Uganda's media has a dark history that is directly centered around the government. There has been many changes, but many things have stayed the same as well. We were bale to hear from an individual representing a radio station, investigative journalists, and an employee of television news reporting. The panel touched on issues in the media, as well as growths. The discussion was mainly focused on the corruption in the government and how it affects the media.
The media often struggles with media freedom and the ability to have freedom of speech. During the last political election the government shut down all social media. The panel also discussed no job growth- even explaining how many media outlets hire family members or people connected to them rather than educated individuals. This had led to troubles questioning the economy because many journalists don't understand it.
Questions:
1. What does the media need to change so that progression can be made towards a sustainable and developed economy in Uganda?
2. Should the government continue to have a role in the media? Is it necessary and if so, how much?
Government should not have a role in the media in order to keep in neutral. Politicians should also not be allowed to purchase networks, since they will use them as a platform for propaganda instead of reporting factually proven news.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the government should be able to play a role in the media. Media outlets should educate people on politics without being biased, which is impossible to do if stations are owned by politicians. I think the major change to be made that would lead to progression is to hire qualified individuals for positions instead of just hiring anybody with an inside connection. The lack of freedom of speech makes it incredibly hard for the media outlets to talk about real news.
ReplyDeleteThe only role that government should play in media is protecting free speech. If politicians own media outlets, then the information being disseminated will undoubtedly be biased. Therefore, politicians should not be able to own networks because there is a clear conflict of interest. In order for media to be sustainable, there needs to be more protections for reporters. This involves strengthening the justice and law enforcement institutions and dealing with the corruption that exist in such institutions. Corruption must also be dealt with inside the networks. As you mentioned, many media outlets hire family instead of qualified individuals. Also, many media networks can be bribed into reporting (or not reporting) certain news. If media is to become sustainable, there needs to be larger consequences for taking bribes and incentives to hire more qualified people.
ReplyDeleteIn order for the media to not be skewed with anything, the government should not be using authority to filter the power of media and freedom of speech. I also agree with Jontae on how politicians should not be allowed to purchase media channels. It simply gives them more power to enforce messages as they wish. The media should focus more on who works in media. Making sure people are actually qualified is crucial not only so the public can be informed properly, but also so the government can loosen its control.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kaitlynn's view, that the only role government should have in media is allowing freedom of speech to all. Allowing government to control and regulate media is, in my opinion, extremely unethical and corrupt. Especially in a democracy where freedom of speech should be a right to all people. If people are given a right and a majority are in favor of that right, the government has NO right to take it away. In order for an economy and government to progress, freedom of speech is needed to challenge the views of people.
ReplyDeleteI am not completely sure how media should change; I just know that journalists should strive to represent the truth and should strive to have a credible reputation. Which means, the field needs to put an importance on hiring individuals who are educated and qualified to work. One thing the man who worked in print media shared that I appreciated was that his company would fire anyone who was representing fake or corrupt news. I found this refreshing to hear, but all media sources must follow these ways if media in general should ever be taken serious.
I have hope media's reputation will change overtime worldwide. Hopefully, other future journalists like myself are also passionate about giving the field a good name and reputation for sharing stories with honesty.
Instead of becoming more progressive, I think that in the last two years the government has taken provocative steps in rolling back media freedoms. While we were in Uganda, parliament passed a bill which implemented a so called "social media tax" which taxes individual social media users, with the intent of both discouraging the use of apps such as whatsapp, and at the same time being a rent-seeking behavior illegitimately raising government revenues. I think the only involvement the government should have in the media is ensuring that the media is able to transparently cover government proceedings, (parliament sessions, speeches) and essentially any facet of government that isn't a threat to national security if publicized. The question becomes what is considered a threat to national security, or at what point does too much information become detrimental to the national political discourse. Unfortunately we live in an era of falsified news stories and misinformation, and the question is who should have the power to determine legitimacy. The goal is to develop an independent organization who does not benefit in any way from the way that news is portrayed or what issues are focused on, so that they can at the least be as objective and transparent as possible. This institution is certainly not the government.
ReplyDeleteSomething that scared me about government having a role in media is the ability to censor or portray messages that are biased. However, Uganda seemed to do an okay job at making sure that facts are provided with actual emotion portrayal. I do not agree with politicians owning radio stations, especially because you are really only allowed to purchase channels if you are aligned with a certain party. I did however like when the presenters stated that radio media was about entertainment and genuine news. This is the part of the lecture that I felt I saw true hope in sustainability and ability to push development forward.
ReplyDelete