Not to gag the Media

THE initiative taken by the government to amend Press Council Act, 1974 is to tighten its grip to establish more control over the press by inclusion of penal provision for newspaper for publishing false, instigating, slanderous and anti state reports. Can governmental control prejudice press freedoms? Yes, undue legal restrictions are created or misused with the clear intention of eliminating independent reporting and opinion might be oppressive for the press.

The main task of our press council is to deal with complaints about the work of the media, through collective decision-making. A long time has elapsed as our Act is enacted in 1974. There has been sea change in functioning by media. Therefore, it  has been  felt  by  government , social  activists  and  others that the Act requires suitable amendments for incorporating  provisions to achieve more  effective  regulation  of  the  press  in  Bangladesh  without  interfering  with  the desired  freedom  of  the  press.

In present world, while promoting the freedom of expression many countries are moving forward to self-regulation. Self-regulation is not censorship and not even self-censorship. It is about establishing minimum principles on ethics, accuracy, personal rights and so on, while fully preserving editorial freedom on what to report and what opinions to express. Self regulation ensuring freedom of expression means, in the words of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), “The right to shock, disturbs, and offends”. The media have a strong interest in making that freedom not only tolerable but also enjoyable.

In UK, the print media is essentially self-regulating. There is no statutory Press Council, no statutory complaints body and no requirement that journalists be registered or belong to any particular association. There is, however, a body established by newspaper bodies themselves, the Press Complaints Commission. So, making the press council as a self regulatory body rather than statutory one will be more responsible.

Most self-regulatory bodies impose a deadline within which complaints must be lodged. Complaints can be investigated most effectively while circumstances remain fresh in the minds of those involved and while the subject matter of the article remains relevant. Supporting evidence such as reporters' notes is less likely to be available when it relates to something that happened a long time before a complaint is lodged. Furthermore, remedies for instance apologies, corrections or critical adjudications, are more meaningful when they appear promptly. So, the duration of filing complaint should be specific.

The proposed amendment suggests financial punishment up to 10 lakh. There is evidence that financial penalties are not an effective punishment for newspapers because the increased sales from an intrusive story can outweigh the subsequent fine. Moreover, the impact of fines will vary widely and unfairly, depending on the wealth of the newspaper involved. So, preventing the flow of information from the media to the public offends against the general principle of press freedom.

The current  Press  Council  has  been  vested  with  the authority  to  draw  up  the  methodology  of  its  inquiry  and  for  adjudicating  the complaint cases by framing rules and regulation within the ambit of the Act but Press Council of Bangladesh is silent about it. So, the regulation should be enacted quickly.  

In Denmark, Press Council is established pursuant to the Danish Media Liability Act of 1 January 1992, to deal with complaints about the Danish mass media. The Press Council cannot impose a sentence on the mass media or assure the complainant financial compensation. In cases concerning sound press ethics the Press Council can express its criticism. In cases about reply the Council may direct the editor of the mass media in question to publish a reply. In both types of cases the Council may direct the editor to publish the decision of the Council to an extent specified by the Council.

Our existing provision denotes that the Council has the power to direct a newspaper to publish the particulars of its inquiry/or adjudication. If  the  publication  fails  to abide  by  the  directions  given  by  the  Council,  the statute is  absent  on  the  mechanism to  enforce  such  direction.  So, only in that case,  there  should  be  explicit  provision  for  publishing  the  adjudication  in  the newspaper  failing  which  suitable  penal  measures  like  stopping  of  giving advertisements  by  government  or  public  sector  undertakings  for  a  specified period,  withholding  of  accreditation  or  deregistering  the  paper  for  a  specified period  may  be  imposed  on  the  erring  newspaper  according  to  gravity  of malpractice only when such steps appear unavoidable.

In South Africa, the adjudicating structures shall consist of The South African Press Ombudsman (“SAPOM”) and, The South African Press Appeals Panel (“SAPAP”). The complaint shall be made to the Ombudsman. If the complaint is not settled, any one of the parties may apply to the South African Press Appeal Panels (SAPAP). SAPAP may make caution or reprimand a respondent, direct that a correction, retraction or explanation and, where appropriate, an apology. So, the thought of press ombudsman can be included.

I may, conclude by stating that no regulatory body is expected to be full proof.  Moreover,  with  lapse  of  time  and  in  fast  changing  media  scenario, adaptation  to  cope  with  changes  is  imperative.  It  will  therefore,  be  judicious  to interact with regulatory bodies of media operating at different parts of the world addressing  different  ground  realities  in  the  respective  area  of  operation  and  to adopt  the  model  best  suited in  Bangladesh.  

The writer has completed LL.M. from University of Dhaka.