Press for Freedom

editorial:

03 May was the International Day for Press Freedom. It is a day when the fourth estate in most parts of the world, forever reporting on others, indulges in some vanity. But the day is much more than just an exercise in narcissism. It is more about remembering and recording the continuing struggle of those in the media to keep people informed. The fact that in every continent, journalists, editors and publishers are murdered, assaulted, detained and harassed is proof that freedom of speech exacts a high cost. World Press Freedom Day exists to recognise the sacrifices made in the struggle for freedom of the press and to put pressure on the numerous countries that continue to deny their citizens this basic human right. The current figures for suppression of free voice are telling: Over the last decade, more than 500 journalists lost their lives in the pursuit of their profession. Sixty killings were reported worldwide in 2010 alone. These figures do not include journalists who died in harness, covering a beat that could prove fatal not just because they are journalists, but because they were there. Publications continue to be censored, fined, suspended and closed down all over the world for what they choose to report and yet free voice exists - that itself is reason for celebration. Freedom of speech is a tricky issue and perhaps this is the right time to debate it. While it is easy to guarantee freedom of speech, since only censorship can deny it, it takes much more resolve to tolerate and appreciate it. Given the democracy we live in, freedom to report cannot be denied, it is the reaction to free voice which can leave a bad aftertaste. Threats and attacks are the physical reactions and economic constraints the more subtle form of clamping free voice and while these are deplorable, little can be done to contain them unless the society matures some more. As journalists, such pressures, not always from the outside, have to be accepted as unpleasant accompaniments which come with the territory.

The day is also not only about breaking down barriers keeping press freedom out, but also about deliberating professional ethics. Understandably, the media in our country, as coloured by the scams it has been reporting on of late, has given this day a go by, in fear perhaps that its freedom be held to account. Just as the media’s right to report cannot be curtailed, reactions to what it reports on cannot be denied either. All that remains to be worked out is the limit within which such reactions should be vented. As the society grows more tolerant [not inured] of its image that the Press reflects, this will automatically tone down to rabid reactions and till then the Press will have to run the proverbial gauntlet in its attempt to remain free. Since the world we live in spans various shades of grey, reporting in black and white will have its limitations and there will always be those with a different recollection of what newspapers report. These differing voices are not necessarily wrong and if the people’s right to information is to be served, even these voices have a right to opinion and space. Operating in a small state like Sikkim has its own benefits and pitfalls. Benefits translate in the easy accessibility to those with information and the pitfalls result from the nearness of toes that invariably get trampled upon. Each organisation finds its own level and operates within it and each is committed to play its role in disbursing information as best as it can. No one denies the media its right to bias so long as it clearly demarcates comment, conjecture and fact. While these three components of what constitutes a newspaper are expected in its pages, it is, however, unethical to allow them to overlap. So long as these are segregated, every newspaper has the right to air them as do people to oppose the same. At the end of the day, it needs to be accepted that pressures keep journalists sharp and their copy tight. It is in the absence of such pressures that newspapers lose accountability and few things can be more dangerous than a Press that misleads or an audience that does not demand better professional standards.