Opinion
Journalism ethics must be
reinforced
The seminar on journalism practice and ethics in Dar es Salaam last week was
undoubtedly of benefit to most participants.
Especially for the editors of various media houses, whose newspapers have
frequently
been falling into the trap of ethical transgression, the seminar must have been
an
eye-opener which hopefully would add value to their day to day practices.
The issues discussed are particularly relevant in Tanzania. In the recent past
we have
witnessed an increasing proliferation of newspapers, television and radio
stations
which should benefit the nation.
With more professionals taking up jobs in the media industry, ethics have to be
reinforced.
It is sad to see that journalism as a profession is not as respected as other
professions
in the country. But with journalists not following the norms and practices there
is no
wonder that they are not taken seriously.
Although there are no laws determining the profession, there are certain moral
standards that should be adhered to. Journalists and editors need to make hard
decisions on ethics. The guiding principles should always be to write
truthfully, to
maintain professional independence and most importantly strive to minimising
harm.
The essence of professional excellence is the ability to balance between writing
truthfully and minimise harm.
Examples of ethical blunders in the press are there, despite efforts by the
Media
Council of Tanzania (MCT).
For instance, it is crystal clear to most journalists that identification of
victims of
sexual assault is unethical; yet one can sometimes find the names of the victims
in
the press, especially in the tabloids.
Also there have been instances where reports on rape have been too graphic.
The rapid increase of tabloids published in Dar es Salaam has not been matched
with
professional qualities and ethical considerations.
It is our hope that there will be ongoing professional and skills training and
retraining,
attended by both editors and field reporters. This is of highest importance if
we are to
have a respectable media in the country.
Does transparency matter?
Since the word transparency became part of the everyday jargon among democracy
activists, civil society groups and donors, the government has felt it necessary
to open
up for the public to see what and more importantly how it conducts its business.
A couple of days ago the government issued a statement saying that it was happy
to
receive any comments from the public regarding the forthcoming budget and
especially how to improve the tax system.
Surely, the government has the transparency catchword in mind, and surely it is
good
that it is willing to listen to any suggestions from the public who will be
affected by
any reforms by the government.
However, is this a sign that our elected representatives are out of touch with
the
electorate and would like to know what we actually think? Or is it just part of
the rush
for the forthcoming elections, which I would guess will see an increasing number
of
voter friendly initiatives?
Yet, one has to question what, if anything, will the government do when it has
collected the views from the public (probably from organising a workshop).
Will the public’s voice bear any weight when the government discusses the budget
from which every ministry would like as large a share as possible?
Transparency only means something when any suggestions of what has been made
accessible for the public is taken into account. Letting someone in the house
but
ignoring their presence will not do.
But if the government is willing to do its part, it is not more than fair that
the public
speaks out and contributes ideas and suggestions. More often than not, mistrust
rather than cooperation becomes the order of the day. The public’s mind is full
of
fresh memories of a government that did not care about what the people thought.
So
why should it be different this time?
A lot remains to be desired from the government’s side when it comes to
listening to
the public and more importantly showing that it is willing to admit mistakes and
embark on changes.
But when the opportunity is there, one should take it and not hesitate. If there
are
pitfalls in the system, the government should be enlightened and act
accordingly.
Bush undermines nuclear resolution in Iran
By Evarist Kagaruki
US president, George W. Bush, in his State of the Union speech last
week, reiterated
his baseless charge that the Islamic Republic of Iran is developing nuclear
weapons.
Tehran has always refuted the charge, maintaining that its nuclear programme is
for
peaceful purposes. It has opened its doors for the International Atomic Energy
Agency
(IAEA) to carry out inspections of its nuclear facilities.
Bush’s sabre-rattling surprised no one, but left many wondering as to America’s
hidden agenda against Iran. There are fears in some quarters, that the US might
launch an attack on the oil-rich gulf state’s nuclear sites. The US President is
increasingly using the same kind of inflammatory language he used when America
and Britain were planning to launch war in Iraq. He calls Iran the “world’s
primary
state sponsor of terror”, another fabricated charge because the country actually
supports militant groups fighting for freedom for their respective countries.
America
claims it stands for freedom!
Iran supports the Palestinian cause, and has been the anchor of the Hezbollah
resistance against Israeli occupation of Lebanon and Syria’s Golan Heights. This
is a
sacred duty!
Fears of a “possible” US attack on Iran – though remote – were raised when Vice
President, Dick Cheney, said last month that Iran was at the “top of the Bush
administration’s list of world trouble-spots” and that Israel might “act fast”
to
eliminate any nuclear threat. And Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, echoing
the
words of her hawkish cabinet colleague, said Iran was an “outpost of tyranny”.
All this humdrum speech again surprises nobody. Iran, since the overthrow of the
despotic regime of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in the blessed Islamic
revolution of 1979, has been branded all sorts of names: “pariah state”, “rouge
state”,
“sponsor of terrorism”, “axis of evil”, and so forth. These derogatory terms
typify the
inherent anti-Iran American attitude which underline Washington’s long-standing
urge
for revenge over the lost key ally and reliable source of gasoline.
Rice, on her recent tour of some European countries and the Middle East, denied
that
attacking Iran was on the administration’s agenda (now). But this denial does
not
compare well with the vitriolic anti-Iran language coming out of the White
House!
Besides, one would not expect the Secretary of State, as a guest of the European
states which are opposed to military attack on Iran, to say in no critical terms
that US
intends to take such action!
It is an open secret that despite such denial, “regime change” in Tehran is
indisputably part of the overall long-term grand strategy of America to ensure
that the
whole of the Middle East and a greater part of central Asia (Armenia,
Azerbaijan,
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan and Pakistan) fall
under complete American control and tutelage. Such control would give the US
leverage to dominate the Saudi, Gulf and Caspian oil and gas.
In this connection, Iran, which has refused to be a satellite of America,
remains the
only obstacle in the sole super-power’s way. It has, since revolution,
maintained its
sovereignty and independence in the true sense.
Some of the countries mentioned above (protégés of the US) may not have any
tangible economic importance to the West but their geographical location
presents a
strategic advantage to any big power with predatory and hegemonic ambitions over
them.
The other reason why America would want to see Iran turned unto another Iraq is
of
course Israel. The Jewish state is America’s most reliable ally and friend in
the Middle
East. American interest in the region would be best served if Israel became the
dominant (military and economic) power there. That is the goal the Americans are
pursuing.
Iran is one of the least militarised countries in its neighbourhood. But Israel
(which
has got a nuclear bomb in its arsenal, and no body talk about it!) always
portrayed it
as a “nuclear capable” country bent on “destroying” the Jewish state – a view
shared
by the Americans.
The Jewish lobby in the US is a big catalyst in the Bush administration’s
frantic efforts
to undermine not only the efforts by the European Union for a peaceful
resolution of
the nuclear issue, but also the credibility of IAEA which has stated in its
various
reports that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapons programme.
back
to headline