Censorship and the public interest

Commentators Ian Boyne and Martin Henry recently took jabs at journalists for practising 'self-censorship'. To what extent is this true among journalism professionals, and are they to be blamed for internal censorship in media organisations?

Many journalists believe there should be an arm's-length relationship between the boardroom and the newsroom in media organisations. This is out of caution that owner-ship interests could have undue influence on news output. In other words, media owners might be tempted to withhold stories that are unfavourable to them or related parties.

(Media managers make the counterpoint that journalists engage in censorship by ignoring stories that are unfavourable to their favourite politician, personality or organisation).

If this interference is allowed to occur, conceivably media owners could prevent matters of public interest from seeing the light of day. This would be a grave violation of the trust that the public has invested in media organisations to faithfully report the truth, regardless of whose toes are crushed. Indeed, the media industry owes its legitimacy to the citizens' constitutional right of freedom of expression - there is no explicit freedom-of-the-press provision in the Jamaican Constitution. The media derive this right from our rights as citizens and, therefore, they should ensure they are keeping faith with the people.

Brisbane Declaration

It, therefore, behoves the media in Jamaica to avoid internal censorship - a call made at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation's World Press Freedom Day conference in Brisbane, Australia, last year. The Brisbane Declaration called on professional associations, media outlets and industry to, among other things, "provide leadership in support of the principles of transparency and accountability by adopting policies on the disclosure of information within the media industry, especially regarding ownership, revenues from official advertising, and other forms of funding".

The Brisbane Declaration also called on the media fraternity to:

● Promote social dialogue between employers and media personnel aimed at creating partnerships in order to strengthen attachment to ethical standards and the creation of transparency, credibility and relevance in the provision of information.

● Promote and strengthen forms of self-regulation and new forms of review of performance of media that enhance and support ethical journalism, with the aim of building public trust.

Newsroom protocols

In an attempt to address the issue of internal censorship and conflict of interest, the Press Association of Jamaica, in partnership with the Media Association Jamaica Limited, included several provisions in the revised code of ethics for media practitioners.

Section 11(g), in particular, states: "In order to ensure that the public interest is not subjugated to the private interest of media owners, media houses must develop protocols to govern the newsroom decision-making process. The protocols shall be made available to all journalists in the media house's employ."

What irritates news professionals, however, is the whimsical nature of calls by some in top management in media organisations to drop a story or their insistence to carry a story, based on a personal/private agenda. That's internal censorship and newsroom interference, and is anathema to freedom of information as well as the right of the populace to know.

Byron Buckley is associate editor - special projects. This series of articles on libel reform and press freedom does not represent the views of The Gleaner Company, the Press Association of Jamaica or the Media Association Jamaica Limited. Send comments to byron.buckley@gleanerjm.com.