Q: What are your thoughts on the government’s proposed Code of Ethics for Media? Do you believe that the media is in need of such a Code at this juncture?
A: The fact is that we have already got a Media Ethics Code that has been Gazetted under No. 5 of the 1973 Press Council Law. Under that system things have been working out quite smoothly, apart from some politically motivated interference. I don’t think there is any need to all of a sudden have a new or different Code of Ethics for journalists.
Q: Do you feel that the Code of Ethics for Media is another move towards further stifling the local media?
A: Certainly. This is documented even in world history. For example in the early 1970s, after winning a long and protracted war between Bangladesh and Pakistan, Mujibur Rahman became the head of state. The first thing he did was to suppress the media and establish a Government-dominated media culture. That led to a political Holocaust. The same pattern was adopted by Gaddafi in Libya, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, and Ben Ali in Tunisia. But after independence, countries like the United States and other countries in Europe for instance, did not suffer such damage – because they believe that the right of expression is a sacred right. Within a few years after the adoption of the US Constitution in 1779, they introduced the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting Congress from enacting laws to abridge or suppress the right of expression and also to promote one particular religion – virtually making their Constitution a secular one. I think if we are now going for the drastic step of adopting a draconian Code, it is tantamount to the breach of fundamental human rights of each and every citizen. That will deprive the country of practicing the concept of participatory democracy, and as a result the country will move towards a virtual dictatorship. Media freedom has been suppressed to a substantial level.
Q: In particular, the draft Code mentions that there should be nothing that would be against the integrity of the Executive, Judiciary and Legislature. What is your opinion on this particular statement?
A: Of course, when it comes to the Judiciary, there are certain accepted restraints. But the Executive and Legislature cannot claim any kind of immunity or privilege. The main object of the media is to expose the Executive and the Legislature whenever it becomes appropriate.
Q: What is your opinion of the areas addressed in the Code – do you think it could be improved in any way?
A: There are a lot of grey areas; in one section it says that any publication should be prevented which would encourage or incite violence, or would contain anything against the maintenance of law and order, or which might promote an anti-national attitude. The national attitude varies from person to person. Who is going to determine what the national attitude of a person is? If this kind of vague and scandalous wording is used, rulers can interpret anything as anti-nationalist. The Code also says that no publication should be published which contains criticism affecting foreign relations. We have already realized that when it comes to foreign relations, the situation of the country is adverse and the government has failed on many aspects. If the right to criticize foreign policy is existing now and yet foreign relations have deteriorated to such an unprecedented level, one can easily understand what kind of blunders would be made by the Government in the future in the absence of that same right to the media.
Q: Do you think that the content of the Code addresses specific areas and that there is no room for misinterpretation with the wording of the draft Code?
A: Firstly, certainly this Code is open to a lot of misinterpretation. Secondly, this is being introduced with an ulterior motive – to suppress the sections of the media which do not favour the Government. Thirdly, we have already continued for a long time without any problem with the existing setup. The Press Council regulated by the Government and the Press Complaints Commission regulated by media organizations do function now. They have already adopted their own Code of Ethics. In the developed world, people believe that a self-made Code of Ethics is the best suited for any country. If it is passed as a law or a regulation it is a direct interference with the right of expression.
Q: There is also a section of the code on derogatory remarks against religious institutions. What is your opinion of this particular section – given the recent incidents of religious unrest?
A: That shows that those who drafted this Code have no basic idea or understanding of our legal system. If there is any derogation or any insult to religions, there are sufficient provisions under the Penal Code as well as in the other statutes to administer the law. When there is a law, it is useless to have a Code for the same purpose.
Q: Do you believe that the media has not acted ethically in reporting issues related religious unrest?
A: We must thank the media, as they have not been up to that kind of misbehaviour so far, except for some unethical conduct on the part of the state media, which is supposed to showcase exemplary conduct to private media organisations. But unfortunately, politicians have already gobbled up the state media.
Q: The Minister of Mass Media and Information Keheliya Rambukwella has said that the Code will not be a law and that it is only set of guidelines. Do you agree?
A: We have a much better Code or guidelines at the moment. In particular, the Press Complaints Commission has a Code of Ethics. I think this is the right time for media institutions to expand the scope of the Press Complaints Commission to encapsulate electronic media thereby covering both print and electronic media segments. The other point I’d like to express is that when politicians insist upon ethical conduct by other professions like journalism, which do not depend on public funds, they themselves should set an example, instead of insisting on ethical media.
The urgent need of the hour is to have a Code of Ethics for Politicians as the most number of criminals in the country are politicians.
Q: Do guidelines for the media need to be passed in Parliament?
A: This is not clear. It’s like the Government is groping in the dark. Under what law are they making a Code of Ethics for journalists? This is not disclosed. If they have to pass the Code as a regulation, there should be a law which empowers Parliament or other statutory bodies to do so. Otherwise, they’ll have to insert the Code into a statute. Once it is inserted into a statute it can’t be a code. It must be a law.
Certain statutes state that certain regulations have to be passed. Some other statutes say that the Code only has to be submitted to Parliament. Nobody knows which way they are planning to implement this Code.
Q: Secretary to the Media Ministry Charitha Herath has said there will be a consultative process. Who do you believe should be consulted about the draft Code?
A: In the first place, these do not seem to be proposals – it is stated that this is merely a Code of Ethics for Media to encompass both print and electronic media. If it is a consultative process, this should have taken place before drafting the Code. Once it is drafted it can’t be a consultative process. For instance the UNP introduced a proposal for their Constitution. We never drafted a Bill. If it is a Bill, then that means it has been finalized. Since it is a proposal, everything is open for consultative discussion.
(thesundaylader)
No comments:
Post a Comment