Speak now or forever hold your peace

AS the government marches relentlessly towards finalising the Protection of State Information Bill, it is becoming clearer that the proposed law will not muster the constitutionality test.

But we have seen a new level of arrogance demonstrated through the e-tolling system that will be imposed on the people of Gauteng. The citizens, who pay the salaries of the high-flying officials, have been told that they had "better get used to it".

Similarly, it seems that in spite of all the warnings, pleas and arguments the government is set to impose controls on media freedom.

The issue is really whether the government recognises the purpose of journalism. Most supporters of media controls argue that journalists want to place themselves above the law.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. It might sound pious, even, when the media declares itself to be the mouthpiece of the people, the Fourth Estate, the watchdog for society and serving the interests of the people. Newspapers have also been described as a social agency.

There is always an argument that newspapers do not speak for the people, nor do they represent them. On the other hand, the government is elected and has a mandate from the people. The issue is whether people know what the government does in their name. Dictatorships have claimed that they act and speak on behalf of the people. Apartheid was introduced in the interests of the people who elected the white government - but that did not make it right.

"The people" have always remained quiet about issues that affect them. Many have a sense of hopelessness, and often "the people" launch protests that sometimes turn violent. It is usually the media who get the blame for such outbursts .

What media critics often overlook is that continued support for newspapers indicates a vote of confidence. It is perhaps an even more effective mandate than the one-every-five-years political mandate. A decision to buy or not to buy a newspaper is taken every day or weekend. But it is when the people remain quiet as their rights as citizens are being eroded that society needs to be concerned. As one media advocacy group says in their slogan, "Silence kills democracy, but a free press talks".

Freedom of the press and of expression is a fundamental human right. For many it is not a significant issue - until it has been completely eroded. By then dictatorship will have been entrenched, and other human rights can be trampled on in the darkness of censorship.

Some critics have accused the media of platitudinous responses to critical issues about the state of our country. They claim the media does not present the "good story", and that we are focused on making profits. The argument clearly does not make sense: ministers making the rounds in poverty-stricken townships and kissing babies does not make news.

How many times can newspapers report that the government has built a million RDP houses, while the people who are supposed to benefit are protesting about either the poor quality of those houses or lack of them?

How many times can the media report that the government is eradicating shacks and pit toilets, while the reality that prevails is one of a lack of basic facilities?

Sure, newspapers have to make a profit in order to survive, just as much as the government has to collect taxes in order for it to operate efficiently. The decline in newspaper circulations has nothing to do with readers making a judgement call on them. Rather, it is because of the proliferation of other news sources that fewer people buy newspapers.

Let us begin to speak out now, lest we be silenced forever.