By Ed Holt
BRATISLAVA, May 2 2025 – Global press freedom across the world is at a “critical moment,” campaigners have warned, as a major index mapping the state of global press freedom hits an unprecedented low.

In the latest edition of the annual press freedom index produced by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), which was published on May 2, the average score of all assessed countries fell below 55 points, falling into the category of a “difficult situation” for the first time in the index’s history.

More than six out of ten countries (112 in total) saw their overall scores decline in the index, while the conditions for practicing journalism are for the first time classified as poor in half of the world’s countries and satisfactory in fewer than one in four.

In 42 countries—harboring over half of the world’s population (56.7 percent)—the situation is “very serious,” according to the group. In these zones, press freedom is entirely absent and practicing journalism is particularly dangerous.

RSF says that while there has been a downward trend in press freedom globally for some time, the latest index scores are a distressing “new low.”

“Our index has been warning of this for the last ten years—the trajectory for press freedom has been a downward one—but this is a new low. Sixty percent of countries saw their scores [in the index] drop last year and the environment for media freedom globally has worsened. We are now at a critical moment for press freedom globally,” Fiona O’Brien, UK Bureau Director for RSF, told IPS.

Experts and campaigners have in recent years warned of growing threats to press freedom amid a rise of authoritarian regimes looking to muzzle dissent, as well as  growing economic pressures affecting the ability of independent media outlets to function.

RSF’s index is compiled using measurements of five different indicators—political context, legal framework, economic context, sociocultural context, and safety—to form an overall score. It says that this year the overall global index score was dragged down by the performance of the economic index.

It says that economic pressure is an often underestimated but major factor seriously weakening media in many countries. This pressure is being largely driven by ownership concentration, pressure from advertisers and financial backers, and public aid that is restricted, absent, or allocated non-transparently.

The group warns this is leaving many media trapped between preserving their editorial independence and ensuring their economic survival.

“The pressure on media sustainability is as bad as it has ever been,” said O’Brien.

The effects of this economic pressure have been severe. Data collected for the index indicates that in 160 out of the 180 countries assessed (88.9 percent), media outlets achieve financial stability “with difficulty” or “not at all.” Meanwhile, news outlets are shutting down due to economic hardship in nearly a third of countries globally.

While the struggles of media economies in some countries have been exacerbated by political instability, general lack of resources, and war, media in other rich, ostensibly more stable countries are also facing significant economic pressures.

RSF points out that in the US, a majority of journalists and media experts told the group that “the average media outlet struggles for economic viability.”

Meanwhile, independent media that rely heavily or exclusively on foreign funding have come under increasing pressure.

A freeze on funding for the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which halted US international aid earlier this year plunged hundreds of news outlets in different countries around the world into economic uncertainty or forced others to close.

This was particularly acute in Ukraine, where nine out of ten outlets receive international aid and USAID is the primary donor.

“The US cuts have had a profound effect there,” Jeanne Cavalier, head of RSF’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk, told IPS. “Independent media is vital in any country that is at war. It’s a real blow to press freedom in the country,” she said.

She added, though, that the cuts to US funding were “an existential threat to press freedom in all countries with authoritarian governments under Russian influence,” highlighting that exiled media in particular provide a vital service to people living under such regimes.

The Meduza news outlet is one of the most prominent exiled Russian media organizations. While more than half of its financing comes through crowdfunding, until earlier this year a part of its funding came via US grants.

The group said that the combined impact of the cut and previous financial problems presented a significant challenge to its operations. It was forced to cut its workforce by 15 percent and salaries were reduced.

Speaking to IPS at the time, Katerina Abramova, Head of Communications at Meduza, said the moves would “influence the diversity of our content.” But speaking this week after the release of RSF’s index, she said the group had managed to continue its work but admitted, “it is even more challenging now.”

“Our main goal is to maintain the quality of our reporting and to keep delivering news inside Russia,” she said.

However, she said she was concerned for the future of other organizations like Meduza as press freedom and the economic health of independent media wane globally.

“I hope that there will not be a complete loss of independent reporting on countries where free speech has become illegal. But I know that many independent newsrooms are suffering and are on the edge of closing. When you are in exile, you are in a vulnerable position, so such newsrooms face the most difficult challenges,” she told IPS.

“I am also worried that the USAID cuts may be seen as a ‘good sign’ for many authoritarian regimes around the world. They might say, ‘look, the USA also doesn’t like journalists anymore.’ It would be like a validation of what they are doing to independent media [in their own countries],” she added.

Meanwhile, other organizations have also raised the alarm over growing threats to press freedom, even in countries regarded as among the strongest democracies in the world.

While in the RSF index the European Union (EU)-Balkans zone had the highest overall score globally, and its gap with the rest of the world continued to grow, a report released this week by the Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties) group highlighted how some EU governments were attacking press freedom and undermining independent media.

The report, based on the work of 43 human rights groups from 21 countries, warned that press freedom was being eroded across the bloc. It said EU media markets “feature high media ownership concentration, with these owners remaining obscured behind inadequate ownership transparency obligations, the continued erosion of public service media’s independence, ongoing threats and intimidation against journalists, and restrictions on freedom of expression and access to information.”

“The findings of this report should put EU officials on high alert: media freedom and pluralism are under attack across the EU, and in some cases they are in an existential battle against overtly undemocratic governments,” according to the group.

Liberties also warned that “EU legislation to bolster media freedom is being greeted with hostility, making enforcement efforts in 2025 and beyond decisive in protecting the free and plural media that European democracy depends on.”

However, it is this legislation, including the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which is designed to guarantee the protection of journalists and sources, independence of regulatory bodies and full ownership transparency, and the Anti-SLAPP Directive (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) to protect journalists and human rights advocates from abusive legal proceedings, that experts see as providing hope that some of the threats to media freedom can be dealt with.

“At the individual country level within the EU, there are some problems. Where there has been a recent change in government away from authoritarianism, there has been some positive progress, e.g., in Poland. But in other countries, like Slovakia, we are seeing the reverse,” Eva Simon, Senior Advocacy Officer at Liberties, told IPS.

“But at the EU level, we see positive prospects for media freedom in new legislation. The EU Media Act is coming into force soon and the anti-SLAPP directive will come into effect next year.

“The EU has the power to intervene in countries where there are persistent problems and we have high hopes that the EU will use its powers to enforce the European Media Freedom Act. The EU has more tools than ever at its disposal to ensure media freedom in member states,” she added.

On April 30, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ) issued a damning report on how, since the start of US President Donald Trump’s second term in January, press freedom has come under attack.

The report warned that press freedom is no longer a given in the United States as journalists and newsrooms face mounting pressures that threaten both their ability to report freely and the public’s right to know.

It said the executive branch of the government was taking “unprecedented steps to permanently undermine press freedom” through restricting access for some news organizations, increasingly using government and regulatory bodies against media, and launching targeted attacks on journalists and newsrooms.

In a statement, CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg said, “This is a definitive moment for U.S. media and the public’s right to be informed. Whether at the federal or state level, the investigations, hearings, and verbal attacks amount to an environment where the media’s ability to bear witness to government action is already curtailed.”

The current threats to press freedom in the US are among the most worrying anywhere, many media experts say.

“There is a head-on attack on media freedom in the US. If you look at the scores for the US [in the index], the social indicator has dropped hugely, which shows that within the US the press is operating in a hostile environment. The economic situation there has deteriorated too, which makes things difficult for them,” said O’Brien.

“But also, a lot of people look to America as a bastion of press freedom, with its constitution’s First Amendment, and what is happening there to independent media is an absolute gift to authoritarian rulers around the world. If the rest of the world just sits back and watches this and lets press freedom be restricted and attacked and does nothing, other regimes will look and just think, ‘oh, it’s OK to do this.’”

“World leaders have to now stand up for press freedom. Independent journalism is fundamental to democratic societies,” she added.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Norman Solomon
SAN FRANCISCO, USA, May 2 2025 – Eight years before the U.S.-backed regime in South Vietnam collapsed, I stood with high school friends at Manhattan’s Penn Station on the night of April 15, 1967, waiting for a train back to Washington after attending the era’s largest antiwar protest so far.

An early edition of the next day’s New York Times arrived on newsstands with a big headline at the top of the front page that said “100,000 Rally at U.N. Against Vietnam War.” I heard someone say, “Johnson will have to listen to us now.”

But President Lyndon Johnson dashed the hopes of those who marched from Central Park to the United Nations that day (with an actual turnout later estimated at 400,000). He kept escalating the war in Vietnam, while secretly also bombing Laos and Cambodia.

During the years that followed, antiwar demonstrations grew in thousands of communities across the United States. The decentralized Moratorium Day events on October 15, 1969 drew upward of 2 million people. But all forms of protest fell on deaf official ears. A song by the folksinger Donovan, recorded midway through the decade, became more accurate and powerful with each passing year: “The War Drags On.”

As the war continued, so did the fading of trust in the wisdom and morality of Johnson and his successor, Richard Nixon. Gallup polls gauged the steep credibility drop. In 1965, just 24 percent of Americans said involvement in the Vietnam War had been a mistake. By the spring of 1971, the figure was 61 percent.

The number of U.S. troops in Vietnam gradually diminished from the peak of 536,100 in 1968, but ground operations and massive U.S. bombing persisted until the signing of the Paris Peace Accords in late January 1973. American forces withdrew from Vietnam, but the war went on with U.S. support for 27 more months, until – on April 30, 1975 – the final helicopter liftoff from the roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon signaled that the Vietnam War was indeed over.

By then, most Americans were majorly disillusioned. Optimism that public opinion would sway their government’s leaders on matters of war and peace had been steadily crushed while carnage in Southeast Asia continued. To many citizens, democracy had failed – and the failure seemed especially acute to students, whose views on the war had evolved way ahead of overall opinion.

At the end of the 1960s, Gallup found “significantly more opposition to President Richard Nixon’s Vietnam policies” among students at public and private colleges than in “a parallel survey of the U.S. general public: 44 percent vs. 25 percent, respectively.” The same poll “showed 69 percent of students in favor of slowing down or halting the fighting in Vietnam, while only 20 percent favored escalation.

This was a sharp change from 1967, when more students favored escalation (49 percent) than de-escalation (35 percent).”

Six decades later, it took much less time for young Americans to turn decisively against their government’s key role of arming Israel’s war on Gaza. By a wide margin, continuous huge shipments of weapons to the Israeli military swiftly convinced most young adults that the U.S. government was complicit in a relentless siege taking the lives of Palestinian civilians on a large scale.

A CBS News/YouGov poll in June 2024 found that Americans opposed sending “weapons and supplies to Israel” by 61-39 percent. Opposition to the arms shipments was even higher among young people. For adults under age 30, the ratio was 77-23.

Emerging generations learned that moral concerns about their country’s engagement in faraway wars meant little to policymakers in Washington. No civics textbook could prepare students for the realities of power that kept the nation’s war machine on a rampage, taking several million lives in Southeast Asia or supplying weapons making possible genocide in Gaza.

For vast numbers of Americans, disproportionately young, the monstrous warfare overseen by Presidents Johnson and Nixon caused the scales to fall from their eyes about the character of U.S. leadership. And like President Trump now, President Biden showed that nice-sounding rhetoric could serve as a tidy cover story for choosing to enable nonstop horrors without letup.

No campaign-trail platitudes about caring and joy could make up for a lack of decency. By remaining faithful to the war policies of the president they served, while discounting the opinions of young voters, two Democratic vice presidents – Hubert Humphrey and Kamala Harris – damaged their efforts to win the White House.

A pair of exchanges on network television, 56 years apart, are eerily similar.

In August 1968, appearing on the NBC program Meet the Press, Humphrey was asked: “On what points, if any, do you disagree with the Vietnam policies of President Johnson?”

“I think that the policies that the president has pursued are basically sound,” Humphrey replied.

In October 2024, appearing on the ABC program The View, Harris was asked: “Would you have done something differently than President Biden during the past four years?”

“There is not a thing that comes to mind,” Harris replied.

Young people’s votes for Harris last fall were just 54 percent, compared to 60 percent that they provided to Biden four years earlier.

Many young eyes recognized the war policy positions of Hubert Humphrey and Kamala Harris as immoral. Their decisions to stay on a war train clashed with youthful idealism. And while hardboiled political strategists opted to discount such idealism as beside the electoral point, the consequences have been truly tragic – and largely foreseeable.

Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. The paperback edition of his latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, includes an afterword about the Gaza war.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Luisa Gómez Betancur
WASHINGTON DC, May 2 2025 – The most powerful court in Latin America and the Caribbean, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, is preparing to clarify the obligations of States in relation to climate change. In its upcoming Advisory Opinion, the Court must articulate ambitious standards for respecting and protecting the human rights of environmental defenders in the context of the climate crisis.

Environmental defenders — advocates protecting environmental rights, resources, and marginalized communities — play a critical role in helping us navigate the climate crisis: they preserve ecosystem health, and mobilize and organize when the environment is under threat. Their work is vital.

Across the globe, we are witnessing the impacts of a warming planet: devastating wildfires, lethal flash floods, droughts that fuel hunger, and increasingly intense hurricanes. This strain on land and resources translates into greater pressure on those who defend the environment.

It is thus essential to strengthen the rights and work of environmental defenders, especially in Latin America and the Caribbean, a region that is amongst the most vulnerable to the effects of the climate emergency and the most dangerous in the world for environmental activism.

During public hearings in May 2024, a petition supported by over a 1,000 individuals and human rights organizations was delivered to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights urging the Court to incorporate the Escazú standards into its Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency. Credit: Romulo Serpa

Environmental defenders’ work is often deadly. In 2023, 196 environmental defenders were brutally murdered. Most of them were opposing deforestation, pollution, and land grabbing. Their struggles are for essential needs: clean air, healthy ecosystems and biodiversity, safe and sufficient water, and food.

Only four countries in Latin America and the Caribbean — Brazil, Colombia, Honduras, and Mexico — account for 85 percent of the documented murders of environmental defenders, confirming this region as the most violent one in the world for those who defend the land and the environment.

The call to strengthen environmental defenders’ rights and work was heard loud and clear at the Third Forum on Human Rights Defenders in Environmental Matters of the Escazú Agreement, where countries from the region convened in the Caribbean island State of St. Kitts and Nevis in April.

This Forum marked a historic moment: it was the first event of its kind in the Insular Caribbean, a region already experiencing — and poised to disproportionately face — the severe impacts of the climate crisis.

It served as a vital platform not only to advance defenders’ rights but also to expose alarming new threats: rising attacks not only against individual human rights defenders but also against groups and organizations, through the spread of “laws against NGOs” and strategic lawsuits against public parrticiation (SLAPP) suits targeting environmental lawyers.

SLAPPs are tactics used, mostly by businesses, to intimidate and silence environmental defender organizations. Unlike genuine legal actions, SLAPPs abuse the court system to drain resources and undermine activists’ efforts. These lawsuits can create a “chilling effect” on free speech, making others hesitant to speak out for fear of being sued.

They also burden public resources and waste judicial time on unnecessary cases. These tactics aim to silence collective action and dismantle the critical support networks that defenders rely on.

The Escazú Agreement is the first binding regional treaty to promote environmental democracy — the right to information, participation, and justice — in Latin America and the Caribbean. It is also the only one in the world that contains specific provisions aiming to guarantee a safe and enabling space for environmental defenders. It is the fruit of decades of hard work by regional governments, civil society organizations, and environmental defenders.

The Environmental Defenders Forums, in the framework of the Escazú Agreement, were established for the discussion and implementation of the Action Plan on Human Rights Defenders in Environmental Matters. This Action Plan outlines strategic measures to ensure the safety of environmental defenders in the region, as well as recognize and protect their rights while ensuring that States prevent, investigate, and sanction attacks and threats against them.

Hosting the Forum in the Insular Caribbean was a notable political achievement for the countries of this region. Internationally, discussions often group Latin America and the Caribbean as a single, cohesive entity. However, the experiences of defenders in Latin American nations and the continental Caribbean differ significantly from those in the Insular Caribbean.

Key distinctions — such as country size, government capacities, and unique environmental challenges, including heightened vulnerability to specific climate events — result in diverse needs and priorities for environmental defenders.

This event was eye-opening for many, as it shed light on the diverse realities within the Caribbean that are often overshadowed when grouped under the broad label of “Latin America and the Caribbean.”

Environmental defenders in the Caribbean face significant pressures despite lower reported lethal attacks compared to Latin America. Over a decade, three lethal cases were recorded in one country, but reports acknowledge these figures as incomplete due to challenges such as limited civil society presence, media repression, and insecurity. Additionally, non-lethal aggressions — such as criminalization, harassment, and stigmatization — often go overlooked.

During the Forum, Caribbean environmental defenders highlighted socio-environmental conflicts across industries like oil and gas, mining, tourism, and infrastructure. Despite their efforts, their work is often stigmatized, infantilized, and unrecognized —even by themselves — as many identify as “climate activists” or “community leaders” rather than environmental defenders.

This lack of recognition hinders awareness of their protections and State obligations under international human rights law, underscoring the need for States to better recognize, protect, and promote defenders’ rights.

State representatives had a limited presence at the Forum, unlike mandatory participation in the Escazú Conference of the Parties, leaving “empty chairs” without accountability. This absence isolates environmental defenders in echo chambers, limiting dialogue with decision-makers.

The Forum is a vital platform to address violence and threats against defenders, but State neglect undermines its purpose. By failing to engage in the Forum and to protect defenders, States violate their rights and international law, making their absence unacceptable.
In this critical context, strengthening the rights and work of environmental defenders is essential, with the Escazú Agreement and its Action Plan providing a vital framework.

The Advisory Opinion process of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the Climate Emergency presents a key opportunity for the region’s most influential Court to advance this goal.

We urge the Court to incorporate the Escazú Agreement’s specific standards as a baseline where Inter-American standards are less robust. This includes clearly defining the minimum essential content of the rights to access information, public participation, and justice in environmental matters under the American Convention.

Additionally, regional and international standards must be harmonized to ensure strong protections for environmental defenders, including a safe and enabling environment for their vital work.

There is no time to lose — every moment of inaction puts the lives of environmental defenders at greater risk. Without those who defend the planet, there can be no sustainable future. Protecting environmental defenders is not charity — it is survival.

Luisa Gómez Betancur is Senior Attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By External Source
May 2 2025 (IPS-Partners)

 
Freedom of the press is facing growing threats across the world.

Authoritarian regimes still imprison, silence, and kill journalists.

But today, elected governments are doing the same.

In 2024, over 550 journalists were imprisoned worldwide. 124 of them in China alone.

Since October 2023, at least 155 journalists have been killed in Gaza, Lebanon, and Israel.

Many were clearly identifiable as journalists – and targeted.

Sudan has become a death trap for reporters caught in civil war.

In Pakistan, Mexico and Bangladesh journalists were assassinated for their work.

Independent media face financial and political attacks.

This year, the U.S. gutted funding for Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Free Asia.

Autocratic leaders applauded.

Meanwhile, trust in traditional media is collapsing.

In the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer, China scored 75% trust in media. The UK scored 36%.

Yet China ranks 172nd out of 180 on the Press Freedom Index.

AI is adding new risks: Amplifying disinformation, censorship, and surveillance.

Recent studies show 51% of AI-generated news responses have major factual issues.

Misinformation spreads faster and easier than ever.

UNESCO warns that AI, without safeguards, could crush free expression.

This year, World Press Freedom Day focuses on “Reporting in the Brave New World: The Impact of
Artificial Intelligence on Press Freedom and the Media.”

AI offers powerful new tools for journalism – but without ethical safeguards, it threatens press freedom itself.

And without journalism, democracy stands on shifting sand.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, May 2 2025 – After over two years of extended warfare in Sudan, humanitarian organizations have expressed fears of an imminent collapse as widespread hunger, displacement, and insecurity ravages the population. With tensions between the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) having reached a new peak in 2025, it is imperative that Sudanese communities in the most crisis-affected areas have unfettered access to life-saving aid.

Earlier in April, local sources had confirmed instances of renewed violence in the Zamzam and Abu Shouk displacement camps, both of which have been conflict hotspots since the beginning of the Sudanese Civil War. According to statements from The General Coordination of Displaced Persons and Refugees advocacy group, due to indiscriminate shootings, arson, and shellings from the RSF, hundreds were left “dead or wounded”, with the majority of the victims being women and young children.

The United Nations (UN) Humanitarian Coordinator for Sudan Clementine Nkweta-Salami informed reporters that there were over 100 civilian deaths across both displacement camps, with over 20 children and 9 aid workers having been killed. According to Relief International, the assaults also led to the destruction of hundreds of residential structures, medical facilities, and the Zamzam marketplace. Additionally, many residents remain trapped in the besieged camps with no way of escaping.

“This represents yet another deadly and unacceptable escalation in a series of brutal attacks on displaced people and aid workers in Sudan since the onset of this conflict nearly two years ago,” said Nkweta-Salami. “Zamzam and Abu Shouk are some of the largest displacement camps in Darfur, sheltering more than 700,000 people who have fled cycles of violence over the years. These families — many of whom have already been displaced multiple times — are once again caught in the crossfire, with nowhere safe to go.”

Local sources also confirmed that the RSF-allied militia abducted nearly 50 Zamzam camp residents and about 40 aid personnel. The UN estimates that nearly 400,000 civilians have fled the two El Fasher camps in the later half of April, with the Zamzam camp having been almost emptied. According to the Office of the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Sudan, many of these displaced civilians are moving toward remote, secluded areas with little access to clean food, water, or healthcare services, such as Tawila and Jebel Marra.

“On April 12 and 13, our team in Tawila saw more than 10,000 people fleeing from Zamzam and nearby areas. They arrived in an advanced state of dehydration, exhaustion, and stress. They have nothing but the clothes they’re wearing, nothing to eat, nothing to drink. They sleep on the ground under the trees. Several people told us about family members left behind—lost during the escape, injured, or killed,” said Marion Ramstein, an emergency field coordinator in North Darfur who is working with Doctors Without Borders (MSF).

Humanitarian organizations have described the displaced Sudanese people’s flow of movement as unpredictable, sudden, and massive. Due to the sheer scale of displaced persons, host communities and shelters have been overwhelmed, reporting strains on healthcare services, water infrastructures, and food availability.

According to the World Food Programme (WFP), famine has been declared in 10 areas across Sudan, with 17 other areas at risk of imminent famine. Hunger has also reached “catastrophic levels”, with more than half of the population, roughly 25 million people, dependent on humanitarian assistance.

“In the past, we had three to four meals per day. For the past two years, giving [my children] one meal a day is a miracle,” said Hawa, a displaced mother of three who resided in the Zamzam camp. Although the UN and its partners have been on the frontlines of the crisis in North Darfur, an immediate scale up of resources and services is essential to ensure that the hunger crisis isn’t exacerbated.

Following the escalation of hostilities in December 2024, MSF began distributing food parcels as a part of their malnutrition treatment program. Hoping to target families consisting of young children and breastfeeding mothers, MSF has been monitoring the hunger crisis as the economic downturns in Sudan continue to worsen food insecurity.

“In order to reduce instances where the child’s therapeutic food is divided amongst the hungry relatives, we provide a family ration for a duration of two months. This allows the child to receive the full course of their nutrition therapy while increasing the nutrition situation of the whole family,” said Hunter McGovern, MSF’s food distribution coordinator in South Darfur.

“During our distributions, we found that the average family size is much larger than what we had initially planned for—sometimes as many as ten people per household. This underscores just how critical the food shortage is and how much more assistance is required to meet the real needs of people.”

The current supply of humanitarian aid for displaced families in Sudan is overstretched due to rapidly growing needs and deteriorating security conditions. Additionally, as the rainy season approaches, humanitarian experts have projected that the crisis will compound significantly.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), alongside malnutrition, Sudanese people suffer from widespread levels of protracted disease and conflict-related injuries. More than two-thirds of Sudan’s states have reported 3 or more disease outbreaks at a single time, with cholera, dengue, measles, and malaria running rampant. Heavy rainfall is expected to disrupt vaccination campaigns and hamper aid deliveries.

“The humanitarian response is faltering as warring parties block aid, insecurity grows, and rain is expected to wash away critical roads,” said Samuel Sileshi, Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) emergency coordinator for Darfur. “Last year, floods destroyed roads around Mornei bridge, a vital link for aid from Chad. With the rainy season approaching, these roads will soon be impassable again.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Farhana Haque Rahman
NEW YORK, May 2 2025 – Pressures on the press are piling up. Like an avalanche gaining speed yet unnoticed by most people in the valley below, freedom of the press is being relentlessly trampled over – despite the valiant efforts of a few.

Farhana Haque Rahman

For as long as we can remember, authoritarian regimes have harassed, jailed, ‘disappeared’ and killed troubling journalists. The numbers keep rising. Now under the fog of war, media workers are losing their lives to the bombs and bullets dispatched by even elected leaders, while around the world journalists are intimidated through lawsuits, or silenced by government budget cuts.

On top of all this, marking World Press Freedom Day on May 3, UNESCO is aiming this year to focus thoughts on what it diplomatically calls the substantial ‘new risks’ as well as the benefits of Artificial Intelligence (AI), already widely deployed in newsrooms, and by fraudsters.

For incisive information on journalists targeted worldwide, organizations like Reporters Without Borders (RSF) not only collate the data and keep detailed records but also campaign on our behalf, as in lobbying the International Criminal Court to investigate crimes against journalists in Palestine.

In its 2024 roundup, RSF notes: “In Gaza, the scale of the tragedy is incomprehensible… In 2024, Gaza became the most dangerous region in the world for journalists, a place where journalism itself is threatened with extinction.”

RSF counts over 155 journalists and media workers killed in Gaza and Lebanon and two killed in Israel since the Hamas attacks on Israel in October 2023. This number includes at least 35 who were “very likely” targeted or killed while working, many clearly identifiable as journalists but shot or killed in Israeli strikes. “This was compounded by a deliberate media blackout and a block on foreign journalists entering the Strip.”

Sudan is described as a “death trap” for journalists caught between military and paramilitary factions. And outside war zones, seven journalists were killed in Pakistan in 2024, five assassinated in Mexico, and five killed in a violent crackdown on the July/August 2024 protests in Bangladesh.

Of the 550 reporters behind bars around the world by the end of the year, 124 were in China (including 11 in Hong Kong), 61 in Myanmar, 41 in Israel and 40 in Belarus.

Of the 38 media professionals jailed in Russia, 18 are Ukrainian. RSF dedicated its report to Ukrainian freelance journalist Victoria Roshchyna, whose family were informed that she died in captivity in Russia on 19 September. No explanation was given.

Just last month (April), a Russian court sentenced four journalists to 5-1/2 years each in prison, accusing them of extremism for working for an anti-corruption group founded by opposition leader Alexei Navalny who died in captivity in February 2024.

What’s more, all these regimes are giving a thumbs-up to the March 15 gutting of Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia, as well as the dismantling of USAid which, for example, helped support independent journalists in Myanmar.

China applauded, calling VOA “a dirty rag” and “lie factory”. Cambodian strongman Hun Sen cheered the cuts of “fake news” RFA.

RFS says press freedom deteriorated in the Asia-Pacific region, where 26 of the 32 countries and territories saw their scores fall in the 2024 World Press Freedom Index.

“The region’s dictatorial governments have been tightening their hold over news and information with increasing vigour,” RFS said, while commending regional democracies, such as Timor-Leste, Samoa and Taiwan, for retaining “their roles as press freedom models”.

But what is perhaps most alarming about the insidious deterioration of press freedom around the world is that autocratic regimes are very successfully mastering the dark arts of propaganda, while mainstream traditional media in more open societies are losing people’s trust.

The 2025 Trust Barometer compiled by Edelman, a big American PR firm, found of the 28 major countries it surveyed that China ranked highest in the “trust of media” category with a 75 percent rating, while the UK came next to last with 36 percent. This contrasts with RSF’s press freedom index which ranks China 172 out of 180 countries and territories, and the UK 23rd.

Reflecting on 25 years of surveys and referring broadly to the West, CEO Richard Edelman said media became the “least trusted” institution in 2020 as “information became a bitter and contested battleground used to manipulate, drive societal wedges, and fuel political polarization”.

Which brings us to Unesco’s words of warning over the AI revolution on World Press Freedom Day.

Yes it enhances access to and processing of information, enables journalists to handle vast amounts of data efficiently and create content, improves fact checking etc.

But, the UN agency adds: “AI also… can be used to reproduce misinformation, spread disinformation, amplify online hate speech, and enable new forms of censorship. Some actors use AI for mass surveillance of journalists and citizens, creating a chilling effect on freedom of expression.”

AI-generated fake videos posted on social media, such as images of firefighters rescuing animals in the recent Los Angeles wildfires, have already gained tens of millions of clicks.

Recent BBC research into four publically available AI assistants found 51percent of all AI answers to questions about the news were judged to have significant issues of some form. This included 19 percent of AI answers which cited BBC content introduced factual errors, while 13 percent of the quotes sourced from BBC articles were either altered or didn’t actually exist in that article.

We have been warned. And that is before the boffins perhaps succeed in birthing Artificial General Intelligence with the goal of creating machines as intelligent and versatile as humans. The very concept then of Press Freedom may no longer exist.

Farhana Haque Rahman is Senior Vice President of IPS Inter Press Service and Executive Director IPS Noram; she served as the elected Director General of IPS from 2015-2019. A journalist and communications expert, she is a former senior official of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Fund for Agricultural Development.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

Excerpt:

World Press Freedom Day 2025