Media

MEDIA practitioners question the competence and integrity of all public office holders without being accountable to anybody. The media have become so powerful in recent times that some commentators conclude that the freedom of press and of expression guaranteed by the Constitution has led to the tyranny of the media.
It is generally agreed that a free press is the tool of public criticism. It holds public officials accountable, opening them up to the judgement of people who can decide whether the government is doing good or whether it has anything to hide.
Article 162 Clause 5 of the Constitution states that “All agencies of the mass media shall, at all times, be free to uphold the principles, provisions and objectives of this Constitution and shall uphold the responsibility and accountability of the government to the people of Ghana.”
The activities of the media have come under scrutiny since the December 7, 2008 general election for very obvious reasons. The media play a very critical role in setting the agenda.
Given that by the nature of journalism profession, journalists are entrusted with empowering the citizenry to make informed decisions, it is imperative that they relentlessly pursue fairness and truth in their reportage.
Shortly after the elections, certain media houses pitted brother against sister just on account that they belonged to different political persuasions. Indeed, during that time keen observers of the media scene had cause to worry about the blatant abuse of the code of ethics of journalism.
This provision imposes a heavy responsibility on all journalists to act as watchdogs of the actions of public officials.
The media of Ghana is one of the most free in Africa, and had previously undergone a series of government overthrows by military leaders and periods of severe restriction.
Chapter 12 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana guarentees freedom of the press and independence of the media, while Chapter 2 prohibts censorship. Post independence, the government and media often had a tense relationship, with private outlets closed during the military coups and strict media laws that prevent criticism of government.
The media freedoms were restored in 1992, and after the election in 2000 of John Kufuor the tensions between the private media and government decreased. Kufuor was a supporter of press freedom and repealed a libel law, though maintained that the media had to act responsibily. The Ghanian media has been described as "one of the most unfettered" in Africa, operating with little restriction on private media. The private press often carries criticism of government policy. The media were vigourous in their coverage of the 2008 Ghanian presidential election, and the Ghanian Journalists Association (GJA) praised John Atta Mills on his election, hoping to foster a good media-government relationship.
Unfortunately, sometimes some media practitioners abuse this responsibility imposed on them by the Constitution and engage in acts that are not protected by the laws of the land.
To recall again Mr Cofie’s admonition to the media when he asked, “Is it not painful that the great job some of you sought to do during the general election was marred by the bizarre distortion of facts, broadcast of false information and the undue fuelling of passions by others?”
Other professionals have questioned the moral authority of media practitioners to hold public office holders accountable when such values and principles are missing in the discharge of duty by certain journalists, even including trained ones.
There is still believes in the power of the media to help the people to make informed decisions through independent political agenda setting.
The time has come for the media, particularly its professional body, the Ghana Journalists Association (GJA), to intensify continuing education of its members and those who do not belong to the association to compel them to respect the ethics, values and principles of the profession.
Great men like Thomas Jefferson had so much faith in the media because of their power to change society for the better. That was why, confronted with his preference for government or media, he declared, “The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
There is a call on all media practitioners to resolve to respect their code of ethics and other best practices in order to continue to earn the respect of the public to inform them.
A democratic and free society is dependent on the ability of the media to inform, educate and entertain. But if we allow public resentment for the media to mount because we have become “Jacks of all trades but masters of none”, interest groups from politics, the business community and the clergy will gang up to curtail media freedoms.
Let us, therefore, demonstrate to the people we serve that we shall exercise the freedom guaranteed in the Constitution with responsibility.
We should bear in mind that no society makes progress in a state of nature. The press will continue to provide a forum for public debate and public scrutiny of government if journalists respect the cardinal principles of fairness, accuracy and balance in their reportage.
The need for journalists to live up to their role as neutral referees was crucial and a precondition for successful polls.
So important is the media’s role that their task of educating the electorates to help them to make wise political decisions and not to prejudge the issues.
The call to practitioners of the noble profession, which has become known as the Fourth Estate of the Realm in the country.
Rightly so, journalists have a crucial role in shaping opinions and empowering the voting public with information with which to make informed decisions.
The fourth President of the United States, James Madison, an ardent promoter of free press and free society, once noted that “knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives”.
The freedom that has been accorded the media needs to be used responsibly, as there is no absolute freedom. Everybody in society identifies with the media in one way or another and anything the media churns out is likely to make an impact, either negatively or positively, on different segments of society.
It is for this reason that the state endorses the call on the media to play a leading and responsible role in the run up, during and after the December polls.
There is no better time than now for the media to show their readiness to promote peace, reconciliation and development and there is yet no better journalism than development journalism in which even the bleakest incidents, events and behaviours are looked at and shaped from a development perspective.
This will mean that every act of the media will be guided by the overriding interest of promoting the cause of the larger society, a fair balance of exercising responsibility in freedom.
It is only proper for the media to aspire to promote national peace and stability through the use of temperate and refined language.
It is commended that the GJA use the awards ceremony for journalists as the platform to drum support for efforts by other organisations to sensitise the electorate to the need for free and fair polls.
With a few weeks to the highly anticipated polls on December 7, Ghanaians were encouraged to play their roles as responsible citizens and in this national assignment the media cannot afford to distort the peace with irresponsible reportage.
I believe members of the media fraternity joined the peace-loving Ghanaians to work towards successful elections that established Ghana as a model democratic state in Africa.
The Fourth Republic has already witnessed four elections and the Electoral Commission (EC) has played a key role in making those elections successful.
The commission has demonstrated that it has the character and professionalism to appropriately deal with the competing demands from the various political parties.
Even on occasions when it has been unfairly condemned and criticised, it has refused to crumble under pressure.
As the nation drew closer to the December polls, political campaigns got heated and politicians made last minute efforts to woo voters and improve their chances of winning the elections.
In the heat of these campaigns, some politicians made utterances that tend to question the integrity and fairness of the EC, even when such accusations were baseless and could not be substantiated. It is becoming quite evident that the EC is sometimes unfairly drawn into the politics of the day.
Thus any attempt to characterise the EC as a politically bias entity could serve as a potent distraction to the conduct of free and fair elections.
That is why politicians are called upon to guard their utterances and ensure that they avoid casting the media in a bad light and, thereby, erode the confidence of the electorate in it.
Interestingly, some politicians who are always quick to chastise the media are actually the very people who have been implicated in one shameful electoral malpractice or another.
As has been duly acknowledged by all the political parties, the conduct of free and fair elections is not the responsibility of only the media but also all Ghanaians, including political parties, the judiciary, the media, the security agencies and the electorate.
It is, therefore, hoped that this recognition will find greater practical expression and save the media from any further unfair bashing.
The confidence of the people can only be sustained if the media refuse to bow to any pressure from any quarter and rather rededicates itself to the ideals required for free and fair elections.
And, with the rest of the world closely watching us, Ghana, as a peace-loving country, have demonstrated that we are not only determined to consolidate the gains made so far on our democratic journey, but also committed to maintaining our position as a shining example on the continent.
We have confirmed Ghana as a democratic country, which is offering hope to the continent and our conduct yesterday was a positive way of trying to redeem Africa’s image.
Indeed, apart from isolated cases of misunderstandings and physical aggression, there is a lot to commend ourselves for and it will not be in the least misplaced to remark that this is one of the best elections in the country since 1992.
All over the country it was evident that Ghanaians are more than ever enthralled by multi-party democracy which offers the opportunity for the conduct of periodic elections to select those who will represent the best path towards the future.
The Electoral Commission (EC), security agencies, various political parties and candidates, the media, civil society organisations and the electorate all need to be commended for their role in ensuring peaceful and orderly polls.
The massive turnout devoid of the pre-election tension teaches one lesson that through collaborative efforts, we can find solutions to the challenges that confront us.
Electorate are reminded of the challenges of the post-election thrills and disappointment after the declaration of validated results. If these difficulties are not properly managed, our celebrations can be short-lived as the trouble makers can create doubts in the minds of the people about the credibility of the polls.
However, it is believed that the transparent nature of the polls would be a deterrent to anyone who may choose the path of violence to address whatever concerns that may emerge.
A government of the people, by the people and for the people should in essence harness whatever potential is available irrespective of the political affiliation of the individual who has demonstrated ample competence and has requisite qualification for the task ahead.
The use of a tribal card in an election or nation-building can pose a threat to national unity and civility and be inimical to progress. Again, such an approach can engender divide-and-rule tactics and discrimination and feed into the psyche of the electorate the dangerous mindset of “us and them”, the media has a responsibility to set the agenda to eschew such occurences.
The Ghanaian media performed creditably in the last elections and hope that the practitioners will continue to play their gate-keeping role to prevent any situation where they can be used as agents of ethnic politics by politicians.
Elections are not a life-and-death issue. Rather, they are a democratic process of taking a decision and exercising one’s preferences for the ideas and programmes presented by a candidate and a party through the ballot box.
The political parties should continue to be modest in their electioneering and refrain from the use of abusive and intemperate language which can inflame passions. Again, it is expectated that the electorate, the Electoral Commission and the security personnel will once again rise up to the task and live up to the expectation of organising a transparent peaceful election in the future.
We should not do anything to mar the beauty of our development process by playing the ethnic card which can sow seeds of discord and disunity and prepare the grounds for confusion, social upheavals and violence.
We are now on the plateau of giving further impetus to our development and nature has been kind to us to bestow on us resources such as oil to leap-frog our socio-economic transformation.
There can be ownership of and participation in the decision-making process only if the people know their rights and responsibilities in order to hold the government accountable. Indeed, Article 11 of the Constitution states categorically that "The Sovereignty of Ghana resides in the people of Ghana in whose name and for whose welfare the powers of government are to be exercised in the manner and within the limits laid down in the Constitution."
The struggle over who gets what, when and how is largely carried out in the mass media. Reporters and news editors usually deny that they are powerful political actors, claiming they only mirror society; but the "myth of the mirror" is that the media do play key roles in setting the political agenda by determining what news is to be covered, how much, and in what context.
Agenda Setting: This is the real power of the media. The media do not just passively report the news. They select what is to be covered, thereby setting a political agenda. Conversely, media inattention can allow governments to continue ineffective policies or worse. The media can even propel a latent issue into a "crisis" with which government must deal.
The media have effects in setting the political agenda and in helping form new opinions, but they are less effective in changing existing opinions or in changing political behavior.
"Information overload" also diminishes the effects of the media, as does the relative disinterest of many Ghanaians in the political news. Moreover, the public exercises selective perception, mentally screening out information and opinions with which they disagree. The result of the media performing their self-declared watchdog role can be alienation rather than reform.
Diverging political agenda-setting studies concerning the mass media’s impact on society are as old as the media themselves.
Opposing views and conflicting research results have led to different conclusions ranging from minimal-effects to powerful mass media. During the last three decades the notion of agenda-setting has probably provided the most influential and fertile paradigm in media and communications research. The mass media determine the political agenda to boost political attention for issues.
The field of media and political agenda-setting is disparate and undertheorized.
As media and political agenda-setting studies are slowly increasing and the subfield is growing to maturity, such an integrative effort comes timely. Only by confronting, comparing and systematizing the available evidence generated by previous studies can we make inroads in understanding the media’s political agenda-setting power.
Political agenda-setting implies a time gap between issue coverage and issue adoption by political parties.
Both election and non-election periods times are fundamentally different and that behaviour of political actors, and their reaction on media coverage, follows different logics in both periods.
Depending on the political system, the nature of the media agenda, the specific issues, the methodology, the nature of the political agenda, and the period under study, the results of similar studies can vary extensively.
It is obvious, however, that there are crucial differences between public and political agenda-setting.
As a rule government’s political agenda is less flexible, more cemented by previous arrangements and meticulously balanced agreements. Especially when it comes to coalition governments built on a lengthy government agreement, governments’ substantial policy actions are immunized against media impact. Pressures to react and to show leadership especially regarding to crisis situations or negative news might, in contrast, lead government to react swiftly and symbolically. Its better media access guarantees that even minister’s verbal reactions void of any serious consequence can pass the media gates and become news. More or less the opposite applies to parliament. Parliament, however, is an ambivalent institution with majority and minority initiatives mixed. The legislative part of parliaments’ activities, especially the actual passing of new bills, goes probably through even lengthier checked and balanced procedures than governments actions do. But the daily surveillance and monitoring of government is more flexible and, hence, prone to media impact. Procedures are relatively short, and (opposition) MPs are free to raise whichever topic they want. In terms of strong presidential systems, we expect an even more media responsive presidential agenda than for parliaments. Presidential initiatives are normally less constrained by institutional rules - he/she can communicate about anything anytime - nor are presidents bound by their party, by a government agreement or by internal decision making procedures. Moreover, presidents are expected to react on tidings of misfortune, to show leadership and to reassure the nation that they are in charge. Their media access is almost unlimited since they personify the state’s power. In many presidential regimes the president is a generalist policy maker whose competences encompass all policy domains. So we expect presidents to be especially susceptible for media coverage and the presidential agenda to be continuously affected by news’ issue attention. The more presidential systems entrust the president with a lot of powers and the less it contains veto players, the easier and faster a president can induce policy changes. The more powerful the president, hence, the more his instant reactions on media coverage might result in real policy outcomes.
Subject to Article 167 of the 1992 constitution, the National Media Commission (NMC) shall not exercise any control or direction over the professional functions of a person engaged in the production of newspapers or other means of communication.
All state-owned media shall afford fair opportunities and facilities for the presentation of divergent views and dissenting oppinions.