Musings of a Mad Sub – Freedom of speech under direct attack
I was going to pen a column about this year’s matric results. In fact, I was instructed to.
But I have to change my plans following the recent attack on journalists in France. I have to show solidarity with my media-comrades in France.
As it stands, 12 people were killed in an attack on a French magazine. Reports, and video footage, show gunmen attacking the magazine’s staff and shooting them in cold blood.
It would seem the attack was motivated by comments published in the magazine, regarding religion.Freedom of speech under direct attack
I am not going to delve into the religion aspect, instead, I want to focus on freedom of speech. And the reaction of the public to it.
Many demand that the media must grapple with social injustices, investigate evil and uphold the rule of law. Some media groups go too far, such as invading people’s privacy for a revealing photo. But it has long been held that the media is the voice of the people, influencing culture, politics and global views on issues.
But what happens when a viewpoint is published which some people disagree with? This is bound to happen, since the world is filled with different people and therefore different opinions. Does this make it acceptable to kill? Does this make it acceptable to gun down staff from that particular publication? Is that what humanity has come to? A disagreement resulting in death?
If so, then I shudder to think what the future holds for this planet.
Can the attackers guarantee that those killed all supported the views presented? Or were they simply employed by the magazine, perhaps in another capacity.
I have to wonder about the intended effect the gunmen hoped for. How will this change people’s opinions? How will this show that the magazine’s viewpoints were perhaps wrong?
There are numerous questions, most likely which will never be answered. But one thing will not change – the media will not relinquish its grip on free speech.
You see, the second we as the media give up this fundamental right, we become nothing more than public relations personnel of the current ruling party, in whatever country we find ourselves operating in.
Consider South Africa; how many investigations into corruption have begun owing to investigations and articles published by the media? If not for the media in South Africa, who would have known about Nkandla, Eskom’s problems and E-tolling?
What would happen if this notion of shooting up media offices took hold in South Africa? This notion is not as far-fetched as one might think. Media groups in this country are responsible for a number of influential people either ending up behind bars, or having their lavish lifestyles curtailed.
Other countries have other problems, and the media plays an important role in those countries.
The media can, and must, challenge public perception. It cannot simply pander to the most popular opinion. Granted, some groups do, but if you look closely, you will notice that more people are noticing. Thanks to the internet, the public is, today, more informed than ever before. And therefore the expectation of the media to grapple with current events accurately is higher.
It must also be remembered that the media is often-times merely a platform, which allows people to voice their opinions. If this is to be the reaction of some people to certain comments, how then are we to engage freely, openly, in a bid to learn and understand? How can we, as people, share and exchange ideas if we run the risk of being gunned down?
To some degree, this harks back to the days of ‘coffee house culture’, where people would gather in coffee houses to discuss and talk about the ruling family. Remember, back then kings and queens controlled the land. In some countries, coffee houses were closed and banned, in a bid to prevent people from exchanging ideas. Consider what eventually happened to these rulers. France’s king and queen visited the guillotine, the English king was removed from ruling the country, Spain lost its royal family and in Russia, the Tsar and his entire family were shot.
Suppressing ideas and freedom of speech is far more dangerous than allowing it. Consider the recent Arab Spring riots, which struck Libya, Egypt and Bahrain. In all these countries freedom of speech was curtailed, yet eventually, the ideas of the people escaped, infected others, leading to the eventual overthrow of said rulers.
One cannot prevent the dissemination of ideas, no matter how contrary they are to your own.
The attack in France is shocking, and it serves as a grim reminder to all of us in the media industry of just how dangerous our jobs can be.
