Crisis in Our Media: Polarisation!

By Fitsum G.

July 12, 2005

Now, in general, when we talk of the media, specially in the so-called advanced societies, there is usually only the plain denomination: 'the media', and not a division between the private/free media or the public/government media. In democratic societies, it would be pointless to talk of 'government media', to start with. The media's role in a democracy has been well defined, developing through years of struggle and battles, full of ups and downs. And its role has been widely acknowledged as vital and irreplaceable, so much is its reputation. In this regard, it would be good to remember what a famous US statesman had once said : 'if you let me choose between newspapers without government, or government without newspapers, I would opt for the former'! This can give an idea of how the media's role cannot be overestimated.

This of course cannot be intended to mean that governments do not have means of publicising their own policies and programs. Reputed media such as BBC and VOA themselves have a certain corner where they openly state government policy, or something the government would like to underline. When questions of national security arise, they tend to lean systematically on the government side. They prefer to call themselves public media, not government media, administered by an independent board, even while benefiting from government/tax payers' coffers! And that is why they also have to always side with the public, with the tax payers, and not serve an exclusive boss, be it president or prime minister! Any media to be worthy of its name, needs hence to abide by certain fundamental, professional/ethical rules the vocation/trade dictates. This quality of the media does not necessarily depend on who finances it. The media, in its own interest, (also because it is dictated by certain basic economic reflexes, specially when totally privatized), cannot afford to be taken as leaning completely in favour of this party or that one, this agency or other, disregarding the views of others. There is a risk to be dismissed as 'prejudiced' if it excluded the other party. And the public would hence be invited to discard it as 'rubbish'. More specifically, if the public (government) media fails to abide by these rules, the audience would discredit it, and that would be a big loss for whichever government that owns/manages it. And a government that cannot readily communicate with the governed would simply be digging its own graves. It would be alienating its constituencies.

The conquest of the times is that the media is taken as a 'weapon' used to assert the rights of the public, and as such is considered as the ultimate watchdog over what government or its partners undertake. That is why the media may often result at loggerheads with government, with inefficient and corrupt bureaucrats. But there need not be any institutional or natural incompatibility between government and media as such. A government that is transparent and fully accountable about what it does, should not in any way feel haunted by the presence and reporting of the media. On the contrary. It should be very delighted to have the media introduce (or even celebrate) to the public, its undertakings and achievements, its vision. It would have nothing to hide and even where there could result shortcomings, the government could use the media to introduce corrective measures, and re-conquer the hearts of a disgruntling public. It could collect valuable feedback using the media, and then act in consequence. That is why the media is or can also be viewed and used as a valid ally of government. In a way, it serves as a bridge between the public and government. It links one with the other. Government launches and justifies its policies, the public freely and responsibly give its feedback, a two-way traffic, and not a means subject to being monopolized by directives/guidelines from government. Where such traffic results one way, it means there is something that is not functioning, that is not healthy!

There are of course media that are conceived and born in perfectly and notoriously partisan manner, in the sense that their basic mandate is to serve as 'organs' of certain parties, certain interest groups, certain companies, certain establishments. And they feel no embarrassment in declaring so publicly. These are sort of 'public relations media' and they have little to do with what we intend by the media in the general sense.

The media in general are meant for every one, every citizen as a whole, and they are supposed to carry news, views and opinions of all parties and interests. In a society such as ours, with infinite interests and complex composition, the matter becomes even more complicated and sensitive. Be that as it may, some do have a tendency to lean on one particular side, (a reflection of their human nature, perhaps). Their background, their feelings, their preferences and beliefs could influence their product. But this should be restrained to a certain extent, not to the extent of putting under serious question mark the overall credibility, objectivity and quality of the product. Take for instance a newspaper. It has its editorial board and is guided by an editorial policy. It might intend to serve a certain declared purpose. It may have its own motto, and it would be not so difficult to identify its major inclinations deducing from the way it presents certain facts, and how it interprets them, or how it would like its readership to appreciate or perceive certain events.

Nevertheless, despite whatever 'editorial policy' or convictions, there should be no doubt that they abide by the general rules of journalism. That is, they need to base their reports on the truth. They need to be accurate, researched, and they need to be neutral/balanced in their judgement, or leave the judgement open to the reader. This is so whenever being neutral is indispensable, and most of all, they should refrain from disseminating hatred, hate-induced, or hate-motivated material among the population. Their fundamental purpose should be to inform, instruct or educate and entertain the public on whatever happens in the world as a whole, and the particular social circumstance in which the media and its audience operate. They should entertain the immediate and most timely of public interests.

Extremism is one of the ideas that is to be totally and carefully avoided when it comes to the media. In the end, it is the reputation that the media manages to acquire through its service that will enable it stand the test of time, beside risking to be brought to a court of law, if it is caught violating the law. Any media that does not have a certain credibility among its audience cannot expect or hope to be economically viable, (unless there is some sort of charity that runs it, or else a party that may entertain a hidden agenda). Today, where competition among various media outfits is really 'cut throat', it is only through objectivity, thoroughness, truthfulness and reliability that a certain media can hope to attract solid reputation. Otherwise, its very survival could be doomed.

There is a persistent and widespread presumption that the media in the Third World countries, has a general reputation of not helping being 'partisan', as it is subject to manipulation by owners, publishers, usually incumbent governments. Media observers say when the media totally belongs to the government, (staffed, manned, then indoctrinated and financed by it), then it automatically falls under its spell. It then becomes very difficult to talk of 'independent' or 'non partisan' media, serving only the basic interests of the wide public, (not an elite of vested interest groups). Even so, there should be certain basic rules that journalists, reporters, commentators etc would be expected to strictly follow, media analysts comment. Even if they may be intended to principally serve the government, and as such would be pushed to magnify/glorify whatever policy, they should refrain from presenting facts that never materialised, or create fancy scenarios! (Many observers were heard commenting that the recent reports given out by the public media here, could be taken as a model of 'how not to run a public media outfit'! The way they were used appeared too slanted or one sided to induce any reasonable person to believe in their total truthfulness/objectivity. What is even worse is that such media are taken as representing the incumbent government. What do people feel when they observe that what should have been a totally reliable media (at least with regards to certain news, hence facts) show them a non existent fact as true or suppress certain well acknowledged facts, even disregarding certain 'opinions'?.

This could have easily been dismissed as 'rubbish' if it concerned the so-called 'private media'. The private press is commonly accused of trying to 'sensationalise' news, provided it sold! This is of course unscrupulous! But could this be true of the public media as well? To what extent can a government-run media distort certain hard and easily discernible facts, and get away with it? What kind of lasting damages is it inflicting on its image/reputation? These are discomforting questions that many observers have been raising in the wake of the post election scenario. As a matter of fact, a dangerous polarisation is in the making.

Similarly, the picture is not conducive to optimism if we looked at the so called 'private'/'free' media. It appeared caught in a kind of frenetic reaction to what was perceived as government inspired or fabricated news. While it still remains a valid alternative to the public media, (and it does entertain various views, although predominantly anti-government) the private press these days seemed engaged in sort of counterbalancing what 'damage' it thought the public media was inflicting on whatever political interests or ambitions it might serve. And the end result was that both 'types' of media were confusing the public dangerously. Whom should the public rely on for information, specially at such critical period where a sharp political battle is driving the country into uncertainty!? Simultaneously, the media was losing every residual credibility that it had somehow acquired through the years.

In both cases, there have been serious blunders of slanted reporting, trying to blindly influence readers this way or that way. Did it not occur to them that in so doing, they are inflicting a blow, a defeat on journalism, a derailment of whatever democratic values we were trying to nurture?

Ultimately, any media should be 'brave' enough to admit certain hard facts, and perhaps leave the interpretation or judgement to the public. If opinions mix indifferently with hard facts, then a big blunder is underway. If facts as well as opinions are suppressed, then we are in a dictatorship scenario. While slander is something that should be deplored and carefully avoided, and mere allegations are really a damage to whoever presents them (expecting immediate political/economic returns), these will in the long run, have serious repercussions. The truth comes out some how, some time, any way! Support by all means for the sake of support, or unstinted opposition for its own sake, are both detrimental to the public's interest, to objective reporting. To imagine the world in totally black or white would be too naive as there are always the grey areas, the shadier ones, the brighter ones.

That is why we believe that the current plight of the media here appears really dramatic and cries for an urgent solution. Cornered in a sort of dead end, with little compromise, it leads us nowhere! One may argue, the current situation is a result of the fierce political battle going on between government and opposition, but we should also not forget that the media here suffer also from problems such as qualification, professionalism, inexperience, a tradition of freedom, (specially from authorities, owners, employers, that eventually materializes in fear of being sacked, banned, imprisoned, and in extreme cases, even killed!).

As much as free and objective reporting is a cornerstone for any democratic society to develop, it becomes all the more too important to convene on this principle today. That is why suspicion or hate motivated polarization should be avoided at all costs. Restraint and responsible reporting should be the rule. The media is a delicate weapon if abused. On a more positive and optimist move, even if it would be farfetched to expect our media to be as objective and reliable as the decent media elsewhere, we should not however let it go down the gutters, because that is what is happening now! A weak and discredited media is a big harm and hence an obstacle to our efforts to democratize and develop our society.