In South Africa, a proposal has been made to establish an external media regulatory framework to bolster the country's self regulatory mechanism. The ruling party has at its latest conference, proposed the creation of a Media Appeals Tribunal. The proposal has been met with fierce resistance from the majority of media houses and some within civil society. I want to argue that the resistance borders on hysteria and is misplaced, if not simply mischievous.
The bulk of the anti-media appeals tribunal brigade's analyses seem to advance a notion that external media regulation is in itself a threat to the right to press freedom as well as individuals' right to freedom of expression. Their mantra seems to be that once media's self regulation is complemented by an external regulatory framework, it will threaten press freedom. They also pontificate that any external regulation is also a threat to individual's right to freedom of expression. These analyses seem inflated, if not confuted to me. The real question that the media ought to interrogate is who watches over the watchdogs? In my view it ought to an external body that is democratically constituted such as the proposed Media Appeals Tribunal.
Why We Need an External Media Appeals Tribunal?
•To countenance the power of the media that is essentially an independent capitalist enterprise yet it performs a public function.
•To promote accountability, fair and truthful reporting, and guard against the hijacking of this important enterprise by people with vested self-interest i.e. anonymous sources, untrustworthy politicians, unscrupulous journalists and editors.
•To complement the existing self-regulatory regime that is currently viewed as ineffective and toothless - what with page 'two' apologies?
•To promote ethical reporting and respect for people's right to privacy and their inherent dignity.
Powers of the Media Appeals Tribunal
Instead of hysteria, let us have a conversation about the modalities of the Media Appeal Tribunal. At the outset, the Tribunal ought not to have powers to throw journalists into jail. Frankly such powers belong to the judiciary. However, it must have the power to subpoena journalists to testify before it in cases of any alleged breaches of the press code of conduct. In the nutshell the Tribunal shall:
•Have power the slap fines on media houses and in rare cases journalists for malicious reporting. Fines should not reasonable and justifiable. Perhaps a miniature percent of the media house's annual profit.
•Have the power to order front page apologies in cases of gross untruthful reporting.
Tribunal Composition, Funding and Functions
The Tribunal shall be chaired by a retired judge appointed by the President of the Republic. The Judge shall be a man or woman of sober habits, with an unblemished record of advancing and defending human rights and knowledge of media law. The President shall appoint such a judge on the list submitted by Parliament or the Judicial Services Commission. At least 50% members shall be drawn from a list submitted by a collective of media houses. The remainder shall be appointed from a list submitted by civil society organisations and members of the public. It shall report annually to Parliament. It shall be funded jointly on 50-50 basis by media houses and the taxpayers through funds appropriation in the national budget. It may conduct regular research, surveys, and training in-order to advance ethical reporting. The Tribunal may also investigate controversial stories even if no complain is laid before it. Appropriate sanctions shall be dished-out to all deserving transgressors. Persons unhappy with the Tribunal ruling shall reserve the right to approach the courts for a review.
In conclusion, I want to argue that media houses shall have a register of anonymous sources. Only the journalist concerned, editor and Chairperson of the Tribunal shall have access to the register. This will go a long way in minimizing defective stories that appears in the press regularly masquerading as investigative journalism. No amount of falsehood will deter some of us in advocating for an external regulatory framework. It cannot be that the media continues to be the only institution that is allowed to play referee and player simultaneously. This type of regulatory environment already exists for the health professionals and the legal fraternity.
Bhekisisa Mncube did research on media ethics and regulatory environment during his studies for a post graduate degree in Journalism. Mncube is a member of the Book Review Panel at the New Agenda academic journal in South Africa. He is also a columnist at the Witness/Echo newspaper and an expert author on the peer-reviewed writers' website EzineArticles.com.
This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.
