Should media freedom have limits in a free society?

In the words of SANEF, "19 October 1977 was the darkest day in the history of the media industry in South Africa. On that day, the apartheid state machinery launched a total onslaught on the media, banning several publications and journalists." Hence the day is SA's Media Freedom Day.

The 2008 day has been celebrated after the African National Congress's Limpopo Conference had proposed that a Media Appeals Tribunal be created to ensure that our media operates within the human aspirations of our society and limits of a democratic constitution. However, the suggestion has put the ANC on collision course with media analysts, editors, journalists and human rights activists, who fear that such a process will curtail media liberties.

South Africa's prevailing media environment cannot be understood outside of the specific set of conditions under which the media developed during apartheid.

Characterised

During apartheid, media was characterised by a centralisation of ownership and control among a few large white-owned companies; censorship and repression were used to silence dissenting voices; and the majority of SA's people were denied an opportunity to access or influence in any significant way the predominant forms of communication and information dissemination. Media was mainly used as a propaganda machinery to misinform communities, lie, overlook the aspiration of the majority, undermine the struggle for democracy and to protect and promote the National Party's dictatorial government.

The central purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with accurate and reliable information they need to function in a free society. The role of media in a modern society is not only limited to reporting and analysing specific events, but journalists are also opinion builders in their own right. In this way, the media can contribute constructively to the propagation of all that is good and true, and to entrench the processes of democracy, debates, development, and enlightenment.

The constitutionally-entrenched freedom of the media challenges that today's media to be responsible, protagonist of truth, protector of democracy and human rights, and promoter of peace, enlightenment, prosperity and development.

The statement issued by the World Association of Newspapers during World Press Freedom Day (3 May 2005) says “media should be allowed to report freely and responsibly on issues that erode human rights. Failure to guarantee media freedom creates fertile ground for autocracy, with those in power refusing to be accountable and responsible”.

Rights and responsibilities

However, media freedom comes with rights and responsibilities.

Media freedom, like other constitutional rights, is only meaningful if it is contextualised within the broader national interests. In a country where accountability, respect for human rights, transparency and good governance are entrenched in the constitution, media should accept public scrutiny and constructive criticism.

Media is supposed to play a central role in the information society as an independent gatherer and disseminator of information. Unfortunately, this has not been happening. Its content is not determined by editorial integrity and credibility, but by market forces. It is no wonder that media content is more dominated by business and political advertisements and advertorials than balanced news, opinion pieces, editorials and reader's views.

Our media is flooded with images that contribute to the collapse of morality, namely fraud, corruption, gossip, voyeurism, innuendo, sex, drugs, scandals, cheating, character assassination, failed relationships, hooliganism and murder. Simply put, what damages the credibility and integrity of the media institution are stories that “have no facts and add no value” towards community development, moral regeneration, non-racialism, nation-building, and African revival.

Manipulation

Survival has lent the media to manipulation by the market, which determines format and content. Marketers and public relations machinery have learned how to manipulate the media to pursue their commercial and political agendas.

Media should act as a watchdog for citizens by scrutinising and reporting on political and economic excesses, and also serve as a means for communication - and thus promoting social cohesion, social change, enlightenment and development. Editors need to appreciate that they preside over an important national institution, whose main role and responsibility is to trace, collect, analyse and disseminate information in the quest to achieve the public's fundamental right to be educated and informed.

Hence media is guaranteed freedom of operation. Media in the 21st century cannot afford to operate against other community development institutions in addressing the issues of national importance.

To inform the consciences of individuals and help shape their thinking is never a neutral task. It requires a determination of media owners, editors and journalists to discharge their duties in a manner that balances commercial imperatives, human rights, social responsibility and national vision. It is unfortunate and disheartening that our media is notorious for processing and filtering real events, creating a distorted reflection that condense innuendo, gossip, lies, rumors, speculations and suspicions into a form of entertainment, character assassination, scandal or at least a product that blames everybody. All is being done by the media as part of its constitutional responsibility as a guardian of democracy and watchdog of the people.

Ironic

It is ironic that the media, that places so much emphasis on the ethical lapses of those they cover, are themselves so prone to sadism, insensitivity and feelings of grandiosity.

“At the extreme point, journalists have visions of grandiosity, created by their power over reputations and their ability to perform for the public. And, of course, many suffer all these syndromes at once, sadistically playing with the reputation of politicians to enhance their own feeling of power, because they are insensitive to how much pain they are causing,” Sir Lionel Morrison, former journalist and activist said.

“South African media is on a mission to topple structures and people without investing enough time on investigating and ascertaining facts. We demand that everyone accounts, but we do not do the same. We are just as bad as politicians we slate.”

The current system of self-regulation through an independent media ombudsman has proved to be inadequate, insufficient and inefficient in terms of protecting the rights of individual citizens and enhancing the careers of journalists. The rate of transformation within the journalism sector has proceeded at a snail pace, and this is reflected by the exodus of gifted journalists to government business sectors, lack of diversity in the ownership, control and composition of the media, and hostility towards media.

Tempted

Media, like other institutions of society, is controlled and managed by humans who can be tempted into misusing and abusing media freedom to pursue their narrow interests. Maybe that was the reason behind the ANC Conference suggesting the creation of the Media Appeals Tribunal.

There is a need for the media industry to ask itself a simple question. How can the media, using its freedom and influence, contribute to the fight against social ills, contribute in building an informed citizenry, develop role models, and contribute to advance our search for stability, sustainable development and prosperity? Throughout the democratic world, media is being put under pressure to perform its duties in a manner harmonious with national interests, and with the humanistic aspirations of humankind.

My belief is that media, like all other state and community institutions and career professions, needs a strong monitoring body, which will be broadly representative of all SA's interested parties. Such an institution should enforce compliance to the principles of responsible journalism, and conformity to the constitution and community's expectations. It should have powers to discipline editors and journalists that are found to be in breach of professional conduct.

Whether that structure is the Media Appeals Tribunal, I prefer to reserve my comment until I take part in the negotiation process. But, that body should have power and independence to create an atmosphere where freedoms of speech and media co-exist with other human rights and national priorities. Media professor Tawana Kupe once said, “The freedom of the media should never be undermined by political power, economic imperatives or journalistic excesses, because when it is lost, everyone will be a loser.”

For more:

• Bizcommunity.com poll: Should media freedom have limits in a free society?
  
• Bizcommunity.com: Media freedom is your freedom - SANEF
  
• Dispatch Online: Our Opinion [on Media Freedom Day]
  
• IOL: Is the media independent?
  
• The Times Online: This trend is enough to make a journalist gag