Amid Gaza war, Jordan tightens its grip on press freedoms

In May, Jordan’s Media Commission ordered 12 independent regional news outlets blocked under the guise of “spreading toxic media” and “attacking Jordan and its symbols.”

The decision came without specific legal reasoning or cited content, a move, press freedom advocates say, marks “a deepening crackdown on dissent.”

Additionally, it coincides with Jordan’s sharp 15-place drop this year in the World Press Freedom Index, landing at 147 out of 180 countries - its worst ranking in years.

Critics argue the measures reflect growing state sensitivity around coverage of the Gaza war, which has become both a humanitarian and political flashpoint regionally and domestically over the past year and a half.

Amman’s decision came days after it was reported that Jordan allegedly profited from coordinating humanitarian aid into Gaza, claims the Jordan Hashemite Charity Organisation swiftly denied as “fabrications,” claiming that the cited figures were lower than actual costs.

However, legal experts and journalists say that vague accusations like “threatening national media security” are being weaponised to stifle coverage of controversial topics, including Jordan’s foreign policy stance on Gaza, human rights, and internal governance.

The blocked sites included Middle East Eye, Raseef22, Rasd, Arabi Post, along with eight other foreign news websites.

The ban did more harm than good

Investigative journalist and media monitor Ahoud Mohsen argues that the block was not directly linked to the war in Gaza per se, noting that “the internet is open and cannot be practically closed,” with tools like VPNs allowing continued access to blocked content.

However, she contends the ban was a direct reaction to how these sites covered the conflict. 

In an interview with The New Arab, she described the decision as “poorly calibrated and lacking coordination,” suggesting the government could have avoided backlash by responding more “rationally and carefully”.

“This move likely backfired,” she said, “possibly undermining the credibility of Jordanian journalists and media organisations that had adopted a strong pro-Palestinian stance.” 

She warned that the government may have miscalculated, risking Jordan’s longstanding reputation as a regional leader in public support for Palestine.

Mohsen emphasised the initially positive role Jordanian media played in covering the war. During the early phase of the conflict, she noted, coverage was consistent, emotional, and reflective of public sentiment. 

“There were no discordant voices contradicting the Palestinian narrative,” she said, noting that coverage was in step with popular opinion and aligned with Jordan’s general support for Palestine.

She added that Jordan’s relationship with Palestine is deeply rooted, historically, politically, and culturally, and cannot be swayed by temporary political or media tensions. 

“The coverage of Gaza should be approached with greater awareness,” she said, warning that politics, ultimately governed by regional and international pressures, “has no permanent friends.”

Both official and media discourse, she urged, must strike a delicate balance.

Media trainer and journalist Hadeel Al-Saabi agreed, arguing that the decision to block the sites stemmed from a confluence of factors, including concerns about content accuracy. Some sites, she claimed, published reports “without verifying sources or presenting evidence.”

Speaking to The New Arab, she pointed out the political sensitivity surrounding coverage of the war and Jordan’s position in it, especially when reporting clashes with the state’s official narrative, adding that the move may reflect Jordan’s growing discomfort with non-local media, amid efforts to unify domestic messaging.

While Saabi acknowledged it is difficult to definitively link the block to Gaza war coverage, the timing raises legitimate questions. 

“The sites were banned at the height of the media focus on the conflict,” she said, “prompting a closer look at the nature of the restricted content.”

She also pointed to Jordan’s official stance as clearly supportive, both politically and humanitarianly, toward Gaza, citing aid shipments and political statements. 

“Jordanian media,” she said, “had broadly covered these efforts, whereas some of the banned outlets ignored them or portrayed them with sarcasm and open criticism, if not outright hostility.”

Despite the controversy, Saabi underscored the value of such outlets in broadening the media landscape, as they provide critical perspectives necessary for understanding varying media narratives and sharpening public media literacy. 

“Engaging critically with media content and understanding its sources and funding is key to building cognitive resilience in a diverse international media environment,” she said.

Curtailing civil liberties

According to Geneva-based MENA Rights Group, the bans constitute violations of both Article 15 of the Jordanian Constitution and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantee the right to freedom of opinion and expression. 

More than 20 human rights and media organisations condemned the action in a joint statement, warning that it threatens media pluralism and undermines democratic participation and accountability in Jordan.

The statement linked the bans directly to investigative reporting on potential irregularities in Jordan’s handling of aid transfers to Gaza.

The signatories criticised official comments labelling the banned sites as purveyors of false information, noting the absence of any procedural pathway for these outlets to respond or defend themselves.

No evidence has surfaced of any independent legal review, and neither the names of the blocked websites nor the legal grounds for the bans have been formally disclosed.

Mohsen believes the recent website blocks, while not drastically impactful on Jordan’s broader media environment, serve as a warning signal of deeper structural issues surrounding press freedoms. 

“Any curtailment of freedoms,” she said, “negatively impacts public life, the human rights framework, and Jordan’s overall image concerning civil liberties.” 

She also emphasised that censorship yields no tangible benefit but instead harms the country’s domestic and international standing and limits access to diverse sources of information.

Speaking from her dual role as a field journalist and media researcher, Mohsen pointed to a lack of coherent official communication. She criticised the appointment of ill-prepared spokespersons whose statements, she argued, harmed rather than helped Jordan’s public diplomacy. 

“These discordant voices damage the national stance,” she said, warning that mishandling public messaging undermines both credibility and cohesion.

Al-Saabi echoed these concerns, noting that younger Jordanians are increasingly media-literate and able to discern between accurate reporting and misinformation.

“Instead of embracing media plurality and enriching the scene with diverse perspectives,” she said, “censorship restricts opportunities for comparison and analysis. This does not serve the evolution of journalism, nor does it meet the needs of an informed audience”.

She explained that especially during crises, the media landscape requires a multiplicity of narratives, not their reduction or homogenisation.

“While limited censorship may be justified in cases of national security,” the normalisation of such tactics, she warned, creates a vacuum in public discourse and hinders both journalists and citizens from accessing reliable information and exercising their right to expression. 

“It is crucial,” she said, “to reopen dialogue around press freedom and the public’s right to information. Independent media is not a threat; it’s a foundation for deeper, more balanced understanding.”

Since 2023, amid growing popular protests against the war in Gaza, Jordanian journalists have faced increased repression, largely under the amended 2023 Cybercrime Law. 

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) described the law as “liberty-killing” due to its vague language and broad scope for judicial interpretation.

The organisation added that the growing pressure on journalists reflects “a suffocating media environment aimed at silencing critical coverage and stifling dissent”. 

RSF also noted that ongoing arrests and restrictions illustrate a climate of fear, fostered by the authorities.

Against this backdrop, the block came as part of a broader clampdown on Gaza-related content, coinciding with a wave of arrests that, according to Amnesty International, has targeted thousands of individuals since 7 October. 

Several of those detained were reportedly charged for expressing pro-Palestinian sentiments on social media under the pretext of publishing false information. Last year, a Jordanian journalist was convicted under the Cybercrime Law, a statute increasingly used to curtail media freedoms.

RSF further noted the role of Jordan’s intelligence services in maintaining tight surveillance over journalists, many of whom are compelled to join the state-controlled Jordanian Press Association.

Media professionals are routinely summoned to police stations, where their release is often conditioned on pledging silence regarding sensitive topics.

Journalist Musab Husseinat, who spent years working inside Jordan before relocating abroad, believes the current state of the Jordanian media landscape is not a sudden development, but rather the product of gradual transformations over the years.

These changes, he says, began with the implementation and subsequent amendments to the Press and Publications Law, continued with the Cybercrime Law, and were marked by repeated administrative detentions of journalists.

Speaking to The New Arab, Husseinat said: “We used to hear about colleagues being held under administrative detention, then released on bail two days later. Any word that displeases decision-makers in Jordan could land a journalist in jail, trigger a summons, or even cost them their job. The objective is to silence dissent and muzzle voices that deviate from the official line.”

He described the latest wave of website bans as a “purely political” move aimed at consolidating the media’s role as a conveyor of the state’s narrative. 

“Those who don’t align with the state’s tone are sidelined and denied a space in the media landscape,” he said.

Despite the tightening restrictions, Husseinat noted that some journalists continue to find ways around censorship, publishing their work under pseudonyms on international platforms.

However, he emphasised that the real challenge lies not in publishing, but in accessing accurate information within Jordan itself.

This article is published in collaboration with Egab.