WION Edit: Attacking the media, a tool for diplomatic retaliation?

Today, we lament the loss of the media's credibility, but the fact is that it has often been questioned in the past too.

The line between News and propaganda is a fine one. When states target News outfits in a proxy battle, then it's time to revisit the rules.

Let's discuss how the media can tread this fine line in the age of nationalistic politics and trigger happy diplomacy? How can the media safeguard its Independence?

Add WION as a Preferred Source

Is the media really independent or is it a handmaiden of political powers? Is it only corporate or government ownership that compromises the media? or do obvious political biases play a role?

There's a lot of ground to cover, as always we start with some figures - just 9 per cent of the world's population live in countries where journalists can operate freely and independently.

This is according to a report by reporters without borders, in the rest of the world, strongmen are rising and press freedoms are eroding.

Media outlets face an existential crisis - both in monetary and moral terms. It's a tough balancing act, if you don't question the powers that be, you're not doing your job.

But if you criticise them, you lose access or in extreme cases your licence to operate.

Two years ago, Thailand's Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha found a new way to dodge tricky questions from the press - he installed a cardboard cutout at a press conference.

Three years back, Czech president Milos Zeman waved a mock rifle at journalists - again at a press conference. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has a reputation of threatening and abusing journalists.

And who can forget this fiery exchange between US President Donald Trump and a CNN correspondent. The American government revoked his press credentials for quizzing Trump.

Jim Acosta won back access to the white house in court. It's a sign of the times - in the age of nationalism, leaders are more confrontational, they see the press as a party to political battles.

And they take on the press as they would take on the Opposition - political leanings, and not objectivity, dictate media coverage. And media outlets face the consequences of such compromises.

Attacking state-owned media is now a legitimate tool of diplomatic retaliation - America leads the world here. It first declared Russian state media as foreign agents, now it is targetting Chinese organisations.

The Trump administration says it is cracking down on propaganda machinery of rival states - there is some merit to that argument.

Around the world, the press has now begun to wear their political leanings on their sleeves. News stories turn into hit jobs or politically motivated campaigns.

It's becoming harder to distinguish news from comment, fact from fiction and reports from opinion. Governments are arming themselves with state media machinery to counter negative reportage and set the narrative.

In the age of social media, leaders have found ways to bypass the gatekeepers of mass media and communicate directly with the people.

Any story, opinion or thought that doesn't fit the official narrative is challenged - the result is stronger scrutiny of journalists and more barriers in their path.

These are challenging times for the global press and branding journalists as state agents is another low.