Maravi

Desperate, senseless attempts to crucify The Post

http://www.postzambia.com/post-read_article.php?articleId=23184

Desperate, senseless attempts to crucify The Post
By Editor
Tuesday February 27, 2007 [02:00]

IT was very shocking yesterday to listen to the positions taken by some of our opposition members of parliament on the Freedom of Information Bill. This was at a consultative workshop for members of parliament on the need for a freedom of information Act in Zambia. What came out at this consultative workshop is that some of our members of parliament think the freedom of information Act in Zambia will be for the exclusive benefit of The Post - a newspaper they have got issues or differences with. And because of this they are opposed to supporting it and will only do so if The Post makes concessions to them.

This is a very wrong position to take.

And we refer them to what Nelson Mandela once said: "A bad free press is preferable to a technically good subservient press. None of our irritations with the perceived inadequacies of the media should ever allow us to even suggest faintly that the independence of the press could be compromised or coerced. There is an old saying that freedom and order are constantly in tension with one another in society. Order without freedom leads to totalitarianism. Freedom without order leads to anarchy. It is also said that societies recover more quickly and more healthily from too much freedom than they do from totalitarianism."

Our politicians should not forget that in a democracy, the freedom of discussion, the right to information and the freedom of expression are of the highest value. Without them, democracy stands into a caricature.

Both freedom of speech and press freedom provoke public and political controversy, but experience shows us again and again that when freedom is diseased, the only cure is more freedom.

The inadequacies of our current media, even that of The Post, should not be used as a pretext necessitating their opposition to the Freedom of Information Bill. Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

It is easy to embrace freedom of speech for ideas we accept. The essence of freedom of speech and the press is that we must protect the ideas we hate.

The need to protect what we detest is the reason freedom of the mind both exists and remains under siege. In our popular discussions, unwise ideas must have a hearing as well as wise ones, dangerous ideas as well as safe, unZambian as well as Zambian.

News unfolds but is never complete. It is written in haste but not carved in stone. It often wounds but more often it heals.
If you don't like what you are seeing in the news, you probably don't like what's going on in society right now.

Once we allow our politicians to start controlling the information to citizens, basically that is the end of the idea of democracy in this country. Liberty is one thing no man can have unless he grants it to others.

We are talking about freedom and tolerance - to believe, speak, publish, congregate and lobby as you see fit, while allowing others to do likewise, even people whose expressions you find abhorrent.

If we don't mirror our communities as they exist, then we will not have thriving and growing newspapers.
In a world of one-point political agendas and armies of spin doctors trying to tailor the truth, a free press has to be more vigilant, professional and courageous than ever before.

And let us not forget that what some of these members of parliament are doing against and towards The Post amounts to censorship because censorship can take routes far more devious than brutalist dictators consider necessary to pursue.

When the conspiracy of lies surrounding us demands of us to silence the one word of truth given to us, that becomes the one word we wish to utter above all others. It is said that you can cage the singer but not the song.

Freedom of the press is not just important to those running newspapers or working for the media; it is not just important to democracy, it is democracy itself.

Freedom of speech means that you shall not do something to people either for the views they have, or the views they express, or the words they speak or write.

Our hope is that we in the press and the people realise and remember that for all the disquiet that can come from a free press, life without it would be much worse. The unregulated voice isn't as dangerous to the Republic as is the silenced voice. One clear idea is too precious a treasure to lose.

People believe that having freedom of expression is a natural phenomenon. It's not. It's the result of intense care and vigilance. As journalists we have been harassed, beaten, clubbed, detained or imprisoned. Freedom's price is high. No one should be able to pull the curtains of secrecy around decisions, which can be revealed without injury. When so much is secret, secrecy is not respected. Power corrupts, and there is nothing more corrupting than power exercised in secret.

It is said that to govern is to communicate. As our societies grow in size and complexity, the arena for communication and public debate is increasingly dominated by the news media: radio and television, newspapers, magazines, books, even computerised databases.

The news media in a democracy have a number of overlapping but distinctive functions. One is to inform and educate. To make intelligent decisions about public policy, people need accurate, timely and unbiased information. And because opinions diverge, they also need access to a wide range of viewpoints. A second function of the media is to serve as a watchdog over government and other powerful institutions in the society. By holding to a standard of independence and objectivity, however imperfectly, the news media can expose the truth behind the claims of government and hold public officials accountable for their actions.

If they choose, the media can also take a more active role in public debate. Through editorial comments or investigative reporting, the media can campaign for specific policies or reforms that they feel should be enacted. They can also serve as a forum for organisations and individuals to express their opinions through letters to the editor and printing of articles with divergent points of view.

And another increasingly important role for the media is "setting the agenda". Since they can't report everything, the news media must choose which issues to report and which to ignore. In short, they decide what is news and what isn't. These decisions, in turn, influence the public's perception of what issues are most important. And in a democracy, where the news media is not controlled by the government or politicians, they can't simply manipulate or disregard issues at will. Their competitors, after all, as well as the government itself, are free to call attention to their own list of important issues.

Few would argue that the news media always carry out these functions responsibly. However, the solution is not to devise laws that set some arbitrary definitions of responsibility but to broaden the level of public discourse so that citizens can better sift through the chaff of misinformation and rhetoric to find the kernels of truth. It is said that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.

We therefore urge our politicians to approach these issues, the Freedom of Information Bill, with broad-mindedness. They should not allow their vision to be blinded by their hatred for The Post or its editor.

What is at stake goes far beyond The Post and its editor. What came out in yesterday's discussion really confirms the fears of our people about the pettiness and lack of vision among some of our politicians, some of our members of parliament. Again, this is not an insult on anyone. We are merely stating a fact.

It is difficult to think of a member of parliament who looks at things in that way in any other way - politicians who can sacrifice gigantic national interests on the altar of political expediency in their desperate and senseless attempt to try and nail The Post and its editor to the cross. We have been on the road to Calvary for a very long time. Our resurrection always comes.

Labels: EDITORIAL, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL, MEDIA

posted by MrK @ 4:55 AM