FREEDOM of the media is the cornerstone of democracy.
It has played a sterling role in transforming our civilisation and reported on issues of public interest and concern without fear or favour.
Those democratically elected could not ignore its place in a civilised society.
Its voice could not be ignored and the Fourth Estate, as it came to be identified, became the most powerful medium for dissemination of news, views and information both to governments and people.
However, like democracy it is in a degenerate mode.
In many countries, it echoes the voices of the rich, powerful and privileged classes to peddle their wares and, in return, enrich itself.
Democracy and media are now under scrutiny and both require massive overhaul to ensure that they play their relative roles conscientiously.
Indeed, conscience is being gravely compromised.
Logically, our civilisation should have reached a state of refinement where humanity and all its institutions should have attained respect, recognition and trust from those it served.
Tragically, this is not the case.
Every constitution, formulated in consideration of the international norms and conventions, gave freedom of media equal ranking as human rights.
Contravention of one was an attack on the other and both remained complementary.
A vicious hunt
However, many today view media as a toothless lion but with the essential growl.
Its respect and dignity is on the wane, as it operates with an agenda, set by its owners.
Economic interests now prevail above its role as the fourth estate.
Critics say the media has mortgaged its soul and spirit and is no longer the voice of the people in some countries, as it pursues its manipulative agenda.
Indian Newslink (January 15, 2010) highlighted the plight of Fiji-born lawyer Julian Moti, an Australian citizen and former Attorney-General of the Solomon Islands.
The Australian Federal Police considered him an impediment to the country’s interests in the Solomon Islands.
However, the Brisbane Supreme Court dismissed the case and grated permanent stay of proceedings, citing payments to witnesses by the Australian Federal Police, the quantum being “an affront to the public conscience.”
Sadly, the mainstream Australian media ignored this vital news of the freedom and rights of an innocent Australian citizen were blatantly violated by the State.
He was wrongfully declared a fugitive and was even handcuffed and humiliated when extradited to Australia.
Interestingly, the Australian media was very vocal and eloquent when the Australian Federal Police was hunting for Mr Moti but largely ignored his acquittal.
It is unfortunate that the media opted to aid and abet state-sponsored terrorism instead of discharging its duty to the people of Australia.
With such departure from its role, will the media be able to retain its unfettered freedom and rights, as guaranteed in most constitutions?
Freedom of the media must not be tampered in any shape or form.
However, when viewed objectively and noting that it has become partial, prejudiced and manipulative, it would be naïve to say that freedom and rights of the media should not be revisited.
Undoubtedly, the media has positively contributed to the fall of many democratically elected governments across the world and many remain under its threat. Its selective and slanted reporting is more common and widespread.
Worrying trends are now emerging, as the media embeds itself with political parties and politicians of their choice, giving vent to their viewpoints, maintaining its prejudices to the detriment of public and the nation from whence they operate.
A WorldPublicOpinion.org 2008 Poll found that a majority wanted the media free of government control, with citizens provided access to material from hostile countries.
Most respondents to the survey said that the government should not have the right to limit access to the Internet, prohibit publishing of material considered politically destabilising.
While the survey confirmed public faith and trust in the role of the media, critics held that the media was surreptitiously undermining public interest, pursuing its own goals and objectives.
However, the Internet has weakened the media monopoly.
Critics say media prejudice and partiality should not go unrecognised and unaddressed.
They also acknowledge small publications that continue to uphold self-dignity, time-honoured values of balanced and impartial reporting without fear or favour.
By RAJENDRA PRASAD*
Writing in Indian Newslink
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
