Media and truth (3)
That is where Paul again admonishes us in Ephesians 4:29 that “do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful in building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.”
Advertisement
It is in this regard that Aidan White, who we were privileged to see in Accra when he launched the International Federation of Journalists Code at the Alisa Hotel a few years back, advises that “If media personnel are able to stick to their codes of conduct, they would make meaningful impacts, since the open-minded search for solutions produce remarkably sensitive 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 wrongdoing and corruption and explaining the impact of events on the world in which we live.”
White submits further that “the imperatives of journalism, truth telling, independence and awareness of the impact of words and images on society, bolstered by political freedom and open government, provide the backbone of democratic pluralism.”
Journalists must pursue their profession with conviction, dedication, commitment and determination to uphold the interests of all, irrespective of status. They also have to recognise that there can be no freedom without a corresponding obligation or responsibility.
It is only when they strive for a balance between freedom and responsibility that they would be contributing to national development and social cohesion.
These are the convictions that informed that great statesman of the United States of America to profess that they were more ready and prepared to live in a country with free media but without government, than one with a government but without free media.
That lies at the heart of the matter we face with the glee with which secretly recorded tapes are published in the country. Whereas all the tapes cannot be grouped and generalised, no matter the public interest upheld in playing the tapes, we should be wary at the development of nameless and faceless individuals secretly recording the conversation of individuals and selling them to the media.
For as was noted by Mr Desmond Browne, a former Chairman of the British Bar Association, who has either defended or prosecuted some media establishments when they went against the law or media ethics, those who publish information obtained through subterfuge ran the risk of huge liabilities if the information tends to intrude the privacy of others and the public interest and alibi cannot be clearly stated or espoused by editors.
As Mr Browne noted succinctly at the National Media Commission’s 20th anniversary lecture on “Press Freedom and Media Responsibility in a Democracy,” irresponsible journalism threatens freedom of expression, undermines societal order, peace and social cohesion and could elicit the imposition of restrictions.
Recounting the incidence of phone-hacking in England where the stories, when they broke out, were titillating and welcome, but the moment the unethical methods of gathering the information came into the public domain, leading to the loss of public trust and confidence in the media, we need to look into the phenomenon of playing or serialising contents of secretly recorded conversations of individuals, some of whose authorship the media cannot ascertain. Otherwise, the alternative will be calls for restraint on freedom of expression and, more forcefully, media freedom.
If even in England, where media freedom has become part of the people as a matter of course and judges are very reluctant to enforce any laws that limit the boundaries of free speech, a newspaper could be voluntarily closed down and some journalists committed to stand trial, then we need to be careful because of Article 164 that allows for laws to circumscribe media freedom and in the face of undefined contempt of court law and laws such as insulting the president, we could be heading for disaster if the media encourage and motivate deviants to secretly record the conversation of individuals and intrude upon their privacy in circumstances where the victims have a reasonable expectation of being left alone and where the editors may not be justified in explaining the objectives for the intrusion on the public interest alibi.
Media practitioners are the custodians of the liberty of our people. They must not distort or give false meaning to words. Media personnel must, thus, be accountable and run away from corruptible influences. The media must equally avoid exploiting unfair advantages and opportunities resulting from the guarantee of media freedom.
That is the potent way through which the media could support accountability. As Allister Sparks has noted; “the only remedy I know, imperfect though it is, is to keep trying; to keep sensitising the public to the importance of a free media and to keep on sensitising the media to the importance of its own role and the need constantly to maintain standards. It is essential to democracy and, thus, corrupt-free development, but it is as fragile as an eggshell and can easily be crushed.”
