Maravi

MPs and a free press

MPs and a free press
By Editor
Sat 07 Nov. 2009, 04:00 CAT

The report presented to Parliament on Thursday by the Parliamentary Committee on Information and Broadcasting Services is a stimulus to reflection and encouragement to preserving our hopes in causes that have never ceased to be legitimate.

The report delivered by the committee’s chairman Mwansa Kapeya has reaffirmed our convictions and given us more arguments for our enthusiasm for defending a free press in our country and in the world.

We are particularly impressed by the committee’s persuasive arguments for self-regulation of the media and its reflections on the value and role of a free press.

We were also impressed by the contributions from other members of the house in particular Highvie Hamududu and Sylvia Masebo.

However, we were saddened by the pettiness, jealousy and envy of some of our representatives. We were saddened by the weaknesses, grudges, envy and ambitions that surrounded some of our representatives, inhibiting them to see and say the truth.

Anyway, we can excuse some of the deficiencies exhibited in the House over this issue because while our politicians derive great experience from the exercise of their functions as politicians, they do not have the privilege of being – nor could they be – specialists in all social spheres.

They are basically politicians – in itself one of the most difficult tasks in today’s world – and above all, they must be responsible ones. But as public figures, they should be reluctant to talk about things they don’t understand, and try to explain that which is not perfectly clear to them.

We hope Rupiah Banda and his friends will learn something from the committee’s report and start to realise that there is no alternative to voluntary self-regulation of the media because the alternative is tyranny, dictatorship. We say voluntary because if self-regulation is not voluntary, then it becomes mandatory regulation. And we know, from the committee’s report, that mandatory regulation is not desirable.

As we have repeatedly stated, few would argue that the news media always carries out its functions responsibly. And as Hamududu has correctly advised, if the MMD and its government feel they are not fairly and adequately covered by the media outside their control, let them start their own newspapers. Their dissatisfaction or irritations with the perceived inadequacies of the media outside their control should not lead them to take measures, legislative or otherwise, that could compromise or coerce the press.

If they are looking for a media that is subservient to them, they should heed Hamududu’s advice and establish their own newspapers because a free press, whatever its inadequacies, is preferable to a technically good press that serves only their interests. And the Zambian people have demonstrated this preference very well in their support for The Post. For all the deficiencies, real or imaginary, that they accuse The Post of, this newspaper is still the most popular news media outlet in our country. It is the first choice newspaper by most Zambian newspaper readers. It is also the first choice advertising medium for most advertisers. Why? This is the question they should try to answer. A critical, independent press is the lifeblood of any democracy.

We would be very happy if the state-owned and government-controlled media was to follow the recommendation of this committee and start to be critical of the government, exposing its weaknesses instead of leaving this to the private media. It is sad that throughout the period Dr Kenneth Kaunda was president, the state-owned and government-controlled media never published any critical stories, comments or letters about him. Similarly, when Frederick Chiluba was president, no such articles were also published. Why?

For seven years as president, Levy Mwanawasa was never criticised in the state-owned and government-controlled media. The same is happening about Rupiah. We have no doubt that if Michael Sata or Hakainde Hichilema - who today the state-owned and government-controlled media carry critical articles of - were to become presidents, they would do the same. Is this desirable? Is it the way things should be? The committee provides the correct answers to these questions.

We are also particularly impressed by Masebo’s articulation of the issues concerning the media. No one can disagree with Masebo’s observation that while the media could sometimes be irritating, especially when they reported wrong information, statutory regulation was no answer to the many challenges and shortcomings of the media.

Her advice that those in government should not listen to some opposition members who were pushing for statutory regulation just because they had personal battles to wage with the media should be taken very seriously. The solution to the inadequacies of our media is not to devise laws that set arbitrary definition of responsibility or to licence journalists. But as Hamududu has correctly pointed out, the solution lies in broadening the level of public discourse so that citizens can better sift through the chaff of misinformation to find the kernels of truth.

No one can deny that Sakwiba Sikota has made tremendous contribution, at some point in his life, to the development of the media in this country. And The Post will always remain indebted and respectful of Sikota’s contribution to its development. But it will also be dishonest not to acknowledge the errors and shifting positions of comrade Sikota.

This once heroic comrade has changed his progressive position on many things. Sikota is no longer as resolute as he used to be on many issues. Today Sikota tries very hard to walk the middle of the road. In short, today Sikota walks the path of opportunism. He tries very hard to sound objective and balanced when he is pursuing nothing but opportunism.

And as Lenin explained it, an opportunist, by his very nature always evades taking a clear and decisive stand, he will always seek a middle course, he will always wriggle like a snake between two mutually exclusive points of view and try to “agree” with both and reduce his differences of opinion to pious suggestions and so on and so forth. Sikota says he is “a blood relative” of the media. Yes he is.

But we have known relatives who have betrayed their own. Sikota says his defence of media freedoms has been consistent. We say they have been tremendous but they have lost their consistency. Sikota wants self-regulation that is not voluntary, that is mandatory. What does this amount to? Is this consistency? We can only say that 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.

Of course there are the likes of Besa Chimbaka and Joseph Kasongo who have serious complaints against The Post and are advocating some form of control of 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.

We should realise that the greatest danger to the establishment of a free press in this country lurks in the insidious encroachment by men and women of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. Let us not allow this country to be retarded or destroyed by mediocrity. Let our parliamentarians adopt and follow the path charted by the committee and create an environment where a free press and a creative critic can speak.

We know that some of our colleagues are torn between the pursuit of truth and the desire of being in good terms with the powerful. The most important form of corruption in Zambian journalism today are the many guises of social climbing on the pyramids of power. Some of our colleagues become curiously uncomfortable when they stray too far off the government reservation.

They are discomforted by the slightest evidence that those in government do not love them. They are so close enough to the government to feel curiously shy about calling a lie, a lie. They must retreat from the pyramids of power, remembering that no politician is eternal, they will come and go but the value of a free press is permanent and it needs to be defended at all times.

And we salute all our politicians, all our members of parliament and all our people who have arrived at these stimulating convictions. The highest level of political thought was reached when some men and women became aware that the fruits of the efforts and the intelligence of each human being should reach all others; that man really had no need to be a wolf, but could be a brother to man. In this, a free press will always be key. And for this reason, it must be defended at all costs and under whatever forms of manipulation.

Labels: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL, MPs, PRESS FREEDOM

posted by MrK @ 12:21 AM