Journalists Versus Politicians

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.’

The principles of independent journalism have never been better stated than they were much earlier in this century by Charles Prestwich, the founder- editor of the Manchester Guardian, the predecessor of the modern Guardian.

Scott wrote: The primary function of a newspaper is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul, it must see that the supply is not tainted. The comment is free, but facts are sacred…. The voice of opponents, no less than that of friends, has a right to be heard. Comment also is justly subject to a self-imposed restraint. It is well, to be frank; it is better to be fair.’

That is the voice of reason. Any society works best-indeed democracy itself can only function- when the public knows what is going on. The voters, who also happen to be newspaper readers and the audiences for radio and television, need to be confident that they are being given a fair account of political and other events that affect their everyday lives. They need to believe that a fair balance is being held between those who govern and those who criticize them.

We should not be surprised that this often causes conflict between politicians and media people. They perform different functions. The politician’s job is to be partisan. If he does not believe that the party and the cause he serves are better than his opponents’, he has probably found the wrong vocation. But he ought to be tolerant of those whose duty, and that of the broadcaster too, is to report as impartially as possible the affairs of the nation and the world.

Politicians and the media need each other. The media, in the literal meaning of the word, are how politicians’ ideas reach the public who elect them. Journalists and broadcasters have a duty to be fair, not just to the public who rely on them for knowledge of what is going on in their own and other countries.

But what never must be forgotten is that, between politicians and journalists, fairness is a mutual obligation. Politicians in a democratic society must learn to be as open and honest with the media as they can. They must ensure that journalists can pursue their duties free from intimidation, either by government control of the media or by actions of the forces of the State.

In the final analysis, both politicians and journalists have vital roles in the?creation and maintenance of a free and democratic society. Such societies cannot be created overnight, but unless mutual tolerance exists between politicians and their critics in the media, democracy will not prosper, and public discontent is inevitable. If that happens, not only the media, but politicians themselves and society are among the sufferers.

Society is the loser when the trust between politicians and journalists breaks down.

When journalists are put in prison, when they are mistreated, they are not only sufferers. Such a breakdown in the norms of a political society is bad for everyone. Even in the long term, for the politicians themselves.?

?Constitutionally protected free speech and freedom of the Press represent, as former US Supreme Court Justice William Brennan once wrote, a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open and that it may include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.’