A Charge to Keep: Respecting Our Code of Ethics (3)
With particular reference to radio and perhaps television, we need to take note of public reaction and never take that for granted. Several adverse comments have been made about phone-ins and the mode of selecting panels to discuss issues. The media have been accused of dictatorship. We cannot ignore the adverse comments which undermine the efficacy of the media as catalysts for national development.
Advertisement
Here again, it is pertinent to refer to an observation by the Asokore Omanhene on phone-ins. He notes that, ‘Another issue worth debating is whether the fascination of the public with ventilating their views on radio talk shows does not detract from a more serious engagement with the development process either in the form of more rigorous analytical work or more practical-oriented activities. One sometimes gets the uneasy impression that the profusion of talk on radio exhausts one’s meaningful endeavour and that some really enjoy freedom of expression on an empty stomach’.
Radio/Tv discussions
On the composition of panels and quality of discussion, Nana shares the views expressed by Otumfuo Osei Tutu, maintaining that, ‘The intellectual content of the discussions, the poor professional and technical performance of the presenters and producers of these programmes, the total lack of virility in discourse, the pervasive attempt of a panellist or presenter to outshout the other actors, the level of abusive or profane language used are all a travesty of the solemn democratic values implicit in freedom and independence of the media. In short, they debase democracy and constitutionalism’.
Nana is not done yet as he observes further that, ‘Some TV (electronic media) discussions have not been particularly illuminating. Little effort is made to involve recognised experts in discussing subjects which require considerable expertise. Some panellists pontificate with little restraint or qualification in areas where even experts would tread warily. Contrary to the acknowledged principle of diversity and pluralism in broadcasting, the same persons seem to constitute a permanent panel. Furthermore, panels sometimes appear to be the preserve of professional journalists. That hardly admits cross-fertilisation of ideas or diversity of approaches or pluralism’.
Pertinent observations
These are observations that cannot easily be dismissed. We have to think and address them to ensure that we become more functional and essential to national development. Indeed, that is the object of the remark by Prof. Kwame Karikari, that ‘What is suitable for our system can best be arrived at through informed, non-partisan, non-sectarian public discussion aimed at building a viable, relevant, professional and reliable media system’ that the public will feel proud of and trust. Prof. Karikari is no stranger to our profession. He is deeply involved in the training of journalists, once served as Director-General of the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation and presently involved in research on attacks on media freedom and unprofessional conduct of the media.
All these observations have been addressed with remedies in the code of ethics of journalism bodies to which we are affiliated. Therefore, we must respect and abide by the provisions of our codes of ethics, which we have willingly and voluntarily subscribed to, to guide the conduct of our work.
Impacting our society
For, if we do, we would in the words of Aidan White, make a meaningful impact on the Ghanaian society since the ‘open-minded search for solutions producess a remarkably sensitive and non-sensational mix of journalism and the telling of the story to illustrate just how the media contribute to building public confidence by doing the simple things right, promoting open debate, providing reliable information, exposing wrong-doing and corruption and explaining the impact of events of the world in which we live’.
That is a charge ingrained in our social contract as a concomitant of the guarantee of media freedom. That is in consonance with the objective of George Chaplin, a Honolulu editor when he submits that, ‘If people learn to take charge of change and guide it well, all of humanity is the beneficiary. If we fail, we invite disaster. What an exciting and wonderful challenge to our intelligence and our compassion; so our dedication to the proposition that the betterment of the individual is the noblest of all dreams’.
