Dear Friends,
I am honoured to have been asked by my colleagues to say a few words at the opening of our Third Global Inter-media Dialogue. It is an opportunity to reflect on work we have done and, more importantly, on work we have yet to do.
I thank the Governments of Indonesia and Norway for their initiative and commitment to this process. It has been a challenging task and an inspiring one.
Those of us privileged to have taken part have been enriched. We have debated and argued; we have learnt a great deal through sound, practical work; and we have produced some good results.
It has also been an immensely entertaining and enlivening cultural experience, with even a little song and dance thrown in!
We began in the shadows of the cartoon crisis when we were reminded that unrestrained individual freedom of expression is not without consequences.
We have seen the importance of journalism in covering inter-cultural conflict, whether in Central and South Asia, in the Middle East, in the heartland of Africa, or on the tension-filled fringes of Europe. We have found no corner of the globe untouched by the scourge of misunderstanding, ignorance and prejudice.
Some of these conflicts are current, some are within living memory, and others are more distant. In trying to understand the roots of conflict journalists more than others need to heed the words of William Faulkner who warns us that the past is not history, “it is not even the past.”
Through our dialogue we have considered how media can be used to promote and disseminate falsehood, deceit and speculation, provoking misunderstanding, hatred and violence. And we have explored the differences between free expression and free media.
The manipulation of public opinion by media-savvy extremists and the poisoning of public discourse happen because individuals and groups that express themselves freely do not aim at truth. Their actions reveal how freedom of expression need not be truth-respecting and may often be indifferent to standards of communication.
What makes journalism and media institutions different is that they aim at truth. We require accuracy and balanced reporting. We see the circulation and promotion of false claims as deceptive handling of evidence.
My compatriot the philosopher Onora O’Neill four years ago famously challenged Western media to rethink attitudes to freedom of the press as an antidote to unrestrained freedom of expression which, she rightly points out, is “self-regarding.” Free expression, she said, can only support the discovery of truth when it is embedded in discussion in which differing opinions are not only expressed, but are tested in open debate.
Journalism, however, is “other regarding.” It is guided by core ideals of mission – truth-telling, independence, public interest and a responsible attitude to the impact of publication and dissemination of our words and images. To work effectively it has to be embedded in communication which promotes discussion and democratic exchange.
Today free expression, press freedom and truth seeking are natural allies, particularly when they face common enemies – such as states that impose censorship or use propaganda to shape the public information space. Wherever there is an information vacuum it must be filled. All voices – whether in Tibet, or in Zimbabwe, or Russia – have the right to be heard.
But it is not enough for us to have the right to express our opinions. We must also have access to quality information that provides context, analysis, and commentary about the complex world in which we live.
That is why, at a time when powerful institutions, political and corporate, dominate and distort communication and when political and religious extremism pollute the agenda for public debate, we must take up the challenge to think again about the role of freedom of the media and independent journalism, taking also into account technological and commercial realities.
Today the work of journalists is carried out in precarious, often dangerous, conditions. More journalists are killed, more media are targeted, more threats abound.
But these threats do not just come from the outside. As this conference will reveal the scope for quality journalism has been dramatically curtailed in recent years, even in countries where free speech is a cornerstone of democracy, as a result of changing market conditions and deep cuts in editorial budgets.
It is not enough to leave journalism to the traditional market, which paralysed by the impact of the Internet, is managing decline by resorting to short-term, low quality and populist solutions and in the process undermining media quality and damaging public confidence.
And the Internet itself, which has given free expression its greatest boost in history, is no guarantor of easy access to reliable and quality information.
Nor can we rely upon institutions of government or the state which inevitably have a tendency to politicise or intrumentalise information to suit their own interests.
I was reminded of this a few days ago when I led a mission of journalists’ leaders to Beijing. The preparation of the Olympic Games has until a few weeks ago been a masterpiece of political choreography and public relations, beginning with the solemn promise of the government of China to the International Olympic Committee to open its doors to the free exercise of journalism.
This was a brave promise because freedom of the press in China, where some 30 journalists and writers are in prison, is one game the government plays on its own uncompromising terms. Although article 35 of the Chinese Constitution states that citizens enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of the press, it’s a freedom that exists at best in twilight conditions.
The optimism generated by some limited steps – the release of Hong Kong Journalist Ching Cheong and the introduction of guidelines giving foreign media the right to interview local people – has been all but extinguished by the ferocious Chinese response to what it claims is hostile Western media coverage of protests in Tibet and the country’s human rights record .
Last month, out of the glare of Tibet-inspired publicity, a Beijing court sentenced human rights activist Hu Jia to three and a half years’ jail because he talked to foreign media and published articles criticising China over human rights on a website based in the United States. A few days ago foreign journalists based in China told me how they have been targeted and abused on Chinese web-sites in a wave of anti-foreigner hostility over recent events.
On their side China’s leaders are profoundly cynical about Western attachment to human rights. They know well how the rush to gain access to Chinese markets has led to some spectacular media betrayals. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation decision to ban BBC News from Asian satellite channels and the co-operation of Internet giant Yahoo! in providing evidence that helped send journalist Shi Tao to jail for ten years for sending information abroad tell their own story.
In this landscape of information overload and uncertainty, when global media and supranational organisations are weakening the grip of the nation state, when people are overwhelmed by a surfeit of information, when politics is scarred by extremes and corruption, when many in the media business have lost all sense of mission, we do indeed have to rethink our attitudes on how media and journalism contribute to democratic life.
For democracy to work it is not enough that media and journalists are free to express views, we also have to inform citizens. We need to communicate the whole picture. We need to analyse and set information in context. We have to make information intelligible and reliable so that people can assess, judge for themselves and make informed decisions.
In short, through professional journalism we must commit ourselves to an ethic of communication to help people better understand the complexities of the world around them. That is the key to making intercultural dialogue a meaningful process and not mere public relations for well-meaning notions of “getting along better.”
It cannot be right that quality of information declines as we expand the horizons of free expression. But that will happen unless we make a conscious effort to protect and nourish the values and public good that flows from committed, ethical journalism.
It is with this in mind that this week we launch the Ethical Journalism Initiative here in Bali.
This is a worldwide campaign calling on media people everywhere to support, strengthen and renew our commitment to the values of truth-telling, independence and professionalism with responsibility.
This is a wake-up call to everyone in the news and media business that we must urgently reclaim our ethical traditions and rekindle faith in some old-fashioned virtues – that standing up for principle through reputable journalism is how rights are protected; that informed and committed reporters able to circulate the worries, fears and inquiries of people who have no institutional voice make a difference to democracy.
When journalism is inaccurate, when it marginalises important issues or denies access to different voices and when it is manipulated to serve narrow interests it damages democracy.
The modern media obsession with celebrity, scandal and marketable sensation is not without consequences. It can spread apathy and mistrust, fostering cynicism and discouraging involvement.
How in this environment do we engender public confidence and understanding?
I am conscious of the fact that many of us within media and journalism do not find these discussions easy. Many of our organisations, mine included, are often reluctant to act because of a deep-seated fear that changing current notions of press freedom and how we practice journalism will lead us back to censorship and excessive secrecy.
But the fact is that media in many corners of the world have lost their way and as a result journalism has become delinked from values of public good regarding its own self conduct. If journalism is to function effectively it must open itself to scrutiny and challenge.
Without renewal and a new debate we will surely see the weakening of public culture and civility and fresh damage to democracy and, in the process, to freedom of expression itself. Indeed, recent actions at the Human Rights Council of the United Nations which expand the capacity for restraint of free expression in the name of religious freedom suggest that this is indeed happening.
Dear friends,
Today we may have freedom of expression, but not enough of the journalism that is bold and challenging and done well with style, drama and impact. When the words flow and the images appear we should be inspired by the contribution they make to our quality of democracy.
Journalism is an unending project full of contradictions and ethical dilemmas but it provides the oxygen of cultural understanding. But are we in media up to the challenge of this project?
There are reasons to be optimistic. In Europe, journalists, editors, publishers, broadcasters from the public and private sectors, have been discussing a joint declaration on media freedom. Believe me this is a rare event – after almost 40 years in the profession I have never seen anything like it.
The International Federation of Journalists is engaged in a number of similar initiatives – in Pakistan, India, and the Middle East. There is a shift in thinking, I believe, that offers new opportunities. Many of you in this room will have other positive stories to tell.
So what are our priorities? I see three immediately
First, to make journalism safe and to end attacks on media who speak with an independent mind about and on behalf of all communities;
Second, to encourage and campaign for a fresh start for journalism based upon mission, ethical traditions and the yearning of people for a more truthful account of their affairs;
Third, to reinvigorate our structures for dialogue between citizens, government and media, raising awareness of how free of expression, strengthened by the exercise of independent journalism, contributes to better understanding between communities.
There is much talk these days of intercultural dialogue and a sense in some corners that the term is devalued. It is not enough for us to meet, eat and drink and dance together. We have to do more than indulge in self-congratulation and back slapping.
That is why our work in Bali does not end this week, rather it begins anew. We don’t have all the answers, just more questions. But that is how it should be.
Thank you.
Aidan White is the General Secretary of the International Federation of Journalists