Whose 'freedom of expression'?

Freedom of expression is a much flaunted 'right' in a democratic society. It is also known as the 'fourth estate' under democratic governance with the three preceding being the Executive, Legislator and the Judiciary.

The fact that freedom of expression is considered the fourth estate, placed together with the other arms of governance signifies that it is not merely a right but also a responsible institution that is equally powerful as the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary, in regulating the affairs of the State.

Power of the media cannot be discounted. Media is the catalyst of public opinion; it regulates governance; it can imbibe and uphold social values. Similarly in a negative vein, it can destroy the social fabric, topple democratically elected governments, destroy industries and smear people's character to make them social degrades. In fact it is so powerful and hence nobody in his proper senses, including the all powerful Government of the day, would wish to challenge the power of media, head on.

However bestowing all that power, without the limits of responsibility to exercise that power, could create a situation of a 'bull in a china shop'. Hence it is more a responsibility than a right that directs a democratic nation towards development, peace and actualization. It is in that context that we pose the question to the plethora of media institutions in this country that 'Have you been conducting your media in a responsible manner to live up to that august positioning of a 'fourth estate'?' For those who have not exhibited this sense of responsibility could not be considered to have earned this right.

Sadly, in the face of this paradigm, very few media institutions could conscientiously claim to have earned this right, given the volatile times this country has been through in its recent past. 'Freedom of expression' was used to justify social crimes; to white wash mayhem and murder; to denigrate social welfare and to deride development activities. Some media men, wined, dined and slept with Tigers(in Geneva peace talks) and some even used their registered newspapers as 'rag sheets' to blackmail public figures while some others went to the extent of making a mockery of Voltaire's very ethics of responsible journalism.

The fact that your political philosophy and alignment does not fall in line with that of the Government does not mean that you should vilify productive and progressive measures. National security, law and order, development and social equity do not belong to the Government of the day. Government is only the temporary custodian of those pivotal spheres of national progress and therefore to endanger those, would be a national crime.

The 'fourth estate' however, by its own nature is the 'odd man out' in this galaxy of 'estates' because by its own nature it is empowered to enjoy the power of being an 'estate' without having to face the consequence of its actions. This is a question of accountability. In a democracy, the Executive is accountable to the people and so is the Legislature. The judiciary only has to interpret and execute the laws formulated by the Legislature and in the end is accountable to the state. Hence in the final analysis, the first three 'estates' derive their power either directly from the polity or from its elected agents and therefore are accountable to the public.

This, then poses the question: "to whom is this 'fourth estate' accountable for?" The answer simply is that it is accountable to the owners of these media institutions who have invested their money in those institutions. Hence the agenda of these media institutions, that often seek to project themselves as innocent victims, in the name of 'freedom of expression', is nothing but the agenda of their rich entrepreneurial barons. These barons with fiduciary and political agendas of their own would always want the people to believe in what they wish them to believe rather than what the people should believe in their own interest.

Hence in the end what do we get in the name of this sacrosanct 'freedom of expression'? The freedom to patronize an unscrupulous media baron's agenda! But the media institutions could always paint a picture of impartiality extricating themselves from questionable agendas, corruption and foul play, simply because they have this powerful and ready mechanism at their disposal.

The truth however is that no media today is independent of advertisements and hence the advertisements have taken the better of every media establishment. By this, the media industry has become the only industry in the world to sell it customers whereas in all other industries they sell products to the customer.

Thus the 'King' of the current media industry is neither the consumer nor the producer but the shady advertiser. The owners run the media for profit and the journalist write for their survival. This is the free media they cry horse to 'protect and preserve' as if it is the most divine right the human race ever stumbled upon. And it is from such a platform that they accuse the non private media of 'singing for their supper' to the Government.

In this media business of 'doing the owner's bidding', it is only the Government owned press that at least offer some semblance of people's interest because it is owned by the government that was elected by the people. Therefore, when they shout 'Down with the Government press', they mean 'Down with those who counter our master's agenda'.

Writing against the media could be rare, and a paper carrying such anti media article could be still rarer. That then, is the test of credibility of a media institution that stands for freedom of expression.

[email protected]