Maravi

Trust and credibility

Trust and credibility
By Editor
Thursday August 07, 2008 [04:00]

PRESS freedom will always be contested. And when courage for that contest is lacking, press freedom itself is terribly diminished. Voluntary self-regulation, whether as individuals or as a collective, is at the apex of press freedom. It is not for Parliament or legislators or indeed the executive or their agents in the Media Council of Zambia (MECOZ) to decide that press freedom is some sort of disease that we must quarantine.

As we have pointed out before, it is crass ignorance of the way laws are enacted and executed for one to think that a legislated media council is a self-regulating body. It is ignorance of the law for one to even insinuate that the Law Association of Zambia is a self-regulating body.

Lawyers in this country are not self-regulated; they are regulated by laws usually initiated by the executive and enacted by Parliament and adjudicated upon by the judiciary. Almost everything that is done by the Law Association of Zambia is a product of the law.

It is also folly for one to think that journalism, as a profession, can be symmetrically compared to professions like law. Press freedom is a right much linked or connected to the freedom of expression to be enjoyed by every citizen.

And like all other rights, its enjoyment doesn't need to be earned by good behaviour or obtaining of some certificate, diploma or degree. Journalism is a profession by occupation and not by any qualification other than that. To regulate that type of profession will be a great injustice to the people of this country.

And this is why we say the greatest danger to press freedom in this country lurks in the insidious encroachment by individuals of zeal, appearing to be well-meaning but without understanding.

Instead of putting additional legal restrictions, like a legislated media council, on journalists, we should be sure to help them handle their responsibilities and give them the freedom to fly.

People believe having freedom of the press is a natural phenomenon. It's not. It's the result of intense care and vigilance.

We are being challenged by members of MECOZ to state why we should fear the law. Probably we understand the law better than most journalists in this country because we have had more encounters with the law than most of them.

No media organisation has been subjected to the trials and tribulations that we have had to endure over the last 17 years.

We have suffered more arrests and criminal prosecutions than any journalist or media organisation in this country at the hands of both the executive and the legislature - and once or so by the judiciary. We have had the misfortune of being the only newspaper in the history of this country with a banned edition - done under the law.

And in these cases we have emerged triumphant. So who can legitimately talk about us fearing the law? Which journalist in this country knows the law as we do?

And with all humility - without being boastful in any way - we are the only newspaper probably in the history of this country whose editor and his deputy are both lawyers, are both advocates.

In life, it's always better to be clear about things.

The unregulated voice isn't as dangerous to the public as the regulated or silenced voice. Again, as Nelson Mandela once advised, "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".

Both freedom of speech and press freedom often provoke public and political controversy, but experience shows us again and again that when freedom is diseased, the only cure is more freedom and not the curtailment of that freedom or its strict regulation.

The government should not have any power whether through its agents in a legislated media council or other to rule the press. Trying to have a legislated media council is a big mistake. And in saying this, we are not exhibiting cowardice or fear of the law. We are merely sounding the warning. If we don't sound the warning, who will?

And in opposing a legislated media council, we are not in any way trying to condone and support irresponsibility or impunity. In any discipline, there are people who pursue it with honour and with decency and there are people who don't.

Using this as pretext to come up with a legislated media council is not right, fair or just. We see journalists as manual workers, the labourers of the word. Journalism can only be of value when it is free from statutory controls under whatever guise, and is passionate.

There is a feeling that the very word 'responsibility' implies wimpiness. One can be a fully 'he-man' journalist responsibly - and we mean that in a gender-encompassing way.

Isn't it up to journalists to wrestle with what is in the public interest, not necessarily what is of interest?

The idea of diversity becomes our strength, sacred to us. The range of broadening, the potential becoming a way and a song. Many have fought this reality. We know the wounds.

To censor in any way is to destroy, or at least to oppose the process of reality. To hear one voice clearly, we must have the right to hear them all.

The essence of a free life is being able to choose the style of living you prefer, free from exclusion and without the compulsion of conformity or law.

And no set of professional ethics is better than your own personal ethics.

A truly free press, that is not subjected to statutory media councils, is to a great people what winds are to oceans and malarial regions, which waft away the elements of diseases, and bring new elements of health. Where free speech is stopped or regulated, miasma is bred, and death comes fast.

We all want to do right and do well. But if you don't do well, you are not going to be in a position to do right.

The freedom of the individual and the rights of conscience will have no place in a society where a small group of people in a legislated media council, protected by the law and supported by the government, espouses a particular view of morality, of what the media should publish or broadcast, one that has no room for deviation from the norm.

We shouldn't forget that news unfolds but is never complete. It is written in haste but not carved in stone. It often wounds but more often it heals.

Our Constitution - even the new one being debated - rebels at the thought of giving government or Parliament the power to control people's minds. When the conspiracy of lies surrounding us demands of us to silence the one word of truth given to us, that word becomes the one word we would wish to utter above all others.

Moreover, a free and independent media that is regulating itself will be more trusted than a media regulated by a statutory body like MECOZ. Trust and credibility are the commodities we trade in.

We say all this in reaction to the remarks made by members of MECOZ on their radio programme yesterday, accusing us of having a misguided notion about the nature of a legislated media council.

We are not cowards. And we have a long track record of fighting for press freedom and other liberties, a record that is recognised globally and for which we have received many international press freedom awards.

We have fought more battles in defence and advancement of press freedom than the combined force of all those who today are championing the creation of a legislated media council. We know the politicians will be on their side in all this.

But this is not the first time most of these elements have sided with politicians against us. And as always, we will be ready to take them on and fight for that which is just, fair and humane.

We may not be able to stop them from having their MECOZ legislated but such a setback will never deter us from struggling with all the tenacity we can marshal against their evil MECOZ Act.

Labels: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL, MECOZ, MEDIA, PRESS, THE POST

posted by MrK @ 4:19 PM