World Report - Belize
| Publisher | Reporters Without Borders |
| Publication Date | December 2013 |
| Cite as | Reporters Without Borders, World Report - Belize, December 2013, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/5375cbc1ae4.html [accessed 2 November 2019] |
| Disclaimer | This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States. |
Throughout successive administrations, the Government of Belize's relations with the media has been consistently open, easily accessible and amicable. However over the last decade, that status quo has shown signs of deterioration.
Previously British Honduras, Belize gained its independence in 1981. The country boasts a relatively small population of less than 400,000 people. But Belize has the distinction of one of the highest homicide rates per capita in the world. National news is therefore, often dominated by stories of crime and/or politics.
Independent media houses often find themselves at odds concerning coverage of the two main topics. When it comes to crime, government officials argue that the media's "sensationalist" treatment of crime threatens the country's main revenue earner: tourism. At a recent roundtable discussion between the media and the Belize Broadcasting Authority, the Government proposed attaching a code of ethics and conduct to media licenses. The media rejected the premise, maintaining that a "generalized" code would be open to interpretation and used by the government of the day to get their critics off the air.
For context, political coverage is controversial because of polarizing loyalty to one of the country's two main parties. Additionally, journalists adhere to the respective standards, or lack thereof, of their media houses. The court of law is the only recourse for both the media and the public to seek redress for incidents related to media coverage. This process is both costly and lengthy. While legal action is often initiated, reporters and/or media houses critical of incumbent public officials have been subjected to threats, intimidation and victimization. The current administration has even resorted to a "ban" against at least one media house (no member of the party can grant interviews to the television station) because of "biased" coverage.
Many media houses censor themselves to avoid possible hostility and harassment.
Updated in December 2013
