions of the state that in large number of cases take form of financial pressures and limitations of access to printing and broadcasting resources, restrictions on the access to information and legal actions to prevent publishing of certain information. The information of governmental attempts to reduce editorial freedom of the media are also reported in this report.
Country reports give information that shows the background of the problems with the press freedom, and they give information on the magnitude of the problem. Reports also identify responsibility for restrictions and pressures, whether they come from the government or not and whether restrictions and pressures have something to do with systematic government effort to curtail the media freedom or is it the consequence of government failure to prevent it.
The reports are not made according to some standardized methodology. They do not have standard list of issues that they try to cheek, and they do not compare countries or rank them. In that regard they do look similar to AI, HRW and ICFTU reports.
The sample of countries is divided into six regions and is quite large. The following countries and regions are included: In the Americas: Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, USA, Venezuela.
In Asia: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, China, East Timor, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Laos, Macau, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam.
In Australia and Oceania: Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia, Kiribati, Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna.
In Europe: Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, Ukraine, Yugoslavia.
In the Middle East and North Africa: Algeria, Bahrain, Chad, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.
In Africa: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Comoros Islands, D. R. of Congo, Rep. of Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tomé and Principé, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Reporters sans frontiers are another source of information on the state of press freedom. The report of RSF that is conducted annually is in terms of content and topic covered very similar to the reports of the CPJ and IPI. The area covered, like in the previously mentioned sources are legislative framework in which media operate, legal restrictions in terms of access to information, restrictions on publishing of materials related to some “sensitive” topics, presence and broadness of anti defamation laws. They also record issues like governmental interference in the editorial and personnel policy of media and pressures from the government institutions like financial and judicial pressures, restrictions on broadcasting and publishing resources and other types of harassment that can be interpreted as pressures and obstruction of media. The report includes problems like arrests and detentions of journalists, trials of journalists for different reasons, attacks and harassment of journalists and finally the death of journalists.
The number of countries included in the report is 149, and they are divided into 5 regions. The report does not give any information on who provides information for each country, nor how reports are made. Pretty much all that has been said for CPJ and IPI can be also said for this source. The reports are descriptive and they focus only on identifying problems. The reports depend on the type of problem that is present in the different countries. There is no common pattern with regard to the level of details of information presented for different countries in the report. Some reports tend to contain quite significant level of detail in describing individual cases, while others do not. The reports do not have common structure and are not made according to any observable standards. They do not have indicators and do not compare countries, nor do they give rankings. The reports include chapters that deal with killings of journalists, attacks on journalists, arrest and detention of journalists and pressure and obstruction of their activity from the side of government.
However, the RSF report has five groups of countries regarding the level of press freedom. Countries are assigned to each category according to the perceived state of the press freedom, but criteria for assignment are not given.
The categories are:
1. Good situation;
2. Satisfactory situation;
3. Noticeable problems;
4. Difficult situation; and
5. Very serious situation.
Like IPI and CPJ, the RSF are good source of raw material, they have quite extensive descriptive reports, all three cover a large number of cases and between themselves they cover about 180 countries, and data from all three sources are available for around 140 countries. All reports are available on the Internet, for IPI from 1996 to 2001, for CPJ for 2000 and 2001 and for RSF for 2001. The countries grouped by region that were included into RSF report in 2001 were:
In the Americas: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, USA, Venezuela.
In Asia: Australia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Burma (Myanmar), Buthan, Cambodia, China, East Timor, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, North Korea, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam.
In Europe: Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, UK, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Yugoslavia.
In the Middle East and North Africa: Algeria Bahrain Egypt Iran Iraq Israel Jordan Kuwait Lebanon Libya Mauritania Morocco Palestinian Authority Qatar Saudi Arabia Sudan Syria Tunisia United Arab Emirates Yemen.
In Africa: Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Central African Republic Chad Comoros Islands D. R. of Congo Rep. of Congo Djibouti Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gambia Gabon Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya Liberia Malawi Mali Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Senegal Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa Swaziland Tanzania Togo Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe.
The data from all three sources are descriptive, and they only register the events, or to be more precise problems, that took place in the countries included. They do not have checklist of topic and they do not estimate the situation for particular area. The reports only register problems and therefore not all reports contain information about same topics. Because of that the creation of the measurement scale that could be more sensitive other then recording the present or absence of some event is not very likely to succeed. Therefore the similar approach that was used for AI, HRW and ICFTU could be used here.
The set of indicators for measuring the press freedom from the data from these three sources could include following indicators:
1. Death of journalists (while performing their work)
2. Arrests and detentions of journalists (including trials for different charges)
3. Attacks on journalists and harassment of journalists (all types of violence on journalists regardless of source and character)
4. Existence of legal limitation on press freedom (anti defamation laws, laws restricting access to information and restricting the publishing of certain information)
5. Censorship and banning of media
6. Pressures on media, interference in, and obstruction of media activities (financial pressures, restriction on publishing and broadcast resources, liability and damages charges, interference in editorial policy).
The measurement scale could, like for AI and HRW and for ICFTU, could have three points. 0 to indicate the absence of some types of restrictions. 0,5 to indicate the presence that was not widespread and was not the result of deliberate policy or deliberate failure to prevent such events. Score 1 to indicated widespread occurrence, systematic occurrence by government institutions and government unwillingness to prevent it.