2010-05-05

The cost of freedom of expression

A philosopher once quipped that `there is no course worth dying for’. This is the reflection that convinced me as an exiled media practitioner, during this year’s eve of World Press Day, that if an ideal is vital for your society, then a true patriot must make it his cardinal rule to live long enough to help his society to realise it.
Thus taking a blind rhinocerous charge into the battle-field is a primitivism fashion that only brainless dastards can manage with such blustering as: “I am ready to die for freedom of expression or democracy.”

Incidentally, a media practitioner in a democracy should be an impartial umpire, arbiter and ombudsman and is much more important to the society than a mere foot-soldier in the robotic game of blindly obeying military orders.

That is why the edict on self-preservation is even more significant to patriotic media practitioners. Sure, the hallmark of good journalism transcends the borders of fear, favour or intimidation, just like military rules of engagement require a good soldier to fight bravely in battle. But his bravery must include every pearl of wisdom and stratagems that help him to return to base unharmed.
Only through this delicate routine can he be available for another engagement. Hence the philosophy: Live for your country: never deliberately die for it. For patriotism is mental and manual commitment to one’s country for as long as possible. To die willingly, even in your country’s name, is treasonous and cowardly.
In as much as some regime death squads may not chop heads off journalists like they did in Iraq and Uzbekistan and hang the blood-drenched bodies upside-down on bridges along highways, they end the lives of journalists in painful, slow deaths by denying them a source of livelihood. And media organisation know this!

The tragedy, of course, is that in Uzbekistan, just like in Eritrea, Sri Lanka, Uganda and Kenya, the international community ignored the early fault-lines of big-man syndrome – until it was too late, and only when there were more than 1,000 dead bodies on Uzbek streets, and foreign journalists or those working for foreign media became targets; the local media had long been muzzled.
But the fundamental question that begs for an answer is: what is the crime that the media commits with impunity to warrant such brutality? In most cases, what the media is being accused of is subjectivity.

There is, of course, the pun that the media is immune to that alien creature called objectivity. The charge, however, is that reporters or their editors deliberately omit or intrude or arrange or interpret the facts and figures in such a way as to put a person, a government or a party at an advantage and his (its) rival at a disadvantage.

In essence, there are questions on legitimacy of how the media does business, especially when fierce criticisms on state excesses are put forth. No wonder media practitioners are lumped into a common moral and intellectual bracket as those who look at issues through purely sensetionalised and lopsided lenses.
But like Caesar’s wife, is the media really beyond reproach? I believe that at any rate, being a watchdog does not mean that the media should be unnecessarily anti-government.

In any case, it is prejudicial to national interest and smirks of lack of patriotism and sense of responsibility for the media to continue to chant tired slogans and side with a partisan opposition without hatching practical solutions on how a country’s national interests are to be safe-guarded.

For a progressive media, the welfare of the people is the supreme law. If it is true that the media is committed to and crusading for the welfare of the majority, then it should give support to any government that shows commitment to the greatest good of the greatest number of people.

It is true that a hypercritical media that sees only the bad and the wrong and never anything good or right may distract or confuse any sound government. It may kill initiative and force the government into erring on the side of caution, thereby discouraging action and frustrating innovation.

On the same wave-length, governments must constructively engage the mass media rather than alienating or trying to suppress them as is case in point in many countries.

The media has a constitutionally stipulated duty to hold the governments accountable and responsible to the masses. No realistic government can afford to treat media practitioners as busy-bodies, murk-raking coyotes or meddlesome people who have no vital interests to protect. The media has as much stake in the future of a country as political leaders.

Governments can promote cordial relations with the mass media and civil society if they go ahead and give room for constructive consultations. A good partnership between the mass media and all tiers and arms of the government is necessary to deepen and widen democracy project.

The media needs to be a veritable tool for political education and not an instrument for political confusion and selfish or partisan propaganda.

Ultimately, for cordial relationship and mutual respect to flourish between government officials and media practitioners, there is need for both parties to realise that as there are patriotic politicians, so there are patriotic media professionals; all politicians are not saints, just like all media practitioners are not saints either.

The Writer is a Media Practitioner and Human Rights Defender.
jean.awuor@gmail.com