Afghan media between a rock and a hard place

More than half of the 547 media outlets that were registered before the Taliban’s takeover have now closed. Those still functioning are subject to intrusive monitoring and directives from multiple Taliban divisions that are reinforced through threats and violence.

Some of these orders instruct outlets and journalists to refrain from publishing information that the regime has not confirmed. Pressure has mainly focused on ensuring favourable coverage of the regime and reducing critical coverage.

Additionally, the de facto authorities (DfA)’s imposition of ever-more restrictive policies on women and girls has hindered their access to education and health services, as well as their general involvement in public life. Media offer a rare opportunity to access information and knowledge; radio stations now broadcast educational radio shows targeting young girls barred from school.

Although an IMS partner operating have recently registered a slight increase in employed women journalists, their working conditions remain severely restricted and challenging. The fact remains that a total of two-thirds of Afghanistan’s journalists no longer work in the business. Many have fled to other countries in the region or sought asylum in western countries.

Established outlets now operate from abroad, and new outlets focused on Afghanistan have been formed outside the country. All rely on social media to share their journalism with audiences inside the country. The fact that social media remains uncensored and accessible is noteworthy, although accessing content critical of DfA has been warned against by…you guessed it!

The Taliban are also more strictly regulating which foreign journalists are allowed to report from the country. To apply for a press permit, the DfA requires a detailed overview of what you plan to do and who you will talk to. Such measures only serve to suppress yet another diminished information space, like what we see at play in Gaza and Russia.

It has become increasingly difficult to access information about what is really happening in Afghanistan, and sadly there’s no lack of conflicts or repressive regimes to turn our attention to. I fear that the lack of information may result in diminished support for the Afghans who, for the past three years, have had to live under strict Taliban rule.

The Taliban’s zero tolerance for criticism is a dilemma for international organisations. It is not possible to operate in Afghanistan without being in contact with the Taliban. If we criticise what we see, there is a real risk of being asked to leave. If that were to happen, we would lose any opportunity for leverage and monitoring and abandon those looking to the outside world for hope and help. In IMS we have opted to walk that fine line and remain very committed to working with our Afghan media partners – both those working in the country and those now in exile.