media accreditation
Fri, 03 Sep 2010 21:27:18 -0400
All reporters and photographers please contact Christina Atallah no later than September 2 at 5 p.m. to request media accreditation for the 2010 CAN-AM Shootout. Send your full name, company name, phone number and email address. You will be contacted by email with a confirmation if your request has been approved.
Contact: Christina Atallah, Sports Information Officer, Carleton University
Phone: 613-520-2600 x1917 (office)
Fax: 613-520-4466
Email: christina_atallah@carleton.ca
Habib began by highlighting that the University was hosting this gathering because of the importance placed on establishing a university that is engaged with society. “One way to do this is to ensure that we create platforms to deliberate issues for the society.”
Over the past few weeks, the Protection of Information Bill has been an important topic that has caused much controversy and has seen many getting involved and expressing concerns, said Habib, who added that the debate has sparked a number of events where many government figures are engaging with the issue, and one where representatives from foreign countries have expressed concern, making this “an opportunity to bring together the role players.”
AVUSA’s Mondli Makhanya opened the debate by stating that the level of press freedom has been a great source of pride for the country since the onset of democracy, and that this freedom of press extends to more than the press as it enables an entire society to be free. While many countries only achieve this after centuries, South Africa has done so in a short period of time, “something we should entrench.” Makhanya also advised that South Africans should push to be ‘more open’, as this is a reflection of prosperous societies.
“We shouldn’t want to lose this status… or be a country that limits freedoms such as the freedom of the media and freedom of expression,” he said.
“When media speaks out in defence of a free media, we’re not talking about our jobs but about the society we live in. Our jobs are to inform accurately; to let our society be open and robust; be open to debate; and help it define itself. We want to tell our stories freely and be a balanced and accurate press,” he stated.
Makhanya highlighted the ‘unnecessary acrimony’ and ‘bitter debate’, which has seen much said but ‘people talking past each other’. “We’ve moved from one extreme to another, where, as a result, we now debate our very democracy.”
Makhanya said that journalists; the media; and civil society has been accused of reacting hysterically to the recent Protection of Information Bill, despite its perception as “the most draconian piece of legislation we’ve encountered.”
“We, as the media, believe the government has rights to handle secrets for the security of a society, but this has to be done within a transparent system of classifying documents and a classification regime that is predictable.” The current Bill before parliament, he said, enables the classification of ‘virtually everything’ by bureaucrats at local and municipal levels; at parastatals; and at senior levels of government, without giving reasons.
He said this is ‘eerie’, as organisations such as COSATU have criticised the Bill due to fears that the increased power of parastatal executives may mean they could be criminalised for speaking about general issues with trade union members. The broadness is a problem, Makhanya added, mentioning the problem of the definition of ‘national interest’, which needs much clarification in order to take into account the public interest. “The document turns us into a secretive society where anyone can hide corrupt; wrong; or incompetent things,” and because of this, “Our society should err on the side of openness.”
He commented that the opposition to the Bill was not because the media does not want to be accountable or regulated - “we’re not above the law,” he said, but rather because the media believes that the current system of the Press Ombudsman and the Press Council is effective in holding the print media accountable. “Accusations that these institutions don’t have ‘teeth’, is not the case.”
The office of the Press Ombudsman is powerful and not biased towards the media, often making harsh judgements against it. Its rulings are obeyed without fail, and a sanction of apology is one of the strongest forms of punishment print media can get. This is why the media is also opposed to proposals of fining and imprisoning journalists.
“If the office is weak, we can strengthen it by asking the public to make suggestions and by meeting with the ruling party, but we’re very opposed to statutory regulations,” Makhanya stated, adding that any mechanisms put in place about media freedom are “not about today,” but rather about what is left behind for future generations.
Baleka Mbete spoke next and agreed with Makhanya that the recent debate has been unnecessary, “because we’re dealing with matters where it sounds like one side is trying to silence the other.” This, she said, is not the case. “We’re open and transparent. We want people to express different views, and, from this process, to come with a final product from various views on the table.”
She began by discussing the government’s stance on the Protection of Information Bill, and highlighted that this is legislation that any state needs. “Any government has, and must have, secrets, and it needs to regulate how information is classified and what is restricted.” Currently, South Africa is regulated by the 1982 Protection of Information Act, which was the regulating system for the apartheid state and was used against the press by the then ruling party, but this legislation, she said, is ‘outdated’.
“Contrary to what is assumed, the new Bill is not directed at the media but on how to classify; who should classify; on what basis; with what penalties being meted out for which offences,” she stated.
“The reality is that in 16 years of democracy, we’ve experienced some problems of information peddling… and increasing threats of espionage with specific departments earmarked.” The Bill, she said, is a clear intention by the government “to say we have order and a system that says how information is classified.” This legislation needs to improve on the 1980s Act because there are some private intelligence community bodies that need proper identification. “The Bill is about protecting citizens.”
Mbete moved to a discussion of the proposed Media Appeals Tribunal (MAT), and stated that although media freedom is protected, the freedom of expression should not be elevated above rights such as privacy and dignity. The MAT, she stated, would serve to strengthen the current self-regulatory institutions. It is envisioned that the Tribunal would be a statutory institution accountable to Parliament. “Every sector is regulated, why can’t the media be regulated?”
Other issues she identified included those of ownership; management; and operations. “Newspapers are businesses where owners call the shots and [have] policies according to which poor journalists need to write.”
The self-regulating system, she said, takes too long to make its rulings, causing damage to complainants who may have to wait months for an apology or vindication. “[The media thinks it is] a certain category of human beings whose rights can’t be trampled on. This system is not on it as it doesn’t look at the rights of individuals,” concluded Mbete.
Raymond Louw from the Freedom of Expression Institute again highlighted that when discussing media freedom, this does not only affect journalists – it affects everyone. “An attack on journalists means that the freedom of everyone is attacked.”
Louw highlighted some concerns with the Protection of Information Bill. He said that the Bill was unclear in its methods for classification and decreasing its draconian provisions. He also criticised the poor ‘consultation’ on the Bill between Parliament and the media, and said that it was vital that cautionary statements in the initial Bill be re-included in the current one. “The person deciding to classify information is not going to be held back about the rights of the public.”
Louw also commented on the wide definition of the term ‘national interest’ – “it’s so wide it encompasses everything,” and explained that an example of information that will be classified in the future would be the state of morale in the defence force. “Opposition and MPs are challenging the current minister on this issue, but if the bill is put in place, no-one would be able to do so.”
The current Bill is worse than the 1980s Act because it concentrates on the need to preserve secrecy on issues of national security. The previous Act does not refer to the national interest but to other interests which were never spelt out. The current Bill, however, does so.
Louw also highlighted that opposition to the Bill has not only come from media but also from institutions such as the Freedom of Expression Institute and civil society, with the most impressive opposition being from the Law Society of South Africa – a body representing 20 000 advocates and lawyers, who oppose the Bill on Constitutional grounds. COSATU, too, has opposed the Bill alongside other parliament members.
Louw stated that the question of punishing the media has been in existence before the formation of the office of the Press Ombudsman in 1995 as a result of the National Party (NP) government seeking visible forms of punishment. This was driven by a case where a person suffered at the hands of the media, but it was later found that the complainant had lied and the question of the fine already paid by the media had to be decided. Fines are inappropriate, said Louw, and added that in a survey of press councils in the world, 86% adhere to the system South Africa currently follows. The reason he cited is that punishment through fines or imprisonment “would contravene the freedom of expression in the Constitution and place media in a different category to ordinary citizens. It would contravene the freedom of expression clause.”
He ended by recommending that the Bill be withdrawn; rephrased; and redrafted after consultation.
