Why society badly needs the media

Back in the village, it is said that sellers of illicit brew, and other partakers of hanky-panky business, will always break into a run whenever they spot a cop. Even if the cops were minding their business, guilt would not let purveyors of moonshine relax.

Unless the motivation is to flee from scrutiny, it is a completely unnecessary endeavor for any law-abiding citizens to take to their heels every time they see a police officer.

Similarly, those who have been appearing uncomfortable with a robust and thriving media and are trying to put up roadblocks on its path obviously have something they are trying to hide.

Attempts to outlaw live broadcast of public protests, ostensibly for incitement; or to call for a boycott of certain media outlets for supposed partisanship, or to physically attack journalists on duty and confiscate and destroy their equipment, only says one thing: there is something to be hidden from the public.

What better way to do this than to prevent it from getting to the media?

This is an old trick in the shifty handbook of strong men and women all over the world, together with their supporters, which is deployed particularly during elections and other pivotal times of heightened tension.

The shutdown goes beyond just the media nowadays and also includes the internet. The idea, couched as a matter of national security, is to control information on any use of force and violation of rights.

Information is a basic right

What better way to access it than through the media, which is meant to be objective, operates within a strictly enforced code of conduct, and has structures for the disgruntled to seek recourse?

Even with social media, many often turn to the mainstream media for verification whenever a story breaks, which demonstrates how much we are reliant on.

In the absence of information in the media on how politically charged events are unfolding, how would the public stay abreast? How would they know if it is safe to venture out, the hotspots to avoid any possible alternative routes to explore?

One of the reasons that institutions such as the media exist is to spotlight bad behavior and to deter any similar acts from individuals, for fear of being the subject of public ridicule. It is the reason even in delicate situations such as war, the effort is taken to shield journalists from attacks unless they are found to be inciting or actively taking part in the combat.

The idea is to ensure that objective accounts of the war reach far and wide, the same way it looks out for society at all times. The media is called a public watchdog for a reason.

The point that those who attempt to stifle media conveniently forget is that this is a civic duty, taken with a lot of sacrifices because of the grave danger involved. The journalists' motivation, more than anything else, is mostly meant to provide information. Inciting supporters to attack journalists covering protests is a new low that we all should be ashamed of.

Society badly needs media to thrive, exist in harmony, and progress. Imagine the consequences of the media deciding to stay away from charged situations, as envisioned by those behind the attacks, due to the great danger involved.

Think of the misdemeanors that can be perpetrated and then hidden under a bushel! Where whatever comes out of that would be just rumours and innuendo. Without a muck-racking media fraternity, we would all be groping in the dark. We would have to make do with what we are allowed to access, including old, badly photoshopped images being presented as an accurate depiction of a recent event.

We would be at the mercy of spokespeople and so-called bloggers with one-sided information. Ultimately, we all need functioning, objective media. It is for the good of us all and we need to rise up and defend their freedom.

-@butunyi