On point Toby, my take is with or without bloggers there is need for accreditation of journalists , this will not only make them authoritative, it will also increase the level of public trust and the ability of Media houses to contribute positively to the Societies developement since there will be more focus on issues, Media plays a great role in shaping the Societies perception and opinion. In as much as we should protect freedom of expression, we must also safeguard people from Slander (gutter press). <br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 5:14 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:toby@law-democracy.org">toby@law-democracy.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
Hi all,<br>
<br>
A few comments on todays questions.<br>
<br>
On the first two questions, we should also look at the definition of<br>
media, which includes electronic media engaged in publication for<br>
circulation to the public, except for book publishing.<br>
<br>
Taken together, it seems to me that the definitions clearly include<br>
Internet forms of new media, such as bloggers.<br>
<br>
There are ways to define traditional-type media that also disseminate over<br>
the Internet. For example, the Council of Europe (the human rights body<br>
for Europe) relies on the notion of an editorial process, which thereby<br>
excludes bloggers.<br>
<br>
Otherwise, I am not sure why we want to distinguish between media content<br>
and media enterprises.<br>
<br>
On the questions about journalists, under international law, it is<br>
well-established that it is not legitimate to impose conditions on who may<br>
be a journalist. Neither the definition of a journalist in the Bill nor<br>
the reference to the Council setting criteria for the employment of<br>
journalists meet this standard. Furthermore, the matter of registering<br>
journalists is very dubious from the perspective of freedom of expression.<br>
It is not just that there are practical problems with this (eg how to<br>
capture ad hoc commentators), but the whole idea is offensive to freedom<br>
of expression, in part because there is no justifiable reason for doing<br>
it.<br>
<br>
Section 37 is also relevant here, calling for the accreditation of foreign<br>
journalists. The import of this is not clear. But if it means that foreign<br>
journalists may not report from Kenya on an ad hoc basis without being<br>
accredited by the Council (as opposed to foreign journalists who are based<br>
in Kenya on a longer-term basis), then it is very problematical from the<br>
perspective of freedom of expression.<br>
<br>
As I mentioned yesterday, it may be legitimate to establish a statutory<br>
media council (by the way, I don't understand Rosemary's question on this<br>
- this is clearly a statutory body, ie established by law, and not a<br>
self-regulatory approach, ie established by the media themselves). But I<br>
do not think it would be legitimate for such a body to impose sanctions<br>
directly on individual journalists, as opposed to media enterprises. In<br>
the end, it is the (collective) decision to publish in the media, which<br>
involves not only the originating journalist but an editorial process,<br>
which is responsible for any harm caused by that publication. So it is the<br>
media enterprise, and not the journalist, who should respond to any<br>
complaints. Of course there may be cases where the behaviour of individual<br>
journalists may cause harm, eg by invading privacy, but these can be<br>
remedied either by civil action against the journalist or again through<br>
complaints to the media house.<br>
<br>
In practice both statutory and self-regulatory systems in democracies<br>
around the world normally address media houses, and not individual<br>
journalists as such. This is the case, for example, with the Press<br>
Complaints Commission in the UK and the Press Council in Indonesia, just<br>
to give two examples.<br>
<br>
Finally, I am concerned with the focus in section 4, functions of the<br>
Council, on setting professional/ethical standards. No less than three of<br>
the functions focus on this (4(c), (e) and (i)), in addition to the idea<br>
of resolving complaints. Is this really necessary?<br>
<br>
Toby<br>
<br>
<br>
___________________________________<br>
Toby Mendel<br>
<br>
Centre for Law and Democracy<br>
<a href="mailto:toby@law-democracy.org">toby@law-democracy.org</a><br>
Tel: +1 902 431-3688<br>
Fax: +1 902 431-3689<br>
<a href="http://www.law-democracy.org" target="_blank">www.law-democracy.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
kictanet mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke">kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet" target="_blank">http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet</a><br>
<br>
This message was sent to: <a href="mailto:otieno.barrack@gmail.com">otieno.barrack@gmail.com</a><br>
Unsubscribe or change your options at <a href="http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail.com" target="_blank">http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Barrack O. Otieno<div>Afriregister Ltd (Kenya)</div><div><a href="http://www.afriregister.com" target="_blank">www.afrire</a><a href="http://gister.bi" target="_blank">gister.bi</a>, <a href="http://www.afriergister.com" target="_blank">www.afriregister.com</a></div>
<div><a href="http://www.afriregister.com" target="_blank"></a>ICANN accredited registrar<br>+254721325277</div><div>+254-20-2498789<br>Skype: barrack.otieno</div><br>