Proposed ban on senior journalists exposes dishonesty in Parliament

In the summer of 2012, I had the opportunity to work for The Times of London. For three months, I reported politics at Westminster, the home to British Parliament- the House of Commons. I worked with senior journalists and commentators and sketch writers covering politics for newspapers, magazines, agencies, online news sites, radio and television stations.

The Press Gallery represents the whole gamut of UK’s political media. The more I interacted with these senior journalists in parliament, the more I appreciated the meaning of experience as the best teacher.

Again, last year, I also visited various international newsrooms in South Africa and in the US. In the US, we visited the Capitol Hill in Washington and criss-crossed eight states, where we discussed many things with senior political reporters who have covered parliament for decades.

And in all these places, we had in-depth discussions on the role of media in nation-building. From the relationship between the media and the politicians to the role of investigative journalism in perilous places.

In the US, the more I interacted with senior political reporters and media managers, the more I understood why journalism is sometimes referred to as “the fourth estate”, and why longevity in reporting Parliament is not a problem for the quality coverage. And most importantly, institutional memory is good for journalism.

Letter to newsrooms
Back home, authorities in Parliament opened a despairing war on media. The Clerk to Parliament on March 9 sent out a letter to newsrooms, ordering the replacement of all senior journalists who have covered Parliament for five years and above.

Whereas the 53 affected journalists can work anywhere; for Parliament to wake up and usurp the mandate of the media houses they don’t control, simply because they want to curtail critical reporting, would be extreme and absurd.

The Clerk to Parliament, Ms Jane Kibirige, made it clear in the letter that the controversial decision is in the interest of “balanced media coverage”. She claimed that this was the decision of the Parliamentary Commission.
However, Deputy Speaker Jacob Oulanyah on Thursday told the country that such a decision has never been taken by the Commission and lampooned this stomach-turning attack on journalists.

What is not clear in all this drama, is whether the issue here is lack of balanced reporting, bad press or critical reporting in the House. It’s not even clear who is exactly behind this letter. The commissioners have already made it clear that such a peculiar decision is high-handed, authoritarian and shameful. The shared view is that Parliament should be the last institution to curtail press freedom.

The letter is uncalled for and illegal. It also portrays Parliament as a bigoted institution, harbouring radical ideas that have no bearing to service delivery. The decision to banish experienced journalists also confirms disconnect between the people and a bruised House working so hard to cover its murky spots ahead of the 2016 general elections.

Oulanyah directs
In overturning the proposed ban on senior journalists, Oulanyah said, and I quote: “I found that the last time the Parliamentary Commission discussed the matter relating to the press was on August 21, 2014, and the meeting I did not attend with apology took place in the Speaker’s boardroom. The issue was on the bad press.”

In order to counter the “bad press”, Mr Oulanyah said, the Parliament Commission only resolved to have a press conference to explain “some things” to the journalists covering Parliament and also have an interaction with the editors at a breakfast meeting. In this meeting, balanced reporting was discussed but there was no mention of banning senior journalists.

If this letter written by the Clerk is based on this particular decision, Oulanyah said, “then it would offer wide interpretation of what was said by the Parliamentary Commission. To that effect, I now speak on behalf of the Parliamentary Commission.

We have not taken a decision that could amount to what has been communicated and this letter should be taken as a letter but its command should be treated as no command for its purposes and the date set shall not be effective until the Parliamentary Commission comes with some formal decision on this particular matter other than what was decided in August last year. I request the journalists to keep the matter as it is now. This letter has no effect and does not carry any effect.”

Political dance
We hope Oulanyah’s directive is final and puts a stop to the funny games. In this debacle, one thing we should understand is that the relationship between sources and political journalists resembles a dance, for sources seek access to journalists, and journalists seek access to sources.

Although it takes two to tango, either sources or journalists can lead. As the case in our Parliament, in the House of Commons and in the Senate, politicians who are pleased with a particular news story will sometimes praise the reporter for objectivity and fairness. When the story is critical, claims of media bias will usually pour out.

In Uganda, for the seven years, I have been a political reporter in Parliament, I have realised that some politicians would even concoct mischievous stories against some reporters.

At times they claim you have been paid to tarnish their good name. But when you write “positively” they praise you as an ally. They put you in political camps. They damn you and cheer you at the same time. It’s a love- and- hate relationship.

Governments (including Parliament) rely on journalists to educate, inform and persuade electorates about their political public affairs. On the other hand, journalists also rely on politicians to write stories.

Without co-operation from the politicians there wouldn’t be political journalism. Hence, the relationship between journalists and politics are characterised by collaboration more than conflict.

David Brewer, a journalist and media strategy consultant who runs Media Helping Media, advises that “a good reporter should present the facts without fear or favour and not seek out praise or shy away from criticism.” In the US and in other countries, the relationship between the media and politicians is defined by a complicated sort of mutual dependence. This should not be confused with bias.