By Staff Reporter
Lesotho has a pluralist mass media system. However, like in many other African countries, it is a fractured kind of pluralism, which reflects the political situation of the day. This, in return, helps to a large extent, to define and create the situation it reports. One can only understand this kind of situation by examining the legal, economic and political environment under which the media operates. In this incisive interview, Media Institute of Southern Africa national chairman Kananelo Boloetse weighs in on some of the niggling questions about the media environment in the country.
Please briefly tell us about press/media freedom. What is it and how important is it to society?
Press or media freedom, concisely, is the fundamental right of the newspapers, radios, televisions, magazines, and other mediums, to report news or publish opinions without censorship or interference from anyone. When the press or media fully enjoys this right, it is said to be independent. An independent press is able to uncover the truth and lay bare the things happening both in the public and private sectors. It analyses and explains in simple terms issues that might be very complicated to an average citizen and makes sure that this citizen has a good knowledge of what is happening around him or her. When citizens are well-informed and understand issues happening around them, they are able to participate in democratic processes and in the conduct of public affairs. They are able to hold power to account.
The theme for this year’s press freedom day was ‘Shaping a Future of Rights: Freedom of expression as a driver for all other human rights’. How relevant is this theme to the media landscape in Lesotho?
This theme emphasises the crucial role of independent media in upholding all human rights. For example, Section 14 of the Lesotho Constitution entitles every person a right to the enjoyment of freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions without interference, the freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, the freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference. When the press is not independent, people are not able to enjoy this right, they are not able to freely circulate their opinions on the radio or in newspapers. They are not able to criticize the government or other powerful entities. Also, when the press is not independent, the government may attempt to censor the media by prohibiting newspapers from publishing unfavorable information and opinions. When the truth is hidden, the citizens are not able to freely enjoy their right to take part in the conduct of public affairs (Section 20 of the Constitution).
What are the perennial bottlenecks to press freedom in Lesotho?
In the United States of America, for example, the first amendment, which protects freedom of the press, was adopted in 1791, more than 230 years ago, as part of the Bill of Rights in that country’s Constitution. In 2023, Lesotho’s Constitution still does not protect this right. It is almost impossible to ensure independent, pluralistic, and free media that will strengthen our constitutional democracy if press freedom is not expressly protected by the Constitution as a fundamental human right. It is embarrassing that today we are still struggling and fighting to have what other nations had more than 200 years ago.
Please describe in detail the successes and challenges realised in overcoming these bottlenecks.
Basotho deem press freedom so essential that they have demanded that it be enshrined in the constitution as part of the Bill of Rights. This is a remarkable success and that is why MISA Lesotho always insists that the people have spoken and must be heard. Our biggest challenge at the moment is ensuring that the comprehensive national reforms which reflect the will of the people are implemented as a matter of urgency. However, it seems some politicians are not willing to see press freedom enshrined in the Constitution and that is why it was deleted from the Omnibus Bill that was developed by the National Reforms Authority (NRA). We will not relent; we will do everything in our power to ensure that the will of the people is implemented.
Would you say there are new emerging challenges?
As much as we say we want press freedom but we should be bold enough to accept that the lack of trust in the news is one of the biggest challenges we are faced with today. There is profound distrust in members of the press and this is largely due to our conduct as journalists. This distrust in the press is also attached to other various difficulties. For example, members of our society today are better informed or educated than most or some of the people we consider and call journalists. Many people now would not believe in a newspaper article with tons of evidence and credibility only because they say it was written by ignorant and unknowledgeable people.
As the saying goes, no right is absolute. What would you say are limitations, in any, to press freedom?
Yes, the freedom of the press is not absolute, it should yield to other constitutionally-protected rights such as the right to privacy and the right of a defendant to an unprejudiced fair trial. The media is expected to behave responsibly. Sometimes our media, especially radio stations, run what one could label kangaroo courts characterised by ill-informed and agenda-driven debates which expose judges, lawyers, and defendants to unwarranted attacks. When other people complain about this blatant abuse of the media platforms, a knee-jerk reaction from some of us is that media freedom is under attack.
How far does self-censorship go towards eroding press freedom?
Self-censorship is when a journalist voluntarily chooses not to report about a certain issue that could be important to the public. There are many reasons why journalists sometimes do this and sometimes it is because they fear that their report would trigger a backlash. Self-censorship interferes with the free flow of information and restricts the public from knowing about that certain issue and this leaves a void for the citizens to be lied to and manipulated. When it happens on a large scale, self-censorship erodes press freedom.
Press Freedom Day 2023 happened to be observed about the same time as Workers day. This brings up the issue of media practitioners also being workers. To what extent do journalists’ working conditions impact on their freedom to perform their duties?
To commemorate press freedom this year, editors, journalists, and other key media stakeholders from across Africa gathered in Lusaka from May 11 to 13 for the second Africa Media Convention. The delegates had discussions around ensuring that minimum wage for journalists per country is established, and safety nets for journalists’ mental and material well-being are addressed. There is nothing as treacherous as an empty stomach. A poor journalist who works long hours cannot easily live on his terms and conditions and can, therefore, be bought easily. This affects the independence of the press. As an industry that prides itself on shining a light on the powerful, we should be willing to shine a light on ourselves and discuss these issues with all honesty.
What about big business? There are concerns that media houses sacrifice big stories for money from advertisers. What is your take on this? How can it be avoided?
People often ask me why journalists do not cover certain stories and why they do not ask certain companies certain questions. I always try to be diplomatic when answering that question but I know that our media houses are afraid to bite a hand (big businesses) that feeds them. As a result, big advertisers such as mobile network operators, commercial banks, and state-owned enterprises have found it easy to exploit the vulnerability of the media houses through tactics like pressing for uneconomical advertising rates. And despite paying very low advertising rates, the big advertisers still want to influence content. Some have made veiled attempts to silence critical media voices and strengthen publications that serve up favourable coverage. Their goal is always very clear, to make the press serve their interests rather than the public. This has profound implications for our democracy. It is important to come together to find ways of putting media houses that make a positive contribution to civic life onto an independent and self-sufficient footing. Such media houses should be helped to attain a stable state where revenue comfortably covers expenditure, to encourage quality and prevent misuse. The government should consider measures such as tax breaks and waived or low broadcast licence fees. For example, in Norway and Denmark, newspapers are exempt from VAT, while in Finland, Sweden, and Iceland the VAT rate ranges between 6 and 10 percent – far below the general rates of around 25 percent. A framework should also be created as a matter of urgency to ensure that government advertising is deployed fairly and should be used for the benefit of media diversity, quality, and pluralism. Consideration should also be given to the creation of a national fund to support quality independent journalism.
Corruption also comes into play. There are instances of journalists accused of receiving payment or demanding bribes to drop stories of public interest. Your comment?
I cannot say with certainty that this actually happens. To me, it is an allegation but if it does actually happen, it is disgusting and criminal. And as I mentioned earlier, there is nothing as treacherous as an empty stomach.
We have also seen politics play a role wherein journalists and/or imposters pursue their political parties’ agenda by vilifying so-called opponents. Is this still called freedom of the media? No, it is not. Journalists have no place on the playing field of politics. However, I always say that journalists should promote social justice. They should uplift voices and stories, and create awareness. They should create spaces for human rights defenders, activists, and citizens to demand justice. They should provide platforms to ensure that stories and struggles of minorities and underrepresented individuals and groups within society are publicised and well-known. As Desmond Tutu once said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” Journalists should not choose to remain silent when their voices are the ones more likely to be heard.
