Self-regulation is the best, says Kapeya
By Kabanda Chulu
Sat 07 Nov. 2009, 04:00 CAT
PARLIAMENTARY committee on information and broadcasting services chairperson Mwansa Kapeya has said self-regulation as opposed to external regulation is the best form of regulating the media.
And Kapeya, who is also Mpika Central member of parliament, suggested that the Media Ethics Council of Zambia (MECOZ) must be given an opportunity to gain legitimacy from its stakeholders by ensuring that any type of regulation originates from the media practitioners.
And Bweengwa member of parliament Highvie Hamududu has said the threats of statutory regulation by the MMD government are a sign of inferiority complex and challenged the government to start its own newspaper if they are getting negative coverage.
Moving a motion in Parliament for the adoption of the report of his committee on Thursday, Kapeya said there was need to put in place measures that would enhance the positive contribution of the media to national stability and economic development.
“Mr Speaker, your committee were informed that there already existed a number of laws that restricted the media and these include the radio and telecommunications Act which sets very high fees at US $40,000 for a 3B licence for internet service providers and this undermines the development of non-traditional media (new media, blogs, audio and video streaming), the broadcasting Act, preservation of public security Act, the state security Act and official secrets Act and the Penal Code Cap 87 of the Laws of Zambia,” Kapeya said.
“Your committee recommend that the first step in enhancing the positive contribution of the media to national stability and economic development is to review these laws and bring them in tandem with the current political dispensation and worldwide media reforms.”
He proposed that MECOZ should work towards gaining credibility and acceptance among media institutions who must then give it the necessary mandate and means of enforcing professionalism.
“As regards strengthening MECOZ, your committee recommend that since international best practice on media regulation suggests that self regulation, as opposed to external regulation, is the best form of regulating the media,” Kapeya said. “Hence the MECOZ must be given an opportunity to gain legitimacy from its stakeholders by ensuring that any type of regulation originates with the media practitioners themselves.”
He said the media must play its watchdog role by exposing issues of corruption in public institutions and also highlight and expose developmental issues.
“Unfortunately, the media in general (public and private) has not done enough to contribute to the political stability and economic development of the nation due to lack of training and appreciation of the current political and economic landscape as well as undue influence exerted by shareholders on the editorial policy and content,” Kapeya said. “So we recommend that media houses must train their staff and shareholders must place national interests above those of their own and economic expediency.”
Kapeya said the media tended to get caught up in the political web of personal and petty accusations by the political players at the expense of providing in-depth analyses.
He said the perception of the media by the public during election campaigns was two-fold.
“There is this view that government-controlled media is used to portray a working government and to create that the opposition were just a bunch of noise makers who seize every available moment to stifle government operations. The other view is that the private media worked as a tool for unearthing certain unacceptable government activities, furthermore, the private media, had come to be viewed as an ally of the public which is relied upon to keep government in check,” Kapeya said.
“We therefore recommend that in order for the private media not to have an excuse for always reporting negatively about government, the public media should be seen to be balanced in their reporting. They should be willing to criticise and expose government weaknesses instead of leaving this to private media who may overdo it.”
He said from lessons learnt from what had transpired in the region, it was not entirely the media that directly instigated violence that occurred in some countries.
“It was actually the politicians who used the media, useful as it might be, is a dangerous tool if placed in the hands of non-professionals, especially during election time when political tensions are high,” said Kapeya. “Therefore, we recommend that the media, in reflecting events to society as they unfold, should be cognisant of the fact that it is not what they report that matters but how they report it.”
Debating the report, Bangweulu member of parliament Joseph Kasongo said the tendency by those in the private media who think they were above the law must be stopped since they even condemn Parliament and the Judiciary.
“In the eyes of those journalists, everything is rotten, including the Judiciary, Legislature and the Executive, does it mean those journalists are very wise to impose ideas on others? We should not use democracy to insult others and if those journalists cannot restrain themselves then they should be controlled because they should not continue calling others useless especially that we leaders are popularly elected,” Kasongo said. “In other countries, the media enhances peace and stability and not enticing people to rise against government through honking and other activities and when others got arrested, the people at this media institution ran away and hid in embassies of foreign countries.”
However, Mandevu parliamentarian Jean Kapata, wanted to rise on a point of order but Speaker Amusaa Mwanamwambwa ignored her and allowed Kasongo to continue debating.
Kasongo said this private media institution only wrote insults and politics and one could only find something useful in the 'Sangwapo' pages.
“From page one it is politics and insults, when you turn the pages, the Judiciary is rotten, useful things are only found in the 'Sangwapo' pages and you feel the pain when insulted as a human being especially when popularly elected,” said Kasongo. “Those calling for self-regulation should rethink because I will never support such media that incite people to rise against government since I am a great believer in peace.”
But Hamududu argued that media regulation would backfire on the government officials when they leave office.
“The same media they want to bring down they will need when out of power and this is a sign of inferiority complex by the MMD government and if they feel that only negative coverage is painted at them, let them start their own newspaper that can articulate their views and compete on the basis of ideas,” said Hamududu.
And Bahati parliamentarian Besa Chimbaka said some media institutions were just focused on insulting so that anarchy could prevail in the country.
Chongwe MMD member of parliament Sylvia Masebo said she supported self-regulation of the media as opposed to statutory regulation.
Masebo said while the media could sometimes be irritating, especially when they reported wrong information, statutory regulation was not the answer to the many challenges and shortcomings of the media. She said the media was a powerful tool that could build or destroy and urged journalists to practice responsible journalism.
She urged the government not to listen to some opposition members of parliament who were pushing for the statutory regulation of the media just because they had personal battles to wage with the media.
She said free media were important because they keep leaders on their toes.
“When we decide to become public figures, we open ourselves to the public scrutiny so we can't run away from the media. The media helps us to become better leaders because we do not want to attract wrong headlines because we have stolen or we are corrupt,” said Masebo.
Livingstone ULP member of parliament Sakwiba Sikota declared that he was “a blood relative” of the media and his contributions in defence of media freedoms had been consistent.
He said self-regulation was the only way out for the media and urged all media houses to support it.
He said all over the world, the media was regulated, either by self or statute.
Sikota said if some media houses would attempt to frustrate efforts by other media organisations in pushing for self-regulation, the government would have no choice but to impose statutory regulation to ensure that the fish that ran away from the pond was caught.
Sikota said in that case, the government would not be blamed because it will have given the media an opportunity at self-regulation.
Labels: HIGHVIE HAMUDUDU, MECOZ, MWANSA KAPEYA, PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING
Read more...
Statutory media regulation
Written by
Gershom Ndhlovu Sunday, May 24, 2009 4:58:34 PM
Of late, the issue of compelling media organisations and journalists to join the Media Ethics Council of Zambia (MECOZ) and the threat of statutory regulation of the media has been quite hot.
I am one of those who feel that MECOZ has gone off the rails and I wish to point out that there is no need for extrastatutory regulation of the media because the laws that are in place are adequate.
Unfortunately, I do not have ready access to the laws of Zambia, but from what I can recall off-hand, there is the supreme law, the Constitution which guarantees freedom of expression, which guides every citizen.
The piece of law that sends a chill down the spine of every journalist is the official secrets Act which carries a minimum sentence of 25 years. This mainly guides matters of security of the nation.
Then there is the Penal Code which prescribes crimes and penalties thereof. Under this law, there is criminal libel and defamation as well as sedition to which any journalist is liable if he or she breaks the law. Anyone who feels that a journalist has criminally defamed someone or has committed an act of sedition is free to report him or her to the police.
There is also the law of civil libel and defamation for individuals who feel that a newspaper has written untruthfully about them. Such people are free to sue in their individual capacities to seek compensation for any damage caused them by such publications. A lot of people have invoked this right and many a newspaper has paid the price to an extent of even folding up.
Then there is the law of copyright. No journalist in his right frame of mind can go about lifting published or unpublished materials without attributing to that source. Infringement of copyright can be treated both as a civil or criminal matter.
As I am recalling these laws from memory, I may have forgotten some of the laws and may have misrepresented what they exactly state. However, the point is that there are enough laws in the land dealing with how the media should operate. Our ministers, members of parliament and politicians in general should not even waste time making a piece of law regulating the media when they can invoke the above laws if anyone breaks the law.
One thing for sure is that MECOZ has lost credibility to an extent where it needs serious sprucing if it has to stand with its head high. The people behind it need to go back to the drawing board and start afresh, recapturing the spirit for which it was initiated just over a decade ago. Lecturing on what stories a newspaper should cover, how it should write them and what words should be used, is not in their ambit.
Labels: GERSHOM NDHLOVU, MECOZ, MEDIA
Read more...
MECOZ has not done much – LAZ
Written by Ernest Chanda and Katwishi Bwalya
Friday, May 15, 2009 2:26:15 PM
THE Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) on Wednesday submitted to a parliamentary committee that the Media Council of Zambia (MECOZ) has not done much to promote understanding between the media and the public.
But tourism minister Catherine Namugala has insisted that the media in Zambia should be regulated by statute because they have failed to regulate themselves. Making the submission before a committee on Information and Broadcasting Services, LAZ honourary secretary Dr Overs Banda said MECOZ has not provided much arbitration.
“Evidence on the ground seems too indicate that Media Council of Zambia (MECOZ) has not done much to promote understanding between the media and the public. For example, one would ask as to how many radio, television programmes have been organised to promote understanding between the media and the public. More should be done as the opportunities are available for MECOZ to do that for the benefit of the country,” Dr Banda submitted.
“Our research does indicate very little if any has been done for the Media Council to arbitrate between the public and the media. If public debate through radio and television were conducted, issues for arbitration would arise. A lot of complaints have been raised but nothing has been done. For example, the position taken by one political party to deal with reporters physically wherever they appear does indicate that there has been no arbitration at all by the media council. Others have restored to court action to address their grievances.”
Dr Banda submitted that the media could contribute to political and economic stability if they were allowed to operate independently.
“This can be made possible if media is allowed to operate in an environment of freedom where there is little, or better, no interference of government in the practice of journalism, be in a public or private setting. The media must be allowed generally to entertain, inform and more importantly, educate the nation on daily occurrences in the society.
“If the media is used as a tool for dissemination of information on all matters that affect society, it can be an effective contributor to the political economic and cultural development of society,” submitted Dr Banda.
And Namugala maintained that the media in Zambia should be regulated by law because they have failed to regulate themselves.
“Honestly, in my opinion the media has failed to regulate itself. So as much as the media is calling for self regulation, I believe that it has failed to do that and we all agree that people's lives must be protected and in protecting the life of every Zambian, you must ensure that the media is regulated to some extent so that they do not violate the rights of individuals,” Namugala said. “The wish of everybody is that the media will effectively regulate itself but this has failed. It has not worked, so it is important that the media is regulated to some extent until the media is capable to make a case that they are able to regulate themselves. As it is now clearly you can read, you see around people's rights are being violated.”
Namugala said the media should be regulated to ensure that they do not over dramatise things and in order to preserve the peace that the country has been enjoying.
“Once an article has been written about an individual whether defamatory or not, it is very difficult for that person to correct what has been written about them and I think also in ensuring that our peace as Zambians prevail, we need to make sure that the media does not over dramatise, that the media does not incite society whether for or against. The media must serve to balance and to inform the members of the public on what is happening,” she said.
Namugala said the media of late had become the judge and putting the accused people in the dock.
“Where there is a good case for or against a person, the media's role is merely to inform and not to be judge and jury,” said Namugala . “It is not fair play and in my opinion I think there is need for the media to some extent to be regulated.”
Labels: CATHERINE NAMUGALA, LAZ, MECOZ
Read more...
MECOZ is highly compromised – Kanyama
Written by Ernest Chanda
Thursday, May 14, 2009 4:12:57 PM
The administration of Media Council of Zambia (MECOZ) is highly compromised because there are no salaries for secretariat staff, MECOZ board member Chibamba Kanyama had said. Appearing before a parliamentary committee on information and broadcasting services yesterday, Kanyama submitted that MECOZ’s performance was below par.
“In relation to the performance of MECOZ, I would say it’s below par. I think we must admit that we haven’t done as much as expected. One, we have had financial difficulties that have affected our operations. We haven’t been meeting as members of the board and that has posed a weakness in terms of administration.
The secretariat is very weak; we’ve got no salaries for the secretariat,” submitted Kanyama. “In other words, the administration is highly compromised. And that affects governance. We haven’t been able to call for an AGM [Annual General Meeting] to report back to our members. We are not even able to account for our actions or our inactions before our members. And this has impacted on the attainment of the mission, the vision and the objectives of MECOZ.”
And Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation (ZNBC) acting director general Juliana Mwila called for a law that will compel journalists to join MECOZ.
Mwila said compelling journalists to join MECOZ would instill professionalism in the media industry.
“The media council needs adequate funding that will enable it carry out more sensitisation campaigns and run an effective secretariat to coordinate its activities. There is need to ensure that journalists and institutions pay their membership fees. There is also need to make it mandatory for journalists practicing in Zambia to belong to MECOZ. This will be done in the interest that journalism is a profession like other professions such as lawyers who have (LAZ) and doctors who belong to the Medical Association of Zambia. There is need to institute a law to compel all journalists to belong to MECOZ while those refusing to subscribe should not be allowed to practice,” Mwila submitted.
But Lusaka Central member of parliament Dr Guy Scott advised Mwila to be more concerned with ZNBC-related issues rather than MECOZ.
“Why not address what is relevant to you? Your reporting is not balanced and we have examples to give. Can you please tell us how you are going to improve yourselves rather than talk about MECOZ?” he asked.
In response, Mwila maintained that ZNBC had provided fair coverage in most instances.
“We have tried our best to give fair coverage and records are there to show. We have evidence to prove our fairness and our popularity. Just last week when an item was run on the news that I had been appointed ZNBC acting director general, people were calling me to ask about that. To me this shows that ZNBC is popular,” she said.
Mwila said before, during and after elections, the posture of the media had been divided.
“Elections are a very emotional subject because of what is at stake. The posture of the media has been divided with each institution being perceived to have a preferred party or candidate(s). What has been most damaging is the tone and language used by some media during the elections. This has tended to generate toxic politics and antagonise one group against another,” Mwila submitted. “Generally, the media did not follow the electoral code of conduct. Some sections of the media deliberately ignored the electoral code of conduct which lays the ground rules for coverage of elections. There was unequal coverage of candidates in the election. What is important for the media is to follow the code of conduct without exception.”
And MECOZ chairperson Sr Rose Nyondo submitted that MECOZ was tightening up its constitution to compel all journalists to join.
“The old MECOZ is weak and members have realised that this needs to change as soon as possible. A new constitution is already in draft form. Members of MECOZ looked through the draft and made further amendments…”
She said what should be done to ensure all media organisations join MECOZ was to ensure that the MECOZ constitution was tightened to compel all media practitioners join the organisation and that MECOZ needs to be linked to a donor organisation who could fund it for a minimum of three years. This will help the organisation to stabilise in terms of administration and publicity programmes. She said such support would assist MECOZ to visit all rural-based media organisations and expand on its number of offices.
Sr Nyondo submitted that MECOZ had discussed with the Ministry of Information on possibilities of giving the mandate to MECOZ to accredit all journalists in the country.
“As discussed with the former minister [of Information] Hon [Mike] Mulongoti and the current minister Hon Shikapwasha at the formal meetings where MECOZ made curtsey visits, it was suggested that we give MECOZ the mandate of media journalist accreditation. In this way, no journalist or media house can practice without being a member of MECOZ,” she submitted.
And Sr Nyondo submitted that the media in Zambia did not provide balanced coverage in last year’s presidential election.
“From the last special elections of 2008, there is no Zambian media house that can boast that they did a clean, honest and professional coverage of the events before, during and after elections. The state-owned media tried their best to be fair, but in most instances they supported the MMD. The private media, in particular The Post, supported the opposition. The sacrificial lamb was the general public or the electorate that was starved of free, fair and unbiased information.”
Sr Nyondo said as a result, MECOZ had drawn up a programme to conduct workshops in order to train journalists on election reporting.
“In preparation for the 2011elections, MECOZ has lined up a series of workshops for all stakeholders, including local authorities who are part of the audience of the community media houses who were the majority in abrogating media ethics and election procedures. These preparatory election workshops will be run in conjunction with the Electoral Commission of Zambia. A sponsor has [is] yet to be found.” she submitted.
Asked by Dr Scott on how MECOZ board members appointed themselves and where they drew their mandate from, Sr Nyondo said they were appointed by the member organisations, and that is where they drew power from.
But Itezhi-Tezhi member of parliament Godfrey Beene insisted that MECOZ should dissolve itself because of the numerous problems it faced as admitted by the board members.
And committee chairperson Moses Muteteka asked Sr Nyondo to admit that because of their poor performance, MECOZ had in fact contributed to the instability in the media industry.
In response, Sr Nyondo said MECOZ could not be blamed for failures of individual media houses.
“Yes, there are problems in the industry. But we cannot be blamed entirely for that. The constitution had a big weakness. According to our constitution, when we adjudicate, we don’t punish. So we sent it back to our lawyers so that we can have teeth to deal with members who are found wanting,” submitted Sr. Nyondo.
Labels: CHIBAMBA KANYAMA, MECOZ
Read more...
Putting one’s neck under the executioner’s ax
Written by Editor
Many things will have to change before a media council becomes a viable undertaking in Zambia. There are certain prerequisites that have to be met before it can be possible for every journalist and every media institution in this country to congregate under one media council.
For a media council to be viable, it has to be a product of a strategic coming together, and not a happenstance alliance, of all those who practice journalism in this country.
As things stand today, those behind the Media Council of Zambia (MECOZ) have only one institution in sight for disciplining, controlling, caging and humiliating. And that is The Post. All their talk centres around The Post. The anti-Post element is what seems to unite them under MECOZ and it is what has led to them into hiring themselves out to unscrupulous politicians to fix The Post. They are not concerned about the lack of editorial independence at the state-owned and government-controlled Times of Zambia, Zambia Daily Mail and Zambia National Broadcasting Corporation.
Yet it’s a well-known fact that it is not possible for anyone to practice ethical journalism under conditions where one is not capable of taking independent decisions. It requires little intelligence – if a little is all one has – to realise that journalists at these state-owned and government-controlled media institutions are working under a lot of negative pressure from politicians of the ruling MMD and its government. No honest person can deny this fact.
Ethical journalism requires that the journalist acts independently and in an honest manner. This is not possible even for the best of our journalists at the state-owned and government-controlled media institutions. But this doesn’t seem to worry the men and women behind MECOZ and their political backers.
One doesn’t need a microscope to see that the Zambian media is still heavily dominated by the state-owned and government-controlled institutions. Out of the three daily newspapers in the country, only one – The Post, is not under state ownership and government control. The other two – the Times of Zambia and Daily Mail, are owned by the state and controlled by the government. Equally, despite the proliferation of many small radio stations, the electronic media is still predominantly state owned and government controlled.
The impact of The Post actually distorts the numbers. It makes Zambia look as if it has a strong plural media when this is not the case. Imagine Zambia’s media landscape would look like if The Post closed tomorrow! What private or independent media would be there for anyone to talk about?
What issues is the state owned and government-controlled media bringing out? What type of journalism are they practicing? For all the years our good friend and columnist Dr Kenneth Kaunda was in power, the state-owned media never questioned his decisions or actions. For the 10 years Frederick Chiluba was in power, not a single critical story, editorial comment or letter to the editor was ever published by any of these state owned newspapers. The same is true of the seven years Levy Mwanawasa was president. And the story will not change for Rupiah Banda.
All that had to be exposed was left squarely on the shoulders of The Post. Drug traffickers, corrupt elements and criminals of all hues had to be taken on by The Post. This in itself is enough to earn The Post many enemies. All these people going to jail today for corruption are in that position as a result of The Post’s work. And does anyone really expect these people to like The Post? And these were people with influence and connections. They are using everything at their disposal to attack The Post, to have a go at The Post in the hope that one day they will wake up and The Post is no more so that it can pay for what it has done to them.
The Post does not claim, and has never claimed, to have done everything perfectly well. Things don’t turn out perfectly even where one aims at getting things that way. But what can never be taken away from The Post is that it is an institution that carries out its duties with sufficient honesty, honour and integrity. The Post believes that it serves the cause of the people well to the extent to which it works well, to the extent to which it is sincere, to the extent to which it is honest. The Post has a lot of dignity and it is very sure of itself.
And this is a source of discomfort with The Post for many people. What they can never accept is The Post’s independence, integrity and honour. No one controls The Post apart from The Post itself. The Post’s employees make all the decisions concerning the paper’s operations. No decision is made elsewhere and thrust on The Post. As such, The Post takes full responsibility for its mistakes, and blames no one else. Not even the closest of The Post’s friends are able to tell it what to do. And they respect this. If ever they violated this principle, that would mark the end of the friendship. The Post doesn’t take directives to support this or oppose that cause or issue. It has a mission statement and editorial policy adopted in February 1991, five months before the newspaper was launched. And these are the ones that guide its operations. And the mission statement of The Post reads as follows:
“To produce the best quality newspaper in Zambia in order to exploit the gap in the market caused by the inadequacy of coverage of the existing press.
Our audience should embrace all readers, from a business executive to a taxi driver, who desire to be informed honestly and independently of events at home and abroad.
To achieve this and to ensure that we stay ahead of our competitors, we must strive to understand what it is that readers demand of a newspaper through conducting regular market research.
Our political role is to question the policies and actions of the authorities and all those who wield or aspire to wield social, economic and political power over the lives of ordinary people.
We shall aim to protect and promote the newly-emerging democratic political culture, in which the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals are guaranteed, through campaigning on issues that arise from our own investigations, reporting and analysis.
To strive continually for higher editorial standards by closely monitoring the accuracy, balance, clarity and style of our reporting, whilst also improving on the paper's design and quality of reproduction. This demands freedom from interference, but openness to criticism and a commitment to the continuous training of our staff.
To achieve these goals, most especially the protection of our independence, we must ensure the commercial viability of the newspaper. Our management style must be participative. We must all be fully aware of the competing demands on financial and other resources and the commercial consequences of our actions.”
And The Post’s editorial policy reads as follows:
“We have a duty to maintain the highest professional and ethical standards and to defend at all times the freedom of the Press and other media to collect information and express comment and criticism.
We shall at all times strive for balance in the way we select, write and present news, bearing in mind that there are almost always different views on any issue and on the interpretation of events. We have a duty to expose our readers to different sides of the story.
We must as far as possible be accurate, fair and honest. We must not suppress, distort or censor news, unless by publication we endanger anyone's life and we must avoid the expression of comment and conjecture as established fact.
Confidential sources of information shall be protected.
We will not distort or suppress the truth because of advertising or other considerations, such as the personal interests of our directors or shareholders.
We shall only mention a person's race, colour, creed, illegitimacy, marital status or lack of it, gender or sexual orientation or political affiliation if this information is strictly relevant.
We shall rectify promptly any harmful inaccuracies, ensure that correction and apologies receive due prominence and afford the right of reply to persons criticised when the issue is of sufficient importance.”
These are The Post’s guiding principles from which it derives its distinctive competencies.
Right now, The Post is involved in a big battle to defend its existence from hostile elements who have declared a war on it and have vowed to see to it that it is obliterated. But the battle of The Post is not only a battle for survival. It is not just surviving for the sake of surviving, no. It is a battle to take part in the struggle for a better society, to participate in that struggle along with all our people.
It would be quite an accomplishment for them to defeat The Post, to destroy it, because at every turn The Post is there to expose and challenge the crimes of their league, a small newspaper that has demonstrated how much can be done with so few resources to become the country’s biggest media institution in terms of impact and resources, and its voice is always there. What would they not do to shut off The Post’s voice!
There are many questions to ask them and many things to denounce to help build the awareness we need and that the country needs, to find solutions that will not come about because anyone so wishes but because of our people’s need to survive. It is no longer the survival of The Post, or of a small newspaper. What is at stake is the survival of the nation, the future of the nation.
We think that the idea of the future Zambia is the most important and most noble idea that any citizen can harbour. And progressive citizens have always fought for the future. To fight for the future does not mean to avoid doing every day what must be done for the present. The two ideas must not be confused.
It will be naïve and foolish for The Post to fall into the trap of joining the treacherous MECOZ whose discernible preoccupation is attacking it. The Post will not put its neck under the executioner’s ax being waved by MECOZ; the preservation instinct, the condition of thinking human beings make this impossible.
Some of the things that come from MECOZ are really silly. They talk about the language of The Post. What language? The Post has never invented a language. And for most of the part it borrows its language from the Holy Bible. When The Post calls a thief a thief, this is not strange language. It is offensive because they don’t want to hear it, they are defending thieves, they are in league with Chiluba who we have called a thief and has been found to be a thief by the London High Court and the Zambian government is today seeking the registration of that judgment so that they can effect it in Zambia and recover what Chiluba has stolen. When we called Chiluba a thief in 2001, we were condemned by these same characters who are today masquerading as champions of media ethics when they are nothing but champions, defenders of despots and thieves. What is wrong to use the words that are used in the Bible to describe certain undesirable behaviour? The words foolish, stupid, fox and so on and so forth are not an invention of The Post. They are there in the Bible and even Christ used some of them to describe and denounce the behaviour of the Pharisees, of Herod. What matters is if such words are used in an honest manner. And so far, no one can accuse The Post of dishonesty. Even in our courts of law, there are more libel judgments against the Times of Zambia and Daily Mail than The Post. So, what are they talking about? This is nothing but just an attempt to conceal their hatred for The Post and their criminal schemes against this newspaper.
Until the Zambian media landscape changes and a lot of other things change, it will not be possible for this country to have an all-inclusive media council. It is easy right now for The Post and the media under the Catholic Media Services, and probably the National Mirror to come together and form a media council. This is because there is much more in common among them; they are not subjected to the political control of anyone. They have a reasonable measure of independence to enable them to practice ethical journalism.
Labels: MECOZ, PRESS FREEDOM, THE POST
Read more...
Who do they represent?
Written by Editor
It is clear that the greatest danger to the establishment of a free and plural media in this country lurks in the insidious encroachment by men and women of zeal, seemingly well-meaning but without understanding. If anyone had any doubt about what type of media council Sr Rose Nyondo and her friends are seeking, her statement to the parliamentary committee on information and broadcasting on Tuesday should leave them without any doubt that they are seeking a statutory regulation of the media and not self-regulation, as they claim.
Sr Nyondo, the chairperson of the Media Council of Zambia (MECOZ), made it very clear that they want to licence the practice of journalism in this country. They want to give themselves the powers to licence who covers elections in this country.
It seems they want MECOZ to have similar powers to that of the Law Association of Zambia, a statutory body.
We have serious difficulties with their approach because journalism is not just a profession. It is the exercise by occupation of the right to free expression available to every citizen. And that right, being available to all, cannot in principle be withdrawn from a few by any system of licensing or professional registration by Sr Nyondo and her friends, but can be restricted and confined by rules of law that apply to all who take or are afforded the opportunity to exercise the right by speaking or writing in public. There are today in Zambia a myriad of rules that impinge upon the right to present facts and opinions and pictures to the public.
The statutory controls that MECOZ is championing, albeit in a disguised form, would undermine the freedom of the press and would not be so successful in raising standards.
It is clear to us that MECOZ has joined forces with the enemies of press freedom, and especially of The Post. There is nothing in what the representatives of MECOZ say that in any way purports to be defending press freedom. What Sr Nyondo and her friends have done is to join hands with the worst elements in our politics and have a joint assault on press freedom in this country. And because they are working with the politicians who control the legislative processes in this country, they will achieve their goal of establishing a statutory media council directly or indirectly.
Theirs is really a strange media council – a licensing media council. They should just openly constitute themselves as one of the departments under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
We are, and we will always be, for self-regulation. But our membership of any body that is involved in self-regulation will be on a voluntary basis, unless it is a statutory requirement for us to join it. We are not the makers of laws in this country, that is a preserve of our legislators. We are law-abiding citizens and we will respect any law that comes from our Parliament whether we agree with it or not.
And we will use all legal channels available to us to challenge such laws, whatever it takes. We will fight such laws in our courts of law under judicial review if they are in conflict with our country’s Constitution. And this crop of politicians will certainly not be the last one. New and probably better representatives will one day emerge among the ranks of our people to change things. We are revolutionaries who know how to fight for just causes without tiring. We have got patience and we know how to wait. We think we are defending certain principles that are of tremendous value at a time of confusion and opportunism in our country, a time when many people are feathering their own nests.
Sr Nyondo and her friends can have their day with the support of the most reactionary of our politicians, the most anti-press freedom elements in our politics and Parliament. This doesn’t mean it will be eternal – far from it, for the line they have taken, the things they are defending are beset by all kinds of contradictions. But this is the time we are in, and we think that, right now, the preservation of values is of decisive importance for us and for all progressives and true democrats in our country – all who want the best for our people and who cherish the noblest sentiments. Preserving those values is of unquestionable importance.
We have a proud record and reputation of fighting for press freedom the world over. Our enemies choke with envy over that. None of these characters masquerading as champions of so-called media ethics can match our record of fighting for and defending press freedom and everything that is right.
No matter what happens, other times will come. Right now, we are in the midst of a huge reactionary wave; later, a huge progressive wave, will come again. That is for certain. This is the reactionary high water mark; with or without us, another progressive wave will sweep our country and its media. And when we say “progressive”, we are referring to goals and purposes, not the form in which those ideas are propagated. Just as the reactionary ideas of MECOZ and the politicians who support them are strong in government and among some parliamentarians, the time will come when progressive, democratic, fair ideas will prevail – whether or not we are here. There is no doubt that there is an onslaught from all angles, including from MECOZ, on The Post. Therefore, even though we are a solitary newspaper, the very fact that we exist at all is of great value. If we defend this solitary newspaper with everything that we have, that will be of great value, too. If we stand firm, come what may, that will be of great value. If we win, as we unquestionably would because it would be impossible for MECOZ and the politicians who are supporting them to move this country backward politically, and more so in terms of press freedom, that would be of great value for the ideas, the principles and the cause that we are defending. Nobody can take that away from us – that’s in our own hands, no one else’s.
Therefore, we think that what we are doing is of great importance for the future of press freedom in this country, but it doesn’t make us believe that the future of press freedom in this country is entirely dependent on us. It gives us great encouragement to know that we are defending that future and that we are a symbol of that future and of those principles for a country filled with people who are hungry, suffering, marginalised and politically counting for nothing.
We have a clear, precise idea of our role, and all of those factors stimulate and encourage us in our work to promote and defend press freedom. That is the link between what we are doing and what we are ready to do, on the one hand, and the future, on the other.
And it will be of great help if Sr Nyondo and her friends could open their hearts and pay attention to the advice given by Gerald Mwale who says: “…only a fully free media can be fully responsible. Self-regulation and the promotion of quality journalism are among important safeguards of media freedom and even media power…media self-regulation must lie at the heart of the Media Council of Zambia if it is to win the confidence of both journalists and members of the public. The media needs to be convinced that subscribing to the Media Council of Zambia is for their own good.”
There is need for Sr Nyondo and her friends to learn something from the objectives, organisation and operations of the Australian Media Council. Very few journalists, including ourselves, would be opposed to a media council that is constituted and operates on similar lines as the Australian Media Council which seeks to ensure the freedom as well as the responsibility of the press.
As for us, we are not at all worried about the threats of a legislated media council. We don’t desire it. Only despotic and repressive regimes have such kind of arrangements. But if it comes, we are more than well-equipped intellectually and otherwise to deal with it. After all, anything legislated brings it in the realm of law - and we are lawyers. Moreover, what are they going to come up with in their legislated media council that is not already in our current laws without risking violating the Constitution that guarantees press freedom?
We know very well that although there has been so much talk about press freedom in this country, in practice it hasn’t worked very well. And the space that we have today, we had to forge it for ourselves – nobody gave it to us. And who doesn’t know the price we have had to pay to be what we are and to do what we are doing? We cannot therefore be worried by the machinations of some opportunists who have not produced, and do not produce, any meaningful media products but are going round masquerading as specialists in the media. The professional journalists, those practising journalism, are at the Times of Zambia, the Daily Mail, ZNBC and The Post. But what role are these playing in the Media Council of Zambia? Almost none. And if this is the case, what type of self-regulation is this? Who is trying to regulate them? Who constitutes MECOZ? Who do they represent?
Labels: MECOZ, PRESS FREEDOM, ROSE NYONDO
Read more...
MECOZ must return to drawing board – Mwale
Written by Katwishi Bwalya
Thursday, May 07, 2009 3:42:51 PM
THE media needs to be convinced that subscribing to MECOZ is for their own good, the department of mass communication at University of Zambia (UNZA) has said. And UPND Sinazongwe member of parliament Raphael Muyanda has said there is a lot of indecent usage of language by journalists.
Appearing before the parliamentary committee on information and broadcasting on Tuesday, one of the lecturers in the department Gerald Mwale said media self-regulation must lie at the heart of the Media Ethics Council of Zambia (MECOZ) if it was to win the confidence of both journalists and members of the public.
Mwale said the benefits of self-regulation could not be doubted as they hinged on ethics and responsibility.
He noted that MECOZ needed to return to the drawing board and re-work its outreach strategy to win the confidence of society.
"The media needs to be convinced that subscribing to MECOZ is for their own good and they should volunteer to work within a set of rules agreed upon by themselves to promote and protect press freedom by operating under a mutually agreed code of ethics and the rules of natural justice," he said.
Mwale said the new MECOZ constitution, which was being scrutinised, would address the weaknesses in the old document and ensure that desires of members were taken into consideration.
He said MECOZ must support journalists who wished to unite their efforts to raise professional standards and thus strengthen the social standing of journalism.
He said the cooperation between journalists in the field of ethics was also great training ground for their cooperation in demanding their legitimate rights from government.
"...Only a fully free media can be fully responsible. Self-regulation and the promotion of quality journalism are among important safeguards of media freedom and even media power," Mwale said.
MECOZ chairperson Sr Rose Nyondo said the council would soon develop a subscription and accreditation committees for journalists in the country.
Sr Nyondo said the committees would have a strong training programme for journalists.
"What MECOZ is planning to do now is that they want to develop different committees which are not really in operation due to financial problems. We want to have a strong committee on training," Sr Nyondo said.
"One of the issues which...we want to address is that every journalist who covers an election must cover it the way we cover a football match and if you cover a football match where you are always giving yellow cards to one team, the spectators in the football match are going to call it foul because they would know that you are being biased. If you are covering a football match where only one team gets a red card and only one team gets a yellow card then everybody in the football stadium will know that you are a biased reporter.
"So we want to train our journalists in such a way that they are aware that in a football match there are those who are siding with one team and the others are siding with another team and both spectators want to have a fair coverage of the match."
She said the journalists would be accredited according to the ethics and regulations of MECOZ.
"We also want to have a committee on subscription and accreditation that the journalists who are going to be accredited to cover in the Zambian elections or Zambian government are accredited according to ethics and regulations of the body. We also want to build up other committees that are going to help journalists to build up their muscle into their training as well as reporting," Sr. Nyondo told the committee chaired by MMD Chisamba member of parliament Moses Muteteka
Sr Nyondo said more attention would be paid to community-based journalists.
"We want to pay special attention to community media because a lot of media personnel have no training at all and we want to give them training so that they are able to cover their training in a proper manner so that democracy can take its root in their own communities. They should be proper participation of the Zambian public in their community media and proper participation of the journalists in that community," Sr Nyondo said.
And committee member Muyanda wondered why the School of Mass Communications at UNZA had done nothing over the use of abusive language by some media organisations.
"In the interest of national development, has mass communication at UNZA the training ground of most of the journalists made an effort to restrain some of the most unprofessional method of reporting, calling an innocent or defenceless person ‘idiot’, stupid’? Has the University of Zambia come out and say look we cannot accept this type of language and that it is not in the interest of development?" Muyanda asked.
"Even a person who has committed murder in court, the judge will not go to extremes of using abusive language. The man is facing a trial, the judge will be polite enough in sending that person to the gallows. Of late we have seen unprecedented insults; some of us come from the days of the Times of Zambia newspaper, a proper newspaper. What are you doing about it so that this type of language, indecent language that is being used by the pressmen today be contained in the interest of national development? May I have a bit of submission so that we can come up with a recommendation to the government in the interest of national development."
In response, Mwale said as individuals in the department they were not happy with the language that was being used.
"We have debated some of the language that has been used in the media and we have generally not been happy, also as individuals and not as a department. There has been some expression of concern and this is something that we need to look at in future and see how we can address it," Mwale said.
Another lecturer, Dr Isaac Phiri said graduates from UNZA conducted themselves in a professional manner.
"Our biggest influence is in class. Once they [journalists] leave class and how they behave and conduct themselves becomes very difficult to influence. And secondly, not all practicing journalists pass through our hands so there are a lot of mushrooming journalism programmes in the country that are not regulated and are not even certified, so we don't know what kind of training they give," Dr Phiri said.
"We know that our students we drill them in ethics, we drill them through the use of language, we drill them through law. We put them through a rigorous four-year programme, so hopefully our students do not participate excessively in that kind of reporting. But at the same time we are not in total control of the whole media industry.
"There are also academic debates about what is wrong and what is right. We are always debating what is the right word to use and so on and as far as we know we teach them the law, ethics, we teach them what is wrong and right and our graduates conduct themselves professionally."
And Muteteka asked if the department of mass communication was impressed with the ethical and professional performances of journalists.
Muyanda told the department of mass communications to realise that they were not just producing journalists but manpower, which would soon be running the country
"What efforts are you making as the mass communications [department] at UNZA so that the communications industry, newspaper industry, radio they should come to a point where self-regulations system is brought to fruition, it comes to reality so that journalists can have forum where they can debate, bring colleagues that misdirect themselves or misconduct themselves to the practical point of discipline, for example. May I know how or why has UNZA not taken this initiative because at the end of the day it is national development. You are not just producing graduates, you are also producing manpower that is going to run this country one day," Muyanda asked.
In response, Sr Nyondo said, "We have held seminars but what we have not done is to call for a forum where we can have an open debate where different newspapers, different media houses are invited for this fora. It is a challenge which I feel as a department we need to accept but we can look into that."
Labels: GERALD MWALE, MECOZ, RAPHAEL MUYANDA
Read more...
Don’t use Global recession to lay off workers – Rupiah
Written by Kabanda Chulu, Chibaula Silwamba and Mwala Kalaluka
Sunday, January 18, 2009 6:32:10 AM
PRESIDENT Rupiah Banda yesterday warned investors not to use the global financial crisis as an excuse to lay off workers in a cynical attempt to reduce costs of production. And in an apparent reference to The Post, President Banda said the government will assist to provide an ethics council for those media houses that think they are above self regulation and have refused to cooperate with their colleagues in the Media Ethics Council of Zambia (MECOZ).
Meanwhile, President Banda has said the fight against corruption will continue and culprits would be punished.
Officially opening the Third session of the 10th National Assembly in Lusaka, President Banda said each MMD administration entered its first year faced with a crisis of one type or another.
He said the first MMD administration had to deal with severe food shortages largely due to drought in 1991/92 season while the second administration suffered sudden investment withdrawal by Anglo American Corporation from Konkola Copper Mines, which threatened about 10,000 jobs in 2002.
“The start of this administration is no different and we have taken over at a time of severe global financial crisis, nations - poor or rich - are affected. And in response government has devised intervention measures designed to mitigate the adverse impacts of the crisis through engaging mining companies to prevent job losses and economic diversification and promotion of the development of the Multi Facility Economic Zones,” President Banda said.
“To undertake these measures, government will re-allocate resources from non-priority areas and these measures are intended to address concerns of both employees and employers where the threat of factory and business closures looms. But the global financial crisis must not be used as an excuse to lay off workers in a cynical attempt to cut costs and reduce overheads because any job losses should only come as a last resort after consultations with trade unions and after thorough analysis of all options available.”
President Banda said to secure the future of Zambian industries; the government was ready to work with the public and private partners, both domestic and foreign.
“But any industrial restructuring should take into account the knock on effects of laying off workers, which includes the loss of tax revenues and impact on local communities and increased levels of poverty,” President Banda said.
“I am therefore directing the Minister of Labour to ensure that the tripartite labour council is fully involved in any industrial restructuring which may lead to a reduction of labour output.”
But some UPND members of parliament laughed-off President Banda's statement whilst reminding him that Austin Liato (labour minister) had been chased from a mining company during a fact-finding visit last week.
On mining, President Banda said the sector, which is the mainstay of the Zambian economy, had to deal with a volatile end to 2008. He said the global mining industry had suffered.
“Lower demand from countries like China and India has seen cut-backs and closures in many producing countries,” President Banda said.
He, however, observed that there was hope on the horizon because Zambia had promising sites for uranium. He said the government this year intended to effect further amendments to the mines and minerals development Act to encourage foreign direct investment.
“However, windfall taxes can only be levied on profits and this year profits will be scarce. We must ensure that we do not kill the goose that lays the golden egg. There is little point in taking in a few million dollars in tax if thousands of jobs are lost as a result,” President Banda said.
“Government is currently engaged with the industry to make sure that a beneficial financial environment exists for both government and investors.”
He said his government would do all it could to protect jobs and safeguard the industry for the future.
“However, as the government review the situation in the mining industry, the welfare of all mine workers is the top priority to the government,” he said.
“In this regard, government is determined to ensure that mining companies meet their social and legal obligations should they choose to pull out or disinvest. In addition, a special Task Force will report back to government on the needs and possible strategies available when closures are imminent.”
And a majority of parliamentarians from the MMD and UPND cheered when President Banda said media houses that thought were above self-regulation by not subscribing to MECOZ would be assisted.
As President Banda, who urged all media outlets and practitioners to consider joining MECOZ concluded this assertion, one UPND parliamentarian was heard shouting 'The Post' amidst the din.
“Recently, there have been calls in this House for the state to regulate the media in country. However, my administration believes in the media self-regulation. However, the onus remains on the media to work out such regulations which must be respected by all and clearly stipulate the sanctions against erring journalists or media houses," President Banda said.
"With that in mind I would urge all media outlets and practitioners to consider joining the media ethics council."
President Banda said he would rather have MECOZ as a course of action in terms of media self-regulation other than forcing the government to act.
"If other media houses think they are above self-regulation and refuse to cooperate with their colleagues in the media ethics council [of Zambia], then government will assist to provide one," President Banda warned.
"Government will review the licence system so as to allow existing and new broadcasters, both radio and television, to cover more of the country in terms of signal coverage. We want to see competition in this sector."
President Banda said the media remained useful partners to the government in the fight against corruption, poverty and the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
And President Banda said the high cost of fertiliser and fuel had a negative impact on the economy and contributed significantly to the high inflation rate.
“Given the present economic situation, my government will continue to pursue prudent fiscal and monetary policies. To do otherwise would be folly and irresponsible,” he said. “Our aim is to achieve the projected five per cent growth domestic products.”
He said the global credit crunch and subsequent cost saving measures had resulted in job losses, damaging the economy and society.
“Concerns have been raised on the measures my government is undertaking to cushion the country from the effects of the credit crunch,” President Banda said.
“In response, government has devised intervention measures designed to mitigate the adverse impact of the crisis. These measures includes; (1) engaging mining companies to prevent major job loses and encourage other investors to come; (2) diversification of the economy through; (a) enhanced resource allocation to irrigation (b) provision of resources to the citizens economic empowerment fund, (c) promotion of the development of the Lusaka Multi-Facility Economic Zone to generate employment (d) provision of adequate resources this year for the completion of Nansanga Farm block to attract investment and (e) provision of the adequate resources for the infrastructure development for Kasaba Bay and Livingstone areas to increase the number of tourists arrivals.”
President Banda said the other measures put in place included encouraging private sector participation in development of power generation centres and promotion and expedition of the exploration of petroleum in the country.
He said the global downturn with its negative impact on jobs, commodity prices and international trades, flew in the face of Zambia's efforts to create jobs to boost prosperity and to reduce poverty levels. He said the challenge was to devise strategies that would minimise the negative impact of the world recession on Zambia's growing industrial and trading sectors.
“I urge business leaders and heads of companies from all sectors to adopt more innovative survival strategies aimed at achieving that competitive edge,” President Banda said. “Government remains committed to reducing the cost of doing business in Zambia.”
President Banda said while promoting domestic entrepreneurship was important, it was also vital that Zambia encourage domestic and foreign investment through the Multi-Facility Economic Zones (MFEZs) that had been put up in Lusaka and Chambishi.
“When completed both facilities are expected to generate more than 10, 000 jobs,” he said.
He said developing the right skills was vital to economic empowerment.
“These are indeed tough times but relying too much on others or indulging on self-pity will not help. We must help ourselves,” President Banda said. “Education is the road out of poverty.”
On agriculture, President Banda said his administration's emphasis would continue to be on increased and sustainable food security at all levels.
“This will both counter the effects of the world food crisis and increase incomes,” he observed.
President Banda acknowledged that farmers had complained of delays in the distribution of farming inputs and the announcement of the floor price.
“Concerns have been raised regarding the food reserve agency that it has not purchased maize in the outlying areas, concentrating instead on the district centres,” President Banda said. “I, therefore, direct the Food Reserve Agency to intensify their crop marketing system this year by ensuring that they concentrate in buying crops from the remotest parts of the country as the private sector concentrates in districts and urban areas.”
He said the cyclical price irregularity of fertiliser affected all farmers and his government would like to see the prices stabilised, thereby benefiting all farmers; starting in 2009/2010 season onwards.
“I am therefore directing the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives to ensure that from 2009, the extension service begins to perform and all provinces will have production targets,” President Banda said.
He said his government would support irrigation agriculture, especially among small-scale farmers.
“In spite of such challenges, this year's irrigated maize crop will harvest some 100, 000 tonnes,” President Banda disclosed. “There is urgent need for mechanising the small-scale farming sector. The government is working on programmes to bring in tractors and agricultural equipment to be used by small-scale farmers.”
On land, President Banda said the Ministry of Lands would be opening a customer centre in each provincial headquarters to ensure a more efficient system and cut out central bureaucracy by providing better accountability at a local level.
On tourism, President Banda said Zambia offered herself as a haven of peace and tranquility.
“We should view 2009 as a year of opportunity, a year of greeting new friends to our borders and for forging lasting relations. I appeal to our immigration officers to truly represent Zambia's hospitality,” President Banda said.
On the environment and natural resources, President Banda said the government would implement the national adaptation plan of action aimed at adapting and mitigating the impacts of climate change.
“The environmental protection and pollution control Act will be reviewed to make it investor-friendly whilst protecting the integrity of the environment,” President Banda said.
On energy, President Banda said the government had engaged with various partners to ensure more supply of electricity. He said the government would also look at ways of increasing the provision of energy derived from the sun.
On infrastructure, President Banda said in an effort to make Zambia a regional economic hub, the government would continue improving infrastructure such as roads, railway lines, airports and canals to improve accessibility and reduce transport costs.
On health, President Banda said his administration would introduce the social health insurance as one of the strategies to increase accessibility to the health care services.
“This will compliment the government policy of free medical services,” he said. “Further, my administration intends to table before this House the health professional Bill which will harmonise the regulation of health professionals in Zambia.”
President Banda said the restructuring process for hospitals at all levels including districts would be completed and the drug supply, management and logistics would be strengthened at district level.
On education, President Banda said the government would continue with its policy of increasing access to and improving the quality of education at all levels, particularly for the rural areas.
He said the Zambian universities were fast becoming a regional learning hub by attracting students from Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo and Malawi.
On local government, President Banda said his administration intends to introduce the Local Government Service Commission within this year.
He also said the government would present a local government amendment bill in parliament to extend the tenure of mayors and council chairpersons.
He said the government was working towards addressing the many challenges facing the public service among them inadequate remuneration, shortage of housing and technical capacities.
On gender, President Banda said he would appoint women to decision-making position based on merit.
On youths, he said he was happy to inform the House that about 100 youths [former street children] that were being trained at Zambia National Service (ZNS) had been employed by the ZNS.
“I, therefore, urge the private sector to absorb some of the remaining graduates following the successful implementation of this programme,” President Banda said.
On corruption, President Banda said his administration remained committed to fight corruption, which he said erodes investor and public confidence.
“Corruption also diverts the scare resources from national development,” he observed. “Let me sound these words of warning: Government will support those who are prepared to work hard and put in an honest day's labour. For those who go outside of the law, they will be caught and punished.”
He assured that funding to the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) would be increased to make the institution more efficient and effective.
Whilst commending the Task Force on Corruption on the good job it is doing in the anti-graft crusade, President Banda said the ACC would remain the main body fighting corruption.
On the electoral reforms, President Banda said the Electoral Commission of Zambia would this year undertake the continuous voter registration exercise as provided for in the electoral Act.
He said during, the October 2008 presidential elections, young Zambians that had just reached the voting age were not registered and could not vote because the ECZ had financial shortage to do the continuous voter registration exercise.
On foreign policy, President Banda said Zambia's policy of good neighbourliness had been a key guide in its relations with countries in the region since independence in 1964.
On defence and security, President Banda said Zambia was committed to reducing the sources of conflict on the continent through its participation in peacekeeping efforts on such conflict areas such as Darfur in Sudan, the Great Lakes Region and the DRC among others.
On the Constitution, President Banda commended the National Constitutional Conference (NCC), saying it was doing a very fine job.
“I wish to inform the House that the government will continue to render the necessary support to the NCC so that it speedily implements its programme and delivers its draft report and constitution Bill without delay,” he said.
Meanwhile, President Banda invited Zambians, regardless of their political leaning, ethnicity, race or religious background to unite behind the country's common agenda of defeating poverty, creating wealth for themselves and propelling Zambia forward towards prosperity.
“We will not be able to solve all our problems this year but I believe we can weather this global storm and we will emerge a stronger nation,” President Banda said. “I want to assure this August House and through this House, the nation that, I as President of this Republic want to leave a legacy of my Presidency. I therefore, commit to work very hard and tirelessly to build that legacy especially that my current tenure is only three years.”
President Banda said he expected his ministers, deputy ministers, permanent secretaries, heads of commissions and government agencies, parastatal executives to perform no differently from him.
When adjourning the House to next Tuesday, Vice-President George Kunda said President Banda's speech was a wonderful and well-researched one, much to the disapproval of some opposition parliamentarians who shouted him down.
And commenting on President Banda's address, UPND spokesperson Charles Kakoma said the speech did not provided hope to Zambians.
“There is nothing new, especially that he did not talk about new policies or direction and even strategies to resolve the current problems facing the country. If anything, President Banda's speech has dampened morale among the people instead of uplifting their expectations,” he said.
And PF spokesperson Given Lubinda described the speech as an irrational and emaciated statement that lacked policy direction.
He said President Banda's statement on the operation of the media was double-tongued.
“We are not impressed with his speech. It is emaciated in all ways since it lacked direction. When addressing Parliament and the nation in general, a President should give policy direction and not threats because those were irrational statements,” said Lubinda.
“And his statement on the media is doubled-tongued in that he is talking about self-regulation and also threatening The Post. But why attack The Post? And if President Banda thinks that The Post is worrying him and his government, why can't he engage The Post and ask them why they are not members of MECOZ?”
Labels: JOBLOSSES, MECOZ, RUPIAH BANDA
Read more...
MMD complains to MECOZ over Post editorials
By Noel Sichalwe
Saturday September 27, 2008 [04:00]
MEDIA Council of Zambia (MECOZ) chairperson Sister Rose Nyondo yesterday confirmed receiving a complaint from MMD against The Post for its editorials published since August 20, 2008. But Press Freedom Committee of The Post secretary general Sheikh Chifuwe said the complaint to MECOZ by the MMD is misplaced.
Sr Nyondo said the MMD campaign committee lodged the complaint on September 22, accusing The Post of publishing more than 20 editorial comments full of hate speech against their party presidential candidate Rupiah Banda.
She said the MMD alleged that The Post had scandalised the personality and character of Vice-President Banda who was also Acting President without any good cause.
"MECOZ would like to appeal to the media to exercise fairness and impartiality in the coverage of all four presidential candidates who apart from Honourable Banda include Mr Michael Sata of the Patriotic Front (PF), Brigadier General Godffrey Miyanda of the Heritage Party and Mr Hakainde Hichilema of the United Party for National Development (UPND) who are taking part in the 30th October 2008 presidential elections. Particularly, the media also needs to at all costs desist from insults, inflammatory and derogatory language because such will not help the public in anything related to elections," she said.
Sr Nyondo said insults and the use of any unpalatable language by the media was unacceptable in the journalism profession.
"As MECOZ, we would like to remain on record again that insults by any media are unethical," she said.
Sr Nyondo said there had been several public concerns expressing disappointment at the conduct of the media in their coverage of the electoral process by focusing on personal attacks.
"Our advice to the media is that, they should reflect on their conduct and ask themselves whether what they were doing was building the nation or not," said Sr Nyondo.
But Chifuwe said The Post's editorial comments have been based on facts and that the newspaper was entiltled to express its opinion on anyone aspiring for public office.
Chifuwe said it was mischievious for Sr Nyondo to make general comments on a complaint received about a newspaper, which is not a member of MECOZ and on issues she did not understand.
"First, The Post is not a member of MECOZ. Both the MMD and MECOZ should know that membership to MECOZ is voluntary. It is not mandatory to belong to MECOZ.
Second, the complaint itself is without merit. At no time did The Post publish any libelous or defamatory stories or comments about Vice-President Rupiah Banda and the MMD," Chifuwe said. "If any such material has been published, let Vice-President Rupiah Banda and the MMD go to court.
One can only meaningfully pass judgment in a matter where both parties are heard. At no time did Sr Nyondo ever attempt to get in touch with us to find out our position on the matter. Being a woman of God, Sr Nyondo should know that God is a God of justice. She is calling for fairness when she is not being fair herself, she is passing judgment based on one side."
Chifuwe said all the editorial comments of The Post could be proved and justified and that everything published about Vice-President Banda was true.
"If there is a lie, let them take us to court rather than try to use an organisation that has no credibility. The behaviour of MECOZ shows why The Post cannot be a member of MECOZ - elements who can convict other people without giving them an opportunity to be heard.
This is why we have made it clear that we are not, and we will not, be members of MECOZ," said Chifuwe. "We have no problem with how many editorial comments we write on wrongdoings. This is not first time we are doing so.
If Sr Nyondo and MECOZ and their MMD friends have got any memory in them, they will recall that we ran daily editorial comments for five weeks on late president Levy Mwanawasa and his attempt to grant his friend Kashiwa Bulaya a nolle prosequi. We did this until Levy yielded and Kashiwa Bulaya was eventually convicted."
Labels: MECOZ, MMD, THE POST
Read more...
Media: statutory or self-regulation? [Part III]
By Prof Fackson Banda
Wednesday August 20, 2008 [04:00]
Here is my last testimony on the subject of media regulation. In the last two instalments, I have attempted to define media regulation in terms of public regulation, co-regulation and self-regulation. I have also explained why I would prefer self-regulation to public (read statutory) regulation.
I have, in reviewing global literature on the subject, suggested that elements of co-regulation can be built into a self-regulatory media regime. As a result, it is possible to see self-regulation as a harmonisation, driven largely by media players, of genuine state public-interest concerns and the self-regulatory professional propensities of the media industry.
Today, I want to highlight the implications of statutory regulation for legislative and media processes and practices. I do this in order to further substantiate the need for self-regulation.
Let us start by pointing to a historical precedent. In 1997, the state opted for public, statutory regulation. Such decisions do not often arise in a vacuum; there is always a political motive. Let us recall the political context prevailing at that time. The ruling MMD had just emerged from a highly controversial 1996 general election. Although victorious, the victory was as though through fire. Prior to this victory, the MMD had successfully pushed through a clause in the 1996 Constitution (Amendment) Act – Article 34(3) – which centred on the requirement for presidential aspirants to have ‘both parents’ being ‘Zambians by birth or descent.’
This effectively discriminated against the then UNIP’s Kenneth Kaunda, the first president of Zambia with Malawian parentage. It also effectively barred from the election race UNIP vice-president, senior chief Inyambo Iluta Yeta, because there was another contentious clause – Article 129 – which provided that no person, while remaining a chief, would join or participate in partisan politics.
From the above short history, it is clear that the ruling MMD was in a constitutional-legislative mood. Needless to say, several media organisations were openly hostile to the MMD’s constitutional-legislative shenanigans. So there was a political sub-text behind the push by the MMD parliamentarians for a legislated media council to regulate the media.
We must also state what the 1997 media council proposal would have entailed. First, it would have required compulsory licensing and registration of journalists. Second, the council would have had powers to reprimand, suspend, or withdraw the journalists’ accreditation. Third, failure to comply could result in prison terms and fines.
Now, this type of statutory approach to media regulation does resemble that of a country whose human rights and governance record the ‘New Deal’ administration has been known to condemn. You guessed right: Zimbabwe.
In 2002, just over five years after the MMD’s botched attempt at a statutory media council, the ruling ZANU-PF, under the ministerial gaze of one Prof Jonathan Moyo, crafted the access to information and protection of privacy Act 2002. This law regulated access to information held by government departments, statutory bodies and government agencies. It also required the registration of journalists and media services with the Media and Information Commission. In fact, the closure of the Daily News, Zimbabwe’s private newspaper, was a result of its refusal to register with the Commission. Well, where is Zimbabwe now?
Back to my country: It is easy to see why the proposed legislated media council of Zambia was vehemently opposed by media organisations and other activists. Thankfully, the government of the day withdrew it before it exploded into a larger political and governance problem. And it is easy to see why efforts at legislating the current non-statutory Media Council of Zambia (MECOZ) are being condemned.
I am not, for a moment, suggesting that the self-regulatory approach to media operations has no problems. If you carefully read my last instalments, you will have noticed how I singled out the problems faced by self-regulatory systems globally. You will also have noticed that I conceded a role for the state, but only if it is subject to media and civil-societal negotiation and oversight.
Now, what would we have to contend with in a public, statutory media regulatory system? I have already hinted at some of the implications above, but let me unbundle them.
First, in order to licence or register a journalist, we would have to define what ‘journalism’ is. Related to that, we would have to define who is a ‘journalist’. Well, it is not clear what journalism really is – there are many perspectives, but all of them are fluid. The issue is compounded when we introduce new media technology into the equation. This raises issues about journalism as a series of communicative practices, which may include on-line communication practices. Nowadays, it is not unusual for academic and scholarly researchers to speak about ‘journalisms’ (in the plural) as opposed to just ‘journalism’ (in the singular). With such fluid definitions of journalism, it becomes difficult to define some people ‘in’ and other people ‘out’ of the communicative practice of journalism. It is for this reason that we now entertain notions of ‘citizen journalism’. If all citizens can be journalists, then who isn’t a journalist?
It is evident, from what I have said, that contemporary democratic notions of journalism are tending towards inclusion and pluralism, and not exclusion and singularity. Rather than allowing statutory policing of this journalistic discursiveness, it is democratic to let the industry draw up its own rules about who can practise journalism and on what terms.
To this end, let me cite a legal authority on the matter. In 1985, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that licensing, by restricting access to the journalistic profession, was harmful to, rather than supportive of, public order.
Responding to the argument that a licensing regime is simply the ‘normal’ way to regulate certain professions, the court distinguished between journalism and, for example, the practice of law or medicine. In contrast to lawyers and physicians, the activities of journalists – the seeking, receiving and imparting of information and ideas – are specifically protected as a human right, namely the right to freedom of expression.
The court also dismissed the argument that licensing schemes are necessary to ensure the public’s right to be informed, by screening out poor journalists. The Court felt such a system would ultimately prove counterproductive.
I deliberately left the best argument for last. Do you know why the Zambian State hastily withdrew their proposed media council legislation? They knew that, if challenged, it would not stand in a court of law. As a matter of fact, in August 1997, in the case involving Kasoma v. Attorney General, 22 August 1997, 95/HP/29/59, the High Court of Zambia invalidated the attempt to establish the statutory media council, stating that any effort to license journalists would breach the right to freedom of expression, regardless of the form that effort took.
It is abundantly clear that, under international law, licensing and even registration of media workers is prohibited. As a matter of fact, licensing schemes for journalists are virtually unheard of in established democracies, a point I have already made in my last two instalments.
Second, in attempting to define journalism and journalists, the whole idea of professional socialisation through training and education would have to be reviewed. There would be need for more stringent entry requirements into journalism programmes. There would also be need to define the levels of competency that one is expected to have attained in order to practise journalism. What level of ethical responsibility and compliance is expected from a journalism certificate-holder, degree-holder, masters-holder and PhD-holder? Who would determine these, anyway?
What about the horde of ‘citizen journalists’ waiting to make a contribution towards journalistic discourse? What about public discourse itself? Wouldn’t such a regimented, legislative approach to media regulation amount to regulating public discourse itself? It is for this reason that Miklós Haraszti, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, argues that self-regulation is more effective for preserving editorial freedom; helping to minimise State interference; promoting media quality; ensuring evidence of media accountability; and helping readers access the media. Media regulation is about media accountability to the public, not necessarily to the State.
As Haraszti further observes, such definitional strictures of journalistic discourse could lead to unintended consequences. Such consequences may include: (i) criminalisation of defamation, libel, and insult, instead of handling these offences in civil courts; (ii) punishment of ‘breach of secrecy’ by civilians, including journalists, instead of limiting this crime to those who have an official duty to protect the secrets; and (iii) special protection of high officials from verbal abuse.
Thirdly, then, what guarantees are there that a legislated media regulatory regime will produce the desired results? Should there be failure, won’t it be only fair to blame it on the statutory regulatory regime itself? For it appears that we want to blame the self-regulatory system for all the ethical mistakes that journalists, as normal human beings, make, and will no doubt continue to make.
In a self-regulatory system, the spotlight is on the media themselves, and that should be the constant regulatory refrain. I would rather err on the side of self-regulation than on that of statutory regulation. That, my friends, is my final testament on this matter.
Labels: MECOZ, MEDIA, REGULATION
Read more...
The media: statutory or self-regulation? ]Part II]
By Prof Fackson Banda
Wednesday August 13, 2008 [04:00]
last week I reviewed the media-regulatory cultures in America, Britain and South Africa. I concluded that there is a constant struggle between the State and the media for control of media services. In outlining this struggle, I explained the three key approaches to regulation, namely (i) public (statutory) regulation, (ii) co-regulation, and (iii) self-regulation.
I emphasised that most democracies have generally regulated media along the principle of self-regulation. Public regulation of media is least talked about in such democracies. In their article entitled Self-Regulation, Co-Regulation, Public Regulation, Carmen Palzer and Alexander Scheuer give the example of how the Council of Europe and the European Union are increasingly talking about the possibility of co-regulation and self-regulation.
Indeed, there are several instances of co-regulation between State authorities and civil society in Europe, but such co-regulatory arrangements are usually an outcome of protracted processes of negotiation between the State and civil society. They can only work with the cooperation of both parties – State authorities and civil society actors.
As you will have noticed, public regulation is generally predicated on statutory regulation. Why is statutory regulation invoked? It is argued that self-regulation creates the possibility that industry may subvert regulatory goals to its own business goals. In a word, self-regulation can so easily mutate into self-service. It is also argued that self-regulation may not sufficiently address the needs of the public or the views of those affected by the media industry.
The third argument questions the adequacy of enforcement in self-regulatory regimes. What type of enforcement is likely to induce ethical compliance among members? Is it expulsion from membership? Is it professional ostracism or isolation? In the absence of legal sanctions, it is contended, how can self-regulation succeed?
And that last point seems to be the main bone of contention in the current debate about media regulation. The emphasis seems to be on the narrower issue of enforcing ethical compliance, and not the broader issue of regulating the media. There is no attempt to ask such critical questions as: Who is calling for such compliance, and what ethics must the media comply with? Whose perspective of ethics is being articulated? Is ethical compliance necessarily a function of a particular legislative regime? What are the political and professional implications? Will democracy be enhanced by such a legislated media regime?
In any case, aren’t media already regulated in Zambia? Yes! Last week, I observed that all media activity is regulated. The media are subject to the rule of common, equity, statutory, constitutional and administrative laws of Zambia. I shall not bother to explain what this legal jargon means; I simply want to underscore the fact that media regulation is broadly encapsulated in any law that touches upon freedom of expression. For what is media freedom without freedom of expression, and vice versa? In order to express oneself publicly, one must have unfettered access to free media.
As you will have guessed, I am signaling the difference between the occupation of journalism and other professions, such as law, medicine, accountancy, and the like. While some professions rely on professional secrecy, journalism relies on professional openness. Even when it protects some of its sources of news by keeping their identity confidential, journalism seeks to open itself up to those who might be victimised for divulging important information that is in the public interest.
Public, statutory regulation seems to deliberately emphasise ‘the bad and the ugly’ about journalism. It disregards the ‘good’ about journalism that often dwarfs ‘the bad and the ugly’. I demonstrated last week that developed democracies often protect the right of journalists to self-regulation in the interest of safeguarding the democratic credentials of their societies.
There is often a thin line between statutory media regulation and the criminalisation of democratic expression. Let me dwell, then, on some of the reasons why statutory regulation may work against democratic expression. Here, I rely on Angela J. Campbell’s article entitled Self-Regulation and the Media
First, self-regulation is more flexible than statutory regulation. It is easier for a media association to modify rules in response to changing circumstances than for a government agency to amend its rules. Once media regulation has been handed over to law-makers, it becomes difficult to obtain the political support and consensus needed to act as and when the association so desires. The ever changing political fortunes of any party in power are such that there is no knowing how a statutory media agency will metamorphose from one based on self-regulation to one based on the dominant political ideology of the day.
Second, statutory regulation is not likely to provide greater incentives for compliance. Scholarly opinion and research, as cited by Angela J. Campbell, shows that if rules are developed by the industry, industry participants are more likely to perceive them as reasonable and therefore compliable.
Third, statutory regulation is likely to be more costly to the government because it shifts the cost of developing and enforcing rules to government agencies. Another point to be noted here is that self-regulation does not necessarily mean the absence of government supervision in the public interest, but supervision requires fewer resources than direct regulation.
Fourth, statutory regulation will have to contend with defining the changing nature of journalistic expression and thus risk infringing constitutional provisions by criminalising some forms of expression. A related issue here is regulating the different forms of journalism that are constantly emerging as a consequence of new media technologies. The very emancipatory nature of new media is likely to render direct governmental control democratically questionable, not to say technologically challenging.
Technological enforcement of media must contend with the Internet, where jurisdictional and sovereignty issues make it difficult for nations to enforce their laws. Traditional media now have Internet presence, and this will prove unsettling for any statutory media regulation.
Fifth, statutory regulation generally proceeds from an antagonistic stance towards media activity, regardless of the regulatory goals. This antagonism is likely to fester into an open wound that can forever mar relationships between the media and the government of the day. There is no knowing who can get hurt all the most. But it is clear that citizens will be the proverbial grass that suffers when two elephants fight.
So is there justification for statutory media regulation in Zambia? Firstly, who complains the most and against whom? When I served on the Media Council of Zambia (MECOZ) board as secretary, it was The Post newspaper against which we had the most complaints, mainly from politicians and public figures. As far as I can remember, we had few or no complaints against the broadcast media, whether private or state-owned.
It is clear that The Post stands out as the most influential newspaper in Zambia. It is also evident that efforts at statutory regulation are aimed at ‘taming’ The Post. So there is a degree of insincerity in these agitations for public, statutory regulation of the media. But, as a student of media histories, I can predict that no such regulation will work. It will only hurt our democracy.
I do not believe that the levels of ethical misconduct in Zambian media have reached such proportions as to warrant State intervention. I believe that our media are coming of age and require continual interaction with the public. They need to become more reflexive of their practices. They must not take their audiences for granted. If The Post is a pain in the neck, we must continue to pressure it into ethical self-reflexivity and not call for Statist intervention. We must engage the newspaper on the basis of its democratic mandate, which includes a more responsive and participatory attitude to its news reporting. It is our democratic duty to so criticise The Post, but it is cowardice to turn to the State authorities to muzzle its freedom and independence.
One thing I know is this: The State has not given us enough reason to believe its commitment to media-friendly regulation. Take the selective implementation of the ZNBC (amendment) Act 2002 and the non-implementation of the IBA Act 2002. It is clear that the State seeks to control the media. Do we want to be complicit in this State agenda? Can we entrust media regulation to the State? You would have to be politically naïve to vote for legislated media regulation.
But, at the same time, I would concede that we need some kind of State involvement in discussions about the desirability of self-regulation. There are issues of public interest, such as child pornography, fanning ethnic hatred, and the like, which the State might be genuinely concerned about. That kind of solicited State involvement would amount to a co-regulatory process of dialogue, in which the State can be invited to list its concerns. The media themselves, not necessarily the media associations, can take up such concerns and elaborate them as part of their self-regulatory regime.
The State and the media need not be enemies. Both could strive for quality democratic expression! It is possible.
Labels: MECOZ, MEDIA, REGULATION
Read more...
The media: statutory or self-regulation? (Part I)
By Prof Fackson Banda
Wednesday August 06, 2008 [04:00]
The debate about how to regulate the media has flared up again! My objective is two-fold: first, I hope to give examples of media regulation as they obtain in other countries; and second, I seek to clear up some conceptual muddle that is apparent in the debate.
Regulation, according to Angela J. Campbell, in her article entitled ‘Self-Regulation and the Media,’ has three components: (i) legislation, that is, defining appropriate rules; (ii) enforcement, such as initiating actions against violators; and (iii) adjudication, that is, deciding whether a violation has taken place and imposing an appropriate sanction.
Clearly, Campbell’s definition is legalistic, but regulation encapsulates much more than the legal. Any of the three components identified by Campbell – rules definition, enforcement and adjudication – can be non-legal. While the legality of regulation is desirable under some circumstances, it may not be so under other conditions.
However we view regulation, we can make one point patently clear: all media are regulated in some form or other. For example, media operate in a legally regulative environment. There are already constitutional and legal regimes that control media operations. The constitutional and legal order encapsulates protection against defamation and against breaches of national security.
A better way of looking at regulation, then, is establishing the extent to which it enables or disables media activity. Now, there are some laws in Zambia which could impose a chilling effect on media operations. At the same time, there are laws which could possibly be described as enabling.
For example, the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA) Act 2002 might yet turn out to be an enabling piece of legislation, guaranteeing a statutory self-regulatory broadcast media system in the country.
Mark my words: I have deliberately set out the IBA as constituting a form of statutory form of media self-regulation. This is an important point to make because it describes the nature of broadcast media regulation in most parts of the world. For a number of reasons, broadcasting has generally attracted much closer State scrutiny than print media. As such, it has been subject to much stronger regulation, spelt out in statutes. Here, statutory regulation empowers the State to exercise greater regulatory scrutiny, some of it desirable and most of it repugnant.
However, I must qualify what I have described above. In established democratic societies, statutory broadcast media regulation provides for a general regulatory framework in which the broadcast industry can regulate itself. In a word, the State delegates regulatory authority to industry players who must organise themselves into some self-regulatory structure.
It is for this reason that I suggested that the IBA might well guarantee a ‘statutory self-regulatory’ broadcast media system. Here, the State, for reasons largely bordering on protecting the public interest, statutorily mandates industry actors to regulate themselves. There are many reasons for doing this, not least the fact that self-regulation is less costly to the government and more flexible. In addition, it is more likely to avoid constitutional issues.
To exemplify: In the US, the First Amendment expressly states: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom… of the press”. As such, the state can often do nothing else but let the press regulate itself. In this case, it can only pass administrative law. One such administrative law created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which licenses broadcasters “in the public interest, convenience, and necessity”.
As Peter J. Alexander and Keith Brown observe in their article entitled ‘Policy Making and Policy Tradeoffs: Media Regulation in the United States,’ the FCC has a statutory obligation to pursue the “public interest” through its regulation of broadcast media. The FCC’s interpretation of the public interest has led it to pursue three policy objectives: competition, localism, and diversity.
This policy triad reflects both efficiency and anti-trust considerations and concerns about the social, political and cultural effects of media.
To the extent that the FCC is subject to judicial review, it can be said to be insulated from the political process – hence the term independent agency, according to Kenneth Creech in his book Electronic Media Law and Regulation.
The FCC provides general direction to the broadcast media industry and does not enforce anything, leaving this to the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB). But a closer scrutiny will demonstrate that even NAB does not really enforce anything, leaving this to the media institutions themselves. It does, however, respond to FCC rulings by developing general guidelines for industry implementation.
This becomes a co-regulatory system of checks and balances which is nevertheless not statutorily policed, but depends on the self-interest of the industry. This “self-interest” includes inducing public confidence in media services and staving State intervention. It does not always work perfectly, but it works.
As for print media, the US has a very unsuccessful system of self-regulatory press councils, reflecting very much the situation in Zambia. Because the First Amendment seems to provide for press freedom in near absolute terms, it is argued that the press has generally seen no need for press councils. The system of media self-regulation is thus much more intra-institutional than extra-institutional.
In the UK, statutory regulation of broadcasters has never been extended to the print media. The Communications Act 2003 created the UK Office for Communications (OFCOM). OFCOM is mandated to fine all broadcasters and is empowered to direct them to broadcast decisions. It can also direct that there be no further broadcast of the offending material, but OFCOM has no power to intervene before broadcast but can investigate un-broadcast material after transmission. Commercial broadcasters can have their licences withdrawn and all broadcasters, including the BBC, can be fined substantial sums.
OFCOM’s operational mandate is based on a three-tier system of public regulation, co-regulation and self-regulation. ‘Public regulation’ revolves principally around the State; ‘co-regulation’ involves regulatory collaboration between the State and civil society; and ‘self-regulation’ is centred around civil-society forms of self-control and monitoring. It is clear that public regulation is likely to be legislative, with co-regulation embracing only some aspects of legislation. On the other hand, self-regulation need not be legislative. You can see why I dismissed Campbell’s definition of regulation as overly legalistic.
Two points must be made clear. First, OFCOM, a statutory body accountable to parliamentary committees, is independent of the State and the Government of the day. Second, it only intervenes in media operations after transmission, thereby ensuring the principle of self-determination in matters of content generation and distribution.
In terms of print media, the UK boasts a comparatively successful self-regulatory system of press complaints commissions. In reviewing the failed efforts of the old Press Council and recommending the setting up of a new Press Complaints Commission (PCC), Sir David Calcutt’s 1993 overly critical review of self-regulation enjoined upon the PCC to demonstrate within eighteen months “that non-statutory self-regulation can be made to work effectively.
If it fails we recommend that a statutory system of handing complaints be introduced”. Clearly, the PCC has demonstrated enough success to stave statutory regulation for the press. In any case, the Conservative Government’s 1995 White Paper on Privacy and Media Intrusion rejected Sir Calcutt’s recommendation for statutory regulation.
In South Africa, the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) statutorily regulates broadcasting and telecommunications. But it delegates this regulatory authority to industry players who impose non-legislative sanctions. For example, the industry-based Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA) adjudicates over complaints from the public.
The BCCSA is supported by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB). This is a co-regulatory system of broadcasting in which a statutory body delegates specific regulatory authority to an industry body for non-legislative enforcement. A system of co-regulatory checks and balances thus emerges.
As for print media, the system of self-regulation more directly revolves around the media themselves. The South African National Editors Forum (SANEF) provides the overall self-regulatory framework for print media. SANEF members constitute a Press Council with its Press Ombudsman and Appeals Panel to deal with public complaints.
For fear of a statutory media tribunal (something being contemplated by the African National Congress), SANEF “members re-committed themselves to improving standards of journalism and enforcing the Press Council's Press Code of Conduct”.
What the above review of different media cultures underscores is that there is a constant struggle between the State and the media for control of media services. This is true of both developed and developing countries. What is also true is that most democracies have generally regulated media along the principle of self-regulation. Lighter regulation is generally preferable to heavy State or public regulation.
In next week’s article, I will reflect on the specific problems associated with the kind of statutory public regulation envisaged in Zambia, mindful of the particular media context that has given rise to the debate.
Labels: MECOZ, MEDIA, REGULATION
Read more...
