|
STORY OF TRANS-NATIONAL COMPLAINT
MECHANISM:
HOW IT HAS BEEN BLOCKED
Oktay Ekži
Former President, WAPC
&
Chairman, Turkish Press Council
“Is there a remedy for those who claim suffered from unfair attacks or unfounded stories of the trans-national media or if a mechanism of voluntary type is established by the journalists themselves, would it cause damage to the democracy and Freedom of Communication (Freedom of Expression and the Press)?”
These questions widely discussed by the media world in last years. But it is still far away to reach to a generally accepted answer.
I would like to tell the story of such an attempt and draw your attention to a problem that still exists and expected to be dealt with:
It was the very first time that an Indian Journalist, Mr. H. K. Dua, then Editor-in-Chief of Indian Express daily, asked a question to the panellists of the 44. General Assembly and World Congress of the International Press Institute in Seoul in May 1995. He said:
“Dailies, magazines, radio and televisions broadcasting across the borders do merely cause cultural transformation. They also end up in an unjustified and audacious aggression against their target individuals via the false news and other material, which they publish in contradiction with basic professional principles. I wonder if it is not possible to set up a mechanism aiming to check ourselves to prevent such aggression?”
None of the panellists could give a satisfactory reply to Mr. Dua’s question.
Mr.Dua’s question has been brought by the Turkish Press Council to a WAPC meeting in Helsinki in early June of the same year. The idea was, ”Is it possible to establish a voluntary mechanism to deal with the complaints about internationally delivered print media outlets; radios, TV channels and other medias?”
We proposed a mechanism based on voluntary co-operation of concerned parties.
This proposal was received with interest and was put on the agenda, despite the objection of the delegates from Austria, Greek Cypriots and Finland.
In March 1996, The Turkish Press Council organized a “round-table” meeting in Istanbul. At this point Prof. David Flint, then Chairman of WAPC, in the name of Working Group –which was established in August 1995 Colombo meeting of WAPC- presented a “proposal” to the Round Table.
Some participants like late Lord Oliver McGregor (then President of WAPC) and IPI Director Johann Fritz objected.
Their objection based on a fear that, “Such a mechanism might eventually come under the influence or pressure of governments, thus creating a system that will hinder the freedom of expression.”
At the same meeting some participants questioned the possibility of setting up an “international code of ethics.”
The delegates, who supported the proposal gave detailed information as to the advantages of such mechanism. As an example, a program of a German TV Channel was brought to the meeting where “The Turkish peasants helping PKK in Antalya mountains” was proven to be lie. In fact, this program had been made up in Greece.
Also some delegates’ attention was drawn to documentaries, claiming to be shot in Kashmir area, whereas they were taken in Bosnia war.
Finally the Working Group was assigned to:
· Study the attitude of organizations that carry trans-national broadcast or printed matter upon receipt of such complaints.
· Publish the results of these studies.
The crucial meeting was the Istanbul Conference of WAPC that was held in September 1998.
It was crucial because the question (or proposal) was the main topic of the agenda and all concerned parties were invited.
At this point, Mr. Ronald Koven, The European Representative of World Press Freedom Committee, who was against the idea of creating a mechanism of this kind, from the very beginning started a campaign to kill the proposal. He –I understand- convinced some prominent journalists like Rosemary Righter of London Times and some professional organisations like American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE).
Mr. Edward Seaton, then President of ASNE said, “They (WAPC and it’s supporters) are going out into deep water, and it is water that they shouldn’t be swimming in.”
ASNE’s Executive Director Mr. Lee Stinnet accused the organizers (namely the Turkish Press Council and WAPC) of “trying to devise yet another collar for the press.”
Rony Koven wrote to Oktay Ekži in his letter of 12 June 1998, to remind “the long standing objection of WPFC” to the proposal. His points were:
· The very existence of such mechanism would be “a standing invitation for proposals to make it’s rulings mandatory under international law.
· The press in many democratic countries, including France and United States, where the press generally acknowledged to be among the world’s freest, has rejected the idea of organizing a national press council, let alone a global emanation of an association of national councils.
· The very existence of an “International Code of Ethics for Media” be voluntary or not, will inevitably be used by governments against the press.
As a matter of fact, we could not convince Mr.Koven that:
· As trans-national broadcast and publishing is a common practice in a global society, no one can resist the need of regulation for long. The point is, regulation must be in accordance with the needs of democratic society and truly for the freedom of communication. That is why, the best way of preventing the governments from intervening press world is to create a mechanism of this kind.
· It is certainly much better and safer to do it by ourselves and create a voluntary mechanism which –I underline again- would be a staunch defender of the freedom of communication (freedom of expression and freedom of communication).
· No one has ever claimed that an “Internationally applicable Code of Ethics for Media” is a must. As once Prof. David Flint pointed, “A voluntary mechanism for trans-national media complaints would act like the Quebec Press Council” which is famous with not having a written Code of Ethics.
In fact, when Prof. Dr. David Flint defended the idea of establishing a Voluntary Mechanism for trans-national complaints, he said that:
· Alternative to this, is “to allow injustice to continue.”
· If we create such a mechanism, it would be “A response to the growing loss of confidence in the media.”
· It would balance the power of concerned Government.
· And it would be a response to the globalisation.
When he was explaining his views he emphasized that, quote:
“We live in a world where national boundaries seem to be evaporating. At least in the field of communications and the media (…).
We shall have newspapers without frontiers. We shall have radio without frontiers. We shall have television without frontiers. We do not want propose control, beyond frontiers.
Should we not equally enjoy an opportunity to reply across frontiers?
Should we not expect accuracy and fairness across frontiers?
Should we not therefore extend the working of market place of ideas across national frontiers?” unquote.
As it is clear, there were a great deal of contradictory views on this question. Also some –like Mr. Ronald Koven- claimed that it was about to establish a tribunal, which had nothing to do with the idea.
As this was another point in the debate, let me summarise how would this mechanism work?
The main object of mechanism was to mediate first, as Prof. David Flint once suggested:
If the question can not be solved through mediation then it would adjudicate and issue it’s opinion.
The mechanism would ensure that, in respect to any complaint, local remedies would be exhausted first.
There would have to be a formula for selecting “ad hoc” complaints committees to hear and adjudicate those complaints.
These would not only be complaints against the media but also complaints about conduct against the media.
Also a Freedom Committee could monitor legal and political restrictions to ensure that they were only those restrictions necessary in a civilized and democratic society.
It could select the World’s best practice in relation to freedom of communication, and argue that this applies to other concerned countries.
Complaints could be evaluated by reference to the “general principles” of the law and “free and responsible” journalism. Based on the practice of the International Court of Justice and the Quebec Press Council.
At the Istanbul Conference three Working Groups were established.
The Working Groups studied on all views expressed in this question.
Eventually WAPC decided to remove this proposal from it’s agenda till the appropriate conditions are achieved.
Is it too late to ask:
If we would succeed to establish such a mechanism, would Danish Caricature case of September 2005, cause such big damages to all concerned parties?
----------------------------
|
