INEFFICIENCIES in and a lack of understanding of the self-regulation mechanism threaten Namibia’s standing as a media freedom stalwart and the very existence of the free, pluralistic and independent local press.
Media freedom is not just limited to the ability to print or broadcast just about anything, but also the ethical responsibility and professional standards that comes with a free press.
Lately, it is becoming apparent that the danger posed to the media in Namibia is not coming from the political or business elite, but from the media itself.
This has led to the political and business elites gaining an amplified voice in trying to discredit media houses and journalists.
Unfortunately, it’s not difficult to do so.
Many, of course with ulterior motives than the genuine concern for the nation as they would like to sell. Many of those, directly or indirectly, have been subject of news headlines, with articles primarily focusing on allegations of corruption, maladministration and corporate malfeasance. This means a media civil war only serves the interests of those who do not want the media to fulfill its watchdog role rigorously.
This is where a strong, credible and professional self-regulation mechanism is crucial. But how should this mechanism work? Two strong schools of thought have emerged on what is possibly the best way to regulate the media in a democracy like Namibia.
The main reason why the media settled on self-regulation in 2009 was to afford aggrieved readers an opportunity to have their complaints heard faster and cheaper than the courts. There are those who believe that the Editors’ Forum of Namibia, that essentially harbours the regulation mechanism, through the Media Ombudsman, needs to be revamped and repurposed to lead the media and journalism out of the current decline and polarisation and revive self-regulation.
Unless the media want government regulation.
There is also a second approach, which is to ensure the media is its own self-regulation mechanism, which allows the media houses or individual journalists to robustly call each other out when they overstep or behave in a manner contradicting media and journalistic ethical standards.
The state of formalised media and journalism in Namibia has manifested itself in the current impasse between The Namibian and Kalahari Reporters. Recently, a social media based publication, Kalahari Reporters ran a second installment of what it called an exposé of what it implies as the rot at the country’s biggest newspaper, The Namibian.
The exposé targeted The Namibian’s top brass and accused them of a multitude of alleged improprieties ranging from fraud, criminal activities, nepotism, and unfair labour practices.
Editor and managing director Tangeni Amupadhi and his deputy, Shinovene Immanuel, are the main targets of the publication.
Senior journalist Confidence Musariri, who is head of commercial services at the Namibian Press Agency (Nampa) is believed to be behind the Kalahari Reporters’ exposé.
Whispers in the media space claim Musariri’s publications are motivated by vengeance after The Namibian wrote about his short lived secondment as managing editor of government-owned daily, New Era after The Issue’s Johnathan Beukes was pushed out at the paper in October last year.
Musariri is allegedly unhappy as The Namibia painted him as a tool to facilitate the government’s crackdown on media freedom.
Although it is not unusual or wrong for media or journalists to take each other on, it has somehow been frowned upon and editors choosing an approach of safeguarding media freedom at all costs, while turning a blind eye when one of their own is crossing ethical and professional lines. They perhaps believed that calling each other out will have a chilling effect on journalism, especially in volatile environments for journalism such as Namibia.
Not reporting on each other has various arguments in favour, including that competitors should not try to gain competitive advantages over each other through negative reporting, that exposing each other tarnish the image of the entire media, many local media competitors are entangled in business and, therefore, would be counterproductive to report on the scandals of a business partner and that we all live in glass houses.
Others would argue that the business of the media is to hold power to account and that it is not in the interest of the public to hide news about a powerful institution.
The key question that needs to be answered is what does reporting on each other mean for journalism and media freedom in Namibia and how do these developments and the polarisation of the media space impact journalism in the country?
It is helpful to define what the role of the media and journalism is in a democratic space like Namibia. Media scholars have built consensus that the role of the media and journalism in a democracy, entails that the media has greater responsibility outside of the inform, educate and entertain function widely talked about.
They explain that the media and journalism in a democracy play the role of a vigilant informer who monitors society for the good, the bad and raise flags for potential future disasters; Acts as an information sharing facilitator within society and ensure that even the downtrodden have a voice; Being radical and face power–, be it economic or political, headon when its actions are not in the public interest and to collaborate with both government or private sector when such collaboration is serving the public interest.
Lately, the public discourse has focused on whether the local media diligently fulfill their outlined mandate as business and government overreach in newsroom operations have been exposed by the way Anna Nikodemus was suspended for airing her views on international TV and Jemima Beukes was fired after alleged interference by NIPDB.
There is no institution that ensures media institutions and owners work in the public interest, abide by some kind of rulebook, don’t abuse their influence and financial muscle or, worse, fold to the whims of every business or government interest at the expense of the public.
The public has been questioning the media’s commitment to the public’s interest.
The juniorisation of the newsroom, largely meant interns bring you the news and there isn’t much judgement around the public interest in framing stories and coverage.
Newspapers are filled with superficial stories about government events that the public watched live on Facebook, yesterday. The crisis of quality has escalated to a crisis of credibility.
The standoff between Musariri vs Amupadhi or Kalahari Reporters vs The Namibian, should be looked at from different vantage points. Starting with Namibia having been a champion for a free, independent, pluralistic and diverse press as inscribed in the Windhoek Declaration.
This means that The Namibian should respect Musariri’s right to publish and practice his journalism outside the parameters prescribed by the mainstream media.
The self-regulation mechanism doesn’t register or provide accreditation for journalists or media houses and doesn’t have the right to deregister them when they bring the profession into disrepute.
That mechanism also doesn’t serve as a complaints board for editors who get hounded out of their jobs because they don’t succumb to external pressures.
Anyone can call themselves a journalist or editor of a media house, even when that media house only exists on Mark Zuckerberg’s servers.
The openness and accessibility of the media serve the public well when genuine activists need a soap box to stand on. The advent of misinformation on an industrial scale must, however, make us think about who should be recognised as a journalist and who could be considered a fit and proper media owner.
The many labour disputes involving local media houses is enough evidence that some level of regulation is needed.
The local self-regulation mechanism can’t do it because it only judges complaints about content. It also has no bite because it’s a voluntary opt-in system where some operators simply don’t become members or opt out. Worse, those who are members sometimes ignore rulings, delay apology publications or don’t afford the apology the same prominence as the error.
As a journalist, Musariri has the responsibility to raise flags and expose any hint of criminal wrongdoing, corruption, maladministration, abuse of power and poor labour relations happening at the country’s largest newspaper.
In fact, could ignoring the perceived wrongdoings by important public institutions like fellow media houses be considered self-censorship?
This is because it will be hypocritical of the Namibian press to expose and write about these misadventures at governmental and private institutions, yet perpetuating the same alleged crimes.
The reverse is also true that The Namibian, like Kalahari Reporters, has the responsibility to expose corruption or any wrongdoing about anyone including the president of the country. The Namibian is also well within its rights to receive or canvas for additional funding outside its commercial operations to ensure it is carrying out its mandate of being a watchdog. This is of course subject to the fact that the money is not obtained in a criminal manner or ends up supporting criminality.
The same also applies to Kalahari Reporters whose detractors would claim is being subsidised by taxpayers’ money because Musariri is a full time employee of Nampa, the government-funded press agency.
The questions about the alleged illegal labour practices, corruption and violations of immigration laws, can all be investigated by the relevant authorities.
However, what cannot be investigated and conclusively confirmed are the allegations of unethical behaviour, malicious publication levelled against the two publications and their principals.
This is because the self-regulation mechanisms in place do not look at things like whether a media house is operating outside the ethical principles guiding the practice of journalism in the country and internationally. The Media Ombudsman’s responsibility is to ensure the public is protected from malicious publication. But this is done on a story to story basis and also only when a member of the public lays a complaint.
Similarly, the courts require an aggrieved person to sue a specific publication and journalist for defamation of character.
The EFN has been criticised for not maintaining a credible and well resourced self-regulation mechanism, which would enable it to arrest the slide of ethical and professional standards and deeper government and business influence over newsrooms. The state of affairs makes it ripe for reform.
Critics of vesting the self regulation powers in the hands of a single body, believe that with the wrong people at the helm the EFN could be weaponised to target the radical and independent press, which could lead to self censorship.
They argue for a self-regulation mechanism which is in the hands of the media and journalists. This means encouraging the media to actively criticise its own for wrong doing. This ensures that no individual media house or journalist is beyond reproach. This kind of environment will ensure that media houses will also up their game especially when knowing their colleagues will call them out for their transgressions.
However, what is clear is that media and journalism in Namibia require urgent revival.
