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.
2 comments:
Okay Gorgeous; I agree with you completely but feel that you are understating your case.
If one buys into the social contract idea, we exchange certain constraints on our freedom for reasons of social interaction and security
No interest group or individual is immune from this exchange. And no interest group or individual should be self-regulating and beyond the judgement of the nation. This is what the SA press is demanding - that they should be self-regulating.
Moreover they are pandering to a mistrust of the government and a certain interest's group visceral suspicion of any black run state.
Constrainging the press (constraining the freedom of speech) is not just about the interest of the state, but to protect private individuals. Hence the almost universal laws against slander and libel.
Let us lastly not forget that the press, in most capitalist societies is owned and hence controlled by a few, like minded usually rich men. Freedom implies a divergence of opinion; sadly missing in all countries that I have experienced.
I would like to give more examples of countries, where we might call the press restricted if we didn't already assume that their press was free. I would like to give concrete examples of their legislation and the recent extraordinary erosion of freedom, justified by security fears. powers that have been publicly abused to political ends in such bastions as the home of parliaments (aka the UK).
I would like to give more details but have an overwhelming urge to hold you.
Beautiful.
Quite right, of course, naivity can also be due to the fact that freedom itself is a strange political state to aim for. Society is, indeed, tied into a social contract with the powers who be, which is supposed to ensure that we all behave and that we are safe from each other's blood thirsty tendencies.
So why the press' unique desire for autonomy anyway? No one else, after all, has this priviledge.
I also agree wholly with your excellent suspicions about the press' desire for freedom. Has this appeal to popular liberal values around personal freedom not just become a guise for fears based in a covert racial conservatism?
And, yes, once again, to your succinctly put comments about white, rich men. And only a few at that. We must beware of the trappings of liberal theory, championing inalianable rights to own property and the virtues of negative rights, being in fact only a guise for an embarassed attempt at tyranny.
Regarding your last paragraph: Let no desire for factual referencing ever come between you and I and our desire to hold each other.
I toast your choice on every account.
Post a Comment