Media Council should rethink move to register journalists

That journalism is in big trouble is an understatement. Many of us worry that there is little we can do about it. The challenge is multi-faceted. Yet, some could be avoided with responsible regulation.

The Media Council of Uganda (MCU) issued a directive for registration of journalists on December 10. It is a very disturbing development. 
To be fair, the MCU has done well to at least wake up to the role they were born to play.

The Council has been in limbo for too long for reasons well known to most of us in media policy scholarship. Much of it cannot be blamed on them and I am sympathetic. 

For instance, their little rich sibling, the Uganda Communications Commission (UCC), has been running the show. It is only fair that they share the responsibility to define how journalism is practiced and give the media direction. 

Waking up is a good thing. And we should be glad that the MCU is alive and ready to run. The problem is when you start to run in the wrong direction after waking up. 

It is surprising that we wake up in 2020 to implement a provision of a law that was passed 25 years ago, without the council making a serious attempt before. Even then, the basis upon which that accreditation is to happen has not been put in place.

Even if the current circumstance had woken up the regulator to the need for enforcement, it would have come a little earlier, not 34 days to polling day and end of campaign season. 

Elections are a process. The 2021 elections started when political parties began to look for party flag bearers, several months ago. Election reporting began probably a little earlier, with speculation of contenders and will hopefully continue into the post-election period. 

It is in the interest of all Ugandans to have the media play its role effectively and uninhibited. Whether journalists (registered) are the ones who document events during the campaigns or other people (citizen journalists) and perhaps political parties, may not diminish the content of their reporting. 

One of my favourite texts on media power comes from the book Communicating Social Change, which suggests that the concept only applies to the process through which powerful actors within social systems use the media in order to serve their agendas. 

And this is based on the powerful role of media as catalysis of social action in contemporary complex societies (which we increasingly are), where public support for social action is determined by the circulation of information and images.

It may seem, people with/in power, for whom the media often works, are waking up to the reality that people ‘without’ power are using the media to their advantage too. Some political actors and institutions of government will never be seen as credible again because of the extent of exposure. 

Current communication systems no longer limit the power of media to those in power or even gatekeepers in legacy media. Our very definition of those in power is changing. 

Sadly, regulators seem to think tactics of the 1990s when the Press and Journalism Act 1995 that provided for registration of journalists will work today.
The need to control a rapidly growing media then was real. The mind-set has thus remained in the 1980s, when print, postal and electronic media ran on separate tracks.

The regulatory regime has remained firmly rooted in that era. 

A good example is the bizarre suggestion that journalists must be accredited to cover a specific subject (topic). Journalists are not trained to report on a single subject. They are trained to be versatile, to ask questions of things, to learn, and look beyond the surface if need be.

They may, however, choose to be known for a particular type of reporting or ‘beat’, like health or business. That is what makes them different from those who can share information because they hold a communication apparatus like a smart phone. 

In order to protect journalists, which appears to be the purpose of this directive on face value, it is important that the Media Council suspends the registration, which ends about two weeks to polling. Instead, with wide consultation, look to review the Press and Journalist Act of 1995 with intentions to reform and make it relevant in pursuing responsible regulation that goes beyond control. An attempt was made in 2010, which was not well thought out either.

There is obviously need for regulation, especially now in the face of fake news, hate speech and rise of new platforms. A general shrinking of the democratic space that is important for freedom of expression and that of the media could make things worse. That is why a broad reform is needed.

Good journalism (professionalism) does not happen in a vacuum. The changing structure of media is affecting how it works. Regulators should respond with an open mind and good intensions. A starting point is rethinking this untenable directive on accreditation for both local and foreign journalists.

Ms Maractho is the head and senior lecturer, Department of Journalism and Media Studies at UCU. 
[email protected]