It was the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville who suggested that in order to enjoy the "inestimable benefits that the liberty of the press ensures" it is necessary to accept the "inevitable evils it creates". There are those who might maintain that the "inevitable evil" now outweighs the "inestimable benefits", but for many journalists the reality of life in the 1990s is one of harassment, imprisonment and even death.

This year World Press Freedom Day takes on a special significance as journalists in the Balkans find that they are considered legitimate targets and events in Serbia and Kosovo bring into stark relief issues concerning press freedom, freedom of expression and the role of the journalist as witness.

Since the beginning of the decade Yugoslavia has been a particularly dangerous place for journalists. Between 1992 and 1995, 45 journalists died, according to the New York-based Committee for the Protection of Journalists. In the past two weeks Slavko Curuvija, a Serbian publisher and journalist, was murdered in Belgrade and more recently NATO has determined that Yugoslav television is a legitimate target.

World Press Freedom Day was designated by the UN to celebrate the fundamental principles of press freedom. It serves as an occasion to inform citizens of press freedom violations - a reminder that in dozens of countries publications are censored, fined, suspended and closed, while journalists, editors and publishers are harassed, attacked, detained and murdered.

The role of the press has become increasingly controversial since the end of the Cold War. It was Radio Mille Collines that was central to the genocide in Rwanda and in Yugoslavia it was Slobodan Milosevic's control of the media that made the war possible.

In the words of the journalist William Shawcross, writing in the preface of Mark Thompson's study of the role of the media in former Yugoslavia, Forging War: "The war could not have been begun, or sustained, by Serbia without the co-operation of the Serb media as the willing creatures of the Milosevic government."

Even though the media can be both an integral part of a developing democracy, or be used by tyrants to destroy it, the international community has rarely seen the development of independent media as being central to emerging democracies. During the Palestinian elections a few years ago, the EU was able to declare the elections to the Palestinian Authority as free and fair, even though journalists and the press had been harassed and imprisoned.

In the latest worldwide survey from the Committee to Protect Journalists, Attacks on the Press, in 1998, Ms Sylvia Poggioli, the senior European correspondent for American National Public Radio, writes that harassment of the media is not exclusive to the Balkans: "But what makes ill treatment of the media in the former Yugoslavia particularly disturbing is that this region has been the object of intense diploma tic involvement and scrutiny by the international community over the past several years, yet Western diplomacy has focused mainly on regional stability at the expense of freedom of information and free speech."

FOR much of the world the reality for journalists is either they are mouthpieces of the powerful, acting merely as propagandists, or they are independent, and are witnesses and watchdogs, and that is dangerous. Already this year at least 10 journalists have been killed, not counting those who died in the bombing of the Serb television station by NATO. In 1999 the most dangerous place to be a journalist is Sierra Leone.

According to the World Association of Newspapers, 28 journalists were murdered in 17 countries in 1998, with 117 held in prison and censorship and other forms of repression of the press existing in 119 countries.

But it is not just the obvious cases of murder and imprisonment. Most of the new democracies, and even some of the older ones, have constitutions that guarantee freedom of expression and a free press. However, the reality is somewhat different.

Defamation laws, tax laws and special statutes that forbid insulting top officials are used to ensure the new independent media is kept under control. In Belarus, for instance, newspapers are forced to be printed outside the country. In Ukraine, newspaper editors have been fined thousands of dollars. The situation is the same in most former eastern bloc countries.

Long before the NATO bombs began to fall, the Serb authorities singled out independent journalists for special treatment. According to the International Press Institute's annual World Press Freedom Review, the deputy prime minister and leader of Belgrade's Radical Party, Mr Vojislav Seselj, described independent editors as NATO officers and the general secretary of NATO, Mr Javier Solana, "the man who decided on the bombing and destruction of Serbia and the killing of its citizens" as their "chief editor".

World Press Freedom Day might seem to have little relevance in Ireland. Rather than an extension of press freedom, there seems to be a view that regulation is probably more appropriate. However, the Government has decided against incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights, with its strong traditions of defending and extending media rights, into Irish law, while at the same time important institutions, including the Garda, have been exempted from the Freedom of Information Act.

At the same time local authorities hold sessions "in committee" so as to exclude journalists. One authority actually discussed the Freedom Of Information Act in committee.

In Ireland World Press Freedom Day was marked with a unique act of solidarity. For the first time both the employers and the journalists' trade union issued a joint statement. The National Union of Journalists, the National Newspapers of Ireland and the Regional Newspaper Association of Ireland have called for reform of the libel laws as recommended by the Law Reform Commission in 1991.

The statement has committed the industry to funding the establishment of an independent newspaper Ombudsman to investigate breaches of press standards. The industry says, however, that in order for the Ombudsman to operate effectively, libel laws have to be reformed.

Michael Foley is a lecturer in journalism at the Dublin Institute of Technology and has been involved extensively in journalist education in Eastern and Central Europe