Just a quick comment on the running debate about press freedom, dear Reader. If you are interested in freedom, not in a metaphysical sense but rather in a political sense, the following may be for you.I am all for freedom, of course. In principle. But if I were any more, than in principle, for it, I may as well throw in the towel now, as they say. Because freedom, in the political (policy) sense, is nothing but an illusion at best and sophistry at worst. This is not just the case in South Africa but, in fact, seems to be the case in, what most of us regard as, the most liberal, progressive and democratic countries in the world. Yes, for those of you who thought the previous three terms all refer to the same quality, you will be horribly dissapointed. They come, very much, apart. But even though they are not mutually exclusive, they very rarely manage to co-exist as the combined features of one political entity such as a nation, state, nation state or country.
I have digressed. About freedom...
Constraining the press is, as always, based in nothing more than the posturing of a concern for national interest and the desire to classify certain material based in such supposed" interest". I purposefully use italics and our trusted inverted commas to communicate my scepticims about the integrity of such motives. It simply is hard to believe that the witholding of information can serve anyone's ends- unless they are a very young child.
So, yes, it is good and right that journalists, and the rest of the media gang, are offended and sceptical about the motives of our (South African) government for wanting to constrain the media. However, there are few things less attractive than the coincidental features of scepticism and naivity. And the naivity must be surely due to the fact that the constraining of the press is not only a feature of the dog eat dog nature of humanity (cf Orwell), but is an actual world wide phenomenon. So, there really is no need to get so upset unless this is directed at humanity in general. 'National interest' and 'classifiable' information have been some of the most utilised tools by countries such as America, England and Australia. And not only by the countries which we all expect to be overmuscled, in terms of population control and bully tactics, with no overtly demostrated respect for personal and societal freedom.
My suggestion then, to the champions of press freedom, is that the press should clean up the conceptual groundwork of its campaign and, once this is done, decide what messages make actual sense. And to the governments of the world: The sensationalist language and other insiduous trickery employed by many journalists (and I do not refer here to tabloid gossip but also to serious journalism) is a better reason for constraining the press than the present pseudo concern for national interest.
