Maravi

Phone-in

Phone-in
By Editor
Wednesday September 24, 2008 [04:00]

FULL and free discussion should be promoted and defended at all costs.
For Zambia to grow and prosper, ideas must be nourished through free discussion. A bad idea will find few takers in the market place.

And we believe that a free, independent and plural media will help promote full and free discussion in our country. Full and free discussion keeps a society from becoming stagnant and unprepared for the stresses and strains that work to tear all its achievements to pieces.

However, for full and free discussion, one needs a vigorous, flourishing, pluralistic press and for this, there is need to regard the media not merely as an extension of the public relations machinery of those in government, of those in the ruling party, but as independent players in the governance of our country.

The media is not meant to protect those in government, those in the ruling party from critics. It is meant to protect people from government, from the politically, economically and socially powerful, not the government or ruling party from people. We say this because informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment. For this reason, any moves by those in power, in government and in the ruling party to censor, to limit the scope of the media cannot be regarded otherwise than with grave concern.

It doesn't make sense to tell our radio and television stations not to broadcast any voice until they are sure it will offend nobody. If this is the case, very few things would be broadcast. While the politically powerful are allowed to have live programmes on radio and television without any form of censorship from any quarter, the ordinary man and woman is being prevented from enjoying similar privileges. Imagine if all the printers were determined not to print anything until they are sure it would offend nobody - there would be very little printed.

The whole point of a free media is not to make politicians and their utterances and actions exempt from criticism but to expose them to it. This right should not be taken away from our people arbitrarily by any executive directive or indeed by any law.

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. And this is not to say they can only enjoy this right when they are right, but not when they are wrong. Rights of this nature don't have to be earned by good, responsible or acceptable conduct. Such rights don't have to be earned.

In this regard, we welcome the decision by all our media bodies to oppose the advice given by information and broadcasting permanent secretary Emmanuel Nyirenda to all community and commercial radio stations to stop phone-in programmes. The freedom they are promoting and defending is one that protects unpopular and even inaccurate speech. This freedom would be a farce if it meant merely the freedom to broadcast pleasant things.

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

Every man or woman should have undoubted right to lay what sentiments he or she pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the media; but if he or she causes to be broadcast or published that which is improper, defamatory, mischievous, or illegal, he or she must take the consequences of his or her own temerity. Of course, we should appreciate the fact that the right to be heard does not include automatically the right to be taken seriously.

For these reasons, it doesn't make sense for the government to try and censor phone-in radio or television programmes because they subject some politicians to insults and defamation. The mere fact that speech is accompanied by conduct does not mean that speech should be suppressed under the guise of prohibiting the conduct. And as we have warned before, those who staunchly espouse free media and then seek to censor it must be wary that from today's decision might leach tomorrow's hypocrisy.

We do appreciate the difficulties that are there in editing live programmes. And indeed there is technology that can enable us edit live programmes. If we need live broadcasts, it may be necessary that we acquire this technology and use it. If not, a lot of care may be needed before we have live broadcasts. But the decision of whether to acquire this technology or not and of whether to have live broadcasts and phone-in programmes should be left to the media. It should never be an imposition on them by the government or anyone else. However, if someone is defamed or legally offended on such programmes, they should be ready to meet the consequences of their decisions.

Edit we must, using whatever means are at our disposal. But this should not be to stifle conflict or conviction, but to eliminate debasement. We must accept the fact that we live in a society where respect for truth is decreasing at a very fast rate and where lies and calumny are the order of the day. People talk confidently about things they don't know at all and if one is careless, they can easily pass them as truth. They talk about people they have never seen and know very little about as if they know them so well. They phone in on radio and television programmes and accuse people of all sorts of things in a manner that is not only defamatory but also unfair and unjust.

Few would argue that the media always carry out its functions responsibly. They can be sensational, superficial, intrusive, inaccurate and inflammatory. However, the solution to this is not to devise regulations or laws that set some arbitrary definition of what is right for them to do or wrong for them to do, but to broaden the level of public discourse so that citizens can better sift through the chaff of misinformation and rhetoric to find the kennels of truth. It is said that when freedom is diseased, the only cure for it is more and more freedom.

And this is in line with the advice given by Madiba on this score: "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 quicker and more healthily from too much freedom than they do from totalitarianism."

What is surprising is that these phone-in programmes have been around for a long time now and those in government have not raised any concerns. Their senses only seem to have been aroused by the difficulties those representing Rupiah Banda have faced on such programmes. We all know that Rupiah's campaigners - Vernon Mwaanga, Ben Tetamashimba, Akashambatwa Mbikusita-Lewanika - have been harangued on these programmes by callers. And things had really become bad for them, while the opposition seem to have been receiving favourable calls on such programmes. This is where the problem lies as far as those in government today are concerned. We don't think they would have reacted in the same way if the callers were always denouncing opposition leaders and praising Rupiah and his campaigners.

Censoring such programmes will not help matters much. What they should pay attention to is what the people are saying and what has earned them such hatred and disrespect from the people.

Labels: RADIO

posted by MrK @ 5:41 AM