(PINA/IFEX) – As Commonwealth Heads of Government prepare to meet in Durban, South Africa from 12 to15 November 1999, restrictions on press freedom in some Commonwealth countries are under increasing scrutiny. Canada is expected to use this CHOGM meeting to put more Commonwealth focus on media freedom and the fundamental human rights to freedom of […]
(PINA/IFEX) – As Commonwealth Heads of Government prepare to meet in Durban,
South Africa from 12 to15 November 1999, restrictions on press freedom in
some Commonwealth countries are under increasing scrutiny. Canada is
expected to use this CHOGM meeting to put more Commonwealth focus on media
freedom and the fundamental human rights to freedom of information and
expression. At the recent Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) convention
in Suva, Fiji Islands, Commonwealth Press Union (CPU) executive director
Mark Robinson spoke on the new report “The independence of the Commonwealth
Media and those working within it.” Here’s what he said:
“Press Freedom in the Commonwealth – A pillar of good governance”
Pacific Media Freedom Day
Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) convention, Suva, Fiji Islands
Keynote Address
by Mark Robinson
Executive Director of the Commonwealth Press Union
Over the last few days we have enjoyed great hospitality in Fiji. The myth
that the sun always shines here has been put to severe test. But in looking
for a point to start our debate it is a compliment to this region that we
need not look very far. It was Papua New Guinea’s Constitutional Review in
1997 which declared, “It cannot be stressed enough that independence of the
media and the communications industry are paramount to ensuring that
democratic processes are respected.” Such noble words are to be respected.
Constitutions and charters often make promising declaratory statements, only
to see legislation trim their impact at many a corner. The battle for press
freedom takes place everywhere, regardless of how sophisticated the
democracy in which debate occurs.
In Britain, prying criticism of the monarchy and politicians have led to a
lively debate on the need for tougher privacy laws. The establishment of an
effective Press Complaints Commission has kept the would be legislators at
bay, although the recently published draft Freedom of Information Bill has
led to charges that the establishment is more interested in closing down
than opening up government.
Similarly, in Australia, in July, there was an attempt by the Federal
government to ban critical journalists from Parliament House. The Chairman
of the Australian CPU Section criticised the proposed restrictions as an
attempt to licence journalists by stealth and has stated, “In a free
society, no journalist should have to operate under the threat of a
government deciding his or her career prospects.” I am pleased to say the
offending draft rule was withdrawn.
New Zealand has gone down the route of introducing a Privacy Act. Although
full of good intentions, there have already been attempts by officialdom to
misuse it as in the case of the Tussock Moth found in a West Auckland
industrial estate. The Act was cited as the reason for not disclosing where
moths were located. Given the damage they cause, it is still unclear why
their privacy was not in need of this kind of protection.
The Prime Minister’s opening address hit some interesting notes. His central
theme is one that I last heard at the Second Caribbean Media Conference in
Trinidad, whose Prime Minister took a similar line. “Credibility” is an easy
word to use. “Accuracy. Reliability and trust” are often quoted but
definition and context lies in the eye of the user. Some say press freedom
is a privilege to be used wisely, others say it is a right that should never
be questioned. Whatever view is taken, the media’s job is not to become an
extension of the official information service.
Government will always want its policies presented in the “best light”, but
that is their definition, not anyone else’s. In South Africa recently,
ministers tried to claim that it is “unpatriotic” for the press to write
about corruption, yet to prevent such reporting is a direct attack on
transparency and that goes to the heart of good governance.
The problem with any debate on the freedom of the press is that it never
reaches a finishing line. But the aspirations of the 21st Century must
surely be a responsible and self-regulated press. That will be enhanced if
journalists are well trained and have a strong ethical dimension in their
professional approach. The CPU had that in mind when it sought funds from
the UK Foreign and Commonwealth to prepare a draft report on “the
independence of the Commonwealth media and those working within it.”
This document was then taken to a special conference at Wilton Park on
“Promoting Press Freedom in the Commonwealth” held in May of this year,
attended by delegates from over thirty Commonwealth countries. Participants
included representatives of print and broadcast media, non-governmental
organisations, as well as representatives from government and parliaments
attending in their personal capacities. We believe that the discussion was
enhanced through the inclusion of such a broad cross-section of
participants.
Copies are available and the report focuses on six areas, all perceived to
be of universal concern across the Commonwealth media. These are:
– Physical safety of journalists
– Legal obstacles to press freedom
– Ethics
– Elections
– Training
– Self-regulation
Taking these in turn:
– Physical safety of journalists covers death, torture, assault, attack and
harassment. The report notes that such incidents have increased over the
last few years. Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Malaysia
were given a special mention in this connection.
– Legal obstacles to press freedom are discussed extensively. Detention
without trial, official secrets, registration of newspapers, economic
restrictions, contempt, sedition, privacy laws, ownership, freedom of
movement, emergency powers and criminal defamation all come under the
microscope.
– Ethics for the media are realised through training. Professionalism and
responsible reporting are learned and journalists must be aware of the
society in which they operate. When allegations are made sources need to be
well checked.
– Elections need to be properly reported and all contestants have a right to
see their standpoint reported fairly. The Harare Declaration underscores the
importance of the democratic process. The media should be an important part
of that and must be free from interference to do that job effectively.
– Training programmes have a very important role to play. The contribution
of the CPU, CJA and CBA to this process is recognised, as is the importance
of regional organisations, foundations and all funding sources, whether
government or NGO.
– Self-regulation for newspapers is to be encouraged. Statutory bodies are
cumbersome and open to manipulation. The Press Complaints Commission in the
United Kingdom is cited as a good example and the report recommends that
countries look at this model. Sri Lanka is already
doing so.
The CPU report has fifteen recommendations, some of which have been
successful in attracting funding for implementation. Importance is attached
to breaking down barriers between the media and government ministers,
officials as well as parliamentarians. Reviews of arcane laws should be
encouraged. Work is in hand on a legal/human rights database and steps are
being taken to improve access to information about training.
Press freedom is well served if abuses are quickly drawn to international
attention. The CPU is playing its part in that process through a regular
press freedom update on our web-site. It draws on information published
elsewhere, as well as adding information the CPU has gleaned.
In conclusion, I would like to draw your attention to the CPU/CJA “Draft
Guidelines on the Independence of the Commonwealth Media and those working
within it.” This statement tries to envisage the kind of statement we would
like to see Commonwealth governments make. After all, the Harare Declaration
conveniently leaves out any reference to press freedom.
That is a state of affairs that should be corrected. We have kept this
simple in the belief that it stands a better chance of being accepted. The
principles enunciated are straightforward. Common sense says something like
this should be adopted. The reality may be somewhat different, but let’s not
be pessimistic. Governments should not be afraid of freedom, for in the
words of W. Somerset Maugham, “If a nation values anything more than
freedom, it will lose its freedom and the irony of it is that if it is
comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too.”
