Maravi

State interference versus media independence

State interference versus media independence
By Prof Fackson Banda
Wednesday September 24, 2008 [04:00]

A particularly convincing reason many media activists advocate for self-regulation is because of the incessant State interference in media services. I have laboured this point in many of my previous column articles. But I must pinpoint the issue again because of the State’s recent interference in the programming of Q-FM, a privately-owned radio station.

Last week I challenged the State-owned media, given their public mandate, to provide a deep analysis of the presidential electoral campaigns, including critically profiling the candidates. I pointed out the advantages that I thought such media had over their private counterparts.

Now, in passing, I must make the point that public media may be more susceptible to State regulation than private media. The argument often advanced for this is that the State has an obligation to protect the ‘public interest’. I do not want to stretch this point because it can be so easily misunderstood. Suffice to say that the State’s intervention in public media must be justified in a way that leaves no doubt as to what constitutes what is in the ‘public interest’. Another issue worth mentioning is that ‘public interest’ is more often confused with ‘partisan interest’. That is why the regulatory rule of thumbs is to keep direct and indirect State regulation at bay.

To get back to my subject: I am concerned about the apparent interference by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Services (MIBS) in the programming of Q-FM. I was horrified to read that the permanent secretary, Mr Emmanuel Nyirenda, had urged the station to screen calls made during a live phone-in presidential-electoral programme. At this juncture, I must remind my readers that my previous column articles on the subject of media regulation have, based on a review of wide-ranging global research, demonstrated that democratic regulatory regimes do not intrude into the content produced by media institutions. Regulatory regimes provide a general framework or structure for self-regulation.

The ‘directive’ by MIBS amounts to blatant intrusion into the arena of media production. To put it bluntly: it borders on inciting media propaganda. To oversimplify the syllogism: filter all phone calls that are inimical to the ideology of the ruling party. I take it that most such calls have tended to attack the ruling party’s presidential candidate, Rupiah Banda. If this is the case, we cannot be persuaded by any argument that such interference is in the public interest. It is more likely in the partisan interest of the Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD); it is meant to dissimulate alternative, critical political viewpoints.

Now, if we examine the assumptive basis of such State interference in the operations of media institutions, we will notice that it horribly disfigures democratic practice. First of all, it infantilises media operations in the country. Let’s put it bluntly: all private media operations are infant-like or childlike, requiring the strong directive hand of the State. In a word: the media do not know what is good for society. It is the State functionaries that must determine such public good and direct all media efforts towards its realisation. Thus simplified, State intervention in media services becomes laughable, except it is no laughing matter, this one.

The basic problem with such an approach to State-society relations is that it disregards the political idiosyncrasies of most of the State functionaries. Of a necessity, their worldview is dominated by the ideology of the ruling party.

The influence of their political affiliations must be checked through a system of checks and balances. It is for this reason that media are seen as part of that system of countervailing influences. To subject media to State hegemony is to effectively reduce them to propaganda instruments.

The idea of media self-regulation is, in the final analysis, a rejection of the infantilisation of media. It is an affirmation of the professional ‘adulthood’ of media professionals to make up their own minds about their work, including deciding issues of content generation. Like all adults, media professionals may falter in their work, but this does not necessarily mean that the State must take them over.

Second of all, State interference of the type exhibited by MIBS implies that citizens are themselves infantile or childish. It implies that they need the strong hand of the State to protect them from their own infancy and childishness. In other words, citizens do not know what they want. When citizens raise their voices in criticism of their political elites, they are being ‘immature’. They do not know what is good for them. So, under this Statist logic, we must find a way of filtering out the people’s infantile, childish, immature mumblings.

In a word: citizens must be controlled. That is the logic of such State interference. Now, I must not be misunderstood. I know that some people have outlandish political viewpoints and there might be a temptation to curtail such viewpoints. But no; the solution is not to gag those viewpoints. They need to see the light of day and be subjected to alternative perspectives. This is the measure of an open society, one in which there is a genuine plurality of views on a range of political, economic, social and other issues. We must not fear such plurality; it can only serve to make us stronger.

Zambian political elites have a choice to make. Do they want to hear about their unpopularity through their intelligence system? Now, we do know that the intelligence network is so embedded into the political structure that its intelligence could be politically coloured. This does not mean that we do not need our intelligence system; we do.

Or do the political elites want to make it easier on themselves by allowing the media greater freedom to reflect the full range of political contestation in the country? It makes democratic and moral sense to allow free rein to different political viewpoints. In fact, it might well work in favour of the politicians, both now and in the future.

But lastly, State interference of the sort shown by MIBS betrays a lack of understanding of media effects, political power and citizenship. The contemporary pluralistic media culture does not easily lend itself to State manipulation. Although large segments of the Zambian population are not within media reach, they can still interact in ways that can so easily cut across any partisan interest. People are complicated, no matter how ‘uneducated’. Their experience is enough to make them read between the political lines of media messages.

In urban areas, people are exposed to different other media platforms, including online information resources. Although such platforms may not reach the majority of our people, they still represent an alternative form of information. It is impossible to ‘control’ public opinion in the ways erroneously assumed by our State functionaries. Here is some free advice: State functionaries can only win by actively promoting policies that enhance access to information. They can send a strong political message by being seen as brokers of good media policies and laws, not by urging private radio stations to censor phone-calls. Here, the radio stations can invoke, of their own volition, the normal rules of debate and decency.

What is the conclusion of the matter, then? It is this: State interference in media operations is poor politics, especially in this new-mediated age. Keeping a distance from media operations, while creating a more enabling environment for media freedom to flourish, is posh politics. Zambians must make a choice. For me, the choice is easy: Less State interference in media operations, and more State support for media freedom.
Is the State ‘adult’ enough to heed this advice?

Labels: FREEDOM OF SPEECH, MEDIA

posted by MrK @ 9:34 PM