On an index devised by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), a watchdog, the global press-freedom score regressed from 67 out of 100 in 2014 to under 55 in 2025. "For the first time in the history of the Index, the conditions for practising journalism are 'difficult' or 'very serious' in over half of the world's countries and satisfactory in fewer than one in four," says RSF. Data from V-Dem, a research project based in Sweden, imply that the global average has deteriorated since 2004 from 0.66 (on a scale of 0 to 1) to 0.49.
The greatest decline is occurring not in dictatorships but in places that still purport to be democratic. Governments of such places typically do not try to snuff out criticism entirely; rather, they skew the incentives for newsgatherers so that ordinary people hear plenty of praise of the ruling party and only occasional squeaks of dissent.
An index by Freedom House, an American think-tank, finds that internet freedom has declined worldwide for 15 straight years. In the past year half of the 18 countries previously labelled digitally "free" (out of 72 judged) grew less so. The most consistent deterioration over 15 years was in a measure of "whether online sources of information are manipulated by the government or other powerful actors".
An analysis by The Economist, looking at 80 years of data from about 180 countries collected by V-Dem, found that a reduction in media freedom in a given country was a strong predictor that graft would subsequently grow worse. The relationship is "Granger causal": a shift in one variable reliably predicts a future shift in another. All else equal, a country whose press freedom degenerates from the level of Canada to that of Indonesia is predicted to see a slide into corruption equivalent to Ireland becoming Latvia.
There appears to be a feedback loop: a rise in corruption is also a good predictor that media will subsequently grow less free. The full cost of bad policies is felt only gradually; on average it takes roughly four years after media clampdowns for just half the eventual rise in corruption to appear. As media freedom diminishes, elites are less likely to offer reasoned justifications for their policies. Populist politics, corruption and squeezing critical media mutually reinforce each other.
The techniques democratic governments use to suppress the press tend to fall into three categories:
Rhetorical: Elected leaders pretend that critical journalists pose a threat to the nation. Aleksandar Vucic of Serbia describes uncomplimentary coverage as "pure terrorism". Javier Milei of Argentina pushes the catchphrase "We don't hate journalists enough." Supporters of India's ruling party refer to critical reporters as "presstitutes". Such rhetoric can spur digital mobs to harass reporters. A global study by UNESCO found that 75% of female journalists had received online abuse and 42% endured harassment or threats of violence in person.
Legal: Recent years have seen a surge in vexatious lawsuits by plutocrats, intended to bankrupt journalists or hobble media outlets. A report in 2023 counted more than 800 such cases in Europe alone. Broadly worded internet laws that criminalise "fake news"—defined in some places as any statement the government denies—can be weaponised against critics. Zambia criminalises the "unauthorised disclosure" of "critical information", defined as anything relating to "public safety, public health, economic stability or national security". Governments also hit media companies with laws unrelated to journalism, such as tax-evasion charges. In India, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, which came into effect in November 2025, curtails a right-to-information law vital for investigative journalism, weakening a public-interest justification and requiring journalists to obtain consent from those they are tracking. In February 2026 India's government granted itself the power to order websites and platforms to remove content in just three hours, without a court order—among the strictest such policies in the world.
Economic: In 160 out of 180 countries surveyed by RSF, news outlets can achieve financial stability "with difficulty" or "not at all". Government advertising goes to fawning outlets. Big private advertisers shun critical media for fear of upsetting politicians. When donors or NGOs support independent media, governments pass "foreign agents" laws to restrict them, a trick mastered by Vladimir Putin in Russia. Another ruse is to get friendly tycoons to buy and tame critical outlets.
Since the Pegasus spyware scandal in 2021, when many reporters' devices were revealed to have been bugged with Israeli software, it has been tough to persuade whistleblowers anywhere to talk to journalists.
Comedy, like Medicine, was never meant to be practiced by the general public.