Regulating the media Training workshop on media and freedom of expression law

Is there any need to regulate the media? If yes, what sort of regulation is required? By whom? Of all media, or just some? If no, how else will you protect weak media against powerful media? And how will you ensure that professional standards are maintained?

In 1985, Costa Rica presented three arguments for its media regulation system: Necessary for “public order” Promote professional and ethical standards Guarantee journalists’ independence in relation to their employers Discussion point: what do you think of this?

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) rejected Costa Rica’s arguments: Public order is best served by freedom of expression and the right of the public to receive information Journalism is not a profession like medicine and law Journalists’ independence could be guaranteed by less intrusive means

The IACtHR decision in Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism has been echoed by many authorities. But if licensing of journalists is not acceptable, what about licensing of media organs?

Why licence broadcasting stations? The frequency spectrum is a limited common resource Regulation allows allocation of licences to ensure media pluralism Licences may thus legitimately require political neutrality Breaching the terms of a licence may lead to penalties, and ultimately non-renewal

Does the same apply to print media? Publishers may be subject to business registration requirements Publishers should not be subject to special taxes (e.g. on newsprint or newspaper sales) There may be a requirement to rectify false statements (the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights gives a right of reply and the East African Court of Justice calls this a “maxim of justice” [Burundi Journalists’ Union v. The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi]).

A case for discussion The broadcasting regulatory body receives complaints from members of a community. They are unable to receive the signal from their community station because it is drowned out by the much stronger signal from a commercial station on a neighbouring frequency.

The commercial station is asked to explain itself. It says: It is our right to freedom of expression to broadcast our signal clearly. Anyway, the public is interested in listening to our music and sports programming, not a load of community stuff. The audience figures confirm that not many people listen to the community station.

The community broadcasters say: We offer diversity to the public. We represent a distinct community. More people would listen to us if there was no interference with our signal.

What is your opinion? How would the rights of the public and broadcasters best be served? (We forgot to mention – the community broadcasters are racist members of the majority ethnic group. Does this make a difference to your decision?)