Is it okay for the Zambian government or any “well wisher” as the Vice President put it and quoted in today’s edition of the Post Newspaper to block the Watchdog because of its “insults”? Who determines what constitutes an insult or unethical reporting? Does the Watchdog promote hate speech as the Vice President put it? Who determines what hate speech is? For starters, it is perfectly all right to express concern at content in the media because it affects people positively or negatively. It is perfectly all right for any government to seek to protect its citizens from harmful or divisive information. But it is debatable whether the means chosen to protect citizens are informed by a genuine desire to maintain and protect public good or whether it is informed by personal anger and a personal desire to “fix” somebody. Because of this possibility, opinions will always be deeply divided on this question. The chosen authority to define what constitutes an insult, defamation and ethical journalism is primarily vested in the courts of law. However, as part of the evolution of our democracy, we have agreed as a country on a self-regulatory mechanism called the Zambia Ethics Council, ZAMEC. This is a court of honor designed in a user-friendly manner as opposed to the intimidating structures of traditional courts. Self-regulatory mechanisms are also intended to protect the fragility of democracy and in particular national dialogue facilitated by the media. Editorial content in the Watchdog continues to anger those in power. I must point out immediately that reaction is much more important than the original action thrown at you. Your reaction will either give effect to what is written about you or neutralize it. Psychology teaches us to be emotionally intelligent as a way of being in control of affairs around us including those matters that are thrown at us. My personal reaction to the stories written in the Watchdog or indeed any other publication (especially those alleging private affairs) is: “okay,” and move on to my personal affairs because they are more important than a politician that I do not even have a personal relationship with. Whether what online publications report about are true or not, the only stories that really matter to any serious consumer of information, stories with the potential to shape one’s opinion of government are those with a strong public interest. And these appear few and far between. What shapes my opinion of the PF government is what I see on ZNBC, what I read in the Daily Mail, the Times of Zambia and what I observe for myself. Someone may choose to write that Sata is sick; Guy Scot is having this and that affair, it has very little value in my formation of informed opinion.
Posted on: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:24:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015