Collaboration between media and training institutions critical
Correspondent | Friday April 7, 2017 17:16
Put another way, the media is the consumer (employers) of our products. Besides that, is there a larger issue or principle that connects media and training institutions? What are the other commonalities ?
It became even more ironic when I received the workshop programme – why would the media and training institutions choose a church based institution as a venue for their dialogue?
My mind drifted back to a statement in the receipt paper that “there was a broad agreement during these [consultations] that a consensus building workshop be organised during the first quarter of 2017 to provide a platform for the various stakeholders to work together to exchange ideas, think through and come up with practical, mutually acceptable solutions beneficial to media sector in Botswana.” It therefore dawned on me that the consultations having started way back in 2015, the hand of God was needed for them to succeed!!
Let step back a little. We live in a democracy, I presume or at least we can debate it. Among the fundamental measures of democracy are the rule of law, freedom of expression and of free flow of information and ideas.
All these elements are important for the existence and, to the thriving of a free media and robust training institutions especially at tertiary level.
Freedom of expression and free flow of information (access to information) are the engines that drive both the media and training institutions.
Traditionally, in a democracy, there are three branches of any state. There is the legislature, which makes and develops the law; there is the executive, which carries out and enforces the law; and there is the judiciary, which interprets and gives effect to the law.
Democracy requires the three branches to be generally independent of each other because their functions should be distinct. Those who make the law should not be involved with interpreting or carrying it out, those who carry out the law out should not make it or interpret it, and those who interpret the law should not make it or put it into effect.
In carrying out these tasks, the three branches of government do so in our name. Yet most of us, professionals or general public, do not get our information on what is happening in parliament, in the courts or cabinet, from visits to those institutions, or by reading policy documents or judgments.
The source of such information about such matters for many people is the media – from newspapers, television, radio and now electronic media.
Over two hundred years ago, just about the time that the founding fathers of the American revolution, including Alexander Hamilton, were discussing and writing their remarkable declaration of independence and constitution, people were beginning to realize that there was a new source of influence coming into existence – the newspapers.
Indeed, it would seem that it was literally a year before Hamilton wrote about the independence of the judiciary that the UK politician Edmund Burke first coined the expression “the Fourth Estate” as a reference to the press.
The Fourth Estate was, in any case, joining in influence an institution born centuries earlier – the universities – whose influence and reach had been pervasive. By the mediaeval age, it was already accepted that the university’s larger normative commitment is to freedom of enquiry – generally called academic freedom.
But, it must be accepted that this freedom of enquiry was not given to the university in a silver platter. The authorities of the time, in particular the church, had a firm grip on what the universities could enquire into.
For centuries, church and civil authorities placed restrictions on academic community in terms of teaching, research and public expression. For example, the Catholic Church forbade the teaching at universities of theological and scientific doctrines that were contrary to accepted doctrine and loyalty to the civil authorities was also accepted.
Thus, academic freedom was never absolute.
Nevertheless, greater freedom of expression existed in the universities than elsewhere in society.
In short, the point I am making is that there is more than the training by the institutions and the ultimate consumption (employment) of our product by the media that join the two.
The collaboration has been dictated over the years by the twin pillars of freedom of expression – press freedom and freedom of enquiry. For the latter, it is not enquiry for its own sake but also for dissemination.
The media, have a very important function to play in our democracy.
The media play an essential part by reporting to the public what goes on in our society. The media also provide a vital forum for comments and discussion about such matters.
Equally those institutions, such as universities, should enquire into and engage in healthy and informed discussion about matters affecting the society. It is the duty of the academics to distill what the authorities are doing in the interest of the public.
Indeed, if the journalists cannot report on what goes on in the society, and if the academics cannot give their views on such issues, that would undermine freedom of expression, a vital ingredient of a modern democratic society.
But just as those in authority must not abuse their privileges which are accorded to them because of the importance of the offices they hold, so should journalists and other communicators not abuse the privileges accorded to them because of the importance of freedom of expression.
Inaccurate and unfair reporting in order to make a story is an abuse of freedom of expression accorded to the press.
Of course, one cannot be too precious or precise in one’s definition of “inaccurate” or “unfair” in this context. We may not agree on what is “inaccurate” or “unfair” but we all know one when we see it!!
It is one thing to disagree with a particular view point and to fight to change its effect. It is quite another thing to misstate what was said or done. Truth is every bit as precious a commodity as fearlessness.
It is within this context that the issue of collaboration between the media and training institutions must be approached. In my view, there are three areas in which collaboration may take place: (a) pre-professional training; (b) continuing professional development; and (c) research.
Tertiary training institutions are primarily involved with three major activities: teaching, research and engagement. It has always been the primary role of universities to train journalists and other media personnel. It, therefore, goes without saying that they are responsible for the development of programmes.
Traditionally, it is the responsibility of the professors to develop both the structure and content of such programmes. Perhaps more needs to be done.
Harnessing the expertise that reside within the practitioners; editors, media houses and managers will enable the trainers to produce all rounded professionals.
Collaboration between education institutions and news organisations will produce more skilled and educated journalists than we do today.
This entails collaboration not only in training but also enabling media schools to become content creators by employing students while still in school. It requires a shift in mindset. For media houses to change from the reluctance to allow students to play a role in your newsroom without fearing that you will be ceding control even when there are no boots in the ground.
Training should not end in the classroom. The media schools training, and I hope the media houses and editors will allow this, should not only be academic but should also encompass continuing professional development.
Let us face it, in our country, outside of government owned media, there is very little of continuing professional development and on the job training going on.
Newsrooms are bereft of senior editors to guide the juniors. In the absence of these senior personnel, perhaps training institutions could also play a role. That way quality and standards of reporting, editing and presentation of news would be improved.
One thing academic institutions do well is, of course, research. Training institutions are always in the forefront of what is new in the market place and on the cutting edge of technology. Updating the media in the new and emerging technology will be one area where they can lead.
The astonishing developments in IT, for example, has had serious consequences in what the media can report. Imagine the ease with which information can be transmitted and received across the world, the ease with which words and scenes can be clandestinely recorded, and the ease with which information can be misrepresented or doctored.
There is no doubt that these technological development give rise to enormous challenges for people involved in the media. Privacy is but one example. How do we balance the need to be the first with breaking news and yet respect the subject’s privacy?
Media and training institutions have much in common. First, because of two fundamental principles, freedom of expression and the right to dissemination of information.
Second, each of these privileges carry concomitant responsibilities which we in training institutions and media should never forget. Third, with the remarkable recent developments in the electronic world, the weight of these responsibilities is greater than it ever has been.
For all these ideas to be implemented, we will need resources. The tragedy for all third world non-government institutions is that they are so dependent on donor financing.
Without donor funding, nothing succeeds. What is often forgotten is that donor funds are other people’s taxes.
It is time to look inwards. I verily, belief that there are resources available to implement some of these ideas. What does it take for an editor to offer an hour a week to teach at one of the institutions? What does it cost for a teaching institution to offer at no charge its lecture theatre once a month for purposes of continuing professional education?
In the next two days, let us put our heads and minds together to come up with “mutually acceptable solutions” yet inexpensive. Throwing money at a problem would not solve it. Only people can do so.
Having grown up in and within higher education, one thing I know is that training institutions are very adept at forging partnerships, especially with foreign entities.
Whether they will cope with local institutions, I cannot vouch for. Perhaps the media must take a lead.