Freedom with responsibility
Advertisement
To him, journalism was not about irresponsible use of language in the media but the ability of journalists to uphold decency and high professionalism in their criticisms of state institutions and civil society groups on what they often describe as matters of public interest.
His admonition at the time was that journalists had the responsibility for holding public institutions and the larger society accountable for their collective actions but under no circumstances should they conduct themselves as to sound or appear abusive, authoritarian, and discriminatory.
Listening and watching the President of the court in an uncharacteristically stern posture pour out the anger of the panel of eminent judges, this writer understood them — their patience had been tested to its elastic limit.
I have known “Willie” (this was how I called him) since the early 1980s, when he was a young, private legal practitioner in Bolgatanga, where this writer’s office in the Ghana Commercial Bank building was opposite his chambers. He did not hide his admiration for the work of journalists and often advised me on being very professional and upholding the ethical values in my chosen career.
Since the trial of the case, Mr Justice Atuguba has demonstrated professionalism and maturity. While creating a relaxed atmosphere during proceedings, he has succeeded in defusing tension during periods that lawyers for the contesting parties in the suit appeared not conciliatory.
Before this fiat was issued by the Supreme Court, the Ghanaian media landscape, both print and electronic, was polluted by insults, invectives and intemperate language which left the entire populace wondering about the drift of the society. Successful nation-building requires optimism and not pessimism. For, while optimism creates opportunity, pessimism kills it. The situation can be compared to one saying the cup is half full while the other says it is half-empty.
In Ghana, during the Kokomba and Nanumba ethnic clashes that claimed tens of innocent lives, one of the major problems that inflamed passions was a press statement issued by the military that “the Kokombas were the aggressors” instead of stating that the Kokombas were aggressive.
This statement led to the Kokombas taking serious offence and accusing the military peacekeepers of having taken sides. This was largely due to the fact that the media failed to play their gate-keeping role of ensuring that news is presented in a more professional manner.
In Kenya, two Kenyan friends went on a drinking spree and later fought in a bar. The next day, the media reported that a Leo and a Kikiyu had fought without stating the mental conditions of the combatants, but played on the deep-seated animosity between the two leading ethnic groups in that country.
The consequence was widespread communal fighting among the two ethnic groups across the length and breadth of the country, leading to fatalities.
Another example is from India, where after the assassination of the former Prime Minister, Indira Ghandi (a Hindu), the media reported that the Prime Minister was killed by two of her Sikh bodyguards which also led to reprisal attacks, with Hindus targeting Sikhs, resulting in hundreds of fatalities. The media could have just reported that the Prime Minister was killed by two of her bodyguards.
Another example that is quite recent happened in Rwanda between the dominant Hutu and the minority but powerful Tutsi tribes. The consequences in terms of fatalities, dislocation and destruction are well-known to the international community.
In all these cases, the cost of post-war conflict reconstruction has not only been huge, but it has also not been easy for families to reconcile their differences. This calls for sober reflection among Ghanaians, especially when the Supreme Court will shortly pronounce its verdict on the landmark election petition before it.
As noted by Gerald Boyd, an American journalist who worked with the New York Times: “Journalism is about people, their tragedies and their triumphs, their struggles and their successes.” Journalists, (by whatever hue or colour) need to be guided by this generally accepted principle.
Management of media organisations need to reactivate their control mechanism to ensure that the information disseminated is decent, to avoid any backlash from any of the institutions of state. The guiding principle must be what the constitution espouses and not what people think is good for them.
Freedom of speech, it must be emphasised, is not without bounds and the media must be more responsible and operate strictly by the ethics of the profession. Indeed shortfalls in terms of capacity building must be tackled by owners of the media. This must be a matter of priority.
The National Media Commission and the National Communications Authority must also be proactive in monitoring the activities of journalists and the airwaves. 
Radio presenters and hosts of news and current affairs programmes must be professional in their work and understand that the phone-in segments of their programmes are patronised by people who are not trained journalists. Unfortunately, in most of cases, these presenters, by their attitude, rather inflict their ignorance and arrogance on the people
Journalists by their training and practice know very well that, depending on how objective a news report is, one can determine its reliability and draw one’s own assumptions and conclusions.
However, the arrogance with which people comment on issues, especially in matters arising out of the ongoing Supreme Court hearings – matters which are sub-judice (pre-judicial) — can sometimes be irritating and downright provocative.
Nation-building is the responsibility of all citizens. We in the media have a huge challenge of knitting the various sectors, and this we must do with a high sense of patriotism and integrity, intertwined with decorum.
We should not forget that the Constitution guarantees the freedom of every individual and more importantly, we should note that the exercise of this freedom goes with responsibilities and as we enjoy our freedom, we should equally ensure that we exhibit a high sense of responsibility.
For, in many instances, the unbridled and sheer irresponsible exercise of freedom has resulted in strife, wars and disturbances like it happened in the examples in Ghana, India, Kenya and Rwanda.
It is based on these experiences that this writer aligns himself with the observations by the Supreme Court and it is hoped that the lesson will sink home to all and sundry because freedom becomes meaningless if is exercised without responsibility.
By Albert Sam/Ghana
