Freedom House has released results of its latest survey on global press freedom, "Freedom of the Press 2004," and in line with my speculation on the institution's judgment of broader Iraqi liberties, Freedom House concluded that terrorist disruption and political transition kept the state of Iraqi journalism in the category of "Not Free." Placed in perspective, however, Iraqi press freedom immediately followed liberalizing neighbors Kuwait, Qatar, Morocco, Algeria and Jordan; the first, third and fifth of which were considered "Partly Free" in Freedom House's 2004 study of human liberty. Iraq tied with Lebanon, known for its public forum's resilience to Syrian repression. Numerically, the liberated country scored slightly higher than the Ukraine, eclipsing in two years what the embattled, former Soviet satellite has just consolidated after fifteen years with the Orange Revolution. Finally, a reasonably balanced report by researcher Brian Katulis stressed Iraq's considerable forward momentum, following a candid account on Saddam Hussein's constriction of speech and press freedoms. In establishing a historical perspective, Katulis made two mistakes — first, too great a reliance on the presence of the Coalition Provisional Authority and second, excluding events following the failed twin insurrections of April 2004. Katulis' chronology is positioned rather early in Iraq's two years of reconstruction, and it seems that the country's appraisal might have suffered. And there's this puzzling statement:
Many of the new media outlets were set up by new political groups and parties, and their reporting was biased in favor in favor of promoting their parties' and achievements rather than objectively reporting on events.
If Katulis values press freedom strictly on a standard of purported "objectivity," he should reconsider. American journalism sprang from the movable type of political organizations for whom exaggeration and caviling were principal. Britain's newspapers are still classified by party loyalty — and arguably present themselves more sincerely than most American media agencies, print and television, which claim independence while grossly distorting news for political purposes. A better evaluation would qualify the work of news outlets with their reputation among Iraqis themselves. One step further, an Iraqi assessment of their ability to speak, debate and publish would be a welcome addition to an essay whose concerns tilt slightly to the academy.