Are the Ghanaian Media becoming institutionally anti-government ...

...and are the NDC sycophantically opportunistic?

Ghana has indeed had a chequered political history for the past 50 years or so, not least with the relationships between past and present governments and the press. Press freedom has been one of the ideals of all freedom-loving Ghanaians and many a blood has been shed to ensure the achievement of this ideal. It has not been easy for the press but perseverance has brought Ghanaian press this far. The press freedom we are enjoying in Ghana under the NPP government is unprecedented and is a far cry from the one enjoyed under the first government of Ghana or even under the recently past NDC government.

Although press freedom is a cherished right of the people, freedom of the press is different from other liberties of the people in that it is both individual and institutional. It applies not just to a single person's right to publish ideas, but also to the right of print and broadcast media to express political views and to cover and publish news.

A free press in Ghana as it is everywhere in the world is, therefore, one of the foundations of a democratic society. Walter Lippmann, an American columnist once wrote, "A free press is not a privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society," and Ghana is no exception to this.

Ghana as a society has grown increasingly complex since independence as people now rely more and more on newspapers, radio and television to keep abreast with news, opinion, and political ideas. One sign of the importance of a free press is that whenever anti-democratic forces like the military take over Ghana, their first act is often to muzzle the press.

Historically the press is as old as its principle of press freedom and their critical utterances about the government, either written or spoken, have always been the subject of controversy. Under English law in the C18th it was the subject of punishment. It did not matter whether what had been printed was true; government saw the very fact of the criticism as an evil, since it cast doubt on the integrity and reliability of public officers. In the mid-18th century the great English legal commentator, Sir William Blackstone, declared that although liberty of the press was essential to the nature of a free state, it could and should be bounded. Effectively under English law progress toward a truly free press, that is, one in which people could publish their views without fear of government reprisal, was being stifled.

This historical summation therefore puts press freedom into the context that it has not always existed and that it has had to be fought for by modern states following the great example of America. Thomas Jefferson, on the necessity of a free press, said in 1787; ?the basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter?.

The subject of this discussion here is to pose the question whether the press, in our typical Ghanaian context, relying of the principle of press freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and gloriously guarded by the government, is becoming institutionally anti-government. Simply put, does the principle of press freedom mean license to attack or criticise the government on policies?

Ghana has been one of the countries with the fastest growing media enterprise. Benefiting from an array of official and unofficial news websites, print media, radio and television networks, Ghanaians are on daily basis bombarded with so much news and in the quest to hit the headlines, the attack on government often becomes the most fashionable or sellable or saleable. It is becoming increasingly difficult to sift through the news to find those that are based on facts and those on opinions. Catchy heading with little substance under them, political scoops purporting to uncover corruption or scandals, who is sleeping with who and news about what the government is not doing have become the order of the day.

Traditionally the press have had their own agenda as the third force in government. They do not pander to either the government or the opposition, especially in a country like Ghana where all major political parties have been seen in government before. The press know how these political parties behave and perform in government and therefore refuse to fight for anyone. The genuine press therefore tend to be non-partisan but choose government-bashing as an object to sell news. The media are in business to sell news for profit and therefore they can hardly be blamed for becoming institutionally biased against government. In their quest to realise their business objective there emerges a thin, fine line between press freedom and press dictatorship.

The NPP in opposition somehow innocuously believed that the press was on their side. They therefore sang praises and promised them heaven, including their commitment to the repeal of the Criminal Libel Act. The NDC in government was horrible to the press and its doctrine of press freedom. The NDC government clipped the wings of the press by passing the notorious CLA. They have therefore been shy to propose a jump-into-bed relationship with them. The NDC tactic has therefore been to play the sycophantic opportunism game with them. The NDC policy has been to stay calm and let the press fight for us. ?If we talk too much, they will be upset with us because the wounds are still too fresh underneath? seems to be their quiet comment.

Governments in the past have tried to define press freedom by restricting it to what in their own terminology did not amount to blasphemous, immoral, treasonable, schismatically libelous or seditious writing but what constituted blasphemous etc. was subject of the government?s own interpretation. No doubt every Ghanaian has the right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this is to destroy the freedom of the press: ?but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity? to quote Blackstone.

With such a high illiteracy rate in Ghana, and also with the infancy of our democracy, I thin k the press owes it to Ghanaians to take up a more tutorial role in explaining government policies and agendas to the people. This is what the new Ministry of Information and National Orientation is seeking to achieve and it is the responsibility of all responsible Ghanaians who can reach far and wide either through print or voice to support the national orientation.

In the past when nations in Europe had been at war they relaxed political differences to support the war effort. We in Ghana, this is a moment of war. We are fighting against ignorance, dictatorship and poverty and until we win these battles, the press owes it as a war-effort to support government in its policies and programmes.

Some Ghanaian press' often clearly biased selection of news is disabling readers from considering alternative perspectives so as to form their own informed opinions about government performance. By relying overwhelmingly on newspapers who oppose the government, Ghanaweb for example was slated in the recent sessional address by the President as subjectively propagating particular political opinions while disarticulating those of others. Given that what is independent analysis of Ghanaian politics are rarely impartial, a truly balanced journalistic approach would require that correspondents compensate for their quotations of anti-government analysts with a roughly equivalent number of citations of independent analysts who sympathize with the government. In the absence of balanced sourcing, Ghanaian newspapers are essentially violating the code of ethics of journalism which believes that sound journalistic practice demands a clear distinction for the reader between news reports and opinion. Kwesi Atta-Krufi Hayford. (London)