Watchdog or lapdog? West’s blatant hypocrisy on media freedom

By Shabbir Rizvi

The last few weeks have seen dramatic shifts in geopolitical alignment in Africa, especially in Niger. Growing resentment over Western meddling has led to the overthrow of West-friendly President Mohamed Bazoum and the establishment of a military junta.

But that’s not all. Anti-Western sentiment has grown with demonstrators burning French flags and chanting slogans outside the French embassy in Niger’s capital Niamey.

The West has condemned the country’s junta takeover. For centuries, France has maintained colonial control over countries such as Niger. A vast amount of resources are extracted from the landlocked West African country and brought to France, fueling its economy while keeping Niger’s stagnant.

The military junta has now banned the movement of these precious resources to France. 

France is naturally furious - the EU is already suffering a major economic setback due to its dogged insistence to let the Ukraine war drag on, throwing billions of dollars into weapons and resources.

Now, it’s facing the additional burden of keeping its crisis-hit industries running - a glaring admission of the country’s colonial practices to this day.

With Niger banning the export of key natural resources like Uranium to France - French and other Western media are taking to the internet and airwaves to smear the junta.

The anti-Western sentiment has come to a boiling point from decades of Western abuse and hyper-exploitation of African countries. It is a completely organic phenomenon, and so the West will need to use its media apparatuses to counter and stifle the sentiments. 

Western media outlets have unleashed an aggressive campaign to accomplish this task. Parroting the narratives of Western regimes, French media such as France 24 and Radio France Internationale condemned the junta while using fear-mongering tactics to draw support for Western intervention.

They also sought to reaffirm support for French and other colonial structures within Niger - all while threatening the very people wishing to break the shackles of colonialism with military intervention.

In response, the junta leadership in Niger moved to ban the hostile French media outlets.

French officials blasted the move: "France reaffirms its constant and determined commitment to press freedom, freedom of expression, and the protection of journalists," the French foreign ministry stated.

A European Union spokesperson joined in: "This step is a serious violation of the right to information and freedom of expression. The EU strongly condemns these violations of fundamental freedoms.”

These statements should be a textbook study of hypocrisy. Time and time again, the EU and the collective West have unleashed mass censorship campaigns, banned outlets, and arrested journalists.

It was only last year when the EU outright banned Russia’s RT and Sputnik news.

European Union satellite providers have also directly collaborated in media censorship campaigns. It has been less than a year since French satellite company Eutelsat removed Press TV from the air.

Western countries brazenly allow media outlets that affirm their own imperialistic goals to remain on air and uncensored. This includes outlets that outwardly promote foreign meddling and violence. 

“Iran International” - which has significant funding from Saudi Arabia - played a large role in drumming up Western support during the failed foreign-backed riots in Iran last year.

Based in Washington D.C, the outlet pushed anti-Iran narratives, reporting misleading information or withholding context. It is an open-propaganda outlet created specifically to attack a sovereign country.

However, it is welcomed by the West with open arms. Not a single sanction has been placed on it.

If an outlet carries water for the US and EU, it will be allowed to operate without a single hurdle. If you criticize the goals of the empire in any way, you may be sanctioned. Shadowbanned. Censored. Labeled “state media.” Your very website may be seized entirely, as has been the case with Press TV. 

For the crime of journalism in the West, you can be locked up in horrific conditions, fearing for your life.

Does the West seem to have completely forgotten about their ongoing treatment of Julian Assange, who exposed the war crimes of the United States - only to be smeared and pushed into solitary confinement?

If you are aligned with the American Empire’s goals, then you can even get away with killing journalists - and Western officials will try to brush it under the rug.

When Israeli occupation forces deliberately murdered Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, the US dragged its feet to release a statement, ultimately claiming they can’t say for certain how the shooting death occurred - though all evidence affirms that she was targeted by regime soldiers.

And who can forget Jamal Khashoggi, an American journalist who actually did carry water for the West - only that he angered Saudi Arabia, so he was tortured, murdered, and dismembered on the orders of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (MBS).

Instead of demanding any explanation or even condemning the act, the US granted the Saudi leader immunity over the killing.

“Freedom of the Press” is a mockery in the West. A joke with no punchline. Freedom of the press in the EU and the US does not exist - not really. Through loopholes, shadowy dealings, and outright hypocrisy Western regimes always have the final say in what media can operate and what can’t.

It boils down to the simple goal of advancing its own interests.

Knowing this, it should come as no surprise that Niger banned France’s colonial media outlets. Their specific function is to carry France’s interests in foreign lands. Their goal is not honest and objective journalism or asking difficult questions. Their goal is to maintain and push public opinion of their own regime. A more honest classification of their work would be regime stenography. 

France and the rest of the EU can condemn Niger’s actions all they want, but ultimately they have set the precedent of banning media outlets. The West will go as far as killing journalists, and then point a finger using that same bloodied hand at countries that refuse to give them a podium. 

Ultimately, the world can expect more of the same double standards from the West.

The question is: if Western media’s role is to carry out its imperialistic missions rather than question and report, then why should anyone allow hostile media to operate in their country?

Shabbir Rizvi is a Chicago-based political analyst with a focus on US internal security and foreign policy.

(The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV)

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.co.uk