FHRI media report was well researched
Jan 10, 2008
On December 10, 2007, the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI) released a report on the state of media freedoms in Uganda. The executive director of the Media Centre, Fred Opolot, in an article published in The New Vision, January 7, 2008, called the report inaccurate. FHRI stands by the re
Wendy Kasujja
On December 10, 2007, the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI) released a report on the state of media freedoms in Uganda. The executive director of the Media Centre, Fred Opolot, in an article published in The New Vision, January 7, 2008, called the report inaccurate. FHRI stands by the report because it was a result of thorough research.
After concluding the field research, FHRI made numerous but unsuccessful attempts to get the Media Centre’s comments on the findings of the research in vain. Before the launch of the report, FHRI provided an advance copy to Opolot and invited him to the launch. However, FHRI received no response and the Media Centre did not send a representative. This was the opportunity for Opolot to challenge the “inaccuracies’’ in the report. Opolot took exception to the section on the Radio One journalist, who was injured during the Mabira protests. However, nowhere in the report is it alleged that he was targeted.
Before Opolot took that office, the Media Centre, in contravention of the existing legal framework and the principles of natural justice, kicked Canadian journalist Blake Lambert out of Uganda. FHRI will continue “recycling issues’’ whether they occurred two or 10 years ago until everybody learns to accept that human rights are inherent and not granted by the state or any person. Rather than call the whole report inaccurate, the Media Centre should have pointed out particular incidents of violation cited in the report and said: “That is a lie created by FHRI, this did not happen...â€
When Opolot states that the report lacks credibility for relying on allegations rather than facts obtained through research, he cites an example from Page 42 and ignores the fact that the quote is footnoted and the source interviewed by FHRI clearly named.
Most of the African nations Opolot compares Uganda to are at the bottom of world press freedom rankings. The best among them is like being the least sick among the dying.
The Media Centre and the state should adhere to the law and FHRI will have nothing to write about.
The writer is the Public Relations Officer of the FHRI
On December 10, 2007, the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI) released a report on the state of media freedoms in Uganda. The executive director of the Media Centre, Fred Opolot, in an article published in The New Vision, January 7, 2008, called the report inaccurate. FHRI stands by the report because it was a result of thorough research.
After concluding the field research, FHRI made numerous but unsuccessful attempts to get the Media Centre’s comments on the findings of the research in vain. Before the launch of the report, FHRI provided an advance copy to Opolot and invited him to the launch. However, FHRI received no response and the Media Centre did not send a representative. This was the opportunity for Opolot to challenge the “inaccuracies’’ in the report. Opolot took exception to the section on the Radio One journalist, who was injured during the Mabira protests. However, nowhere in the report is it alleged that he was targeted.
Before Opolot took that office, the Media Centre, in contravention of the existing legal framework and the principles of natural justice, kicked Canadian journalist Blake Lambert out of Uganda. FHRI will continue “recycling issues’’ whether they occurred two or 10 years ago until everybody learns to accept that human rights are inherent and not granted by the state or any person. Rather than call the whole report inaccurate, the Media Centre should have pointed out particular incidents of violation cited in the report and said: “That is a lie created by FHRI, this did not happen...â€
When Opolot states that the report lacks credibility for relying on allegations rather than facts obtained through research, he cites an example from Page 42 and ignores the fact that the quote is footnoted and the source interviewed by FHRI clearly named.
Most of the African nations Opolot compares Uganda to are at the bottom of world press freedom rankings. The best among them is like being the least sick among the dying.
The Media Centre and the state should adhere to the law and FHRI will have nothing to write about.
The writer is the Public Relations Officer of the FHRI