The RSF ranking and the blind spots of the non-Western world

For twenty-five years, Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index has established itself as one of the main international barometers of the freedom to inform. Its finding for 2026 is alarming: never, since the creation of the index in 2002, had the global situation reached such a low point.
Recognising RSF’s indispensable role as an international watchdog does not prevent us from questioning its method, categories and assumptions: a ranking can sometimes, even unintentionally, reflect a particular vision — often a Western one.
A credible ranking should include more local indicators. Without this, RSF remains useful for raising the alarm, but insufficient for understanding — and risks turning a tool for defending journalism into an instrument for morally ranking the world.

« An important advocacy tool », « cited by media outlets around the world » and used by institutions such as the United Nations and the World Bank: this is how Reporters Without Borders presents its own World Press Freedom Index. For twenty-five years, this ranking has established itself as one of the main international barometers of the freedom to inform, assessing 180 countries and territories according to five indicators: political, economic, legal, social and security. Its finding for 2026 is alarming: never, since the creation of the index in 2002, had the global situation reached such a low point. In its 2025 round-up, RSF recorded 503 journalists detained worldwide, including 121 in China and 48 in Russia, while several dozen media professionals were killed over the course of the year. More than ever, press freedom must therefore be defended.

This is the case, for example, in Africa, where RSF plays a necessary role. The organisation documents violations, raises the alarm over arrests, supports threatened journalists and helps structure local networks for the defence of press freedom. In sub-Saharan Africa, where RSF classifies 24 out of 48 countries as being in a « difficult » situation and 5 as being in a « very serious » situation, this monitoring work remains indispensable. In Senegal, for example, RSF recorded more than 70 attacks on journalists’ work between 2021 and 2024, including more than 60 journalists arrested, assaulted, questioned or detained. The organisation has also launched a three-year project, from 2025 to 2028, to strengthen journalists’ safety and train 14 regional focal points responsible for documenting violations of press freedom. The aim is to build a network of local relays capable of quickly identifying arrests, assaults, threats or judicial pressure, and then reporting them reliably. This type of mechanism is useful because it avoids relying solely on major capitals or international media to assess the daily reality of journalistic work on the ground.

But recognising RSF’s indispensable role as an international watchdog does not prevent us from questioning its method, categories and assumptions: a ranking can sometimes, even unintentionally, reflect a particular vision, often a Western one.

The Western model elevated to a global norm

The issue is not to defend censorship. The issue is to claim that there is only one universal media model: that of the media as a frontal counter-power, entirely separate from the state, highly judicialised, and driven by a culture of permanent confrontation with institutions. This model corresponds to a specific Western history. It does not always make it possible to understand the balances at work in countries where the media also perform a function of stability, national cohesion or social mediation. This framework mechanically produces a moral hierarchy: Northern countries at the top, much of Africa and the Middle East at the bottom. In 2026, RSF estimates that more than half of the world’s countries are now in a « difficult » or « very serious » situation. But behind this single category lie incomparable realities: states at war, fragile media economies, countries facing terrorism, authoritarian regimes, and societies marked by communal tensions.

The credibility of the ranking is also affected by certain choices that are, to say the least, surprising. This is the case with Thailand, ranked 92nd in 2026. This position may come as a surprise given the country’s political fragility, the army’s persistent influence and, above all, the weight of the lèse-majesté law, which can lead to heavy prison sentences for any criticism of the monarchy. RSF itself stresses that this judicial threat weighs on the media, that journalists covering demonstrations can be treated as activists, and that the police are quick to intimidate or beat them during protests.

« This framework mechanically produces a moral hierarchy: Northern countries at the top, much of Africa and the Middle East at the bottom. Behind the single category of ‘difficult’ or ‘very serious’ lie incomparable realities. »

Similarly, the organisation places Qatar 75th in the world, with a high score relatively close to that of the United States, which ranks 64th. Yet RSF itself acknowledges that Qatari media often remain aligned with the state’s official line and that domestic politics remains a sensitive subject. Qatar’s promotion of political Islam around the world, although such movements have restricted press freedom whenever they have come to power, is also not mentioned.

Conversely, the very low ranking of the United Arab Emirates appears difficult to understand. No professional journalist appears to be currently detained in the country, while Dubai has established itself as the main regional media hub, chosen by many newsrooms, press agencies and international broadcasters to cover the Middle East. Proof of this is that AFP itself decided to move its regional headquarters from Cyprus to Dubai, confirming the emirate’s growing centrality in the international media ecosystem. This position seems all the more surprising given that the UAE is ranked far behind countries where journalists are indeed imprisoned, such as Niger, ranked 120th, Mali, 121st, or Burkina Faso, 110th.

For individual diagnoses rather than a moral league table

A credible ranking should include more local indicators: the economic strength of media outlets, journalist training, linguistic pluralism, digital access, physical safety, the presence of armed non-state actors, the influence of ideological groups, the role of platforms and the weight of international media. Without this, RSF remains useful for raising the alarm, but insufficient for understanding.

« Comparing 180 countries with the same framework gives an impression of clarity, but often flattens incomparable realities. The tool is useful for raising awareness, but becomes questionable when it turns into a moral league table. »

More broadly, the very relevance of a single ranking deserves to be questioned. Comparing 180 countries with the same framework gives an impression of clarity, but often flattens incomparable realities. The tool is useful for raising awareness, but becomes questionable when it turns into a moral league table. Would it not be better to establish individual diagnoses, with concrete recommendations adapted to each country?

Press freedom cannot be reduced to conformity with the Western model of the journalist as counter-power. In Africa and the Middle East, media realities are more complex. Ignoring them means turning a tool for defending journalism into an instrument for morally ranking the world.