Peter Espeut | Declining freedom of the press

Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) – in English known as Reporters Without Borders – is a non-government organisation that annually ranks 180 countries and territories with respect to freedom of the press, with scores ranging from 0 (low press freedom) and 100 (high press freedom).

With a score of 89.49 in 2020 Jamaica ranked sixth in the world. The following year (2021) our press freedom score improved to 90.04 but we dropped to seventh place, because Costs Rica which had been in seventh place (89.47) improved its score to 91.24 to move ahead of us to fifth place.

This is why in analysing indices of anything you cannot just look at the place in the ranking; maybe of much more importance is the absolute score, which is what will indicate whether you are getting better or worse. As shown above, statistically, it is quite possible for you to be getting better at press freedom, but falling lower in the ranking (because others are improving faster than you are). Conversely, it is possible to improve in the ranking while your press freedom is in decline (others are declining faster than you).

In 2025 Jamaica has fallen dramatically to 26th place (which is bad, bad); but what is worse (and wusserer) is that our absolute score has fallen to 75.83 – our lowest score. I must point out that in 2023 our score was similarly low (75.89) but we ranked number 32 in the world; so between 2023 and 2025 as our score declined only slightly (0.06 points), our world ranking improved by six places (from 32 to 26). Press freedom in some countries as measured by RSF is declining much faster than here in Jamaica.

DETERIORATING

But we cannot escape the fact that according to the measures employed by RSF, press freedom in Jamaica is deteriorating, and that must be cause for concern by all well-thinking Jamaicans.

It is important to place blame where blame is due. How much of the decline is due to the behaviour of the political parties, especially the ruling party? And how much is because of departure by media houses from balanced journalism?

You might be interested to know that the United States (US) with its much vaunted freedom of speech and first amendment rights environment, with a score of 65.49 ranks 57th in the world in 2025. This is not a Trump phenomenon; in 2024 under Joe Biden they scored 66.59 to rank 55th in the world.

One of the comments made by RSF on the US situation is “A growing interest in partisan media threatens objectivity, while public confidence in the media has fallen dangerously”.

Some US media interpret press freedom to mean that they are free to be partisan. Everyone knows that Fox News and MSNBC are strongly partisan, and there is little objectivity. I am sure that this politicising of the press has caused the low press freedom scores in the US.

Is the same thing happening in Jamaica?

RSF has been diplomatically terse in commenting on Jamaica’s declining freedom of the press (and by the way, nowadays “the press” refers not only to print media like this one but electronic media as well). Their official comment inter alia, was “there is a growing gulf of distrust between government officials and the media that has contributed to a decline in institutional respect for press freedom”.

VAGUE

This by itself is vague, and does not tell me much. To dig deeper we have to look at the variables RSF combines to construct its World Press Freedom Index.

According to their website, RSF uses “five distinct categories” in its composite index: “political context, legal framework, economic context, sociocultural context, and safety”. My word limit does not allow me to examine all five points, so I will just look at the first one.

Political Context: This category aims to evaluate the autonomy of media and the degree of support to the media to keep government and officials accountable.

RSF commentary in the 2025 report: “Although Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness has praised the country’s press freedom record and repeatedly stated his commitment to uphold it, he has also previously suggested that journalists do not have to stick to the facts or truth, and that a free press enables journalists to “TAKE WHATEVER STANCE THEY WANT” (their emphasis).

Read between the lines. RSF is critical of PM Holness seeming to support partisan media, who “do not have to stick to the facts or truth”, and who can “take whatever stance they want”.

I take note of the response of the Press Association of Jamaica to the 2025 RSF World Press Freedom Index; here is an abstract:

“Beyond legislation, Jamaica must also guard against other pressures that compromise media independence. The concentration of media ownership, heavy reliance on advertising from state and private entities, and the rise of politically affiliated online voices can all distort the information landscape”.

The PAJ also added a call for “greater transparency in state advertising allocation, support for independent journalism, and continued education on media literacy and press freedom.”

Read between the lines: the PAJ is lamenting the reduction in “independent journalism”, i.e., the increase in partisan media. If there is partisan media supporting the ruling party then it is only reasonable to expect that the government will disproportionately allocate state advertising there. And so will the partisan private sector. Therefore, the PAJ is calling for “greater transparency in state advertising allocation”.

One could also add the hosting of outside broadcasts.

Declining press freedom cannot totally be blamed on the government or the political parties. If there is a media house (or media houses) that is (are) partisan, this may cause our press freedom score to fall. Is there such a partisan media house (or media houses)? I leave it for my readers to decide.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com