ONE of the benefits of the 1992 Constitution is the guarantee of media freedom. This is not only the freedom of media professionals or institutions to operate without hindrance but the bigger freedom of the citizenry to exercise their right to freedom of expression.
In any pluralistic environment, the media become the leg on which democracy stands, for which reason media freedom is synonymous with the right of the individual to freely express himself/herself on matters of public interest.
Since the promulgation of the 1992 Constitution which ushered in the Fourth Republic, the media landscape has registered tremendous activity, and if numbers are the measure, we may add progress.
The Constitution dismantled the monopoly of the state over media ownership and brought on board numerous newspapers and radio and television stations. The multiplicity of media ownership created the platform for varied opinions and made it possible for members of the public, no matter their social, religious or political persuasion, to express themselves freely without let or hindrance.
The new order has also rendered very difficult any attempt by governments to control information. This is because if they do not give out information freely, other means will be adopted to get it in its adulterated or saturated form which, in any case, will make the government the loser.
Democracy thrives on information, since a well-informed citizenry is better disposed to make informed choices. The people are also better able to hold the government accountable on account of the fact they have various sources of information and are better able to determine the truth from falsehood.
The repeal of the Criminal Libel Law by the Kufuor administration further strengthened the position of media practitioners and gave them a more relaxed atmosphere to operate.
In all, society is the greatest beneficiary if media practitioners exhibit good conduct as professionals and exercise their discretionary powers with utmost care and caution.
Of course, these benefits did not come without a price. Like a crawling baby that has suddenly found himself on his feet and taking his first steps, there was overzealousness in the free media environment, which resulted in abuses. They included sensationalism, mudslinging and deliberate distortion of facts, over-politicisation of issues, outright insults and excessive use of profane language.
Some of the innovations introduced to involve many people in public debate and bring the media closer to the people include newspaper reviews on radio and television, media encounters and phone-ins to make it possible especially for those who otherwise would have been cut off from the formal communication process to get on board.
As was to be expected, all those innovations were seriously abused. Notwithstanding that, the general expectation was that with time, the media would adjust to their newly won freedom and practitioners would overcome the initial euphoria which overwhelmed some of them to allow professionalism to prevail.
As the days roll into weeks, months and years, there are no signs that the media will mature and assume their legitimate role as the fourth estate of the realm. Instead, in the main, they have become conduits for people to put into the public domain the worst forms of their animalistic characteristics.
There is no doubt that the media need to be combative if they are to keep the government on its toes and play their watchdog role effectively. However, what we have now, which is the platform given to people to launch unjustified attacks and heap insults on their political opponents, rake old wounds and fan tribal and ethnic sentiments, cannot be said to be in the best interest of Ghanaians.
The electronic media have a lot of influence over the public, especially for their dispersion and language flexibility. The television has an additional advantage of actuality, both in audio and video forms. Therefore, it has become an effective tool for reaching a wide range of audiences simultaneously.
It is for their potency that programmes telecast on radio and television should be carefully packaged, so that they do not create any discord in the minds of the people. Unfortunately, media platforms designed to involve as many people as possible in the governance process have become more or less an extension of political campaigns where narrow party interests, instead of the national interest, have dominated discussions and public contributions.
The viewing and listening public has been fed with vile propaganda, insults and reckless display of ignorance where they expect sober and dispassionate discussions on serious matters of national interest. There seems to be no improvement in the situation, apparently because the more traits of arrogance and indiscipline displayed by a party representative on radio and television, the more he/she is regarded as a strong and loyal party member.
This is buttressed by the fact that many of these radio and television commentators end up with juicy appointments whenever their parties are in government. Therefore, party activists are stampeding one another to prove who could be at his/her insulting best.
Ideally, the phone-ins offer governments the true measure to access their performance and determine their policy direction because of the opportunity they give a very large segment of the population to express themselves in any language of their choice on national issues.
Unfortunately, because callers can seek refuge under anonymity, these programmes are the most abused of media platforms. People phone in not to offer healthy and constructive contributions to the issues under discussion but to heap insults on perceived opponents and muddy the political waters.
Those who do the radio and television discussions on newspaper headlines also prefer picking political stories, to the neglect of several stories on other issues of national importance. We may pride ourselves on our political stability and democratic credentials, but we should be the first to admit that this country, considering its vast resources, has achieved very little in its 50-plus years of independence. Critical issues such as poor infrastructure, inadequate health and educational facilities, child delinquency, youth unemployment and massive corruption in public service are relegated to the background, replaced by discussions on frivolous and mundane matters that have very little to do with national development.
The recent confrontation on television between a New Patriotic Party (NPP) activist and an aide to the Vice-President of the Republic has brought into serious question the relevance of some of these radio and television programmes.
The amount of foul language spewed out by both parties and the cacophony of insults which followed from various quarters in support or condemnation of the two cannot be described as being the best for our democracy.
If it were an isolated case, one could have taken it for granted and considered it as part of man’s weaknesses. Unfortunately, it has become the norm, instead of the exception, whereby people use these media platforms to exchange unprintable words in the name of exercising their right to freedom of expression or practising democracy.
It is about time we brought to a halt what, by all indications, is tantamount to abuse of media freedom. The media owners and their agents must be told that if the objective is to encourage public discourse in national affairs and strengthen democratic governance, then they must be selective in the type of people they bring to their stations, other than that our democracy is better off without most of these operatives who have dominated our airwaves with their pollutants.
The notion that if you can speak English or any of the local languages then you can host or moderate a programme on radio or television is a fallacy. Journalism has moved beyond the apprenticeship era of bygone years. It is now a sophisticated profession and one needs a lot of talent and training to manage programmes. Seriously speaking, we cannot say that of many of the people who operate in the media, especially on radio and television, these days.
Once we have chosen the path, and once we have a Constitution which guarantees the freedom of expression, we shall continue to endure open discussions and expressions in the media.
However, we cannot afford the luxury of careless and irresponsible speech; we cannot afford insults and attacks on personalities; we cannot waste precious time discussing irrelevant matters bordering on narrow interests.
We need to focus on the real issues and discuss them dispassionately, without any political coloration. The media must set the agenda and carry the public along with them. But that can come from a media that are well-informed and understand the real issues.
That is why this nation will benefit a lot if we get well-groomed professionals and well-informed and level-headed politicians to handle programmes on radio and television, instead of opportunists and ugly noise makers who are having a field day on the airwaves.
1 comment:
MASTERPIECE. THANKS
Post a Comment