Distinguishing True Journalism from ‘Activism’

Distinguishing True Journalism from ‘Activism’

May 3, 2025

Every year, come May 3rd the World Free Press Day is observed throughout the world, and it is an occasion to review the state of freedom of expression across the world and what progress has been achieved, if any. Panels and discussions are carried out, inviting all stakeholders, and the legal framework and the practice in every country are reviewed. Classifications are reported, and a campaign is carried out in favour of the respect of freedom of thought and expression as per the United Nations Charter and other related protocols.

Freedom of the Press is one form of expression of freedom guaranteed by most countries’ constitutions and laws. World Free Press Day presents the opportunity to assess the stance of a certain state given the principle of freedom of expression.

As we celebrate World Press Day, we must realize that many countries in the world do not have press freedom. This is true of most totalitarian countries led by despots or a group of despots. They do not want to risk their power due to whatever may happen if they allow for free speech and free media. Press freedom for them is seen as a threat to their power. Some countries exploit the press to advance their political agendas and objectives. And yet the press and the media in general are considered as the ‘Fourth Estate’ that is another instrument of the state along with the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary branches of government, capable of exerting a lot of power. It is taken as another representative of citizens who do not have other means of checking the unfettered powers of the executive, just as parliament is mandated to control and have oversight of what the executive branch of government does or fails to do.

Traditionally, the media are conceived as an instrument that stands as a ‘watchdog’ for the interests of citizens. They question officials and mount challenges against the policies, and in general, all the activities of the government. They also demand explanations on what or why the government has acted as it did, because the public has the right to know what their government is engaged in. The free and independent media are among the instruments that can explain things even beyond what the government itself may have given them explanations and justifications.

The media can present the operations of the government to its audience in simple words so that they can understand the real position of their government. If the media agree and support the policies and actions of the government, they explain why and present a full account of their position.

If they have reservations and would want the government to review its policies, they explain why and give the chance to citizens to voice their opposition in their opinion columns or other media outlets. In a way, they are viewed as ‘allies’ of a good government. They should not necessarily always be at loggerheads with the government or the establishment in general, as many are heard stating.

On the other hand we have seen many governments being suspicious of the intentions of certain so called free media or they may not be a fan of such overtures of the media to the public, but it is considered as one of the natural mandates of a ‘democratic system’ where the media must be allowed to voice the opinions of the public. It is the natural and legal mandate of the media in general to ‘supervise’ the actions of the government, particularly the executive branch, where the major decisions that affect the lives of everybody are formulated and implemented. Furthermore, there must also be the ‘checks and balances’ by the other two branches of government, the legislative body and the judiciary, besides what the media may be engaged in.

The fundamental idea is that government cannot be above the law, and this is guaranteed by the judiciary, which must check any excesses of the executive overstepping its powers. Any malpractice in the government can be investigated and exposed to the public, and in this respect, the media is a legitimate and powerful instrument of authority and execution as long as it does not go against the law. We have seen in the past that the media has been capable of facilitating the deposition of any government, just as it can also help a political party to come to power by influencing the opinions and views of the public so that they vote differently than which party they may have decided to vote for.

In a democracy, this is the fundamental mandate and raison d’être of the media. In fact, in all genuine democracies, the media are seen doing exactly this operation. If it is politicized or corrupt and becomes the other hidden arm of the government, it cannot claim the name and be trusted by the public. It would also lose its credibility and get discredited, losing its clients and readership. We have seen in many totalitarian countries the media acting as another arm or weapon of the executive. They act as the ‘spokespersons’ of the government, and they cannot be considered as the genuine media with their natural vocation and legitimate duties.

Historically, the media have always been mandated to watch over the acts of the government, the judiciary and even the legislative body demanding that they give ample explanation and clear justifications about what policies have been executed and deliberated and which ones have been duly implemented.

Academics of politics say the media should be strictly neutral and not partisan, thus avoiding echoing only the interests or views and ideas of the government instead of standing for the interests of citizens who have trust in it. It is meant to serve primarily citizens and can also find a way to serve the government simultaneously, because no formula states that there is incompatibility between the free media and government if it feels that things are being run well. It need not always go against the government, but scrutinize critically what is going on in the ‘circles of power’. This could also be in the private sector. The laws of any country should be respected if society is to thrive in peace. The rule of law is a fundamental principle to follow in any country, just as equal treatment under the law should be applied indiscriminately.

On the other hand, it is not unusual to see that governments may have their means of promoting their interests, their policies, and plans. It forms the personnel of government bodies that are mandated to promote their objectives and their achievements among citizens. In other words, these are public relations offices and spokespersons who are given directives to explain and account for their actions in simple language to citizens, just as a big company may do to convince clients to buy its goods and services. They are meant to magnify and make them more visible or understandable to the citizens of the operations of government, and explain why certain measures have been taken and why certain decisions have not been adopted, referring to legal dictates and positions.

Usually, this office is present in every government structure. It is a means of communicating with citizens, not only those who support the incumbent but also those who have not voted for it. But it is also intended to try and sell its policies even to those who oppose it by giving ample explanations. It may be filled with experts and professionals of the subject matter, but naturally, they are partisans and side with the government, as it is the one that has employed them for this specific purpose.

Naturally, they may always tend to magnify the successes of the government and try to downplay what could be perceived as setbacks, especially by critics and opposition parties, and this is a healthy approach and practice in democratic systems of government. Many governments have these outfits, which are seen competing with the neutral and private media and represent the government for which they work. They are often mandated to sell to the public the policies and operations of the government so that the public is satisfied with what their leaders are doing.

Hence, to counter and challenge these offices, the presence, strength, and independence of a neutral media are key in any democracy. One of the major features of a democratic government is its openness to the formation of an independent media that should be objective, and not the ones that are weak and corrupt, at times engaged in peddling fake news, narratives, and unfounded reports.

Such media are dangerous because they are seen abusing their name and power. They do not refrain from committing these dangerous actions, and that is why, at times, there should also be strict accountability of these outfits based on the law. Freedom of the press or expression does not mean that the media can come up with whichever political ideology suits it and present that to the public in an irresponsible manner, putting the security and sovereignty of the country at risk just for the sake of profits.

In the past, there have been private media that were advancing the stance of ‘enemies’ of the state and citizens because they were financed and paid lavishly to promote the agendas of the country’s enemies and try to destabilize it. At times, they were caught trying to antagonize one nationality with another one, peddling unfounded stories and narratives. At other times, they have tried to exploit differences in religious faiths of communities as a weapon of division, hate, and enmity, while people have always lived in peaceful cohabitation in the same localities without any indications of a lack of harmony and friendship.

At times, there has been the intermingling of ‘activism’ for this or that ideology with ‘journalism’ or freedom of the press and expression in general. This is dangerous and should not be tolerated because it tends to discredit truthful, neutral, and objective journalism carried out by real and capable professionals. Essentially, the true ‘mission’ of independent journalism is to be a voice for the voiceless and not engage in political discourse that risks mingling with a certain form of activism. This has been spreading like wildfire lately with the widespread usage of the emerging social media. This has become a challenge even in advanced societies with strong traditions of free media. With the spread of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the risk has become even more ominous. Stories can be invented to look true, and images can be ‘doctored’ and presented as genuine.

Freedom of the press and responsible journalism have nothing to do with ‘activism’ that tries to use every means, including AI, to advance fake narratives, fake images and videos with sounds of known personalities to promote a certain political ideology. This has nothing to do with genuine journalism and freedom of expression, as per the explanation given and protected by the United Nations Charter and other protocols such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

BY FITSUM GETACHEW

THE ETHIOPIAN HERALD SATURDAY 3 MAY 2025

source https://panafricannews.blogspot.com/2025/05/distinguishing-true-journalism-from.html