Re: [kictanet] Media council Draft bill 2010 (Day Two discussions)
Hi all, A few comments on todays questions. On the first two questions, we should also look at the definition of media, which includes electronic media engaged in publication for circulation to the public, except for book publishing. Taken together, it seems to me that the definitions clearly include Internet forms of new media, such as bloggers. There are ways to define traditional-type media that also disseminate over the Internet. For example, the Council of Europe (the human rights body for Europe) relies on the notion of an editorial process, which thereby excludes bloggers. Otherwise, I am not sure why we want to distinguish between media content and media enterprises. On the questions about journalists, under international law, it is well-established that it is not legitimate to impose conditions on who may be a journalist. Neither the definition of a journalist in the Bill nor the reference to the Council setting criteria for the employment of journalists meet this standard. Furthermore, the matter of registering journalists is very dubious from the perspective of freedom of expression. It is not just that there are practical problems with this (eg how to capture ad hoc commentators), but the whole idea is offensive to freedom of expression, in part because there is no justifiable reason for doing it. Section 37 is also relevant here, calling for the accreditation of foreign journalists. The import of this is not clear. But if it means that foreign journalists may not report from Kenya on an ad hoc basis without being accredited by the Council (as opposed to foreign journalists who are based in Kenya on a longer-term basis), then it is very problematical from the perspective of freedom of expression. As I mentioned yesterday, it may be legitimate to establish a statutory media council (by the way, I don't understand Rosemary's question on this - this is clearly a statutory body, ie established by law, and not a self-regulatory approach, ie established by the media themselves). But I do not think it would be legitimate for such a body to impose sanctions directly on individual journalists, as opposed to media enterprises. In the end, it is the (collective) decision to publish in the media, which involves not only the originating journalist but an editorial process, which is responsible for any harm caused by that publication. So it is the media enterprise, and not the journalist, who should respond to any complaints. Of course there may be cases where the behaviour of individual journalists may cause harm, eg by invading privacy, but these can be remedied either by civil action against the journalist or again through complaints to the media house. In practice both statutory and self-regulatory systems in democracies around the world normally address media houses, and not individual journalists as such. This is the case, for example, with the Press Complaints Commission in the UK and the Press Council in Indonesia, just to give two examples. Finally, I am concerned with the focus in section 4, functions of the Council, on setting professional/ethical standards. No less than three of the functions focus on this (4(c), (e) and (i)), in addition to the idea of resolving complaints. Is this really necessary? Toby ___________________________________ Toby Mendel Centre for Law and Democracy toby@law-democracy.org Tel: +1 902 431-3688 Fax: +1 902 431-3689 www.law-democracy.org
On point Toby, my take is with or without bloggers there is need for accreditation of journalists , this will not only make them authoritative, it will also increase the level of public trust and the ability of Media houses to contribute positively to the Societies developement since there will be more focus on issues, Media plays a great role in shaping the Societies perception and opinion. In as much as we should protect freedom of expression, we must also safeguard people from Slander (gutter press). On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 5:14 AM, <toby@law-democracy.org> wrote:
Hi all,
A few comments on todays questions.
On the first two questions, we should also look at the definition of media, which includes electronic media engaged in publication for circulation to the public, except for book publishing.
Taken together, it seems to me that the definitions clearly include Internet forms of new media, such as bloggers.
There are ways to define traditional-type media that also disseminate over the Internet. For example, the Council of Europe (the human rights body for Europe) relies on the notion of an editorial process, which thereby excludes bloggers.
Otherwise, I am not sure why we want to distinguish between media content and media enterprises.
On the questions about journalists, under international law, it is well-established that it is not legitimate to impose conditions on who may be a journalist. Neither the definition of a journalist in the Bill nor the reference to the Council setting criteria for the employment of journalists meet this standard. Furthermore, the matter of registering journalists is very dubious from the perspective of freedom of expression. It is not just that there are practical problems with this (eg how to capture ad hoc commentators), but the whole idea is offensive to freedom of expression, in part because there is no justifiable reason for doing it.
Section 37 is also relevant here, calling for the accreditation of foreign journalists. The import of this is not clear. But if it means that foreign journalists may not report from Kenya on an ad hoc basis without being accredited by the Council (as opposed to foreign journalists who are based in Kenya on a longer-term basis), then it is very problematical from the perspective of freedom of expression.
As I mentioned yesterday, it may be legitimate to establish a statutory media council (by the way, I don't understand Rosemary's question on this - this is clearly a statutory body, ie established by law, and not a self-regulatory approach, ie established by the media themselves). But I do not think it would be legitimate for such a body to impose sanctions directly on individual journalists, as opposed to media enterprises. In the end, it is the (collective) decision to publish in the media, which involves not only the originating journalist but an editorial process, which is responsible for any harm caused by that publication. So it is the media enterprise, and not the journalist, who should respond to any complaints. Of course there may be cases where the behaviour of individual journalists may cause harm, eg by invading privacy, but these can be remedied either by civil action against the journalist or again through complaints to the media house.
In practice both statutory and self-regulatory systems in democracies around the world normally address media houses, and not individual journalists as such. This is the case, for example, with the Press Complaints Commission in the UK and the Press Council in Indonesia, just to give two examples.
Finally, I am concerned with the focus in section 4, functions of the Council, on setting professional/ethical standards. No less than three of the functions focus on this (4(c), (e) and (i)), in addition to the idea of resolving complaints. Is this really necessary?
Toby
___________________________________ Toby Mendel
Centre for Law and Democracy toby@law-democracy.org Tel: +1 902 431-3688 Fax: +1 902 431-3689 www.law-democracy.org
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: otieno.barrack@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail....
-- Barrack O. Otieno Afriregister Ltd (Kenya) www.afrire <http://www.afriregister.com>gister.bi, www.afriregister.com<http://www.afriergister.com> <http://www.afriregister.com>ICANN accredited registrar +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno
Thanks Toby and Barrack for kickstarting the debate today. My responses in blue.
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 22:14:58 -0400 Subject: Re: [kictanet] Media council Draft bill 2010 (Day Two discussions) From: toby@law-democracy.org To: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke CC: ggithaiga@hotmail.com
Hi all,
A few comments on todays questions.
On the first two questions, we should also look at the definition of media, which includes electronic media engaged in publication for circulation to the public, except for book publishing.
Taken together, it seems to me that the definitions clearly include Internet forms of new media, such as bloggers.
There are ways to define traditional-type media that also disseminate over the Internet. For example, the Council of Europe (the human rights body for Europe) relies on the notion of an editorial process, which thereby excludes bloggers. I think it is will be important to look at the Council of Europe's definition of traditional-type media that also disseminate over the Internet to distinguish between them and bloggers. Otherwise, I am not sure why we want to distinguish between media content and media enterprises.
Are you suggesting that we leave the two as they are?
On the questions about journalists, under international law, it is well-established that it is not legitimate to impose conditions on who may be a journalist. Neither the definition of a journalist in the Bill nor the reference to the Council setting criteria for the employment of journalists meet this standard. Furthermore, the matter of registering journalists is very dubious from the perspective of freedom of expression. It is not just that there are practical problems with this (eg how to capture ad hoc commentators), but the whole idea is offensive to freedom of expression, in part because there is no justifiable reason for doing it. The concern on registering journalists has been debated in this country. As you may have noticed, Barrack echoed views of many people. We have had an infiltration of people who pose as journalists and have at times been accused of exhorting money from some news sources. The current MCK is already accrediting local journalists. I do hope that we will get a comment from the MCK on this process. However, your views on supporting a practice that may be offensive to freedom of expression have been noted. Again, all your concerns will be taken on board as we suggest edits to the Bill.
Section 37 is also relevant here, calling for the accreditation of foreign journalists. The import of this is not clear. But if it means that foreign journalists may not report from Kenya on an ad hoc basis without being accredited by the Council (as opposed to foreign journalists who are based in Kenya on a longer-term basis), then it is very problematical from the perspective of freedom of expression.
As I mentioned yesterday, it may be legitimate to establish a statutory media council (by the way, I don't understand Rosemary's question on this - this is clearly a statutory body, ie established by law, and not a self-regulatory approach, ie established by the media themselves).
Rosemary was reffering to a statutory council but independent of government control. Rosemary, if you are reading this, please shed more light. But I
do not think it would be legitimate for such a body to impose sanctions directly on individual journalists, as opposed to media enterprises. In the end, it is the (collective) decision to publish in the media, which involves not only the originating journalist but an editorial process, which is responsible for any harm caused by that publication. So it is the media enterprise, and not the journalist, who should respond to any complaints. Of course there may be cases where the behaviour of individual journalists may cause harm, eg by invading privacy, but these can be remedied either by civil action against the journalist or again through complaints to the media house. Agreed, infact, I do hope you will make a comment on this when we discuss section 39 on penalty next week. .> In practice both statutory and self-regulatory systems in democracies around the world normally address media houses, and not individual journalists as such. This is the case, for example, with the Press Complaints Commission in the UK and the Press Council in Indonesia, just to give two examples. Your international perspectives and the examples of UK and Indonesia are useful as we try to build consensus on this media bill.
Finally, I am concerned with the focus in section 4, functions of the Council, on setting professional/ethical standards. No less than three of the functions focus on this (4(c), (e) and (i)), in addition to the idea of resolving complaints. Is this really necessary?
This is what we are also trying to establish. Infact, are they too narrow, sufficient or even unnecessary?
Toby
Rgds Grace ___________________________________ Toby Mendel
Centre for Law and Democracy toby@law-democracy.org Tel: +1 902 431-3688 Fax: +1 902 431-3689 www.law-democracy.org
Quick response to let others also weigh in. Re. media content and media enterprises, I am not sure where in the law you would distinguish. As I made clear below, I see media enterprises (rather than journalists) being responsible for the media content their outlets carry. Re. extortion you refer to below should be dealt with, well, as extortion (ie a criminal offence). Not through registering journalists. But I do see the special nature of this problem. Re. the Media Council, I do see the provisions on this as fairly robust in terms of protecting its independence. But I guess we will discuss more later. Re. the functions, I think it would be enough for the body to promote high professional standards and to regulate disputes (4(a) and (c)), and get rid of (e) and (i). And I would prefer it if (b) on professional standards referred to media outlets (or at least also referred to them). OK, enough from me for today (it's 5pm here in Manila)! Toby
Thanks Toby and Barrack for kickstarting the debate today. My responses in blue.
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 22:14:58 -0400 Subject: Re: [kictanet] Media council Draft bill 2010 (Day Two discussions) From: toby@law-democracy.org To: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke CC: ggithaiga@hotmail.com
Hi all,
A few comments on todays questions.
On the first two questions, we should also look at the definition of media, which includes electronic media engaged in publication for circulation to the public, except for book publishing.
Taken together, it seems to me that the definitions clearly include Internet forms of new media, such as bloggers.
There are ways to define traditional-type media that also disseminate over the Internet. For example, the Council of Europe (the human rights body for Europe) relies on the notion of an editorial process, which thereby excludes bloggers. I think it is will be important to look at the Council of Europe's definition of traditional-type media that also disseminate over the Internet to distinguish between them and bloggers. Otherwise, I am not sure why we want to distinguish between media content and media enterprises.
Are you suggesting that we leave the two as they are?
On the questions about journalists, under international law, it is well-established that it is not legitimate to impose conditions on who may be a journalist. Neither the definition of a journalist in the Bill nor the reference to the Council setting criteria for the employment of journalists meet this standard. Furthermore, the matter of registering journalists is very dubious from the perspective of freedom of expression. It is not just that there are practical problems with this (eg how to capture ad hoc commentators), but the whole idea is offensive to freedom of expression, in part because there is no justifiable reason for doing it. The concern on registering journalists has been debated in this country. As you may have noticed, Barrack echoed views of many people. We have had an infiltration of people who pose as journalists and have at times been accused of exhorting money from some news sources. The current MCK is already accrediting local journalists. I do hope that we will get a comment from the MCK on this process. However, your views on supporting a practice that may be offensive to freedom of expression have been noted. Again, all your concerns will be taken on board as we suggest edits to the Bill.
Section 37 is also relevant here, calling for the accreditation of foreign journalists. The import of this is not clear. But if it means that foreign journalists may not report from Kenya on an ad hoc basis without being accredited by the Council (as opposed to foreign journalists who are based in Kenya on a longer-term basis), then it is very problematical from the perspective of freedom of expression.
As I mentioned yesterday, it may be legitimate to establish a statutory media council (by the way, I don't understand Rosemary's question on this - this is clearly a statutory body, ie established by law, and not a self-regulatory approach, ie established by the media themselves).
do not think it would be legitimate for such a body to impose sanctions directly on individual journalists, as opposed to media enterprises. In the end, it is the (collective) decision to publish in the media, which involves not only the originating journalist but an editorial process, which is responsible for any harm caused by that publication. So it is the media enterprise, and not the journalist, who should respond to any complaints. Of course there may be cases where the behaviour of individual journalists may cause harm, eg by invading privacy, but these can be remedied either by civil action against the journalist or again through complaints to the media house. Agreed, infact, I do hope you will make a comment on this when we discuss
Rosemary was reffering to a statutory council but independent of government control. Rosemary, if you are reading this, please shed more light. But I section 39 on penalty next week. .>
In practice both statutory and self-regulatory systems in democracies around the world normally address media houses, and not individual journalists as such. This is the case, for example, with the Press Complaints Commission in the UK and the Press Council in Indonesia, just to give two examples. Your international perspectives and the examples of UK and Indonesia are useful as we try to build consensus on this media bill.
Finally, I am concerned with the focus in section 4, functions of the Council, on setting professional/ethical standards. No less than three of the functions focus on this (4(c), (e) and (i)), in addition to the idea of resolving complaints. Is this really necessary?
This is what we are also trying to establish. Infact, are they too narrow, sufficient or even unnecessary?
Toby
Rgds Grace ___________________________________ Toby Mendel
Centre for Law and Democracy toby@law-democracy.org Tel: +1 902 431-3688 Fax: +1 902 431-3689 www.law-democracy.org
___________________________________ Toby Mendel Centre for Law and Democracy toby@law-democracy.org Tel: +1 902 431-3688 Fax: +1 902 431-3689 www.law-democracy.org
Dear all, My input: In the preliminary, the media bill recognizes a journalist, as a person who carries the required information, yet this definition, by far and wide, fails to recognize a reporter. Well, unless, the Bill identifies a journalist collectively while a reporter is assumed to be part of the journalism profession. There is identification of the High Court, in the constitutional dispensation, the highest court is the Supreme Court. So in case matters at the High Court are not solved, will that mean they'll not be determined or the Arbitration Act will be consulted? On who is a journalist, do they have to posses a diploma or degree in Mass Comm ONLY? Since they journalists are, as most of other beings, social scientists should it be that a qualification in any Social Studies be applied too? The definition of media, in my view, should include...'both electronic and print transmission of information for public consumption through TV, Newspaper, Magazines, Billboards(?) etc Ethics, though generally captured in the Second Schedule, is not defined. That definition of the term, would be the most convenient means of answering the question posted because ethics can either be personal (journalist) and corporate(Media enterprise). On 25/01/2011, toby@law-democracy.org <toby@law-democracy.org> wrote:
Quick response to let others also weigh in.
Re. media content and media enterprises, I am not sure where in the law you would distinguish. As I made clear below, I see media enterprises (rather than journalists) being responsible for the media content their outlets carry.
Re. extortion you refer to below should be dealt with, well, as extortion (ie a criminal offence). Not through registering journalists. But I do see the special nature of this problem.
Re. the Media Council, I do see the provisions on this as fairly robust in terms of protecting its independence. But I guess we will discuss more later.
Re. the functions, I think it would be enough for the body to promote high professional standards and to regulate disputes (4(a) and (c)), and get rid of (e) and (i). And I would prefer it if (b) on professional standards referred to media outlets (or at least also referred to them).
OK, enough from me for today (it's 5pm here in Manila)!
Toby
Thanks Toby and Barrack for kickstarting the debate today. My responses in blue.
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 22:14:58 -0400 Subject: Re: [kictanet] Media council Draft bill 2010 (Day Two discussions) From: toby@law-democracy.org To: kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke CC: ggithaiga@hotmail.com
Hi all,
A few comments on todays questions.
On the first two questions, we should also look at the definition of media, which includes electronic media engaged in publication for circulation to the public, except for book publishing.
Taken together, it seems to me that the definitions clearly include Internet forms of new media, such as bloggers.
There are ways to define traditional-type media that also disseminate over the Internet. For example, the Council of Europe (the human rights body for Europe) relies on the notion of an editorial process, which thereby excludes bloggers. I think it is will be important to look at the Council of Europe's definition of traditional-type media that also disseminate over the Internet to distinguish between them and bloggers. Otherwise, I am not sure why we want to distinguish between media content and media enterprises.
Are you suggesting that we leave the two as they are?
On the questions about journalists, under international law, it is well-established that it is not legitimate to impose conditions on who may be a journalist. Neither the definition of a journalist in the Bill nor the reference to the Council setting criteria for the employment of journalists meet this standard. Furthermore, the matter of registering journalists is very dubious from the perspective of freedom of expression. It is not just that there are practical problems with this (eg how to capture ad hoc commentators), but the whole idea is offensive to freedom of expression, in part because there is no justifiable reason for doing it. The concern on registering journalists has been debated in this country. As you may have noticed, Barrack echoed views of many people. We have had an infiltration of people who pose as journalists and have at times been accused of exhorting money from some news sources. The current MCK is already accrediting local journalists. I do hope that we will get a comment from the MCK on this process. However, your views on supporting a practice that may be offensive to freedom of expression have been noted. Again, all your concerns will be taken on board as we suggest edits to the Bill.
Section 37 is also relevant here, calling for the accreditation of foreign journalists. The import of this is not clear. But if it means that foreign journalists may not report from Kenya on an ad hoc basis without being accredited by the Council (as opposed to foreign journalists who are based in Kenya on a longer-term basis), then it is very problematical from the perspective of freedom of expression.
As I mentioned yesterday, it may be legitimate to establish a statutory media council (by the way, I don't understand Rosemary's question on this - this is clearly a statutory body, ie established by law, and not a self-regulatory approach, ie established by the media themselves).
do not think it would be legitimate for such a body to impose sanctions directly on individual journalists, as opposed to media enterprises. In the end, it is the (collective) decision to publish in the media, which involves not only the originating journalist but an editorial process, which is responsible for any harm caused by that publication. So it is the media enterprise, and not the journalist, who should respond to any complaints. Of course there may be cases where the behaviour of individual journalists may cause harm, eg by invading privacy, but these can be remedied either by civil action against the journalist or again through complaints to the media house. Agreed, infact, I do hope you will make a comment on this when we discuss
Rosemary was reffering to a statutory council but independent of government control. Rosemary, if you are reading this, please shed more light. But I section 39 on penalty next week. .>
In practice both statutory and self-regulatory systems in democracies around the world normally address media houses, and not individual journalists as such. This is the case, for example, with the Press Complaints Commission in the UK and the Press Council in Indonesia, just to give two examples. Your international perspectives and the examples of UK and Indonesia are useful as we try to build consensus on this media bill.
Finally, I am concerned with the focus in section 4, functions of the Council, on setting professional/ethical standards. No less than three of the functions focus on this (4(c), (e) and (i)), in addition to the idea of resolving complaints. Is this really necessary?
This is what we are also trying to establish. Infact, are they too narrow, sufficient or even unnecessary?
Toby
Rgds Grace ___________________________________ Toby Mendel
Centre for Law and Democracy toby@law-democracy.org Tel: +1 902 431-3688 Fax: +1 902 431-3689 www.law-democracy.org
___________________________________ Toby Mendel
Centre for Law and Democracy toby@law-democracy.org Tel: +1 902 431-3688 Fax: +1 902 431-3689 www.law-democracy.org
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: solo.mburu@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/solo.mburu%40gmail.com
-- Sent from my mobile device *Solomon Mbũrũ Kamau* ***************************************************** *Man is a gregarious animal and enjoys agreement as cows will graze all the same way to the side of a hill!* AND *It is better to die in dignity than in the ignominy of ambiguous generosity! * http://smiley2.wordpress.com http://mburu.sikika.co.ke
participants (4)
-
Barrack Otieno -
Grace Githaiga -
Solomon Mburu Kamau -
toby＠law-democracy.org