Keep media free

Further, the Draft targets media freedom in its clause 14 on “Freedom of Thought and Expression.” Clause 14 lets the Government regulate broadcasting and publishing in the interest of “national security; territorial integrity; public safety; the prevention of disorder, crime or the disclosure of information received in confidence; the protection of health, morals, the reputation of others, or the rights and freedoms of others; or for maintaining the independence of the Judiciary.” One question immediately arises:

What moral right does the Government have to stop the media publicising “information received in confidence?”

Much information comes to us in confidence, and later upon publication is found to be of vital public interest. Indeed publication of such information has led to removal from office of several top people, who have been called to answer allegations of wrongdoing or impropriety. Tip-offs, leaks and whistle-blowers often lead us to uncovering scandals in low and high places. If we waited for official sources to reveal these matters, we would wait in vain for it is simply not in their interest to do so. Further, media houses as we pointed out yesterday are private enterprises and this Draft allows the Government to interfere with commercial freedom and breaches the constitutional right to enjoy property.

The Draft restricts the media in cases involving “the reputation of others.” We say that the media is already severely restricted in what we publish by stringent libel laws which permit the truth to be hidden and which facilitate huge lawsuits against media houses. If anything, the law should be moved in the direction of boosting media freedom and away from facilitating lack of accountability.

The Draft justifies media control in the name of public welfare ideals such as “national security,” “public safety,” “prevention of disorder,” and “protection of health and morals.” These terms are tenuous and could be interpreted very widely and loosely by politicians keen to avoid public scrutiny.

The Draft’s section 21(1) on “Freedom of the Press” says, “Everyone has the right to freedom of the press.” We have two concerns about this statement. Firstly, it is so crudely worded, almost as to be meaningless, that we doubt its sincerity.

Is it saying anyone may own a printing-press, or anyone may access the media, or what? All it needs to say simply is that the media in Trinidad and Tobago may operate freely. It’s so simple a principle, yet the Draft in our view is deliberately vague.

Secondly, the “Freedom of the Press” clause adds that “everyone has the right to the free interchange of thoughts and opinions” and “everyone may accordingly speak, write or publish freely...” But it is simply a platitude in light of the undefined accountability demanded by section 21(3) and the harsh restrictions in section 14 under “Freedom of Thought and Expression.”

The fact of the matter is that media houses in Trinidad and Tobago, like other democratic countries, are sufficiently governed by libel laws, common standards of taste and decency, reputation, professional journalistic ethics, and the considerations of readers and advertisers, which are paramount.

We lament that this restrictive Draft has come from a Government which was elected to office because it promised more public accountability and transparency than its predecessors. It is simply not acceptable.

In 1998 when freedom of the Press was being threatened by a rampant UNC led by Basdeo Panday, we made our position abundantly clear on this issue. Since then our masthead has included a red logo reminding Government that freedom of the Press was a constitutional right in Trinidad and Tobago. Now years later, under Mr Manning and the PNM we are faced with the same threat which we give notice, will be resisted with the same vigour that applied in 1998 when Manning, as Opposition Leader condemned Mr Panday’s attacks on the media as “trampling on the rights enshrined in the Constitution like freedom of the Press and freedom of expression.”