Why are the freedom and safety of journalists everyone’s concern?
by Bahman Azadfar
I am not neutral towards conscientious journalists, and I do not wish to pretend to be. Years of my life have been intertwined with journalism. I have worked as a reporter, and I have had, and still have, journalists among my friends. Some of them are no longer alive, having lost their lives in the line of duty.
When a journalist risks their freedom and life to seek the truth, pose a difficult question, or expose corruption, I no longer see them merely as a “journalist”; I see a human being paying the price for their commitment to humanity.
Therefore, my defence of journalists does not rest on personal emotion. Even if I had never known a journalist personally in my entire life, the reasoning of True Philosophy would lead me to the same conclusion: a society that cannot protect journalists committed to the truth loses part of its capacity to see reality, recognise danger, and reform itself.
Emotion alone cannot substitute for reasoning; however, reason does not require a human being to be emotionless either. I can weep over the killing of a journalist and, at the same time, present logical and philosophical arguments for the necessity of protecting them. These two approaches, the emotional and the rational, do not conflict; rather, they complement one another in a wise human being.
The True Journalist
This treatise is not an unconditional defence of everyone who bears the title of ‘journalist’. In the works of True Philosophy, a distinction is made between a True Journalist and a Real Journalist.
I have written about Edward Bernays:
“A real journalist like Edward Bernays does not commit to truth and abuses Journalism to manipulate people’s minds in the interests of powerful men.” [V6, page 74]
In contrast, I have written about the role of True Journalism:
“In the absence of True Philosophy, Judiciary and Politics, True Journalism alone has the burden of discovering, telling and defending the Truth.” [V6, page 248]
Therefore, this treatise is not a defence of the job title ‘Journalist’. It is a defence of journalism committed to truth, to asking questions, to impartial criticism, to demanding accountability, and to transparency.
The Eyes and Ears of Humanity
In Volume 6, I compared the relationship between the journalist and human society to the human sensory system:
“The importance of journalism for the Wisdom of Humanity is similar to the significance of the sensory system(five senses) for an individual mind.” [V6, page 255]
And elsewhere, I stated the same argument more directly:
“Journalists are like the eyes and ears of humanity, and any attempt to harm them means harming the entire human society; therefore, the arrest, imprisonment and killing of any journalist is an international matter and should be dealt with by an international judicial body.” [V6, page 253]
For me, this analogy is not merely a metaphor. Just as the eyes and ears provide the necessary information for an individual’s mind, journalists gather and transmit the information that society needs to understand its own condition.
In Volume 6, I wrote:
“True Journalism works as humanity’s sensory system. True Journalists, like a man’s five senses(eyes, skin, ears, smell and taste), gather vital information for the mind of humanity.” [V6, page 126]
And I added there:
“The gathered information is precious. The True Journalists sometimes pay the information’s fees with their lives.” [V6, page 126]
The logical conclusion is clear: protecting journalists does not grant special privilege to a profession. By protecting True Journalists, society defends its own capacity to see, hear, and understand.
Questioning, Criticism and Breaking the Silence
True Journalism is not merely a means of transmitting information; information is abundant in our era. Posing important questions and exposing what is wrong form an essential part of the duty of True Journalism.
In Volume 6, I wrote:
“Silence is the opposite of responsibility. Only the pressure of questions can break the silence of politicians and make them responsible.” [V6, page 252]
And immediately afterwards, I specified the role of journalists:
“With their questions, journalists can play a valuable role in breaking the silence of politicians and making them accountable.” [V6, page 252]
This is complemented by the definition of criticism I gave in Volume 2:
“Criticism is a request(question) designed by man’smind for judgement and change. Criticism is the highest form of revising that can hold the ‘Balance’ in an individual human entity, among humans, and at last, between humanity and nature.” [V2, page 80]
Therefore, questioning by journalists is a blessing for society because questioning and criticism are tools for the reform and improvement of society. In Volume 2, regarding Daphne Caruana Galizia and Peter Gallo, I also wrote:
“Asking questions in order to find the truth is an inseparable trait of an investigator like Peter Gallo in the United Nations and an investigative journalist like Daphne Caruana Galizia. Both of them were victimised for their questioning by a corrupt system.” [V2, page 129]
This is exactly where the clash between True Journalism and Realpolitik begins. The journalist seeks to move matters forward by asking questions, whereas Realpolitik keeps circling around those same concepts reduced to slogans—justice, law, security, democracy, and peace—like a broken record stuck in the same groove.
The journalist asks:
What does justice mean?
Who is responsible?
What action did you take?
What was the outcome?
And if no result was achieved, why?
Questioning does not allow the repetition of slogans and meaningless phrases to take the place of genuine accountability.
From Reality to Truth
In my open letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, I linked the role of journalism directly to one of the fundamental concepts of True Philosophy:
“journalism discloses ‘Reality’ as it is and allows us to change ‘Reality’ to ‘Truth’ and achieve the ‘larger freedom’ that the UDHR offers.” [Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations]
The journalist reveals reality as it is. This is a necessary condition for changing reality, because we cannot consciously change what we neither see nor know about.
In the same letter, I wrote:
“Free journalism is a barometer of freedom and accepting and respecting human rights.” [Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations]
And then:
“Where journalists cannot enjoy ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom from fear’—as the UDHR asserts— the ordinary people cannot have them.” [Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations]
Therefore, the situation of journalists is not merely a professional matter. Their freedom is one of the vital signs of society’s freedom.
Revelation Is Necessary, but Not Sufficient
Nevertheless, the power of journalism is not unlimited.
Journalists can reveal reality, but if philosophy, the judiciary, and politics refuse to perform their duties, a revelation may make headlines for a while and then fade from public attention without leading to structural reform.
In Volume 6, I wrote:
“A team of journalists reveal corruption. It comes up in the news for a few days, then disappears without changing the corrupt system.” [V6, page 255]
To illustrate this, I referred to the Luxembourg Leaks and the Panama Papers:
“If it caused a systematic change, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists(ICIJ) didn’t need to disclose the Panama Papers in 2016, etc.” [V6, page 255]
In another section, I also wrote about the impact of journalists’ revelations:
“The examination and revelatory corruption by True Journalists impact people but do not generate changes in the ‘Real System’ because of the theoretical perplexity we face.” [V6, page 126]
And regarding the limited effect of such revelations within Realpolitik:
“The maximum outcome of journalists’ revelation of a scandal is resigning of one or a few politicians.” [V6, page 125]
This is not a failure of journalism. Journalism highlights shortcomings and exposes corruption; but when no change follows despite these revelations, we must look elsewhere for the source of the failure. The problem lies in a system that receives the necessary information but is either unable or unwilling to reform itself.
True Journalism reveals the wound; but treating it is no longer its duty. Philosophy, the judiciary, and politics have a duty to heal existing wounds and prevent them from recurring in the future.
Iskandar Khatloni
The price of a journalist’s commitment to the truth can be very high; Iskandar Khatloni was one of those who paid that price with his life.
In Volume 2, I wrote:
“As a personal experience, my close friend Iskandar Khatloni (1954–2000) was a journalist from Tajikistan who worked for Radio Free Europe and was murdered in Moscow, Russia.” [V2, page 132]
And then:
“On 22 September 2000, Khatloni was attacked inside his Moscow apartment by an unknown, axe-wielding assailant and died a few hours later of a severe head wound.” [V2, page 132]
“Moscow police opened an investigation of Khatloni’s murder, but no arrests were ever made in the case.” [V2, page 132]
To me, Iskandar was not merely a name on a list of murdered journalists. He was my friend and brother.
I still have the last photo of us together. We were both guests at the home of another journalist friend in Moscow. In that photo, as he says goodbye before leaving the house, I am kissing him on the cheek. At that time, I was deeply worried about his safety in Russia.
This photo now holds a meaning for me that it did not have when it was taken
But there is an important distinction: Iskandar’s murder was personal to me, but even if I had never known him, his murder would still have been my concern. The argument for the necessity of protecting journalists does not depend on my friendship with Iskandar.
Jamal Khashoggi and Dom Phillips
I did not know Jamal Khashoggi personally.
In Volume 5, I wrote about his murder:
“The killing of Jamal Khashoggi wasn’t a usual murder; it was a terrorist act killing a dissident journalist by a government that admitted to committing it.” [V5, page 191]
In the same discussion, I linked the issue to the immunity enjoyed by those in power:
“‘Real Law’ or Semi-jungle Law has admitted the legal immunity to leaders of Human Society like the impunity that Jungle Law has given lions.” [V5, page 191]
And in my open letter to the judges, I wrote:
“Khashoggi’s case proves how Realpolitik dominates the judiciary and deprives you, as a judge or prosecutor, of the opportunity to intervene and fulfil your duty as humanity’s conscience.” [Open Letter to the Judges]
But there are things I did not write in those books, treatises, and open letters. When Dom Phillips, a British journalist who wrote for media outlets including The Guardian, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the Financial Times, disappeared in 2022 in the remote Javari Valley in the Brazilian Amazon, I too was worried about his fate, alongside his family, friends, and the journalists who were anxiously waiting for news of him.
While there was still hope of finding him, the fate of a journalist I had never met personally became a personal matter to me as well.
Likewise, when I learned that Jamal Khashoggi had been killed in the Saudi consulate and his body dismembered, I wept bitterly.
These are not quotations from my previous writings. I am adding them to this treatise now, because I do not wish to conceal a part of my own truth. Why should I pretend that the disappearance or killing of human beings who work to find and express the truth does not deeply affect me?
Rationality does not mean being emotionless. Although my personal feelings are not the legal or philosophical reason for protecting journalists, logical reasoning does not diminish the intensity of my human feelings.
Safeguarding Journalists Is Safeguarding Ourselves
In Volume 6, I wrote:
“In the Humanity System, safeguarding journalists from harm is as vital as protecting your five sensory organs.” [V6, page 256]
And immediately afterwards, I added:
“Such guarding should be legal and effective and includes all journalists worldwide.” [V6, page 256]
“Any journalist in any corner of the world should feel safe and protected.” [V6, page 256]
This conclusion does not stem solely from sympathy with journalists. It is the result of a logical argument: if a journalist is part of humanity’s system for gathering information about reality, harming them weakens our collective ability to know reality as it is. This loss of capacity places humanity in serious danger.
That is why I wrote:
“Crime against Journalists is a crime against humanity.” [V6, page 253]
And I explained the reason in the same passage:
“murdering a journalist aims at all human society and deprives humanity of information necessary for finding flaws and wrongs among us and correcting them.” [V6, page 253]
Effective Protection, Not Sympathy After Murder
Condemning the murder of a journalist after it has occurred is necessary, but it cannot take the place of preventing such a murder. True Journalism requires more than condolences and condemnation: it requires preventive justice; that is, a robust system of legal protection that safeguards journalists against all forms of harm, threats, and judicial abuse. That is why I proposed in Volume 6:
“Without the interference of a ‘True Judicial System’ in the form of international judicial police and court, True Journalists are vulnerable to different false juridical accusations in their countries.” [V6, page 252 and 253]
And on the next page, I wrote:
“With legal and judicial support for journalists, the international community allows journalists to continue their work without fear of the threat of prison or murder.” [V6, page 254]
I have also suggested:
“Imprisonment of any journalist without announcing to the specific international court should be forbidden.” [V6, page 256]
The logic behind this proposal is simple: if harm to a journalist weakens humanity’s ability to know reality, the protection of journalists cannot be merely a domestic issue for governments. Human society must be able to protect those who are its eyes and ears before threats, imprisonment, or murder can silence them.
The demand for justice for a journalist must not begin only when they have been imprisoned, gone missing, or been killed. True Justice, or preventive justice, must strive to prevent both violations of a journalist’s rights and the murder of the journalist before either occurs.
Interdependence
In my open letter to the judges, I expressed perhaps the most personal version of my professional argument:
“You need me as a philosopher to modify your law theories, and I need you as supporters of free press and journalism because, without journalists’ works, I cannot continue my duty.” [Open Letter to the Judges]
And immediately afterwards:
“Every true journalist is one eye for me, and I need many eyes to see reality.
Jailing or killing a journalist blinds one of my eyes, and I have the right and must protect my eyes.
Journalists provide me with objective information and reports —the raw materials for my thinking process.” [Open Letter to the Judges]
This is perhaps the briefest explanation of the relationship between True Philosophy and journalism.
The journalist sees and reports reality.
The philosopher must dissect that reality, examine its various layers, pose questions about the nature of each layer, and strive to find logical answers to those questions.
The judge must respond to human rights violations and exercise oversight to ensure that preventive justice is in place.
Politics must reform the structure that produces injustice and establish preventive justice.
None of these three can permanently take the place of another.
In Volume 4, I wrote about the shared commitment among these professions:
“Some other occupations, like medicine and journalism, require moral commitments to Truth. They fulfil their promises despite dangers and threats.” [V4, page 213]
And:
“The nature of healthcare, journalism and philosophy demands you, as a doctor, journalist or philosopher, ignore the perils and continue your duties —of course, by considering preventive measures.” [V4, page 214]
I love conscientious journalists. I do not hide this, nor do I have any reason to conceal this feeling.
But even if this personal feeling did not exist, the argument would still stand:
“Journalists are like the eyes and ears of humanity.” [V6, page 253]
Therefore, when any of us defends True Journalism, we are ultimately defending ourselves. We must have the right to know the truth and see reality, and the opportunity to hear the victim’s voice. Only under such conditions will human society have the capacity to recognise errors and correct them.