Protecting freedom of the press

FRIDAY, May 3, was World Press Freedom Day and the theme for this year was “Safe to Speak: Securing Freedom of Expression in All Media”, with the focus on preventing acts of violence or discrimination against journalists and media personnel as they seek to report on the happenings around the world. However, it is fair when considering “press freedom” that one critiques the content of what the press is “free” to publish; for with freedom comes great responsibility.

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has reaffirmed that freedom of expression is a
“fundamental right on its own”, but also provides the conditions for protecting and promoting all other human rights. Herein lies the importance of the role of the media in today’s world; for in their effort to
exercise freedom of expression, they seek to keep the masses informed and educated so that they too may accurately demonstrate their own freedom of expression. It is therefore crucial that “a safe environment for dialogue, where all can speak freely and openly, without fear of reprisal” is sustained in which journalists can operate.

The Grenada Advocate supports the push for increased awareness of press freedoms and denounces the intimidation, censorship, violence and threats against members of this fraternity by any organisation, group or state anywhere around the world. The deaths of more than 600 journalists over the past ten years is a sad and unfortunate occurrence and should not be condoned or dismissed. We acknowledge their exceptional contributions and urge governments, especially those politically unstable and war torn
nations, to adhere to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and seek to safeguard life and limb of media workers worldwide as they report on the state of affairs.

With freedom comes responsibility

Considering how challenging it is for many in the press to exercise these freedoms in some states, it is quite unfortunate that in other territories where there is more freedom, that more responsibility is not shown before material is published for the public’s eyes and ears.

We are aware that accidents will happen, especially when dealing with human beings and short deadlines. Still, much of the content in newspapers and magazines, and on television and radio, leave a lot to be desired with regard to decency and morality. This is more noticeable in liberal states in the western hemisphere. And while capitalist states and private companies have no obligation to be moral compasses for society, there is still some level of decorum expected even though the bottom line may be financial.

Public broadcast companies, however, have traditionally been the ones to set a good example. Therefore it is with great interest that the world observes as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States considers relaxing its standards to allow brief nudity and more profanity on television. Currently up for public debate, the argument for the change in guidelines is that the backlog of cases for reported offences has grown unmanageable, so it would be better to focus on “egregious cases” and dismiss as many of the others as possible.

The rationale behind this move is questionable, but it is laudable that the American society has stepped forward to object to this proposal in the many comments filed through the FCC’s online site.