By: Fistum Getachew
May 3rd is known as the World Free Press Day and is widely observed every year. It constitutes as an occasion to review the status of the media throughout the world. It gauges what progress may have been achieved, if any, and what setbacks have occurred. Panel discussions are staged and carried out with as many stakeholders as possible with intense exchanges of ideas and experiences. Classifications and rankings are reported recommending more activities to realize more freedom of the press and more freedom of expression as per the provisions of UN principles and protocols.
Freedom of the Press is in theory is part of most countries’ constitutions and laws but the issue is whether it is implemented or not. World Free Press Day presents the opportunity to review these realities.
As the World Free Press Day is marked, it must be admitted that there are still many countries in the world which restrict such. This is particularly more likely in totalitarian and despotic countries. These leaders dread free press because it calls them to account for their acts in government circles. They do not risk challenges to their unfettered power and authority. Press freedom for them is seen as a threat to their existence.
At the same time many countries are seen exploiting the media to advance their political agendas. Traditionally the free is considered as the ‘Fourth Estate’ that is another instrument of the state along with the executive, the legislative and the judiciary bodies. It is reputed to exert a lot of power. It is viewed as another representative of citizens without voice. It is considered to enjoy the mandate of checking the unfettered powers of the governing establishment as a whole. In other words, it is conceived as an instrument that stands as a ‘watch dog’ for the interests of citizens. It questions officials and mounts challenges against the policies and in general all the activities of government. It demands explanations on what or why the government has acted as it has because the public has the right to know it. The free and independent media is among the core instruments that can explain things even beyond what the government is ready to do it.
The media can present the operations of government to its audience in simple words so that they can understand the real position of their government. If the media agrees and supports the policies and actions of government, it can explain to the public in simple words. If on the other hand it has reservations it can demand justifications for the policies implemented or review them in light of the necessities of citizens who may have voiced their opposition.
In a way the media can also look like ‘allies’ of a ‘good government’. It should not necessarily be considered as enemy of government as some may believe. The media and government can exist without always being at loggerheads.
On the other hand, many governments are seen being suspicious of the so-called free media. They are not enthusiastic of such overtures to the public. But in a democratic setting, the media must be allowed to stand for the interests of the public. It is the natural and legal mandate of the media in general to ‘supervise’ government whose policies and actions affect the lives of everybody. Furthermore, the ‘check and balance’ implemented in the operations of the other two branches of government, the legislative body and the judiciary should be reviewed by the free media if we are in a democracy.
The fundamental idea is that government cannot be above the law. It must be checked if it oversteps its legitimate powers. Any malpractice in government must be open to investigation and exposure to the public. In this respect, the media is a legitimate and critical instrument of authority as long as it does not go against the law. The power of the media is so big that there have been cases of ousting of governments or facilitating the advent to power of a certain personality or party. This is because opinions and views of the public are very often carved by the media.
In a democracy, one can say this is the fundamental mandate and raison d’être of the media. In fact, in all genuine democracies the media is engaged in this activity. However, if it is politicized or corrupt and act as the other hidden arm of government, it cannot deserve the name and be trusted by the public. It would lose its credibility and get discredited losing its clients. There have been cases of ‘totalitarian’ countries recruiting their own media establishments and using them as their hidden weapon. They make them act as ‘spokespersons’ of the government. These hardly qualify as free media as they betray their natural vocation and legitimate duties.
They go against their historical mandate of acting as ‘watch dogs’ over the acts of government demanding that they give ample explanation and clear justifications about their acts, not be mere ‘echoes’ of the voice of government.
Academics of politics say the media should be strictly neutral. It should avoid blind support for government and stand for the real interests of citizens. The media is meant to serve primarily citizens, but it can also find ways to serve government simultaneously. There is no formula which states that there is incompatibility between the free media and government. Government must not prevent the media from looking in to how it operates. It is rather expected to encourage scrutiny of its actions. This does not imply that the media need to always go against government but scrutinize objectively what is going on in ‘circles of power’.
This could also apply for the private sector. The laws of any country should be respected if society is to thrive in peace. ‘Rule of law’ is a fundamental principle to follow in any country just as ‘equal treatment under the law’ should be indiscriminately applied.
On the other hand, it is not unusual to see that governments may have their own means of promoting their interests. Many governments are seen recruiting and mandating their personnel to promote their objectives and amplify their ‘achievements’. In other words, these are ‘public offices and spokespersons which are given directives to explain and account actions of government in simple language to citizens just as a big company may do in order to convince clients to buy its goods and services. They are meant to magnify the moves of government and make them more visible or understandable to the citizens. They explain why certain measures have been taken and why certain decisions have not been adopted referring to legal dictates and positions.
Usually, this office is present in many government structures. It is a means of communicating with citizens not only those who support the incumbent but also those who have not voted for it. But it is also intended to try and sell its policies even to those who oppose it by forwarding justifications. It may be filled with ‘experts’ and ‘professionals’ of the subject matter, but naturally, they are partisans as they have been employed for this specific purpose.
Naturally, they may always tend to down play what could be perceived as setbacks especially by critics and opposition parties. In fact, many democratic governments do have these outfits which compete with the ‘neutral’ and ‘private’ media. They represent the government for which they work. They are often mandated to sell to the public the policies and operations of the government so that the public is satisfied with what their leaders are doing.
Hence, to counter and challenge these offices, the presence, strength and independence of a neutral media is key in any democracy. In fact, one of the major features of a democratic government is its opening to the formation of a strong and independent media and not the ones that are weak and corrupt, at times engaged in peddling fake news, narratives and unfounded reports.
Freedom of the press or expression does not mean that the media can come up with which ever political ideology suits them and present that to the public in an irresponsible manner. This would clearly put at risk the security and sovereignty of the country.
In the past, there have been private media which were advancing the stance of ‘enemies’ of the state and citizens because they were financed and paid lavishly to promote the agendas of the country’s enemies and try to destabilize it. At times, they were caught trying to antagonize a nationality with another one, peddling unfounded narratives. At other times, they have tried to exploit differences in religious faiths of communities as a weapon of division, hate and enmity disregarding that people have always lived in peaceful cohabitation in the same localities without any indications of lack of harmony and friendship.
At times, there has been the intermingling of ‘activism’ for this or that ideology with ‘journalism’ or freedom of the press and expression in general. This is dangerous and should not be tolerated because it tends to discredit truthful, neutral and objective journalism carried out by real and capable professionals. Essentially, the true ‘mission’ of independent journalism is to be a voice for the voiceless and not engage in political discourse that risks mingling with a certain form of activism.
In our country, this has been spreading like wildfire lately with the wide usage of the emerging social media. This has become a challenge even in the advanced societies with strong traditions of free media. With the spread of Artificial Intelligence (AI) the risk has become even more ominous.
Freedom of the press and responsible journalism have nothing to do with ‘activism’ that resorts to using every means available, not excluding AI, to advance fake narratives, fake images and videos in the name of ‘journalism’. This is something that we all should fight.