The late US President, John F. Kennedy, in one of his most enduring reflections on the press, reminded America, and indeed all democracies, that “without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed and no republic can survive.” President Kennedy understood that leaders need the press not for praise but for perspective, for in the echo chambers of political power, truth can easily become a casualty of convenience. His presidency, like many others after him, was often tested by critical headlines, yet he defended the media’s right to question authority because he knew that democracy decays in silence. In Botswana, our founding leadership embodied a similar spirit of tolerance and respect for press freedom, even under provocation. The late Sir Ketumile Masire, one of the architects of Botswana’s democratic tradition, once reflected: “In some countries, politicians have pursued and won major libel against the press. We chose not to bring such actions because we did not want to seem like some non-democratic regimes” (Very Brave or Very Foolish? Memoirs of an African Democrat). He went further to say, “Even if we rightly accused people, it would be said we were acting arbitrarily like oppressive regimes elsewhere that even arrested journalists. Unless there were big changes in the circumstances, if I were to do it over, I think I would do the same thing and leave them alone.
” The remarks, though simple, hold profound meaning for Botswana’s democratic heritage. Sir Ketumile’s restraint was not a sign of weakness. It was a statement of democratic maturity. It underscored an understanding that the strength of leadership is measured not by its ability to silence dissent but by its capacity to coexist with it. His words remind us that freedom of the press, like freedom itself, is fragile and must be guarded even when it stings those in power. However, in this delicate relationship between the presidency and the press lies a paradox. The same press that holds government accountable can also, if unprincipled, erode public trust. Here, a distinction must be drawn between bad journalism and flawed journalism. Bad journalism is reckless, agenda-driven, and ethically bankrupt. It distorts truth for sensationalism or political gain. Flawed journalism, on the other hand, is imperfect but honest. It is the product of human error - misquotes, misjudged context, or minor factual slips - but anchored in a genuine pursuit of truth.
