We need media self-regulation that has teeth
SPENCER MOGAPI | Tuesday June 3, 2025 10:16
That acknowledgment then has to be followed by recognition that the media can no longer claim to be the gatekeepers of information.
Those days are gone – most certainly for good. The media has to reform.
And those reforms should not be about self-preservation. The reforms should be about attaining professionalism that will once again back the public trust that has so much diminished over the last 20 years or so. That trust is not coming back unless there is discernible proof that the media is willing to give in to certain amount of regulation.
Journalists, especially here in Botswana are probably the only profession that still wants to have it both ways. They want to be regarded as professional but militantly eschew any attempt to regulate the craft even at a bare minimum.
There is no doubt that the media in Botswana has been growing. That growth unfortunately has not always been accompanied by quality. Today, more than ever before, the public is not willing to give the media any more rights that are not accompanied by obligations. The biggest issues facing media have to do with viability.
There have been massive under-investments over the last 10 years. Many media houses have become literally insolvent. It is clear that under the current economic climate the media cannot expect any bailout from public finances. In short, the media is on its own.
And the sooner they come to this realisation, the better the situation will be. Otherwise, they are waiting for cavalry that will never arrive. The first attempt at media self-regulation was when we established the Press Council of Botswana in the very early 2000s.
That Press Council was a custodian of the Code of Ethics. The media was able to draw the Code of Ethics and establish the press council with the help of British Council. It was a big deal at the time. By today's standards the Code of Ethics was rudimentary. But for a while it served the purpose.
Under the Press Council of Botswana there were two committees; the Complaints Committee and then the Appeals Committee. It was by all intents and purposes non-statutory self-regulation. Later on its weaknesses were exposed.
Those weaknesses were fast-tracked by Ian Khama’s government, which we must never forget was deeply hostile to the private. It was his government that openly undermined not just the processes of media self-regulation but also went on to put in place parallel structures to undermine it.
The Media Practitioners Act was the result of such hostility. The Act gave the minister responsible for communications, the final say on who could ultimately practise as a journalist in Botswana. That was of course grossly offensive to the media.
Let’s go back to how non-statutory self-regulation fared over time. It worked very well in the early days. The media obliged by the rulings of the Committees including by issuing apologies, retractions and rights of rely. Even then it was not all-smooth sailing. First the Press Council failed to attract credible people to man its committees. Then much later it failed to compel media houses to abide by the rules and the rulings.
And lastly the wealthy member of society simply bypassed the Press Council and went to the courts. But, it was the Government that finally killed the Press Council of Botswana. From the foregoing it will be abundantly clear that non-statutory self-regulation is a none-starter.
Misa Botswana has previously done a great job to compile the list of laws. The government decision to appoint a taskforce is most welcome. But it is not a priority for the media today. The media is very weak and public trust has collapsed to an all time low. Many media houses could be collapsing in the next few years. That imminent collapse is not going to be avoided by just taking a look at the laws hindering the media.
The only thing that can save the media houses is money. There are those who say there are too many media houses in Botswana for the size of our economy. Then there are those who say there is nothing wrong with the collapse of media houses, arguing it must be encouraged because in a free economy that could amount to self-correcting of the market itself.
Admittedly our media houses are structurally weak because for many of them everything relies and revolves on the will of individual(s) rather than systems. These are governance issues. And it's hard to see how government can intervene legislatively. Going forward more emphasis should be on improving good governance on our media houses.
Today several media houses are fighting existential battles, made all the worse by deteriorating ethics and weak business acumen. Equally problematic for these media houses have to be a leadership that has now run out of ideas. And because there is no sufficient revenue, media houses find themselves unable to bring people from outside who could inject some life through new ideas and fresh energy.
More than the laws, the biggest hindrance today has got to be lack of innovation by the media houses themselves. The media in Botswana has totally failed to internalise digital transformation. Until that happens, media houses will continue to be preoccupied with survival.
Costs of defamation are an ever-present danger. This includes the quantum often given out against the media houses by the High Courts. All these happen at a cost to ethics, innovation and quality. More urgent than a change of laws, journalism in Botswana needs a clear Code of Ethics that takes into account the modern practice of the craft today. That Code of Ethics has to take into consideration the public concerns against the media. That means the Code of Ethics has to acknowledge that journalism has shifted more towards social media. After the Code of Ethics, there has to be a clear determination of who is a journalist. At the moment anybody can call themselves a journalist after writing a few stories. This leads to a public backlash when ethics are visibly not upheld. The definition of journalism has to take into account the fact that today there are community journalists who are increasingly playing a bigger role, including being sources for professional journalists. It can no longer be business as usual. The definition of who is a journalist does not have to be confined to qualifications, important as those are. That definition has to take into account the fact that one makes a living from the journalism practice too. On self-regulation there is no need for sophistry. We need a Press Council. We also need a Code of Ethics. The Press Council would be the custodian of the Code of Ethics. The Press Council would then have a Secretariat headed by a Chief Executive Officer or Executive Secretary Under the Code of Ethics there would be various committees, which shall be responsible for enforcing the Code of Ethics. Primarily there would be the Complaints Committee, which shall be the entry level for all complaints and public grievances against the Media. Above the Complaints Committee there shall be the Appeals Committee, chaired by a law fit enough to be a High Court Judge. It is important that in each Committee there is sufficient media and public representation. The members of the public elected or appointed to these committees should be people with track record when it comes to community or social service. We should never forget that we are where we are today because the public, at the instance of the then government lost faith in the ability of the then Press Council to police the media exactly because the Press Council, shorn of a statutory powers, lacked teeth. It is my submission that we can no longer rely on good faith and goodwill of those involved. We need statutory backing in all the instruments that will govern the media going forward.
This is because the size of the media has grown exponentially since the days of nan-statutory self-regulation.
The media has also during that time attracted all kinds of nefarious characters some of who do not even understand what the media role really is. The Code of Ethics, once adopted should spell out clear penalties for breaches. These penalties should apply to a media House but also to a journalist if it is to inspire any confidence from the public