Valuing media freedom

This represents a considerable leap from the last ranking in which we appeared at 44.

According to the compilers of the ranking, “Trinidad and Tobago’s controversial Libel and Defamation Act was partly amended in 2014 but ‘malicious defamatory libel known to be false’ is still punishable by up to two years in prison as well as a fine.” Without citing any data to back up their claim, the compilers further remark, “Most media outlets are privately-owned but those regarded as favourable to the government get the lion’s share of State advertising.” Additionally, the reporters foresee problems ahead. They state, “Several pieces of legislation set to be adopted in 2017 – the Cybercrime Bill, the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Data Protection Act, and the Broadcast Code – could have a chilling effect on press freedom and free expression online if adopted.” The improvement in our ranking is surely a good thing. It is better to be perceived as friendlier to the media than not. But as with all of these rankings, things must be placed in context of the reality on the ground.

An improvement in international rankings does not mean we must now become complacent.

What does a ranking at number 34 mean when our neighbour Jamaica places eighth overall? Still, it says something when we rank higher than the UK and the US (40th and 43rd, respectively).

We must recognise that compared with many other countries we are lucky to enjoy a high degree of freedom. In the year under review, no journalist has been killed, no netizen silenced and no media assistant eradicated.

The media have also enjoyed the fact that they are self-regulated, and while efforts at consolidating their membership into a professional body are always difficult propositions in the highly competitive world of reporting, they have not had to contend with overt attempts to frustrate their freedom, as has been the case in past decades.

At the same time, the media remain subject to the “shooting the messenger” phenomenon. Additionally, in the context of a serious crime situation, what does it really mean to say there is a “free media?” Will the media be able to keep up? Wednesday’s observation of World Press Freedom Day was an opportunity for all stakeholders to reflect on what needs to be further done to strengthen the media in the long run.

The rise of social media has changed the nature of our relationship with traditional news outlets. It has democratised the public discourse, bringing to light matters that would have normally remained under the radar or out of the public eye. Citizens are now ever watchful and vigilant. And they have phone cameras to document events as they unfold. This means the media have been redefined in a sense. The media have spilled out of formal structures to more informal modes of telling the news. This is both a good and a bad thing.

Like other mediums, social media can be exploited to spread false news, to spin facts in a certain direction and to distract from fundamental issues. The rise of so-called “post-truth politics” is nothing new. Nor is “fake news.” Any tool of communication can be misused and the message misunderstood or distorted.

But balanced with this is the ability of the ordinary citizen to think critically and to conduct their own checks, using the Internet.

The media still have a vital role to play in all of this. The media should both reflect and shape society.

This week’s observation of World Press Freedom Day was another chance to recommit to this ideal in the hope of building not only a stronger media corps, but a nation moving forward.