|
Miklos Haraszti, The Representative on Freedom of the Media of OSCE, appointed 2004, proposes detailed comparison of media self-regulation vs. media regulation in OSCE book “The Media Self-regulation Guidebook” (2008: 13-18), featured also in this web resource. Here are main points:
Media laws are needed, especially in societies on the road to democracy, where constitutional and legal guarantees are necessary to make press freedoms enforceable. For example constitutions should prohibit censorship and protect freedom of expression, laws should guarantee free access to government information and protect journalists from being forced to disclose confidential sources of investigative stories, regulations should guarantee the fair and transparent administration of media business such as registration, licensing, ownership disclosure and taxation. But the press can only perform its crucial role as a watchdog of government if there is as little state control as possible. In a democracy, unavoidable exceptions from freedom of expression must be set in law. But in order to maintain fearless debate of public issues only very few types of speech offences should be criminalised. These include words or images that would clearly and imminently endanger the rule of law, society’s peace, or the safety of individuals: for example, incitement to violence, calls for discrimination, or distribution of child pornography. Speech that “merely” shocks, disturbs or offends should be dealt with in the civil-law courts. The same applies to speech that infringes on privacy, insults dignity or defames honour – even if committed intentionally by recklessly unprofessional journalists.
Governments can also promote self-regulation (by saying no to state ownership of the media, ensuring full freedom from governmental interference in the press, keeping the media pluralistic through anti-monopoly measures, etc.) but governmental regulations can not make the press more professional or ethical. True ethics standards can be created only by independent media professionals, and can be obeyed by them only voluntarily. Whether passed in good will or not, any attempt to impose standards on journalists by law will result in arbitrary limitation of their legitimate freedoms, and restriction of the free flow of information in society. Of course, taxpayer-paid public-service broadcasters are obliged by law to report and comment in an objective, fair, and ethical manner. But public service requirements, too, must be formulated and enforced by independent professional bodies, and will only function if politicians refrain from interfering with editorial work.
Finally, quality and self-regulation must not be treated by governments as preconditions to granting full freedom; on the contrary, ethical journalism can only develop in an atmosphere of guaranteed freedom. Journalists’ selfrestraint must be preceded and accompanied by governmental self-restraint in handling of media.
European Commission
Council of Europe
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
Media laws are needed, especially in societies on the road to democracy, where constitutional and legal guarantees are necessary to make press freedoms enforceable. For example constitutions should prohibit censorship and protect freedom of expression, laws should guarantee free access to government information and protect journalists from being forced to disclose confidential sources of investigative stories, regulations should guarantee the fair and transparent administration of media business such as registration, licensing, ownership disclosure and taxation. But the press can only perform its crucial role as a watchdog of government if there is as little state control as possible. In a democracy, unavoidable exceptions from freedom of expression must be set in law. But in order to maintain fearless debate of public issues only very few types of speech offences should be criminalised. These include words or images that would clearly and imminently endanger the rule of law, society’s peace, or the safety of individuals: for example, incitement to violence, calls for discrimination, or distribution of child pornography. Speech that “merely” shocks, disturbs or offends should be dealt with in the civil-law courts. The same applies to speech that infringes on privacy, insults dignity or defames honour – even if committed intentionally by recklessly unprofessional journalists.
Governments can also promote self-regulation (by saying no to state ownership of the media, ensuring full freedom from governmental interference in the press, keeping the media pluralistic through anti-monopoly measures, etc.) but governmental regulations can not make the press more professional or ethical. True ethics standards can be created only by independent media professionals, and can be obeyed by them only voluntarily. Whether passed in good will or not, any attempt to impose standards on journalists by law will result in arbitrary limitation of their legitimate freedoms, and restriction of the free flow of information in society. Of course, taxpayer-paid public-service broadcasters are obliged by law to report and comment in an objective, fair, and ethical manner. But public service requirements, too, must be formulated and enforced by independent professional bodies, and will only function if politicians refrain from interfering with editorial work.
Finally, quality and self-regulation must not be treated by governments as preconditions to granting full freedom; on the contrary, ethical journalism can only develop in an atmosphere of guaranteed freedom. Journalists’ selfrestraint must be preceded and accompanied by governmental self-restraint in handling of media.
