South Africa: Freedom of expression for all in SA, not only media [opinion]

THE current debate on the feasibility and desirability of establishing a Media Appeals Tribunal (MAT), as a mechanism to offer a balance between the constitutional right of media freedom and the right to privacy, and, more crucially, rights and values such as human dignity, is becoming an interesting topic to deliberate.

The ANC argues in its post-Polokwane resolutions that the MAT “would be statutory body and answerable to Parliament. This body will act as a channel for appeals against decisions by the Press Ombudsman”. Furthermore, the resolutions state that “the creation of an MAT would strengthen, complement and support” the current self-regulatory institutions such as the Press Ombudsman and the South African Public.

 

Not surprisingly the commercial press is opposed to this idea. The essence of media opposition is that the move to establish the MAT is tantamount to interfering with freedom of expression and freedom of the media as guaranteed by the Constitution. Furthermore this development is seen as a “threat to press freedom” and undermines the existing media self-regulation mechanisms already in place, such as the Press ombudsman, Press Council as well as the code of conduct for the media.

 

But for me there’s nothing unconstitutional about the MAT, because the Constitution itself guarantees every citizen, not only the media, the right to freedom of expression. Furthermore, the Constitution enjoins the State to uphold, promote and protect citizens against any party that infringes the Constitution. The point that I am trying to make, is that there is a tendency by the media to arrogate the right of freedom of expression as the domain of the media only and no one else, even members of civil society or the State. This has been done to such an extent that any action by the State in exercising its constitutional obligations to balance the constitutional rights is now being seen as anathema or a “threat to press freedom” or an attempt to control the media.

 

It is surprising that the media can regard the ANC as an enemy of freedom of expression, considering that the current dispensation with the freedoms the media enjoy is a product of the ANC vision. The ANC has a very good record of promoting media freedom and that has happened since the party’s inception. I believe that there’s no South African nor African political party with a comparable record on this matter .

 

The media argues that, internationally self regulation is a “gold standard”, it is one of the measures that determine whether a country can call itself democratic. They add that the self regulations system operated by the SA Press Council and Press Ombudsman is user friendly and because complaints are dealt with without lawyers, and the emphasis is on finding solutions through mediation, the process is far quicker and cheaper, and therefore more accessible than the courts, for instance.

 

Contrary to the above assertion, I have gathered a general feeling from ordinary people that their rights are being trampled on by the media and that there’s no recourse for them, or existing mechanisms are not strong enough and effective enough. In other words, the current self-regulating mechanisms are not robust enough.

 

The major challenge of the current self-regulation system is that for a complaint to be accepted by the Press Ombudsman for arbitration, the aggrieved party first has to agree to waive his/her constitutional right to take the issue to court if they disagree with the verdict of the self regulating system. Surely with this scenario, one can conclude that media self regulation works for the interest of the media.

 

The other important shortfall in the current media self-regulation system is the lack of public participation. To what extent are the existing self-regulation mechanisms bringing on board members of the public into decision making?

 

According to my observation, when issues of accountability and responsibility are raised about the conduct of the media, there’s always a proclivity by the print media to go on the attack and sensationalise the engagement as an attempt to control the media. It is my view that we cannot celebrate democracy in our country if the media are not accountable, like any other institution of the public sphere in South Africa.

 

Be that as it may, I believe that the major shortcoming of the media in South Africa that may affect creating an open society is their inability to absorb criticism and itheir unwillingness to conduct introspection or acknowledge that there are problems. Any effort aimed at transforming the media to truly reflect the needs and aspirations of the people of South Africa is trivialised by the media as a threat to make them less critical of government.

 

On the whole, I would like to declare my support for the establishment of an MAT. I envisage it to be a forum where the rights of freedom of expression can be balanced with other constitutional rights. The body must serve as a mechanism to strengthen the existing self- regulation systems, not to supplant them.

 

I envision an MAT with the following modalities: a statutory body established by an Act of Parliament, drawing its membership from broad spectrum members of civil society and media representatives. As an external regulating mechanism, an MAT will work very closely with other existing self-regulating mechanisms to arbitrate on matters where citizens feel their constitutional rights have been violated. Indeed, for an MAT to be effective it should be closely guarded against any undue interference from politics.

 

-August 25, 2010 by Mxolisi Spondo

 ……………..

Source: www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx  (accessed on 25.08.10)