In a democratic state and society it is said ‘freedom of speech’ or ‘freedom of expression’ is inalienable right of the citizens of the state and society and in democratic countries this right is usually included in the ‘Fundamental Rights’ clause of the constitution. This freedom has also been included to protect what is called the ‘free media.’ Today free media is also termed as the fourth pillar of democracy and in 1787 Edmund Burke the great British political theorist, philosopher and statesman coined the phrase ‘Fourth Estate’ to define free media or the Press (Print). The other three estates were the Clergy (Church), the Nobility (they fought for the king) and finally the Peasantry. He used the ‘Fourth Estate’ in a parliamentary debate on the opening up of Press Reporting of the House of Commons of Great Britain. Much later in February of 1891 Oscar Wilde, the great English writer and poet writing for ‘Fortnightly Review’ in his article ‘The soul of Man under Socialism’ wrote “In old days men had the rack. Now they have the Press. That is an improvement certainly. But still it is a very bad, and wrong, and demoralizing. Somebody -- was it Burke? — called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time no doubt. But at the present moment it is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three. The Lords Temporal say nothing, The Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of commons has nothing to say and says it. We are dominated by Journalism.”
That was late 19th century and today democratic human society is much more dominated and influenced by the media (journalism). So the responsibility of the media today has grown manifold but unfortunately often a section of the media has failed to fulfill the expectation of the people it address to when it comes to discharging this responsibility. To make things worse this section has also failed to meet the ethical standards; and this has happened across the free world. An electronic media journalist was travelling overseas with the Prime Minister on an official tour. The Prime Minister has a soft corner for this journalist and would share quite a few things with this journalist ‘off the record’ simply meaning this would neither be shared with others nor should it be published in any form. It is like the fiduciary relationship that exists between a client and a lawyer or a patient and a doctor. It is a matter of trust and when this journalist secretly decides to record the ‘off the record’ conversation with the VVIP the fiduciary relationship is breached and the trust broken. The behaviour of such a journalist is a demonstration of irresponsibility of third degree and demonstrates the lack of professionalism. This is one of the many such cases under scrutiny worldwide.
In 2007 Britain’s one of the oldest newspaper ‘News of the World’ got involved with a phone hacking scandal of the politicians and key figures in the government. The British government constituted a judicial public inquiry, known as the Leveson Inquiry, headed by Lord Justice Leveson in 2011 to investigate into the culture, practices and ethics of the British press. A series of public hearings were held throughout 2011 and 2012 and Lord Leveson published the 2000 page findings and recommended for a new, independent, body to replace the existing Press Complaints Commission, which would be recognized by the state through new laws. Britain’s Press Complaints Commission is akin to Bangladesh Press Council. The Leveson report said “the culture, practices and ethics of the press, including contracts between the press and politicians and the press and police; it is to consider the extent to which the current regulatory regime has failed and whether there has been a failure to act upon any previous warnings about media misconduct.” Lord Levison’s proposed independent body be set up and the press should be accountable to it. This body would enjoy the enhanced power than those currently enjoyed by the Press Complaints Commission, that would include exemplary damages for those breaching the norms and ethical standard expected from the press or media. As expected the recommendation was not totally accepted either by the British Parliament or by the media itself.
In Bangladesh, both in the print and electronic media the concept of ‘freedom of media or press or expression’ is often misinterpreted. This is the result of the unbridled growth of the media of both kinds in this country over last two decades which was generous enough to take aboard people without any professional training. A media personnel may have access to many information, revelation of some of which may cause unrest in and damage to the society. It may spread hatred and incite violence. A good case the communal tension and frenzy that suddenly spread in Bangladesh following the after mirth of the demolition of the Babri Mosque in India in 1992. The news was reported in a local newspaper that fueled the fire. It instantly incited hatred against a section of the minority community causing damage to their places of worship and homes. This was an irresponsible act on the part of that newspaper.
Media have very important roles to play for the peace of society and the people, as a large section of them often tend to believe what they see or read. A few year’s back a Dutch cartoonist stirred up quite a flame when he drew cartoons of the Prophet (PBuH) of Islam to defame him and the religion of Islam. This was surely against the principles of freedom of expression or speech. Muslim around the world protested, in some instances the protests turned violent. To make things worse the cartoons were republished in Belgium and France which spread like forest fire was altogether a planned event for a rather unwarranted political purpose. It was an attempt to spread the antagonism which had already become infectious, an attempt to spread anti-Islam hatred. The sponsored hatred was neither discouraged or condemned by the government. The excuse was, of course, protecting the freedom of press.
In an age where freedom is a catch word of a democratic society one cannot advocate to put a leash on the freedom of the media or the freedom of expression. However, one has to realise freedom is not a licence to practice anything and everything or preach hatred that might hurt the sentiments of others or put the life and property of fellow people in danger. When one talks about freedom an acceptable level of accountability is expected.
Thomas Jefferson, the great American statesman, and President (1801-9) writing to his friend Dr. James Currie on June 28, 1786, wrote “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” Both liberty of the people and the freedom of the press have to be protected but those who ask for it must have the willingness to use it responsibly and to be accountable to those from whom they derive them, i.e., the people and the state. Free media is the fourth pillar of democracy. Let its sanctity be protected by everyone who practices and use it. If it crumbles, the entire system of democracy will collapse.
[Acknowledgment: Dr Masih-ul Alam. Manchester, UK]
The writer is a former Vice Chancellor, University of Chittagong. - See more at: http://www.daily-sun.com/details_yes_13-10-2013_The-fourth-pillar_644_5_39_1_16.html#sthash.PMPdnyzJ.dpuf