|
From Iraqi American Chamber of Commerce & Industry Business Ethics
Without information there is no accountability. Information is power, and the more peoplewho possess it, the more power is distributed. Access to information on the part of the peopleis fundamental to a nation's integrity system. Without it, democratic structures cannot operateas they should, and individuals are left unable to enforce their rights--perhaps not evenknowing that their rights have been infringed. The principal vehicle for taking information tothe public is an independent and free media.[1] Freedom of the MediaThe more a society develops open and transparent practices, the more information becomesavailable within the public domain. However, a deluge of information makes it almost impossible,even for the most diligent citizen, to keep abreast of everything that is going on. Theproceedings of the Legislature or Parliament, of public and local authorities, of court rooms,and of public companies may all be open to the public, but no one member of the public canever hope to attend them all. The most we can hope for is that there is a diligent, professionalmedia which is devoted to sifting through this mass of information on a daily basis, selectingwith wisdom and with at least one eye on the public interest, precisely what it is that shouldconcern us--and then conveying this information to us fairly and responsibly. Of course, therewill be the inevitable conflict of interest between the media exercising its constitutional functionof informing the public, and its desire to attract a wide readership, ample advertising, anda healthy profit margin. A free media ranks alongside an independent Judiciary, as one of the twin powers that shouldnot be held accountable to politicians. Both serve as powerful counterforces to corruption inpublic life. Unlike judges, public prosecutors and Attorneys-General, the privately-ownedmedia is not appointed or confirmed in office by politicians. Outside the channels of government-owned media, the media is self-appointed and sustained by a public that sees the privately-owned media's output as valuable. The media should be, and can be, free of the politicalpatronage entrenched even in the most democratic of societies. Private media ownership carries with it another danger; that of the mass media conglomerate,a concentration of media ownership in too few hands. This can constitute a threat to democracyitself, where major political parties are almost held to ransom by media proprietors, whowield enormous power through their ability to manipulate the opinion of the electorate, shouldthey choose to do so. This is a menace that calls for strong and principled regulation to restrictmergers and take-overs, and countries should ensure that there is always competition in themedia market-place. This is increasingly difficult to manage in a globalised world, and particularlyin an age of satellite television. However, with the growth of the Internet, the abilityto convey news is to some extent being democratised. This can carry another set of problems,but it does mean that global communication is no longer the exclusive preserve of powerfulinterests.[2] The degree to which the media is independent is the degree to which it can perform an effectivepublic watchdog function over the conduct of public officials. Just as the Legislatureshould keep the Executive under day-to-day scrutiny, so should the media keep both the Legislatureand the Executive (along with all others whose posts impinge on the public domain),carefully monitored. As the former editor-in-chief of Time Inc., Henry Grunwald, noted, "evena democratically-elected and benign government can easily be corrupted when its power is notheld in check by an independent press."[3] The media has a special role to play "and a particular vulnerability" when it comes to counteringcorruption.[4]Politicians and civil servants may be all the more tempted to abuse theirpositions for private gain when they are confident that they run no risk of public exposureand humiliation through the media. Politicians, in the pursuit of such comfort, have sought tomuzzle the media. Even today, there are many countries that censor the media, have an abundanceof restrictive laws, and frequently jail journalists. Today, as never before, journalism is a dangerous profession, with kidnappings and beatingsbecoming more common. The instinct to "shoot the messenger" who carries bad news (sometimesliterally) is as compelling as ever. Too often, those in power seek to confine the watchdogroles of the media and, in some cases, they clearly do so to exploit their positions of powerwithout fear of exposure. Even in societies that pride themselves on their openness, there arepowerful authorities who, on the premise that the media might act "irresponsibly", supportOfficial Secrets legislation that greatly restricts the right to know and theright to publish. These authorities also sustain punitive libel laws that can beused to intimidate individuals and newspapers from publishing. It must be recognised, of course, that corruption exists within the journalismprofession as well. In Mexico and India, many reporters, for example, earn astipend from the institutions they cover to supplement their meagre salaries.Journalists in various other countries, such as Indonesia, are also known toaccept such pay-offs. This creates a powerful disincentive to explore misdeedsin high places. Independence of the mediaIndependence of the media is a very complex concept. In general terms, it focuses onthe notion that journalists should be free from any form of interference in the pursuit andpractice of their profession. In reality, the owners of the media intervene daily in theoperations of the journalists in their employment. In many countries, the government itself isthe largest media owner (often of the leading television and radio stations)--a situation whichundermines the very concept of ensuring the genuine independence of the media from theinfluences of the state. The rights of journalists in state-owned media enterprises and the degree of freedom theyenjoy is sometimes, but not always, stipulated and guaranteed in law. The lack of legislationand regulation in this context is a direct threat to the independence of the media. In the UK,for example, where the BBC is widely seen as operating at arms-length from the governmentand enjoying more independence than many state-owned media outlets in other countries, theThatcher government explicitly banned the BBC, along with the private media, from broadcastingdirect interviews with leaders of the Irish Republican Army. There is obviously validityto the argument that "a financially dependent media cannot be truly free". Efforts should be undertaken to strengthen the independence of the media through theprivatisation of existing state-owned or controlled media. At the same time, as noted above,systems must be developed which ensure a diversity of media ownership, so that competitionwithin the media stimulates a wide range of perspectives on public policy issues and acts as acheck on the political power of media magnates. A free, privately-owned media is only possible when there is meaningful competition in themedia marketplace. Rivalry in the market makes the corrupt newspaper owner fearful of exposure,just as it serves as a deterrent to the corrupt public office holder. In late 1994, for example,a book publishing company owned by News Corporation (a global enterprise headed byRupert Murdoch) offered US$4.5 million in advance payments to Congressman Newt Gingrich,then Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, for two books. Very swiftly, many mediaoutlets reported the offer and some suggested the possibility that Mr. Murdoch, who had majorissues before Washington governmental bodies regarding his television interests, had offereda bribe to the new Republican Party leader. Reporting by the media forced the cancellation ofthe book deal. However, many countries do not have the same abundance of media owners;rivalry is far less intense and, at times, media "cartels" can be formed to suit the political interestsof the day. In some cases, one family "rules" the media in a country. Such an overwhelminglydominant position means that media magnates need not fear exposure by rivals,and in an age of electronic media, their political power can enable them greatly to influencethe outcomes of elections. Furthermore, many developing countries have very little advertising money available to supportthe media. As a consequence, the media in these countries is desperately underfundedand, at times, dependent. On the one hand, large advertisers (of which the government is usuallyamong the most prominent) exert enormous control, and on the other, political and businessentities have a wide scope to bribe reporters (who tend to be very poorly paid) to writestories that serve their political and business interests.[6]In these types of situations, the mediafrequently fails to perform its watchdog role. The media privatisation process, just like thebroader issues of media ownership, must therefore be carefully considered within its social andeconomic context. Monopolies in the media area are potentially even more dangerous than aremonopolies in other areas of economic life. In numerous instances, governments assert that their democratic institutions are still fragileand their free media inexperienced, and argue that there is merit in continued governmentalownership. This is often the case, but in such circumstances, the state-owned media should notenjoy a monopoly. In countries where governments insist on retaining some measure of control,safeguards or an independent regulator should be in place to stand between the Governmentand the rights of a free media. Who should be the guarantor of a free media?Censorship of the media takes many forms and raises its head in almost all countries. Few havelegal systems which guarantee absolute freedom of the media. Amendment 1 to the Constitutionof the United States, as tested before the U.S. Supreme Court, comes as close to guaranteeinga society free of censorship as any particular legislative act. The Constitution of Malawiis unique in this regard as it enshrines the concept of the freedom of the media not once, buttwice, and in the following terms: "Every person shall have the right to freedom of expression" and, "The press shall have the right to report and publish freely, within Malawi and abroad,and to be accorded the fullest possible facilities for access to public information". Laws declaring "freedom of expression" require support and enforcement from the courts. Anindependent judiciary is the handmaiden of a free media. Without an independent judiciary,media freedom is likely to be illusory. A prerequisite for building a free media, therefore, is alegal system that is independent of political influence and has a firm constitutional jurisprudencesupporting the concept of a free media. Such jurisprudence can draw strength from Article19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[7], which states: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right shallinclude freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds,regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, orthrough any other media of his choice."[8] Restrictions on these widely-accepted rights relate to the rights or reputations of private individualsand to matters of national security. Although many journalists would accept that suchrestrictions are reasonable, they would almost all agree that they must be narrowly interpreted.Thus, the legal and regulatory frameworks should not, for example, provide restrictions on themedia that may prevent them from publishing matters simply because these could damage thepublic reputation of public office holders. To do so would, in fact, undermine freedom ofexpression. A decision by the European Court on Human Rights held that the politician"inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed byboth journalists and the public at large, and he must display a greater degree of tolerance". However, in many young and fragile democracies the media's experience is limited and thetemptation to be less responsible is significant. Laws which, in essence, provide full scope forthe media to be irresponsible, may actually damage the growth of these emerging democracies.In this regard, there may be merit in the establishment of Press Councils. Although PressCouncils have not generally been very successful, they can be constructed so as to provide anopen forum for complaints against the media by the public, to chastise the media when it isirresponsible, and through these means, influence (to a degree) its behaviour. Press Councils need to be independent and directed by people widely respected for their non-partisanstanding and their integrity. These bodies should not have powers of legal sanction,which could enable them to become powerful censors. Rather, they should have the prestigeand integrity that give their reports strong moral force. A useful requirement is for the subjectof a complaint to be required to publish, in full and unedited, the findings of the Press Councilwhere a complaint against it has been upheld. A very fine line exists between responsible and irresponsible journalism. As such, time andplace are important factors that should influence judgements. Indeed, the moral force of aPress Council is a better way to secure a responsible media, than to provide governments andcourts with wide-ranging powers to curb it. Assertions of media irresponsibility often lead tocalls for laws and systems that guarantee only a "reasonably" free media. Experience showsthat the term "reasonably" is highly subjective, and that acceptance of it in this context canbe the first step down a slippery slope towards diverse forms of censorship. The "reasonably" approach often comes to the fore in matters relating to national security. TheOfficial Secrets Act in the U.K., and similar legislation in other countries, can provide anumbrella for all manner of secret activity by a government. For example, President Nixonattempted, in the early 1970s, to withhold tapes of conversations in the White House from thecourts and the Congress on the grounds of national security. Following the eventual publicationof the tapes, however, few argued that their publication had been damaging to thenation's security. Government officials, conditioned over many decades to label items "confidential," or "secret,"or "top secret," build a strong prejudice against public disclosure of information, and frequentlyseek to prevent disclosure through claims of national security. It is important, whenestablishing best practices, that the independent judiciary be objective in assessing theseclaims. It should take the view that all government documentation should be in the publicdomain and open to public scrutiny, unless there is a forceful and compelling argument, presentedby the government, for maintaining secrecy. Secrecy is more often justifiable on thegrounds of the legitimate protection of personal privacy or the maintenance of commercialconfidentiality, than it is on the (relatively rare) grounds of protecting national security. The most effective system for guaranteeing freedom of the media is one where the media itselfis empowered to make careful judgements on its own. To provide publishers and journalists withfreedom is also to burden them with difficult decisions regarding public responsibility. In the1960s, The New York Times received several thousand pages of documents from a source withinthe U.S. Department of Defence. These documents, which dealt with the war in Vietnam, becameknown as the "Pentagon Papers". The editors of the New York Times, after assuring themselvesof the authenticity of the documents, agonised for days over whether or not it was responsibleto publish them. They weighed considerations of national security against the public's right toknow. They decided to publish. Their decision was not taken lightly and it emerged that manyindividuals of experience, in public affairs, the law and the media had different perspectives onthe issue. None could claim a monopoly of wisdom, and none claimed that the judgements ofjournalists were necessarily inferior to those of experts from other professions. The decision to publish the "Pentagon Papers" was carefully reviewed by the courts, whichconcluded that the freedom of the media, as expressed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,was of greater significance in this instance than national security claims made bythe U.S. Government. Consistent judgments of this kind by an independent court system canserve, over time, to build a tradition of media freedom. Such a tradition can be fortified by"sunshine laws", such as the U.S. Freedom of Information Act 1966, which enable every citizento obtain access to almost all documents of the government. Through the responsible judgements of editors and journalists, combined with consistentjudicial support, a tradition and culture of media freedom develops. This culture is, above all,the most important guarantor of media freedom and of the ability of the media to fullyoperate as a watchdog over public office holders. The tradition must provide for the media tobe tough in its scrutiny of the work of those who enjoy the public trust. The media culture,as is evident in many democracies today, must involve a sense that it is the duty of the mediato afflict the comfortable (those holding public office), in order to comfort the afflicted (thepublic at large). There is no question that such a culture can, at times, lead to media irresponsibility. This is aninevitable price to pay. An independent, wise judiciary and an effective Press Council, may beable to assist in curbing excesses in such times. Nevertheless, societies should be willing to paysome price for the greater good of securing media freedom.. There is merit in accepting the basicspirit, if not the total and literal statement, of the view of Lord McGregor of Durris (Chair of theU.K. Press Complaints Commission) that, "a free society which expects responsible conduct froma free press must go on tolerating some "often shocking" irresponsibility as the price of liberty,because a press which is free to be responsible must also be free to be irresponsible." The critical factor on all issues concerned with restricting freedom of the media is that the limitsbe publicly debated and that they be interpreted by a fully independent judiciary, composedof individuals of the highest integrity. "Self-censorship"Perhaps even more ominous is self-censorship, where journalists and editors do not follow upstories that might upset business interests, the proprietors of the newspaper or those close tothem. This can cause stories to be ignored or written in ways which are at best unethical. Self-censorshipcan range from the mundane (stories that are considered important but "dull" andare therefore not reported) to the heights of conflicts of interest with the news organisation(stories are unreported because they impact on advertisers or friends of these in influentialpositions in the paper).[9] Fortunate, indeed, is the editor who has his Board sign off on a statement such as this: "Time-Warner's board, its chief executive, and the chief executive of Time Inc. recognisethat the financial success of Time Inc.'s magazines is inextricably linked to their credibility.The board and the chief executives hold the Editor-in-Chief of Time Inc. accountablefor the editorial quality and integrity of the company's magazines. To this end, theyare committed to upholding the Editor-in-Chief's unique level of independence.The publications under the Editor-in-Chief's control are expected to provide readerswith synthesis, analysis, review, and commentary. They are also expected to provideunbiased coverage of the myriad interests of advertisers and of Time Warneritself. Editorial independence is essential so that the Editor-in-Chief can producepublications that advance the public interest while delivering a superior returnon investment..."[10] Principles of a free mediaGovernments should embrace a basic set of principles to govern approachesto the media. An example of such principles was set out in the Charter for aFree Press approved by journalists from 34 countries at the Voices of FreedomWorld Conference on Censorship Problems.[12]United Nations SecretaryGeneral, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, declared that "They (the Charter's principles)deserve the support of everyone pledged to advance and protect democraticinstitutions". He added that the provisions, while non-binding, express goals"to which all free nations aspire". The Charter reads:
Media intimidationViolence against journalists has taken place in scores of countries, and public authorities havetime and again indicated their unwillingness to do anything about it. The only meaningfulantidote to such behaviour is the existence of laws and systems that guarantee a free media. In Algeria and Colombia, for example, a considerable number of journalists have been murderedin recent years. The murderers have not been found and often the authorities have notdemonstrated great zeal in finding those who were responsible. In 1994, the Inter-AmericanPress Association General Assembly noted that a high proportion of the political prisoners inCuba were serving sentences for "divulging enemy propaganda; in the previous year ten journalistswere murdered in Colombia, four in Mexico, three in Guatemala and one in Brazil". Thedeclaration from the conference, held in Toronto, stated in part: "The withholding of government advertising, spurious lawsuits against the media,and intimidation by narcotraffickers all have the effect of putting a damper on thefree exercise of journalism."[13] Discrimination by governments among different media--providing some journalists withgreater access to governmental information and greater effective independence of action--iscommonplace. It may take the overt form of governments providing preference in the accessto information for journalists working solely for state-owned media or it may take the slightlymore subtle form of exclusively providing advertising to government-owned media, or tomedia that adhere to governmental views. The legal and regulatory powers enjoyed by government authorities are also often used tointimidate or censor the media. For example, the government can place constraints on mediainvolving quotas on the import of newsprint and the imposition of special taxes and postalrates, as well as restricting the broadcast frequencies available to independent electronicmedia. This is likely to become an issue of mounting importance as electronic mail and newinformation-communications technologies provide new opportunities for people to freelyexpress their views to wide audiences. Protection of sources is a core requirement for journalists to freely practise their profession.Journalists must know that they can print stories without risking fines or imprisonment forfailing to reveal their sources of information. Individuals who provide journalists withinformation on an "off-the-record" basis need to have assurances that the journalists theyconfide in will not be intimidated by public authorities into revealing their identities. Theseassurances are essential if the media is to be an effective counterforce to the abuse of powerby public officials. The licensing of journalists can take many forms and frequently represents atype of intimidation. In some countries, governments seek to regulate thelicensing of media enterprises and their employees directly, while elsewherethere may be media trade unions that seek to force restrictive practices ontheir members. Licensing practices do not serve the public interest. The eliminationof media licensing should embrace foreign correspondents; theyshould always have as much access to information and as much opportunityto practice their profession as do all other local journalists. Although civil libel actions can be consistent with the notion of a free media,this is patently not the case with regard to criminal libel actions. Within thisframework it is important to consider anti-insult laws, which exist in numerouscountries unreasonably and oppressively to protect public office holders,even where libel laws (correctly) set lower levels of protection for these officialsrelative to private citizens. For example, in recent times numerous governments in Central Europe haveintroduced legislation which stipulates severe penalties for journalists whopublish articles that may be viewed as insulting holders of high governmentaloffice. In some cases the laws make no distinction as to whether mediareports are truthful or not. In other words, the fact that a journalist wrote thetruth about improper acts by leaders of the government would not be viewedby the courts as a defence in cases where anti-insult laws are applied. Theselaws amount to forms of intimidation and censorship which can be particularlyadvantageous to corrupt officials. In this regard, anti-insult laws shouldbe subsumed within libel law. The courts need to recognise media intimidation for what it really is: a centralfacet of a culture of corruption and an effort by strong vested intereststo perpetuate their corrupt practices. All regulation of the media, in terms ofpermits, licences and ownership, should be conducted with total transparency,and by regulators who are independent and nonpartisan. Securing Best PracticeThe burden of ensuring a responsible, independent media must be shouldered primarily by themedia itself. Journalists must work hard to build public regard. They must demonstrate theirindependence, objectivity and professionalism each and every day in order to earn public trustand confidence. At the same time, it is imperative that the owners of the media ensure thatjournalists are paid wages which encourage independence, rather than dependence. Numerous national and multi-national media organisations focus on the preservation of thefreedom of the media. The Press Foundation of Asia Committee, the Canadian Committee toProtect Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists and the World Press FreedomCommittee are but a few of the organisations which should be supported for their efforts tohelp governments put in place laws and arrangements that correspond with the dictates of theprinciples of a free media. Major foundations--the Freedom Forum, the Reuters Foundation, the Knight-Ridder Foundationand numerous others--seek to secure appropriate journalistic training to raise the qualityof media output in those countries where journalistic training is limited. In the fight againstcorruption, journalists must hone their skills with regard to investigative reporting, understandpublic accountability systems, the operations of modern business, and, in particular, the recognitionof corrupt practices. Some indicators as to the effectiveness of the media as an integrity pillar
Ownership
Investigative Journalism
© Copyright 2003 by i-acci.org |
