Think Mauritius

The Media Commission Bill was presented to Parliament last week. It paves the way to a commission with greater powers over the media in Mauritius. Journalists are alarmed and question the need for this proposal at a time when the Media Trust (albeit leaderless) and laws already regulate their profession.

If it becomes law, the bill will threaten the ability of journalists to follow their ethics in the course of their duties. The redefinition of “privacy” and “harassment” in the context of journalism will be one of the first tasks for the new commissioners. Recalling how Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam was offended by the publication of an unfounded rumour about “an important personality” and the personal vendetta he publicly declared against journalists, there is cause for concern that the new interpretation may not be favourable to them. Should that be the case, even the most hardened journalist may not want to run the risk of sanctions and may choose to auto-censor. The unfortunate consequence will be a break-down of journalism in Mauritius.

Some of the responsibilities for the Media Commission as outlined in the bill raise further concerns. For example, the commission will re-balance the affiliation of the existing newspapers and will set a quota for publications. This violates not only freedom of speech but also freedom of choice by restricting the means by which citizens get their information. Dr Philippe Forget commented that citizens unconsciously exercise their democratic rights every time they buy the newspaper of their choice. An extrapolation of Dr Forget’s comment is that limiting the sources of information equates to diminishing a democracy.

There is one major difference between blogging and journalism: Bloggers do not have to comply with the same regulations that govern journalists. However, with the growing popularity of blogging, there may be a need to regulate it. Journalists are bound by ethical values and laws that prevent them from causing harm in the name of freedom of speech. There are no such safeguards to protect bloggers and their readers, which leave them exposed to libel and privacy violation, respectively. Viewed in this light, the Media Commission Bill is perhaps a necessity, especially if its proponents genuinely saw the need for updating the existing framework to cover new media.

The more experienced journalists call for caution against denouncing the bill at such an early stage. They wisely recommend to their colleagues that they delay their criticisms until details of the bill are known and the full implications have been analysed. But, when the tenet of freedom of speech, something journalists value most above all by virtue of their profession, is at risk, it is not surprising that wisdom alone does not convince.