Dear Bono....

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

It is hard to take a liking to Cabinet Secretary Dipo Alam these days, especially if you are watching through the lens of Metro TV. In the words of Dipo’s lawyer, Amir Syamsuddin, the Cabinet Secretary has been portrayed as an “enemy of the press”.

This, in the realm of democracy, is not a flattering title. And so Team Dipo hits back, launching complaints to the Press Council and the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission.

Team Dipo here refers to the team of capable lawyers hired to do the job. But more than that, questions have risen as to whether Dipo had acted on the President’s orders or if his stance represents that of the people closest to the President, or if the man himself has overreacted.

The fact is he was simply doing his job.

Over and over again, the Cabinet Secretary has stressed his role in managing members of the Cabinet, which encompasses dealing with frustrations over what seems to be a lack of good and effective public affairs campaigns on the government’s part.

Had each Cabinet member done a better job of reaching out to the public, there would be fewer minor interruptions, and hopefully, more positive coverage of the government, which potentially leads to a better investment climate. However, in doing so, the government has to depend on the mass media, as another Power Holder in the equation.

Unfortunately, this is where harmony breaks and the former diplomat comes out frustrated.

Reflecting on the state of the press in our beloved emerging democracy, there has never been a better time than now. In President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, the press finds a figure who not only nurtures deep appreciation of its existence, but also openly acknowledges its role.

Speaking on National Press Day in Kupang, East Nusa Tenggara, last month, the President specifically highlighted three contributions made by the press—enhancing the nation’s intellect, fostering democracy and controlling government power.

On controlling, the President took time to remind the parties involved — government, lawmakers, watchdogs and the media — to do their best in making sure the country runs on a healthy dose of checks-and-balances.

In such a vibrant democracy as ours, this is where ideas and ideals sometime collide. As James Madison, Father of the US Constitution, wrote on the Federalist Paper No. 10, “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention.” As rancorous as it may be, we Indonesians should welcome any debate, as long as it leads somewhere constructive.

Just how constructive that debate would turn out in the impending Media Group vs Dipo Alam remains a question. One factor is the parties’ different views of the nature of news.

In his book “Public Opinion”, American journalist cum political commentator Walter Lippmann summed it well, “Naturally there is room for wide difference of opinion as to when events have a shape that can be reported… usually it is the stereotyped shape assumed by an event at an obvious place that uncovers the run of the news. The most obvious place is where people’s affairs touch public authority.” (Lippmann, Public Opinion, Free Press, 1997).

On Jan. 12, 2011, an editorial in Media Indonesia Daily titled “Kritik Keras Tokoh Agama” hit hard at the President. “Pertanyaannya, apakah kritik itu didengarkan? Apakah pemerintahan Presiden Yudhoyono membuka telinga? Tak mudah untuk jujur. Lebih mudah memproduksi kebohongan demi kebohongan untuk menutupi kegagalan. Padahal, honesty is the best policy. Termasuk, jujur untuk mengakui gagal....” (The question at hand is that is anyone listening to the criticism? Is the government of President Yudhoyono opening its ears? It’s not easy being honest. It’s easier to produce lies after lies to cover failures, even when honesty is the best policy. That includes the honesty to admit failure.)

Without backing its allegations with valid reasoning, only referring to the opinions of several people, the newspaper has dared to make a bold accusation that the government has failed.

Never mind any achievement made in the past seven years of the administration, to the folks in Kedoya, everything was just a failure, which is not quite a fair judgment. Yes, we still have some loopholes here and there, but there have been recognizable improvements certainly not worthy of being tagged as a failure. Then again, doesn’t Journalism 101 teach the need to cover both sides of the story?

In their must-read book, “Elements of Journalism”, Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel write clearly that journalists should keep the news in proportion and make it comprehensive. (Kovach and Rosenstiel, Elements of Journalism, Crown Publishers, 2001)

Such were elements in question that led the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) into summoning Metro TV and TV One on Jan. 20, 2011. Detiknews quoted Deputy Chairwoman Nina Mutmainah as saying that the summon was based on concerns over editorial decisions that allegedly prioritized interests of the owners more than professionalism and objectivity. Where the argument goes from here, I shall leave it in the hands of pundits and professionals.

One thing for sure, on whether or not an apology is required of the Cabinet Secretary, I would say it is no longer an issue. There is too much at stake here, as Harold L. Wilensky wrote in his book Rich Democracies.

“Media versions of reality strongly shape public images and even elite images of the size, trend, causes and consequences of budget imbalances, unemployment or economic growth … and a host of other crucial issues of public policy…as the public sector grows, as the public agenda proliferates, these complex technical issues are frequently beyond the understanding of citizens, unless they are involved in broader associations that do a good job of issue interpretation.” (Wilensky, Rich Democracies, University of California Press, 2002)

For the benefit of the people, both the government and the media need to be better interpreters, if not the best.

The Jakarta Post

by Sondang Grace Sirait 

Monday, March 28, 2011 

ISLAMABAD, Mar 28 (APP): Federal Minister for Information and Broadcasting Dr. Firdous Ashiq Awan said on Monday that Pakistan Peoples Party believes in strengthening institutions as strong institutions are a guarantee to stable democracy. Speaking at a reception hosted in the honor of members of All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS), she expressed the resolve that PPP’s government would work for the restructuring of institutions.

Sunday, March 27, 2011 

In news from Johannesburg, the South African government announced earlier today the launch of its own newspaper. In an effort to level what amounts to censorship (misinformation?) of government information, newly appointed spokesperson Jimmy Manyi told reporters South Africa will create its own outlet.

Manyi went on to describe the government’s responsibility to make sure the people get all the government news and not just sound bits from independent media. A free monthly newspaper called Vuk’uzenzele will be published. The name means “Wake up and do it yourself” in Zulu. According to the reports, when the new paper is published next month, it will be the most distributed one in the country with upwards of 1.7 million printed copies.

According to Manyi, the media have neglected to report on certain progress the South African administration has made, and so the decision to level the field was made. He commented further:

“For us, everything I say is very important for the public to know, therefore we can’t leave it up to the media to decide what they’re going to tell the public.”

South Africa’s government has gone far out onto the proverbial public opinion limb recently, even proposing a law that would make classified information publishing punishable with jail time. There is even discussion of a media tribunal which would control what the media does and does not report. These sorts of initiatives have been met with widespread protests, South Africa already ranks fairly low where freedom of the press is concerned.

The first of the so called “press council hearings” were held last week, ostensibly to give the public a chance to voice their concerns. Former Apartheid activist Guy Berger was there to give an instructive on the proposed action, as well as a detailed list of reforms needed.  Meanwhile the Committee to Protect Journalist is keeping abreast of the situation there in SA as well. The criminalization of investigative reporting is the biggest bone of contention. The ramifications for anyone who lives in a free society, should be fairly obvious.

South Africa’s government sits now in a precarious position. Using the broad sweeping “national security” excuse to put a muzzle on anyone who would report about their activities, this is the slipperiest of world opinion slopes. What Nelson Mandela (seen left in prison) and so many others vied for all those years, is not precariously perched upon this new and assailing point of contention. South Africa still faces many challenges, certainly the suppression of freedoms where such suppression was so noted, is a step backward though.

We will follow this story closely.

Everything PR

by Phil Butler

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

The case of the former president provided opportunity to make unequivocally clear, including via news media, that no form of sexual harassment is acceptable, no matter who perpetrates it.

There has been much discussion of the purportedly damaging role the media has played in “demonizing” Moshe Katsav. Israel Press Council President Dalia Dorner, a former Supreme Court justice, argued Tuesday on Army Radio before the former president’s sentence was handed down that newspaper headlines calling to send him to prison might be illegal because they constituted attempts to influence the court decision, although she admitted that the judges probably would not be swayed by a few bombastic headlines.

Dorner was also concerned that the headlines might undermine the legitimacy of the justice system by creating an atmosphere in which anything less than imprisonment for Katsav would be considered unacceptable. She did not, however, explain why the public would be tempted to trust the assessment of a sensationalist journalist over that of an experienced district court judge.

One of the reasons that Tel Aviv District Court Judge Judith Shevach, in her minority opinion, called for a certain leniency in sentencing Katsav was because he had suffered at the hands of the news media. Thus, Shevach ruled, Katsav should receive a four-year prison sentence instead of the seven years determined by majority judges George Karra and Miriam Sokolov.

A “shadow trial” had taken place in the news media parallel to the one that went on in the courtroom, lamented Shevach.

“Witnesses were interviewed freely, testimonies were given, gradually all red lines were crossed, and efforts to prove guilt or innocence were redirected from the court room to the TV screen,” she said.

But what are Shevach and Dorner and other critics of the media to expect? As a public figure, Katsav would have known that his despicable acts, if discovered, would receive extensive media exposure. While Katsav attacked the news media, in part for their intrusive coverage, his top-notch legal defense team utilized the same media exposure.

AS JUDGES Karra and Sokolov pointed out, Katsav behaved like the “worst of criminals” at a time when he served in a position “that symbolized more than any other [state role], law, order and proper governance.” They made special mention of the fact that Katsav was actually serving as president when he perpetrated two counts of sexual harassment – one in 2003 against H., his office manager, and one in 2005, against L., his secretary.

The judges also noted that one of the incidents took place inside the president’s residence. Katzav had exploited his powers for his own base desire and in the process had sullied his title. And this reflected grimly on Israeli society as a whole.

In her groundbreaking 1979 book Sexual Harassment of Working Women, feminist law professor Catherine MacKinnon argued that sexual harassment perpetuates gender discrimination because the act reinforces the social inequality of women. In this formulation, Moshe Katsav’s crime should be judged not only in accordance with the unfathomable pain and damage he personally caused his victims. It should also be seen as a public act that cynically enlisted our honorable institution of the presidency to perpetuate gender inequality and the objectification of women.

However unfortunately, the conviction and then the sentencing of Katsav provided unique opportunities to uphold women’s equality. In both cases the Tel Aviv District Court rose to the occasion. The media’s extensive coverage of Katsav’s fall drove home the important message that a very public figure who dares to rape and sexually harass would be brought to justice in a very public manner.

By prominently documenting the case, the media performed the necessary service of further delegitimizing the remnants of an old patriarchal Israeli ethos that, for instance, viewed a certain amount of rakishness as integral to the “new Jew” masculinity. Lingering cultural ambiguities about “what she means when she says no,” to paraphrase a popular song of the 1960s by Dan Almagor, were duly cleared up.

THERE ARE historical precedents for news media’s important role in eradicating sexual harassment. In the 1990s, reports critical of a district court decision to acquit young men implicated in the Kibbutz Shomrat rape led to an appeal to the Supreme Court. The lower court’s ruling was overturned and several of the young men were sent to prison. The Supreme Court’s decision on Shomrat was a watershed for women’s rights because it recognized that rape did not necessarily entail overt physical coercion.

The case of Moshe Katsav debased our presidency and caused tremendous suffering to his victims. It also provided the opportunity to make unequivocally clear, including via the news media, that no form of sexual harassment is acceptable, no matter who perpetrates it.

The Jerusalem Post

Photo: Mor Aloni

Monday, March 21, 2011 

The Laurent Gbagbo-controlled National Press Council (CNP) on March 18, 2011 suspended pro-Ouattara daily, Le Jour Plus, for publishing statements by top officials of Alassane Ouattara, the internationally recognised President of Cote d’ Ivoire.

The Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA)’s correspondent reported that Le Jour Plus has been banned from publishing for 26 days.

According to the CNP, the newspaper has been insulting and “humiliating” the “Head of State” (Laurent Gbagbo), with consistent publications of statements from top officials of Ouattara’s government to the extent of referring to Dominique Ouattara, wife of Alassane Ouattara, as the first lady of Cote d I’ voire .

The correspondent said the newspaper has been exposing atrocities of security elements loyal to Gbago, which did not please the CNP. On March 9 for instance, Le Jour Pluspublished the killing on March 8 often people including seven women and a child in an Abidjan neighbourhood of Abobo, while they were demonstrating in favour of Ouattara. The killings were allegedly perpetrated by agents of the Anti-Riot Squad and the Republican Guards.

This is the third time that Le Jour Plus has been sanctioned by the CNP since the members assumed office on February 9, 2011under controversial circumstance. It had earlier imposed a fine of one million CFA francs (about US$2000) on the newspaper over an article by a free-thinker that was critical of Gbagbo. This was followed by another two million (about US$4000) fine for publishing photographs of an alleged “barbaric acts” of FDS in the towns of Koumassi and Treicheville.

In a March 17 press statement, Le Jour Plusteam vowedto continue the fight despite the ban so “that democracy will triumph” in the country.

In a related development, the management ofLes Editions Nouveau Réveil, publishers of Le Nouveau Réveiland Le Repèredailiesannounced on March 17 that they were starting an online version on www.abidjan.netwww.abidjan.netwww.abidjan.net. The move, according to the publishers, is intended to seek solution to the frequent banning and blocking of the distribution of the pro-Ouattara newspapers by elements of pro-Gbagbo forces. The www.abidjan.net is the most visited news website by Ivoirians both at home and abroad.

Senegambia News (It's Good To Know)

Photo: Alassane Ouattara, internationally recognized to have won last presidential election. But incumbent Laurent Gbagbo has refused relinquising power in Cocoa rich Cote d’ Ivoire

Friday, March 18, 2011
KATHMANDU: Prime Minister Jhalanath Khanal said on Friday that the main tasks of the nation are to accomplish the peace and constitution drafting processes in the stipulated time.

The PM was speaking at the prize distribution ceremony to mark the 35th anniversary of Nepal Press Council (NPC) in Tilganga, Kathmandu.

PM also CPN-UML chairman Khanal said that his government is committed to take peace to a logical conclusion and draft the new constitution in the given time frame. He appealed to all to help his government achieve the same.

The PM said that it is the right time to establish the credentials of the editor for the professionalism of the media. He also urged the media to maintain a healthy competition in the market.

Unveiling the anniversary report of the NPC, PM Khanal assured that the issues pointed out by the report would be taken up at the earliest.

The PM awarded the Press Council Gopal Das Journalism Prize to senior reporter Megharaj Sharam, Code of Conduct Prize to Kantipur Television, Literary Column Writing Prize to Bimal Niva, and Women Empowerment Prize to Ganga Baral. Likewise, the ‘Kaushiki’, bi-monthly and ‘Pahura’, Tharu language national daily bagged prizes 

The Himilayan Times

 

Agil Dadashov was elected from the Trade Unions Confederation,  Mukhtar Imanov from the Press Council and Jahangir Mammadli  from the Council of Press.

While presenting candidates, the head of the parliamentary commission for culture Nizami Jafarov noted that in a short time, the Public Television gained popularity among the public. "The Parliament should elect three of the nine members of the Broadcasting Council of Public TV”, he said.

Deputy Fazil Mustafa stressed that the public television  carries out an important work in education and at the same time, the channel did not follow other channels which see their work only in  broadcasting cheap shows.

And his colleague Pashayeva stated that "we as MPs should support public television, which successfully implements educational mission, highlights social issues, holds serious work in bringing to public the legislative work of the parliament”. 

Deputy Fazail Agamali criticized the public television saying there is no diversity there. “They invite the same people. The work of the parliament is not covered fully. I hope the channel administration will correct its policy of inviting guests and programs will be diverse”, he said.

News.Az 

by Emil Guliyev

Photo: Milli Majlis

Tuesday, March 8, 2011 

Maybe I'm too paraat but I do feel we need to guard against getting too touchy feely about what might be wrong with South Africa's press ombudsman, which has been under attack from the ANC as the party appears to be striving to replace the press's self-regulation system with statutory oversight in the form of the proposed media appeals tribunal.

A couple of weeks back I went along to a public hearing held by the website Press Council of South Africa (under which the ombusdman falls) to make a submission on the role of the ombudsman. When asked by two council members, deputy ombudsman Dr Johan Retief and the Mail & Guardian ombudsman Franz Kruger, if I thought any changes should be made to the ombudsman's processes, I said I was happy to be guided by the council itself on this issue.

The council is made up of members of experience and integrity, both from journalism and outside the industry, while all the rulings I have ever read appear to very thorough, thoughtful and fair.

No doubt it's a good thing

There is no doubt that it is a good thing that the Press Council is canvassing journalists and the public for input on its processes so that it can tell the ANC to... well... nut off when the times comes - and that would be in Parliament when the ANC goes that route. But why not just tell the Agents of the Revolutionary House to nut off now? What does the ANC actually know about journalism and journalism ethics?

Journalism is both a vocation and a trade - and no amount of studying journalism or consuming media will ever give you a real handle on the range of complex decisions and weighing of interests that goes on daily in a newsroom:

• How to balance the need, for instance, to be thorough by talking to as many people as possible while fitting their comments into 500 words in a manner that will take the narrative forward at every turn and, therefore, be readable and interesting?
• How to ask the same question over and over again in different ways to help someone who is not articulate to articulate what they are thinking?
• How to distil a long interview with a highly technical person into three sentences so that it captures the essence of what was said?
• How to learn to respect and incorporate dissenting voices because they add - rather than detract - from the credibility of a story?
• How to deal with anonymous sources or public officials who dodge you or manipulative people with agendas or those afflicted by terrible tragedy?

Serious about the practice of journalism

These are things that journalists wrestle with over years, which is why the best newsrooms are so robust because discussion takes place on these issue in a forthright manner when they come up. Newsrooms may appear anarchic to an outsider but only the most blinkered outsider would confuse the irreverence with malicious intent to harm or to distort information. Journalists are not particularly respectable people but they are serious about the practice of journalism and they do worry if there is an ombusdman complaint or a law suit against them.

It is fair to say I have never met a journalist who is cavalier about an ombudsman complaint or lawsuit against them. Although mistakes will happen, your reputation is everything.

Scrapping the waiver to sue

I was very interested to read Rhodes University's Prof Guy Berger's recent argument that scrapping the waiver to sue when you make a complaint to the ombudsman would, in fact, increase its credibility. He also makes the interesting point:

...[T]he newspapers who are voluntary signatories to the Press Council accept that their system can order them to publish apologies and corrections when a complaint is upheld. But they could also agree to further powers, whereby serious or repeat offenders could face fines akin to the case in the voluntary broadcast regulator, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa.

"When violating newspapers have to shell out funds to the Council, even if there is a prior ceiling agreed, they are more likely to cut an editor's annual bonus if he or she incurs such a penalty."

Slippery slope

I fear that these suggestions, if implemented, would be a slippery slope. On the issue of meting out fines, newspapers companies are not the money-making machines of yesteryear and having to budget for lawsuit war chests is in itself onerous for many, especially when you consider that some interdicts are sought mischievously by wealthy individuals or companies seeking to stop the publication of a story. Just to fight an 11th-hour interdict comes at a hefty price tag for the newspaper when you must pay for senior counsel to go to court.

And I don't think it's fair to compare the print industry with the broadcasting industry - where commercial radio is, quite frankly, a licence to print money and the SABC is state-funded and allowed to fritter its revenue away.

The waiver, to my mind, is crucial as it separates absolutely the processes and decisions of the ombudsman and the courts. If the waiver were scrapped, you can bet your frilly knickers that ombudsman rulings would start being presented in court to support defamation suits.

Consider completely different things

However, the ombudsman and the courts consider completely different things: Besides dealing with accuracy, the ombudsman also looks at the greater ethical environment, for instance, issues such as fairness and balance; the courts consider the law of defamation. Ethics can be textured and grey; the law is much more black and white.

The essence of

's defamation law is whether a reasonable person might think less of another person because of what was said or written. What is said in Parliament or a court of law is what is termed "privileged" - that is you cannot sue a person for saying it or reporting on what was said in that arena - and you cannot defame the dead.

If a law suit goes to court, the media house in contention can defend its right to publish on the basis of public interest or that it is fair comment (ie in an opinion piece) or by providing proof of what it said. And so, in the fascinating case of writer Ronald Suresh Roberts, who sued the Sunday Times for calling him "unlikeable", the court found that Suresh Roberts was actually "unlikeable".

Guaranteed by our Constitution

But ultimately, defamation law is tested in the context of the right to freedom of the press as guaranteed by our Constitution, which is why in a country such as Britain it is far more onerous for the media to defend itself against lawsuits as the courts are guided by common law - legal precedent - which tends to favour the individual against the press. In

, we have common law but the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

When it comes to the area of public interest, South African courts also consider the private and public lives of public officials to be fair game because they are paid with taxpayers' money. And the same goes for the government as a whole because it is not a legal entity and it inappropriate for the government to use taxpayers' money to wage law suits against the media.

I would argue that it also inappropriate for taxpayers' money to be used for statutory oversight of the media in the form of a media appeals tribunal when the print industry funds the Press Council to do so.

Talk about defamation!

The ANC has questioned the independence of the Council because of this funding structure but, talk about defamation!, on what basis exactly is the party questioning the integrity of the council members and the press ombudsman Joe Thloloe, who is a respected independently-minded veteran journalist?

By comparison, it has been a very long time since the ANC - with all the influence that comes with being the majority party - has managed to come up with an SABC chairman, with the same kind of integrity, who can set aside political considerations so that the interests of the public are put first.

And here, I suspect, is the rub: the ANC is not keen on people of great integrity who put the SA public first. It appears to think the newspapers are being Big Meanies because they expose corruption and maladministration in the government and editors exercise their right to fair comment when they criticise the ANC. The ANC prefers tamer news hounds such as the SABC.

But don't be fooled and don't give away the ground that has been won: Our rights are entrenched in the Constitution, the courts of law are there to penalise financially those who break the defamation law and the press ombudsman investigates more textured issues of ethics. It's all good - and it's enough

by Gill Moodie

www.bizcommunity.com

Thursday, March 3, 2011 

The Azerbaijani Press Council in 2010 received 699 complaints against the media agencies, Press Council Chairman Aflatun Amashov said at an international conference on "Editorial freedom, ethics and transparency in the Azerbaijani media”.

He said most of the appeals are complaints over humiliation of honor and dignity, interference with privacy.

“The Council received appeals from persons of different categories, including managers and representatives of organizations, municipalities, political parties," Amashov said.

Amashov said 22 percent of all complaints relate to references in the materials of journalists to unofficial sources, while 24 percent - when the journalist did not listen to the opinion of the criticized side.

"These materials are mostly printed in the so-called racket-editions, which go almost once or twice a month,” he added.

Amashov said decisions taken by the Council in connection with such appeals are not legal in nature, but rather the nature of social stigma.
.

Council’ Commission against racketeering journalism Vugar Rahimzade said the commission made the appropriate decisions against about 100 media outlets. "In 2010, 26 of the media outlets were excluded from the list of racketeering publications,” he added

TREND

by E. Huseynov