Across the world, a troubling pattern is becoming ever clearer: reporters are increasingly treated not as watchdogs of democracy, but as enemies to be intimidated, discredited, or silenced. From street-level harassment to imprisonment and murder, attacks on journalists have risen alongside a broader drift towards authoritarianism. Leaders who fear scrutiny are learning a familiar lesson from history: controlling the narrative is often easier than correcting the truth.
Journalism’s essential role is to expose wrongdoing, verify claims, and hold power to account. Yet this very function places reporters in the crosshairs of governments and movements that rely on misinformation, grievance, or cults of personality. As democratic norms weaken in many countries, assaults on the press have become both a symptom and a tool of authoritarian politics.
A Global Trend with Local Faces
In openly authoritarian states, repression of journalists has long been a fact of life. Reporters investigating corruption, human rights abuses, or military conduct are detained on vague charges, subjected to sham trials, or forced into exile. What is new — and alarming — is how similar tactics and rhetoric are now appearing in countries that once prided themselves on robust press freedom.
Populist leaders across continents increasingly frame journalists as members of a hostile elite, detached from “ordinary people” and driven by hidden agendas. This narrative is politically convenient. By undermining trust in independent reporting, leaders can dismiss uncomfortable facts as lies and recast themselves as victims of a biased media establishment.
The consequences are not merely rhetorical. When politicians repeatedly portray journalists as enemies, they legitimise abuse by supporters. Online harassment, death threats, and physical assaults often follow, creating a climate of fear that encourages self-censorship.
Trump’s America and the Normalisation of Hostility
Donald Trump’s presidency marked a significant shift in how the United States treated its press. While America retains strong constitutional protections for free expression, Trump’s relentless attacks on journalists weakened long-standing norms. By labelling critical reporting as “fake news” and calling the press “the enemy of the people”, he echoed language historically associated with authoritarian regimes.
These attacks were not abstract. Reporters covering Trump rallies were harassed and threatened. Media organisations faced lawsuits and regulatory pressure. More broadly, public trust in journalism declined as factual reporting was increasingly dismissed as partisan hostility.
Perhaps most damaging was the precedent set. When the world’s most powerful democracy tolerates — or even celebrates — verbal assaults on journalists, it sends a signal globally. Leaders elsewhere have been quick to adopt similar tactics, citing the American example to justify their own crackdowns.
Case Studies in Press Repression
Hungary: Media Capture in Plain Sight
Under Viktor Orbán, Hungary has demonstrated how authoritarianism can advance without overt censorship. Independent media outlets have been bought up by government allies, advertising revenue has been redirected to friendly publications, and critical journalists have been marginalised. While reporters are rarely jailed, the end result is a heavily skewed media landscape in which dissenting voices struggle to survive.
India: Nationalism and the Squeezing of Dissent
India remains formally democratic, yet journalists critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government increasingly face legal harassment, raids, and online abuse. Reporters investigating sectarian violence, government failures, or the treatment of minorities are frequently accused of being “anti-national”. The use of colonial-era sedition laws and sweeping anti-terror legislation has created a chilling effect across the profession.
Russia: Violence and Elimination
In Russia, repression of journalists is overt and brutal. Independent media have been shut down or forced into exile, while reporters who persist face intimidation, imprisonment, or worse. The murders of investigative journalists and the routine branding of outlets as “foreign agents” demonstrate a system in which exposing the truth about power can be fatal.
The Philippines: From Rhetoric to Prosecution
Former president Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs was accompanied by an aggressive campaign against critical media. Journalists were subjected to threats and online harassment, while major outlets faced tax charges and licence challenges. The message was clear: investigate state violence and you risk becoming a target yourself.
These cases differ in severity, but they share a common logic. Rather than confronting evidence, leaders seek to delegitimise, intimidate, or remove those who produce it.
Farage and the inconvenience of truth
Nigel Farage would prefer the public not to know the truth about his assertions and behaviour because transparency would strip away the carefully constructed image on which his political relevance depends. Many of his claims rely on distortion, selective statistics, or outright falsehoods that are effective only so long as they go largely unexamined. Public scrutiny exposes patterns: shifting positions, exaggerated threats, unfulfilled promises, and a habit of courting outrage while avoiding responsibility for consequences. If these patterns were widely understood, Farage’s role as a plain-speaking outsider would be revealed as a performance rather than a principle.
Truth also undermines the moral drama he cultivates. Honest examination shows not a lone rebel challenging power, but a professional agitator who benefits from media attention, financial backing, and the very political systems he claims to despise. Furthermore, awareness of his behaviour — including his rhetorical flirtation with extremism, his casual relationship with accuracy, and his repeated retreat from accountability — would make it harder to cast criticism as persecution. In this light, obscuring the truth is not merely defensive but essential: an informed public is far less susceptible to slogans, far less tolerant of manipulation, and far more likely to judge Farage not by the anger he provokes, but by the substance he consistently avoids.
Lies, Exposure, and Retaliation
Authoritarian-leaning governments share a common vulnerability: their dependence on falsehoods. Whether exaggerating economic success, denying corruption, or rewriting history, these regimes rely on controlling information. Journalists who investigate and publish inconvenient truths threaten that control.
Rather than rebutting evidence, many leaders choose retaliation. Reporters are accused of treason, espionage, or spreading disinformation. Laws ostensibly designed to combat “fake news” are weaponised against legitimate journalism. Surveillance, legal harassment, and arbitrary detention become tools of intimidation.
The aim is not always to imprison every critical reporter. Often, it is enough to make an example of a few. Fear spreads quickly through newsrooms, particularly in countries where legal protections are weak and violence goes unpunished.
The Cost to Society
When journalists are attacked, society as a whole pays the price. Corruption flourishes in darkness. Abuses of power go unchecked. Citizens are left navigating a fog of propaganda, rumour, and half-truths.
Moreover, the erosion of press freedom rarely stops with journalists. The same logic used to silence reporters is soon applied to judges, academics, activists, and political opponents. An attack on journalism is often an early warning sign of deeper democratic decay.
Even in established democracies, the cumulative effect of hostility towards the press can be profound. If the public comes to believe that no source of information is trustworthy, accountability collapses. In that vacuum, power speaks loudest.
Defending the Right to Know
Resisting this trend requires more than expressions of solidarity after high-profile attacks. Governments that claim to value democracy must defend press freedom consistently, including when reporting is uncomfortable or politically damaging. Legal protections for journalists must be strengthened, not eroded under the guise of national security or public order.
Media organisations, too, face responsibilities. Accuracy, transparency, and ethical reporting are essential in maintaining public trust. Authoritarian leaders exploit genuine journalistic failures to discredit the entire profession. High standards are therefore not merely professional ideals but acts of resistance.
Finally, citizens themselves play a role. Consuming news critically, supporting independent journalism, and rejecting rhetoric that dehumanises reporters are all part of defending the right to know.
The increasing tendency to attack journalists is not inevitable. It is a political choice, driven by fear of exposure and accountability. History shows that when societies allow those who tell the truth to be silenced, the lies that replace them come at a devastating cost.
