Press Freedom: What are real challenges to Ugandan media?
May 02, 2010
FREEDOM House, a media watchdog, in its latest report, has for the second year running ranked Uganda as “partly free,†in media freedom. Media freedom in Uganda is deemed relatively good. Several independent newspapers and radio and TV stations have emerged and compete freely against the state-o
By Felix Osike
FREEDOM House, a media watchdog, in its latest report, has for the second year running ranked Uganda as “partly free,†in media freedom. Media freedom in Uganda is deemed relatively good. Several independent newspapers and radio and TV stations have emerged and compete freely against the state-owned media which had enjoyed virtual monopoly.
Although Uganda has made significant progress in media freedom, there are instances of intolerance to critical journalists trying to bring corruption and abuse of power into the searing light of public scrutiny.
Criminalisation of media offences is generally unfavourable to the media.
In particular, criminalisation has related to reporting on military, security, corruption and governance issues. National security remains a blanket condition, not specifically defined. That entitles state officials to lawfully prevail over the rights of journalists.
The limitations to media freedom in Uganda are in various provisions relating to sedition, treason, national security, both civil and criminal defamation and the Press and Journalists Statute.
The Government’s commitment to press freedom often comes to a test when the media reveals politically controversial information.
Laws of sedition and treason, put in place in the name of national security, sometimes drive the media to practise self- censorship. The proposed amendments to the journalist statute even pose a bigger danger to journalism in Uganda. The definition of information prejudicial to national security and other media offences is overly broad and vague.
Though there is a proliferation of newspapers and radio and TV stations, journalists still face several hurdles.
Competition for audiences has become fierce and the quality of reporting has sometimes been compromised by commercialised news.
Needless to say, the limitations imposed by the archaic laws on press freedom in Uganda cannot be underestimated.
However, the informal constraints such as poor remuneration, deplorable working conditions, shortage of resources and lack of proper training, media ownership and corruption pose a bigger burden to Ugandan journalists.
A related difficulty is that there exists a culture of secrecy in the Ugandan society. Lack of access to information remains a major stumbling block to tackling institutional corruption and abuse of human rights.
Paradoxically, the enactment of the Access to information Act has not reduced the level of secrecy in Uganda. The Government has moved at a snail’s pace on operationalising the law. As a result, reporters often encounter barriers raised by public servants who continue to rely on the Official Secrets Act.
To compound the problem, the Ugandan public plays a ‘bystander’ role and does not support journalists in the fight against corruption and other malpractices. In reality, there is no public hostility towards corrupt behaviour in Uganda.
A number of Ugandan journalists also require training. In the face of rapid changing media environment, media houses need to embrace professional training as a core requirement of the job. Poor research techniques and lack of investigative skills are the frequent reasons why our journalists gloss over issues.
More generally, many media houses allocate low budgets for specialised and in-depth reporting. Ugandan journalists also do not have adequate resources for communication, transport and access to electronic information sources necessary for their work.
Another crucial point is the growing influence of advertisers on media content, thereby threatening media independence. There appears to be a conflict between profit making and truth telling.
This has led to a loss of public trust as journalists are also viewed as being motivated by profits and personal gain.
Besides, some media owners are extremely focused on making money and do not care about the journalists welfare.
A further complication is that Ugandan journalists have not been spared of corruption. Editors and journalists agree that to some extent, journalists are constantly getting compromised while pursuing stories.
The question of ethical challenges facing journalists such as accepting payments to “kill†stories is damaging the reputation of the media industry.
One suggestion is to improve facilities for the journalists to do their work. Systematic corruption in the media opens up way for discussion on ethical challenges.
The question is: How can journalists hold the powerful accountable if they are also involved in corrupt practices? Ugandan journalists may disagree on the extent of corruption in the media, but it is one of the factors dealing a blow to quality journalism.
Worth noting, also is that media ownership and control and the editorial policies to a large extent affect the operations of journalists. The threat from media owners is real.
It is evident that a range of formal and informal constraints limit media freedom in Uganda. But the informal constraints impose the severest limitations to press freedom.
The press can hardly function as a public forum for expression of views and criticisms with such constraints.
The duty of the journalists is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self governing. Journalists cannot perform this duty if there are regulatory frameworks suffocating media freedom.
The writer is a journalist
FREEDOM House, a media watchdog, in its latest report, has for the second year running ranked Uganda as “partly free,†in media freedom. Media freedom in Uganda is deemed relatively good. Several independent newspapers and radio and TV stations have emerged and compete freely against the state-owned media which had enjoyed virtual monopoly.
Although Uganda has made significant progress in media freedom, there are instances of intolerance to critical journalists trying to bring corruption and abuse of power into the searing light of public scrutiny.
Criminalisation of media offences is generally unfavourable to the media.
In particular, criminalisation has related to reporting on military, security, corruption and governance issues. National security remains a blanket condition, not specifically defined. That entitles state officials to lawfully prevail over the rights of journalists.
The limitations to media freedom in Uganda are in various provisions relating to sedition, treason, national security, both civil and criminal defamation and the Press and Journalists Statute.
The Government’s commitment to press freedom often comes to a test when the media reveals politically controversial information.
Laws of sedition and treason, put in place in the name of national security, sometimes drive the media to practise self- censorship. The proposed amendments to the journalist statute even pose a bigger danger to journalism in Uganda. The definition of information prejudicial to national security and other media offences is overly broad and vague.
Though there is a proliferation of newspapers and radio and TV stations, journalists still face several hurdles.
Competition for audiences has become fierce and the quality of reporting has sometimes been compromised by commercialised news.
Needless to say, the limitations imposed by the archaic laws on press freedom in Uganda cannot be underestimated.
However, the informal constraints such as poor remuneration, deplorable working conditions, shortage of resources and lack of proper training, media ownership and corruption pose a bigger burden to Ugandan journalists.
A related difficulty is that there exists a culture of secrecy in the Ugandan society. Lack of access to information remains a major stumbling block to tackling institutional corruption and abuse of human rights.
Paradoxically, the enactment of the Access to information Act has not reduced the level of secrecy in Uganda. The Government has moved at a snail’s pace on operationalising the law. As a result, reporters often encounter barriers raised by public servants who continue to rely on the Official Secrets Act.
To compound the problem, the Ugandan public plays a ‘bystander’ role and does not support journalists in the fight against corruption and other malpractices. In reality, there is no public hostility towards corrupt behaviour in Uganda.
A number of Ugandan journalists also require training. In the face of rapid changing media environment, media houses need to embrace professional training as a core requirement of the job. Poor research techniques and lack of investigative skills are the frequent reasons why our journalists gloss over issues.
More generally, many media houses allocate low budgets for specialised and in-depth reporting. Ugandan journalists also do not have adequate resources for communication, transport and access to electronic information sources necessary for their work.
Another crucial point is the growing influence of advertisers on media content, thereby threatening media independence. There appears to be a conflict between profit making and truth telling.
This has led to a loss of public trust as journalists are also viewed as being motivated by profits and personal gain.
Besides, some media owners are extremely focused on making money and do not care about the journalists welfare.
A further complication is that Ugandan journalists have not been spared of corruption. Editors and journalists agree that to some extent, journalists are constantly getting compromised while pursuing stories.
The question of ethical challenges facing journalists such as accepting payments to “kill†stories is damaging the reputation of the media industry.
One suggestion is to improve facilities for the journalists to do their work. Systematic corruption in the media opens up way for discussion on ethical challenges.
The question is: How can journalists hold the powerful accountable if they are also involved in corrupt practices? Ugandan journalists may disagree on the extent of corruption in the media, but it is one of the factors dealing a blow to quality journalism.
Worth noting, also is that media ownership and control and the editorial policies to a large extent affect the operations of journalists. The threat from media owners is real.
It is evident that a range of formal and informal constraints limit media freedom in Uganda. But the informal constraints impose the severest limitations to press freedom.
The press can hardly function as a public forum for expression of views and criticisms with such constraints.
The duty of the journalists is to provide citizens with the information they need to be free and self governing. Journalists cannot perform this duty if there are regulatory frameworks suffocating media freedom.
The writer is a journalist