By:Fistum Getachew
May 3rd is known as the World Free Press Day and is widely observed every year. It constitutes an occasion to review the status of the ‘freedom of expression’ throughout the world. It gauges what progress may have been achieved, if any, and what setbacks may have occurred. Usually panel discussions are prepared 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 as per the provisions of UN human right provisions, principles and relevant international protocols.
Freedom of the press is in theory part of most countries’ constitutions and laws but the issue is whether it is properly and duly implemented or not. World Free Press Day presents the opportunity to review and assess these realities.
As the World Free Press Day is marked, and celebrated it must be however admitted that there are still many countries in the world which do not necessarily allow freedom of expression as it would be expected of them. This has been particularly noted in countries where totalitarian and despotic governments are in power. The leaders of such countries seem to dread free press because it calls them to account for their acts in government and would expose them to fierce criticism including the risk of losing their firm grip on power. They would not be willing and ready to risk challenges to their unfettered privileges or power and authority. Press freedom for them is seen as a threat to their regime’s survival with full power and authority. Hence, they are always in search of undermining and discrediting it with whatever adjectives or epithets they qualify them. Often free press promoters or advocates are accused of having their own political agenda or those of alien forces. They are often accused of being a danger to peace and stability of the given country and hence are often demonized by intolerant governments. This is characteristic of governments that come to power in dubious circumstances with little or no legitimacy. Where true democracy lacks, free press cannot be allowed to thrive.
At the same time, many governments are also observed exploiting the media to advance their own political agendas rather than be concerned to fulfill their pledges. Traditionally the free press is considered as the ‘Fourth Estate’ that is another instrument or source of power that exists in a democracy. This is aligned with the usual three tier system of government where there is the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary. It is considered to exert a lot of power to the extent of challenging what governments actually do or fail to do in conformity with their pledges and the law. The media is viewed as another legitimate representative of citizens with hardly any voice. It is also 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 questioning the acts of officials in relation to the promised or advanced policies and in general all the activities of government. The right to know by the public allows the media to exert its power to seek relevant information and present it to its audience. The ‘free and independent media’ is among the core instruments that can explain things even beyond what the government may be ready to do. Fostering transparency and accountability in government activities is among the mandates of the media. 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 so called ‘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 principle is that no one can be above the law including the government itself. Many times we hear democratic countries say they are ‘a country of laws’ and everybody is hence equal before the law. No one can dismiss nor disregard such principle with impunity. It is said that power always has the tendency to corrupt unless it is reined in. This implies that any malpractice, real or perceived in government must be open to investigation with the results presented 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 fully 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 as blind opposition to what the government does. It should stand for the real interests of citizens. At times the media can also stand for the interests of the public by supporting the policies of the government and explaining the activities of the same to the public in simple and logical terms. That is why working in close cooperation with the government does not necessarily imply that the media is the blind ally or the lunga manus of the establishment. Rushing to premature conclusions in this sense does not do justice neither to the media nor to the government. 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 relations 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 convincing and clear explanations. It may be filled with ‘experts’ and ‘professionals’ of the subject matter, but naturally, they are partisans as they may 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 challenge such structures, 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 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. The national interest of a country cannot be put to discussion and here the role of the media is irreplaceable.
In the past, in Ethiopia there have been ‘private’ media which were accused of 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 ‘partisan 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 as we celebrate World Free Press Day.
