Maravi

A shameful undertaking

A shameful undertaking
By Editor
Wednesday July 30, 2008 [04:00]

Those who are thinking of going to government and beg it to regulate the media through a statutory media council should think twice about the real consequences of what they are trying to do. We do appreciate the fact that there are many irritations we may have with our press as a result of its inadequacies. But asking the government to set up a statutory body to regulate the conduct of the press is definitely not the right way to go.

One who takes this route cannot in any way claim to be promoting, advancing or defending press freedom. They are actually enemies of press freedom.

The best advice on this issue comes from no other than Nelson Mandela: “None of our irritations with the perceived inadequacies of the media should ever allow us to suggest even faintly that the independence of the press could be compromised or coerced.”

A press that is subject to a mandatory regulation by a statutory media council is not a free one. It is folly for anyone to think there can be self-regulation under a statutory media council. This is not self-regulation. This is statutory or mandatory regulation.

Self-regulation can only be practiced under a voluntary body or council, not a statutory one. A statutory body is a mandatory one, regulated by those whose duty is to execute the laws. It is also under the control of those who make the laws – the legislators.

And it is naïve and an exhibition of crass ignorance for anyone to think that those regulated under such a statutory body will not be subject to criminal sanctions. A total disregard of the law may at some point attract penal sanctions.

But again this has clearly demonstrated why The Post has consistently refused to be part of the Media Council of Zambia (MECOZ). How can we belong to a body that looks at things this way? We cannot belong to a body whose only discernible preoccupation is to limit press freedom in the country under the guise of regulation.

We should realise that the greatest danger to press freedom in this country lurks in the insidious encroachment by men and women of zeal, appearing to be well-meaning but without understanding.

Again, this reminds us of what Mandela once said: “A critical and independent press is the lifeblood of any democracy. A bad free press is preferable to a technically good, subservient one.”

Few would argue that the media always carries out its functions responsibly. Newspaper reporters and television correspondents may aspire to a standard of objectivity, but the news is inevitably filtered through the biases and sensibilities of individuals and the enterprises for which they work.

They can be sensational, superficial, intrusive, inaccurate and inflammatory. The solution is not to devise laws that set some arbitrary definition of responsibility or to license journalists, 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.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, a distinguished justice of the United States Supreme Court, said in 1919: “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”

A strong, free country and a strong press are inseparable. You cannot have one without the other. No nation ever has, and none will.
What those in MECOZ are trying to do really is suffocate the press under the blankets of the worst pretensions.

What they are forgetting is that press freedom is a constitutional right. And constitutional rights do not have to be earned by conduct.

We hold that the greatest right in the world is the right to be wrong, that in the exercise thereof, people have an inviolable right to express their unbridled thoughts on all topics and personalities, being liable only for the abuse of that right.

The freedom we are campaigning for is one that should protect unpopular and even inaccurate speech. Press freedom is a farce if it means merely the freedom to report pleasant things.


Inaccuracies can be overcome or minimised through training and retraining of our journalists. And institutions dealing with training of journalists in Zambia are mostly under the control of the government. If there is bad journalism, those in charge of training of journalists should try to see how they can improve their programmes.

It is often said that a free press – which often forces us to confront that which we may find unsettling – is the price of democracy. We believe a free press is not costly to society, it is, in fact, a reward of democracy.

The freedom of the press that we are campaigning for is not primarily designed for enjoyment by the media. It is basically for the protection of the public by making the widest possible flow of information a cornerstone of their democracy.

Every man and woman should have an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he or she pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press.

But if he or she publishes what is improper, mischievous or even illegal, he or she must take the consequences of his or her temerity, of course, appreciating the fact that the right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.

It cannot be denied that there have been many complaints about the conduct of our press and some, like MECOZ, have advocated some form of statutory control for the press.

But the mere fact that speech is accompanied by conduct does not mean that the speech should be suppressed under the guise of prohibiting the conduct. But we who so staunchly espouse free press and then seek to edit it must be wary that from today’s decisions might leach tomorrow’s hypocrisy.

Zambian journalists seem to be torn between the pursuit of the truth and their desire of being in good terms with the powerful. The main form of corruption in our journalism today are the many guises of social climbing on the pyramids of power.

And this may explain why some journalists today are seeking to do the job of legislators – drafting laws to regulate the media.

It is not possible for The Post, given its strong tradition of promoting and defending press freedom, to be part of the MECOZ betrayal of press freedom.

What MECOZ is trying to do will earn them a very bad reputation in the world. They will surely be denounced by all press freedom organisations in the world. And we will aid this process by launching a local and international campaign against their intentions to have a legislated media council.

We will go for them individually and collectively because this is what it entails to fight for press freedom. Theirs is truly a discredited and shameful undertaking.

Labels: MECOZ, MEDIA, PRESS, REGULATION

posted by MrK @ 9:30 PM