National 4 (Spotlight Weekly)

‘Journalism Is Not About Maintaining The Status Quo’

— JANE ELIZABETH KIRTLEY

JANE ELIZABETH KIRTLEY, Silha Professor of Media Ethics and Law, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, was recently in the capital. During her long experience in the area of press freedom, she has published many articles and research work on various facets of the media. The prominent scholar of law spoke to KESHAB POUDEL on various media issues. Excerpts:

How do you see the role of the media in the democratization process of countries like Nepal?

The role of the media is absolutely critical. I think that it is impossible for a democratic society to survive without a free press. It is not the role of the press to be checking the government, but it is the role of the media to inform the public so they can actively participate in democracy.

Our constitution and legal system guarantee freedom of the press and freedom of expression. Is it easy to exercise freedom of the press with accepting the responsibilities?

One of the things about freedom of the press is that journalists think of it often as the right to write whatever they want. But that is only a part of what is a free press is all about. The other part is to write and get access to government information. Constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press are critical. But they do not really mean anything unless you also have the right to government information.

In a country like ours, where the media often describe events based on assumptions, how important is it to set ethical standards?

I think this is a very difficult thing to define. I have been teaching it for years and it seems to me that there is only one ethical principle that all journalists can agree upon. That is telling the truth. You must write the truth. That does not mean we haven't sometimes made mistakes, but in good faith, we must always strive to tell the truth. After that, it is matter of debate what ethics are.

Doesn't sensationalization go against the ethics of journalism?

One person's sensational story is another's lead story. I think it is not uncommon for government officials and intellectuals to blame the news media for the fact that the public is often interested in topics they don't think is particularly good or something that may be embarrassing. I think journalists should always try to keep the public interest in mind and not cause harm to individuals and institutions unless there is a good reason to do so. But journalism is not about maintaining the status quo. It's about the telling public what is wrong with the system. And often, that means reporting information some people would not like to be in the public eye. That is highest form of journalism. It is very important for journalists not to lose that role and not to elaborate or intimidate directly or indirectly on the basis of their personal wish.

We have been talking about objective reporting. How do you define it?

I actually don't buy into this idea of objective journalism. That makes me a very unusual American journalist and media lawyer, because I don't think anybody can be objective. I don't think objectivity is any standard. I think the standard is balance, fairness and accuracy. These are the goals. We do our best to be balanced in providing context for the stories we report. But I think that suggestion that anyone can put aside personal beliefs and prejudices in approaching a story is false. In editorial matters, journalists and editors shift through information and make judgements about what is important and what is not. That is a very subjective exercise. So I have never believed this idea that objectivity is the standard.

How often do the media indulge in legal tangles?

Interestingly, since 1964 the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized very broad protection for the press from libel suits. The courts have broadly refused to entertain libel suits brought by public figures and public officials. The president of the United States and others cannot sue. Who those sue are private individuals or people they are not in the public eye. Privacy is another issue. In our country, we have recognized the right to privacy, which goes back about 112 years. The Supreme Court has not figured out what the constitutional protection is, but as a general rule we say that information that is highly sensitive and very intimate probably will be protected unless it is newsworthy. Which means the revelation is in the public interest. For example, a public figure finds himself in a very embarrassing situation when some revelation made about his private life, including extra-marital affair or some corrupt activities. But the public has the right to know the life of public officials.

You have met many people from various media organizations in Nepal. What impression did you have about the state of journalism in the country?

Frankly speaking, I am very confused about the state of journalism in Nepal. I have spoken with many people, but I have very different versions about what the real situation is. What I think is, it is pretty clear that the state of emergency has given some journalists a great deal of concern about what is appropriate for them or what is appropriate for the public. I find journalists are very frustrated at not being able to cover the military operations in the western part of the country. My experience is that militaries around the world impose similar kinds of restrictions on the media. If the military disseminated information regarding their operations against the terrorist, it would help them to make opinion against the terrorists. The goal to eliminate terror cannot be possible without informing the public about the menace. We also have such disputes in the United States about dissemination of information. It is very important for the military to have public support for their operations. So the military and the media have to sit together to find out some sort of understanding on effective coverage. It is very important for the military to realize that public support is very important for their operation. In a free society, people can make up their mind after knowing what is happening. If journalists come out with credible stories, it will have a greater effect than the Defense Ministry's statements.

How important is it to disseminate the court's activities to the public?

In the United State, the judges complain that journalists do not report the court accurately. I am a lawyer so I know that the court proceedings are really difficult to understand. I don't know the situation in Nepal, but in the United States, some courts are very open and some are very closed in terms of information dissemination.

How easy is it to be a journalist?

It is not an easy profession, as it requires a very careful hand to handle information. So I always stress the need for training. A journalist needs everything from basic newsgathering principles to specialized training. I always say that there is no excuse for inaccuracy. There should be absolutely zero tolerance for mistakes. Just in a few days, I have been here seen many press coverage but I have seen my title and name wrong. I have been given the responsibility I don't have. I can't say I was misquoted but journalists do not know the basic stuff like my correct name and title. So I have certain sympathy to those who say Nepalese journalists are careless in getting that kind of accuracy. We will never underestimate the intelligence of readers. The readers know how to spell the words and they know who the people are. The readers know the locations. You cannot be wrong. You are undermining your credibility. Even if the rest of your story is correct, they will remember that you will not write the right name and town. I think the journalists need to dedicate themselves to the principles as they are striving for accuracy and they are collaborating.

You have traveled throughout the world. How do you see the evolutionary process of freedom of press?

After the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet empire, I had thought that we were at the crossroads of great new era of press freedom. I do believe that a great start has been made. I don't want to suggest that is not the case. I often think that the Internet means much greater freedom of expression. Even the most oppressive regimes in the world have come to realize that we cannot control the Internet. These new forms of communication mean that the people all over the world have access to information from the all over the world. These are exciting time for journalism. On the other hand, as every new technology comes, every government attempts to restrict the technology. Even the government feels restriction, but they don't know how to control it. The situation is getting worse after September 11. We are not talking about the threat between the United States and Soviet Union but we are talking about the isolated pocket of terrorism and rivalries like India and Pakistan, Middle East. There are many who believe that controlling the media is one way of increasing security. In some places, we see more restrictions on the press in the name of security.

What is the role of the judiciary in case of the executive's intervention in press freedom?

In any system that has constitutional law, the role of independent judiciary is key. The constitution is not operative just because the parliament is there to pass the bill. There is a need for a court to implement it. The court can play a very important role to uphold the independence of the press, but the question is, how independent are the judges? Whether the judges are appointed or nominated, they need to act independently and not have any party affiliation. Everyone is entitled to vote but that does not mean that they can act on their personal beliefs. If they decide in accordance with the rule of law and the constitution, then the press is free from the intervention of the state. It is often a challenge to uphold the right of the press and freedom of expression.

In your country, does a political worker demand the privileges of the press?

No. A journalist has to professionally prove that he is only a journalist before getting accreditation, as the journalist is given certain privileges that others do not enjoy. The authorities are very much concerned about the misuse of journalistic privileges..