By Francis Sowa
This piece examines a profession or a trade that people and institutions believe exercises a lot of power from the global to the local level. The real critical issue is that this profession appears to be “unaccountable and untouchable”. Was this the reason why Timothy Garton Ash of the Reuters Institute called for truth to be spoken to our profession – journalism? I don’t know. But he says “… I believe that journalists should continue to see it as an important part of their mission to ‘speak truth to power’. But when journalism itself has become such a power, it also needs truth spoken to it.” (The Guardian, November 16, 2006).
This is where I believe the notion of self- regulation comes in. Though it is widely and easily seen as a “best practice” for the media adhering to professional and ethical standards, the concept of self-regulation has not come without its own problems, interpretations and enforcements.
Before looking at Self-regulation, it is pertinent to look at the Social Responsibility Theory, which inter alia proposes that the media should be self-regulating within the framework of the law. Practised in the United States of America in the 20th century, the Social Responsibility Theory was developed out of the writings of the Hutchins Commission of Enquiry on Freedom of the Press and the practitioners’ media codes. The theory came up in response to the widespread criticism of the press (especially in the USA) regarding its sensationalism and commercialism particularly, but also for its political imbalance and monopolistic tendencies. It was to quell the nature of the criticism of the press and to examine areas and circumstances under which the (US) press is succeeding or failing. Self-regulation is therefore borne in the womb of the Social Responsibility Theory. The central idea revolves around press freedom and accountability.
An attempt to understand the applicability of the concept to Sierra Leone first requires at least a basic knowledge of self-regulation. The term Self-regulation means different things to different people. “… At one end of the spectrum, the term is used quite narrowly, to refer only to those instances where the government has formally delegated the power to regulate… At the other hand of the spectrum, the term is used when the private sector perceives the need to regulate itself for whatever reason…” ( Irving, 2006). The author supports the view that “Self-regulation takes place when a group (for example, of firms, organisations or individuals) controls membership and behaviour. So self-regulation means the industry or profession rather than the government is doing the regulation. Now, instead of taking over all components of regulation, industry may be involved in only one or two. For example, an industry may be involved at the legislation stage by developing a Code of Practice, while leaving enforcement to the government or the government may establish regulations, but delegate enforcement to the private sector. Sometimes government will mandate that an industry adopt and enforce a code of self-regulation (Ayres & Braithwaite, 1992).
This scenario is applicable to Sierra Leone where the government in 2000 set up the Independent Media Commission (IMC) to regulate the media. The IMC worked with the industry through the Sierra Leone Association of Journalists to develop a Code of Practice (legislation). The IMC ensures that journalists and media institutions adhere to the Code of Practice (Enforcement), and also receives complaints and punishes media institutions violating the Code of Practice (Adjudication). The case of Sierra Leone is so peculiar that government only intervened in setting-up the IMC but had no business in establishing the Code of Practice. But by extension, others will argue that government might influence the composition of the Commission and therefore the Code and its implementation will reflect its interest. However, the IMC has a strong representation of the industry (SLAJ) which has at least five of its members serving as Commissioners on its Board.
Media Self-regulation is premised on the criticisms the media has been receiving from the public. For instance, Former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair in one of his farewell speeches on 12 June 2007 opines that: “ The fear of missing out means today’s media more than ever before, hunts in a pack… it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits… The final consequence of all this is that it is rare today to find balance in the media.”
In fact to make matters worse, Blairsaid in a speech in which he quoted long gone British Prime Minister,Stanley Baldwin, as having said: “Power without responsibility has been the prerogative of the harlot (press) through the ages.”
When such an accusation and indictment comes from two of Britain’s most important and influential figures, it appears that the media ought to regulate itself as the only way out to regain its lost glory, if there is any anyway.
The case is not different in Sierra Leone. The country’s media had also come under serious criticisms for the unprofessionalism it had exhibited over the years. In fact, this is why some people hold the view that government should not expunge what some media practitioners have referred to as “anti-press laws”. Even the current IMC chair is on record as saying that the commission (IMC) is now determined to take serious punitive actions against media organisations and individuals violating its Code of Practice.
But, as I write the IMC still has pending cases in courts as well as some media institutions that had failed to adhere to the rulings of the commission. For example, a close look at the status of the complaints/decisions taken by the IMC in 2009 revealed that thirty-four (34) complaints were received by the Commission. The Commission ordered 16 retractions and apologies and fines. Eleven (11) complied, accounting for 69% compliance rate. One matter was sub-judice and therefore was not pursued, while three (3) matters were sent to the IMC’s legal retainer for the editors’ failure to comply with the commission’s ruling. Four (4) decisions were pending, while two (2) newspapers published retractions even before the IMC had asked them to do so.
From an analysis I have done there was an increase in the number of cases taken to the IMC from 2005 to 2010. This is as a result of the public’s knowledge, recognition and confidence on the IMC’s mandate as being the autonomous body charged with the regulation of the mass media. From the rulings, it is evident that compliance is appreciable. But, there has been a steady decline in the compliance rate from 2007 to 2009. This is not a good indicator because the more the Commission continues to do its best to regulate the media, the better media institutions should be in complying with the IMC’s ruling particularly when most journalists do not trust the way the judiciary handles defamatory matters against them.
Perhaps, this is why the IMC Code of Practice of 2007 has been perceived by many as a “toothless bull dog” in regulating the media. There are glaring examples of journalists who have refused to take the directives and instructions of the IMC which can invoke punitive actions. How can they adhere to self- regulation? At a recent meeting organised by the IMC to discuss elections-related issues, the commission was criticised for failing to effectively regulate the media. While the IMC complained about its limited powers, a senior official of the United Nations argued that the IMC had more powers than it had utilised.
Under the Social Responsibility theory, the media should be free, but self-regulated. This aspect of the theory is one that has been a subject of debate among media scholars, practitioners and even the public. The question that arises is whether the media is ready and prepared to monitor and regulate itself. An answer to this question, according to many media scholars, is for the media to follow agreed codes of ethics and professional conduct. The IMC Media Code of Practice is arguably being trumpeted as a self-regulatory tool for the media in Sierra Leone. The obvious argument that arises is that it is the “Code - IMC Media Code of Practice” that the media should use for self-regulation failing which the “Institution - the IMC” will take punitive actions based on the provisions and punishments in the Code.
In all of this, I wonder whether I have answered the question of this piece; Self-regulation of the Media in Sierra Leone: An Illusion or a Reality? Well, I have made my points. It’s a debate. What’s your take? I look forward to reading your views.
Francis Sowa is a lecturer of Mass Communication at Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone
