THE impetus behind writing this article derives from my acute concern over the many lawsuits from high profile figures who feel they have been wronged by something that has appeared in our newspapers seeking redress through the courts instead of the quick and inexpensive resolution provided by the Voluntary Media Council of Zimbabwe (VMCZ).
Yes, there could be monetary relief through using our courts although the amounts so awarded could be nothing to write home about. But my plea to lawyers representing various plaintiffs and defendants is to initially take advantage of a self-regulation process that is already in existence to put the record straight through swift, transparent, effective, fair mediation and honest adjudication.
The work of the VMCZ is conducted in the open and as the saying goes: justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. The council’s mediations and findings will not be biased against any government official or high profile figure as a matter of course.
It is a court of honour and the most important thing is for both the government and the general public to have confidence and trust in the system of self-regulation of the media. Let us have VMCZ as our first port of call and see what happens.
After all, this is a body which was established by the media practitioners themselves in order to make a positive contribution to the development of the highest standards of journalism and to enable the press to operate freely and responsibly and to give it the backing which is needed in what is becoming a a fiercely competitive market given the recent come back of the Daily News.
When a story based on misinformation is published by a newspaper, the damage to the person concerned is quickly done. Consequently, the retraction or apology should be published promptly and given the same force and weight in the interest of elementary fairness.
It is a rule of thumb in journalism that persons publicly accused should be given the earliest opportunity to resp-ond. If there is an adverse finding on a newspaper by the VMCZ complaints Comm-ittee, an editor worth his or her salt should take this on the chin, and handsomely publish the apology or retraction in the position indicated and take whatever steps are required of him or her.
It is important to emphasise the point that the VMCZ neither policies nor prosecutes the press but mediates and adjudicates on complaints brought by readers, viewers and listeners.
In other words, the VMCZ is not there to suppress free speech or to stultify a vibrant and dynamic press. Among other things, the VMCZ exists to ensure that through dialogue and discussion between the press and the public, privacy, which we all agree should be respected, is protected from unjustifiable intrusion, and protected by a body in which the public and the government as well as the press has confidence.
I am one of those people who believe very strongly in the right of government to criticise the media when it feels that the bounds of privacy and decency have been overstepped. And I would argue, not as a threat but as the right of government, like anyone else, to criticise. The government has a responsibility to govern.
The press has a responsibility to monitor the activities and work of government. They are both doing their job. Such tension between government and the press is good and healthy for the country.
The truth of the matter is that the relationship between government and the media can be simultaneously cooperative and informed as well as adversarial and temperamental. This is as it should be. This is a problem which is endemic everywhere in any country where you have a press! Nothing surprising there. In the course of their wo-rk, journalists and government officials become professional colleagues, even friends and buddies.
But at the same time, there is this image of media pra-ctitioners and government officials being locked in some kind of mortal combat because of their objectives being diametrically opposed to each other. This is in the context of the historical role of the press as watchdogs especially on those who wield power.
The tendency of government is to try to put restrictions on access to information whereas the ne-eds of journalists are to have unrestricted access. There lies the image outlined above: Governme-nt wanting to manage the access to information and the journalists motivated by freedom of expression and the freedom to publish in the interest of the general public.
For journalists everywh-ere including in mature Western de-mocracies, the main motivation is to accentuate the negative, the difficulties, the bad and the ugly.
For governments everywhere, the need is to underline the positive developments and achievements and to highlight the fact that things are working. For journalists, bad news is the only good news! I am trying here to shed much needed light on why and how journalists work and behave the way they do.
In this kind of situation, enter the VMCZ in an effort to have a creative and active dialogue bet-ween the press and the public including government. Ther-ein lies the significance of the VMCZ: to be an honest broker in order to provide a basis for a constructive engagement between the press and the public without punitive measures through the courts of law. And for ordinary citizens and public figures to seek redress without fear of high cost of litigation.
In other words, the VMCZ believes that the answer does not lie in confrontation but instead in forms of dialogue which lead to new understandings on the need to preserve the independence of journalists while at the same time truly and fairly serving the broad public interest.
Nothing in life is ever perfect. Like everyone, journalists make mistakes in the course of their work. They do not claim to be infallible. They are not our Lord Jesus Christ! But the point that I want to make as forcefully as I can, is that mistakes and the poor decisions made by some imprudent repo-rters and editors may infuriate ordinary and public figures alike, but they must be dealt with not by criminal penalties which extinguish freedom in the name of responsibility but by exhortation, dialogue and training.
That is why the VMCZ in its first year of existence, put a lot of resources, time and effort on training of journalists in both the public and private media. But the VMCZ is now moving on with life mainly in the area of mediation and adjudication of queries and complaints brought on by the general public and high profile figures.
Journalists are seekers of the truth so that governments become accountable. Free-dom of the press means that people will be free to print and broadcast unwise, uncivil and nasty information.
This is the price of liberty that we have to pay. Not that it should be condoned.
Far from it. It must be nipped in the bud initially by editors themselves and in the event that it is not done, then through the adjudication process by VMCZ. For along with press freedom goes press responsibility also.
What we need to do is to communicate the fact that there is another way forward, that there is a much cheaper and faster alternative to the lawsuits and charges that are being brought to the various newspapers by so many high-profile figures in recent months.
I remain convinced myself about the promise and utility of the VMCZ. In its oversight and investigative roles, the VMCZ has the potential to serve the public including government very well.
It can call institutions of power in both the public and private sectors to acco-unt. The VMCZ is a body willing to engage with difficult issues and difficult constituencies fairly without fear or favour.
Let us indeed make use of a body that carries authority and respect as it takes its place in the spectrum of institutions in our beloved land.
Published in the Financial Gazette 01 April 2011
Bornwell Chakaodza
– borncha@gmail.com
Recent Comments