I Know of No One as a Developmental Dentist

I Know of No One as a Developmental Dentist
Tamrat G. Giorgis
I believe it is not my place to remind you of the role the media plays in society. You are all here because I trust you are literate on the affairs of the media and what it is meant for. But I believe we have diverse perspective and varied views on how best the media conduct itself in realizing its mission. This is provided that we all agree the media's mission is to help create an informed public in a society with a democratic discourse.
If, however, we have differences in our perspectives on what the "mission" ought to be, that too is fine by me. Indeed, as Thomas E. Patterson, a professor of government and the press at Harvard, noted, "The process of informing the public is an ongoing task, as well as a source of endless debate."
Not surprisingly, here we are debating the mission the Ethiopian media should carve for itself. That is in a society largely characterized in a very traditionalist and conservative manner, if not one that remains entangled by its undemocratic legacy. Indeed, if there is anything the past two decades testify to the story of the Ethiopian media, and many of its operators who have come and gone, as those who are still soldiering, it is to the story of a continuous struggle to find its rightful place.
The media's rightful place in the Ethiopian society should come from clarity of its purpose and mission. I am of the school of thought that this mission ought to be anchored on its ability to inform citizens in the process of creating an informed public, or electorate if I may say so. It should only be the media that needs to define this mission but in manners that is fearless of the power that be or without being in favour of vested interests.
Vested interest does include political hegemony as prescribed by competing ideological convictions and political agendas. I see no wrong on the part of such political actors should they get determined to bring the media on their side. It is part of the whole dynamics, exercised to win the minds and confidence of the public. It is up to the media itself to guard its space from such hegemonic incursion of the power that be, or of those stand on the other side of the fence. It is not the business of the media to get in bed with any of these actors, regardless of the holiness of the cause professed or the veil it is given in a form of patriotism, nationalism or the many "isms" that pop up periodically.
The media does good to itself and its consumers so long as it remains professional in its core mission: provision of accurate information in time but processed in the way it is contextualized, with insight and supported with background. A craft practiced using the tools of accuracy, context, analysis and background goes beyond just informing the public. It rather shares knowledge and creates understanding.
I see no ideological demagogy in this. In the same manner I see no "neoliberal or developmentalist" in the work of a dentist, whose main preoccupation should be looking after the dental health of patients; so is this true for a media that aspires to be professional.
Professionalism in the media industry, as the case would be with many other disciplines, has limits, and it is not for "free fall" as those casual and voluntary service providers who act only upon their convenience do. It is an industry that needs to ensure its financial viability in order to carve a space free from intrusions. The media cannot possibly thrive without fear or favour as long as it remains dependent on predatory hands and handouts.
There ought to be enabling legal and ethical frameworks to ensure its space, guarantee its existence and provide protection whenever it falls under assault. However, these legal and ethical instruments should also be used to keep the media on its toes so that it remains faithful to its core mission.
While I would like to note the absence of a mutually espoused ethical guideline for those active in the Ethiopian media landscape, I believe Ethiopia's constitution provides a superb legal framework which stamped the existence and relevance of the freedom of speech and that of the press in Ethiopia's contemporary discourse. Please allow me to pay my homage to those who have sacrificed their lives promoting this ideal, and framers of the constitution whose foresight in adopting Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in its entirety is the foundation for what we enjoy or demand today.
I see Ethiopia's constitution as a document that was far ahead of its time. It is largely a product of a liberal conviction, espousing the ideals of checks and balances in limiting the power of the state over citizens; ensuring individual fundamental and political rights; and protecting private property as well as due process for those who may lose their lives or property. It may have institutionalized the monopoly of violence to the state; nonetheless, it has also put series of instruments to constrain the state's ability to act with impunity. In cases where those holding the state's power abuse the trust of the office they are voted in, the constitution has furnished the Madisonian "auxiliary precaution" type of instruments, believing that the state is inherently an institution with a risk to turn despotic unless its powers are made to be limited and frequently checked.
One such vital "auxiliary precaution" in the process of checks and balances is the institutionalization of the media, independent of the state's power to control its behaviour, in the fabric of Ethiopia's public discourse. It is clear that the media under the Ethiopian constitution is given the role of watchdog, having in mind rather the sovereignty of citizens over the state, and its executive branch in particular. At least ideally!
Ethiopia's constitution, in its Article 29, does not provide a partial freedom to speech and the press. It rather guarantees a comprehensive freedom in banning prior censorship on the one hand and protecting the right to expression and dissemination of information without interference.
Proclaims Sub-Article 2 of Article 29: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression without any interference."
It also criminalizes those who have the bent in constraining the exercise of this freedom, declaring in Sub-Article 7, "Any citizen who violates any legal limitations on the exercise of these rights may be held liable under the law."
And the state cannot write laws in violations of these rights in the absence of a legislative body; even then such body cannot do so as it pleases, for, ground for limitations are narrowly defined in areas to "protect the well-being of the youth, honour and reputation of individuals," while outlawing "propaganda for war as well as public expression of opinion intended to injure human dignity" could be permissible.
If these constitutionally enshrined freedoms have been eroded in later years, both in legal and institutional manners, the blame goes to legislators who write laws governing several aspects of life in Ethiopia, and leaders of the ruling party whose taste for ideological hegemony has ever come sophisticated. What stands out in all this is the unfortunate erosion committed by legislators who voted on the revised Penal Code of the country, in 2005. The revised code comprises elements that are unfortunate regression from the spirit of the constitution.
While the constitution narrowly defines cause for limiting freedom of the speech and the press, including the minimum standard of the protection of human dignity, the criminal code broadens the cause to include, "the protection of collective security and violations of any rights protected by the law." [Article 42, Sub-Article 3]
Another provision in the Penal Code [Article 613, Sub-Article 1] has earned Ethiopia a rare place in the world for the resurrection of an archaic concept of law many countries are now willing to preserve in their archive. For many across the world, the phrase "seditious libel" must sound antique. Reporting truth in a content deemed libel and malicious, nonetheless, subject the media to criminal conviction as successfully but quietly instituted in the code by proponents of Sir William Blackstone, an 18th Century formidable legal scholar who established, "Truth is not a defence and the judge alone decides whether the publication was seditious." The burden to prove otherwise is with the accused.
The media has been on the retreat for some time now with the erosion of its constitutionally guaranteed rights by subsequent laws meant to enforce these basic rights. They are yet to pass the test of challenge in a place where compliance to constitution is reviewed.
Simultaneously though the media remains in retreat in the face of an encroaching ideological hegemony of the ruling party whose prescription to it requires of it to be embedded to the developmental state model of governance. In many ways, this prescription represents a complete reversal from the role framers of the constitution espoused for the media.
If in the first place a "development journalism" is to mean that a media and its practitioners are keen to see development taking place in the society they live and serve, I see it as a point of no contention. To argue that those who may oppose to or critical of the "development journalism" model are antidevelopment is one I find it to be a reductionist argument. I see no one would find any incentive in opposing the wellbeing of humanity and improvement in its welfare.
If, however, the media should espouse a brand of journalism that is floating around as "development journalism," forgive me for my ignorance on its true essence. There is so much ambiguity over what it exactly is supposed to be. In the same way that I cannot distinguish a "developmental dentist" from one who may not be, I am challenged to consider any media to brand one or otherwise.
Certainly, a media product has different components designed to serve specific purposes. In its provision of news and information, it remains true to its ethical values and earn credibility from its consumers. In its being platform, it avails itself for sober, reflective, informed and diverse discourse, despite the hegemonic views its owners or editors may hold. In its editorials, it reflects the views and convictions of the owners, publishers and, through delegation, its editors. If the latter falls in the category of a brand that champions the convictions of developmental state model, there is hardly anything strange about it but reflects a view of a certain segment in society as diverse as Ethiopia.
If the attempt is part of an exercise to mould every platform of voice in cohesive fashion contrary to the realities of the society and turn the media into subservient to a hegemonic message, it is nothing but betrayal of the spirit of the constitution. Society is diverse, so should its media reflect such diversity. Stifling descent in such diverse society in favour of the mainstream thoughts and values can only led to despotism and tyranny of the majority.
I am aware that the sphere of the public media is designated, between 2003 (ENA) and 2008 (EPA), to subscribe to the "development journalism" model, although I still remain a student to learn what that amounts to when reporting the affairs of the public. Its advocates may mean (and I am taking the risk of assumption) to reorient media content "to events that are deemed to have relevance to developing countries; refocus story structures to emphasize process and dialogue than breaking news; and partner in unison with those who are believed to have an agenda for national development."
If I am correct in my understanding of what development journalism is all about, I see it as a prerogative of a government which claims popular mandate to govern to tow the public media to serve its policy ends. No further than that, please!
Nonetheless, an attempt in coercing media outlets which chose to focus on celebrity gossip instead of what the hegemonic view would prefer reported; report less of a process and dialogue in favour of hard and often sensational news; and detest the idea of embedding themselves with any agenda however righteous the cause to society could be is an outright infringement of a constitutional order. All the media outside of the development journalism sphere is required to do is to comply with the laws of the land, and ethical standards they choose to impose on their own. And these leave the media to choose whether to collaborate with authority or criticize it on its term.
Development journalism has a background which is ideologically loaded, regardless of the need to discuss the craft. It is concocted to balance what its advocates criticize as a liberal western media that care little to the public's welfare. It is an intellectual exercise to subdue the media and align it to the hegemonic conviction, thus deprive a platform to those deemed contrary to such conviction. It is an exclusionist view with a desire to determine for the media in a centralized manner what is of value to report and importance to the public. I see that it came from a political establishment whose worldview has evolved further from the ideals of the constitution, and resort to the paternalistic outlook in its relation to the public.
I find solace in holding this view reading Terje S. Skjerdal, an associate professor at Gimlekollen School of Journalism & Communication, Kristiansand, Norway, who was also an adjunct lecturer at Addis Abeba University. He has carried out surveys to determine perception and practice among journalists working in the public media.
Says Skjerdal: "In practical terms, this [development journalism] means focusing on positive development efforts, educating people, and generally supporting national interest. However, this study has shown that it also means neglecting critical stories, avoiding oppositional voices, and hiding information from the public. The latter is not an exception, but belongs to the order of the day in official reporting. Paradoxically, this strategy is both defended and disapproved by the journalists. On the one hand, they justify the negligence of critical reporting by maintaining that such coverage might do more harm than good to the nation. Central to this line of thought is the assumption that the society is not prepared to deal with a high amount of negative stories because a suspected consequence is instability and uncertainty among people. On the other hand, journalists are critical to what they regard as mounting politicization of reporting practices in the Ethiopian state media following the disputed 2005 elections. It has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between journalistic decisions made on professional grounds and those made on political grounds."
A media corps willing to embed itself with the order of the day and faithfully follow its wishes cannot remain true to the public. Its ability to inform without fear or favour greatly diminishes, thus loss of credibility in the eyes of the public. That is no doubt a recipe for loss of its mission at its own peril.
Let me wrap this up quoting one of my favourite American thinkers, James Madison: "A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
I would argue that it is an independent, professional and competent media, with practitioners who are skillful and experienced in navigating the legal and ethical land mines, which could help members of society make their choices based on knowledge and understanding.