MEDIA AND SOCIETY: The future of Press Council

The conversation continues: The only redeeming value of the Nigerian Press and Practice of Journalism bill is that it has reopened discussion on the future of statutory regulation of the press by reminding the Newspaper Proprietors' Association of Nigeria that it may not have the last word on regulating practice.

By a stroke of fate both the organised press and the Federal House Committee on Information discussed the press bill last week. The November 16th public hearing at the House and the November 17th seminar held by the organised press on the Ombudsman mechanism point to a convergence of interest on the need to regulate journalism practice.

Where they differ is the nature of regulation proposed, the drivers of the regulation, and the objective. The House hearing considered objections to Hon Abike Dabiri-Erewa's bill for an Act to provide for the repeal of the Nigerian Press Council Act, 1992 and establish the Nigerian Press and Practice of Journalism Council. The bill purports "to promote high professional standards for the Nigerian press, and deal with complaints emanating from members of the public about the conduct of journalism and media houses in their professional capacity, or complaints emanating from the press about the conduct of persons, organisations, or institutions of Government towards the press" through statutory regulation.

Funded by the State, it envisages a shared responsibility between the State and the Press leading to better ethical consciousness from the press, and improved welfare of journalists. It expects guilty parties to publish its findings and where they fail, imposes sanctions ranging from fines to imprisonment or even temporary closure. In setting up a technical committee drawn from stakeholders and headed by Prince Tony Momoh, the Information committee desires to find an acceptable solution.

The seminar organised by the Newspaper Proprietors' Association of Nigeria, the Nigerian Guild of Editors, and the Nigeria Union of Journalists canvassed support for the industry initiative to self-regulate the press through the Ombudsman mechanism, which will consider complaints from the public about the conduct of the press.

Funded by the press, it is headed by a retired judge who will be guided by the industry's code of ethics in the belief that he is sufficiently independent to win public approval that the press would not be a judge in its own cause. Subscribing members of the NPAN are to be bound by its pronouncements by publishing them promptly in their papers. Through a name and shame strategy, it expects some sanity to prevail in journalism practice, convinced that no serious medium would want its credibility consistently eroded through regular appearance in the Hall of Infamy.

The Nigerian Press and Practice of Journalism Bill seeks to break the impasse on the workings of the Nigerian Press Council occasioned by government's failure to push into law the consensus bill of 2002. Rather than take off from 2002, it returned to the dark ages, which believed press responsibility must be extracted like a pound of flesh; thereby rekindling the fears of the organised press that government's unwavering intention is to pocket the independent press with its references to fines, annual registration and licensing of media houses.

The Ombudsman mechanism is the best advertisement to date by the press that it is serious about rebuilding public trust. With sustained public education on its mechanism and the journalist's code of ethics, it will gain currency. A major challenge is that although most major players belong to the NPAN, not all Nigerian newspapers subscribe to it; which then raises the question whether the NPAN can enforce its will on non members.

This lacuna justifies the press council's future mediatory role as a complement to the Ombudsman mechanism of the independent press. Since the Nigerian press is in no mood for the monster envisaged in the current bill before the House, and is not averse to healthy regulation, the press should promote the existence of the consensus bill of 2002 side by side with the office of the Ombudsman.

The consensus bill has already jettisoned the obnoxious provisions being resurrected by the NPPJC bill and prescribes press input in the appointments of the council chairman and secretary and council operations. The House should halt the NPPJC bill adventure, address issues of salary enhancement for government-owned media within the provisions of their enabling laws.

This way, no party really loses. The State has a recognised platform to work with the press; the press, an expanded outlet to protect its integrity, and guide its future; society, an assurance that it is not a hapless spectator.

In practice, the press council should emphasise its other functions-training, research and documentation, partnering with stakeholders to have regular, healthy interrogations on the state of the media. There is a lot to learn about the character, role, and thrust of the Nigerian media. More publications should emerge from such inquiries in line with the council's developmental mission, and less talk about counterproductive methods of wanting to clobber the press into responsibility.