Saturday, July 21, 2012

Letter: Is there a need for checks on media freedom

The media collectively is a powerhouse in modern society, even moreso in underdeveloped or developing societies such as ours. Its power derives from its ability to shape and change public (or partisan) opinion, since populations at large routinely rely on media-houses for guidance on a broad-spectrum (or narrow-minded) matters.

However, there is a danger inherent in all power: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Like a gun in the wrongs hands, then, unrestricted media can be used to inflict pain on the innocent rather than the guilty.

Our Constitution expressly gives the press (media) freedom to pursue its interests (agenda). The media is an industry, in a sense therefore, no other industry is accorded such exclusivity.

Noblesse oblige (with privilege comes responsibility). Consequently, the media must demonstrate it cherishes such privilege by adopting and strictly following standards which would make it a promoter of healthy motivation and prevent it becoming a weapon of mass destruction.

If the media pursues the former objective, it would readily relay the facts, thus easily whip the nation into shape...if it chooses the alternative path, it would routinely rewrite reality, thus only whip up a frenzy. And frenzies, we know, have no rhyme or reason.

Having said all that, how may modern society demand or ensure the media conducts itself in a way that befits its role and benefits society each and every day? The only authority with such authority is the Parliament: as the Parliament is where laws are made for the good governance of all.

Perhaps the time has come to legislate that no vested-interest group may own a media house, or that there be some parliamentary oversight committee for the purpose?

In addition to the foregoing reasons, I throw out the suggestion especially given that, of late, shady dealings have been disclosed re: CL Financial and Hindu Credit Union; and that, already, the people directly keep Parliament in check via elections every five years.

Constitutionally, the Attorney General is the guardian of the wider public interest. Perhaps he may find the above worthy of consideration.

Semper Veritas, (George Augustus-Clarke, Valsayn North, Trinidad.)

No comments:

Jai & Sero

Jai & Sero

Our family at home in Toronto 2008

Our family at home in Toronto 2008
Amit, Heather, Fuzz, Aj, Jiv, Shiva, Rampa, Sero, Jai