Maravi

Editorial independence

Editorial independence
By The Post
Sat 16 July 2011, 14:01 CAT

“The laws governing the system currently do not give independence to the public media and it is only when laws are aligned in a manner that will give independence to these media institutions, that is when we shall have the right thing.”

This is a quote from Anthony Mulowa, the president of the Zambia Union of Journalists, when he was attempting to explain what is going on at the state-owned and government-controlled media institutions in Zambia.

Anthony further added: “As long as the appointing authority for media heads is the powers-that-be, there is nothing which is going to happen; you can resist and be fired then tomorrow the other person who is going to come up, what is he going to do?

So long as we allow a situation where the appointments in the public media are done by the government, it is not going to work. The laws are correct but we need to move a step further and find an independent board which will be running the appointments of these media heads so that they can be professionally and independently employed. That way the public will hold these institutions accountable.”

Arising from what Anthony is saying, it is clear to us that as journalists, we should never cease to celebrate the principles of democracy. Indeed without those principles, journalism would simply not exist.

You can be a scribbler or a writer or a hack. But without an adherence to democracy and human rights, you cannot be a journalist. Writers who do not accept the principles of democracy and human rights are not deserving of the name journalists but rather are paid hacks or propagandists.

Of course, it remains true that governments are a significant threat to freedom of speech and human rights in general. But it is not governments alone that pose that threat.

That threat is posed by coalitions of power which include governments, political parties, religious groups, large corporations and so on and so forth – indeed any organisation that has something to lose. Any group with something to lose will sooner or later come into conflict with the democratic role of the media.

We believe it is impossible to grasp the role of journalists and the challenges they face without starting from this position.

It is very important to recognise the fact that the production process of news in all media does not lend itself to rigid control. Whether it be in radio, television or print, the time in which material can be prepared and broadcast and published is a fairly narrow window.

This places great reliance on the journalists or broadcasters to utilise their professional judgement.
It should also be recognised that the creation of media content is a highly skilled job and cannot be done under rigid supervision.

For this reason, journalists need an autonomous space under which to operate. And in all this, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that the job of working in the media tends to attract people who take on the job because it is something they want to do and because they believe in the principles that underpin the job.

The need for an autonomous space has led journalists to come up with codes of ethics as a way of imposing the principles of their craft. These involve an assertion of journalistic principles and an acknowledgement of the primacy of the judgement of one’s peers.

A journalist, as a matter of principle and conduct, is expected to have respect for truth and the right of the public to truth as his first duty. A journalist is also expected to report only in accordance with facts of which he or she knows the origin.

A journalist is also expected not to suppress essential information or falsify documents. And a journalist and the institution he works for can earn the public trust through accuracy, honesty, promise-keeping and independence. This is so, and in accordance with the journalist’s commitment to democracy, because people can govern themselves and guarantee their liberties only if they are accurately informed.

Therefore, in order to strengthen democracy in our country and ensure informed public dialogue about issues of public importance, journalists should accept the sacred duty to serve the people by providing information and by guaranteeing a public forum in which issues of common concern can be addressed.

Journalists worthy of that name shall deem it their duty to observe faithfully these principles and recognise in professional matters the jurisdiction of their colleagues only, to the exclusion of every kind of interference by government or others. We say this because respect for truth and the public’s right to information are overriding principles for all journalists.

That is, in making professional decisions, journalists should rely on their own collective judgement, not that of their employers or of government. In committing themselves to these principles, journalists are collectively asserting their rights to that autonomous space within the media.

They are asserting that they have a loyalty to something greater than the newspaper or broadcaster they happen to be working for from time to time. They have a loyalty to fundamental principles and that loyalty commands a primacy over the demands of their employers or government.

There is need for all our people to realise that the media is a unique undertaking or business which imposes on it responsibilities to the community.

And the chief responsibility of the media is to provide news that is as accurate, fair and complete as possible and comment that reflects the diversity of opinions within the community.

We can only properly claim the prestige and influence a newspaper or broadcaster may command if we fulfil the responsibilities it entails. Even commercial success depends on a reputation for meeting the responsibilities and being seen to meet them.

We agree with Anthony that there is need to change the way things are done, the way the top management of the state-owned media are appointed. It is true that the current system politicises the jobs and inhibits journalistic independence.

But there shouldn’t be a temptation for intervention in managerial processes which do not result in any meaningful structural changes. We shouldn’t allow this to become battles over individuals, over who should be editor, rather than over structural changes.

In 1991, the Press Association of Zambia succeeded in removing the top editors and managers of the Times of Zambia, Zambia Daily Mail and the Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation. Individuals were removed but no structural changes were made. And where are we today? Back to square one.

We therefore urge Anthony and his colleagues in the Zambia Union of Journalists to speak and advance the issues of editorial independence in the institutions where their members work. Without that, there will be no journalistic independence and integrity in these institutions.

Of course, they are a trade union and are expected to deal with the matters of bread and butter, but they should not ignore the professional matters affecting the primary work of their members.

We say this because it is not possible for them to have one without the other. Unless they fight for professional issues – to create spaces for diversity, professionalism and freedom of speech – the work they do loses all its value. We say this because in the struggle for editorial independence within media organisations, these two issues come together.

And it is in this struggle that they should use the principle of trade union action to advance the professional interests of their members. This requires continuous vigilance and struggle. And as long as they are prepared to contest this terrain, they are likely to succeed.

Of course, we cannot ignore the subjective factors in all this – the critical issue is the strength of mind of the editor. All these things depend, to a large extent, on the strength of mind of the editors.

Some editors are strong and respect the traditions of their profession. Others are weak and see their job as a stepping stone to all sorts of social climbing. It is incumbent upon journalists to do all they can to keep editors up to the mark.

To someone who is not a journalist, many of our comments will seem to be self-servicing arrogance, giving the impression that we know better than our masters, our elected representatives, our ministers and our president about what is right or wrong. To that we respond, well, we do.

We are the only stakeholders or players in the media who have no interests other than the professional tenets of our craft. We don’t have a particular stake in anything. So it may be professional arrogance, but we do believe that our interests in editorial autonomy and independence are also the nation’s interests.

And it is this self-supervision or regulation, this independence, more than any external supervision or regulation, that is the best guarantee that a free and independent media in our country will ultimately reflect our people’s interests.

Labels: ANTHONY MULOWA, JOURNALISM, THE POST

posted by MrK @ 6:47 PM