It must be remembered from the outset that the initiative is not new and that its realization could take place on the ashes of the two previous ones. In particular, the Guinean observatory of deontology and ethics in the media (OGUIDEM), which lived painfully before passing away, following a sordid affair of which only its actors can better narrate it without sign of hiccups.
A few years later, other journalists, including myself, had the decisive desire to promote its resurrection by infusing it with new dynamics and new momentum. This is how the Guinean media self-regulation observatory was born under the acronym (OGAM). Who also took up residence in the morgue, due to lack of strategy. However, it was approved and affiliated with African media self-regulation bodies.
The history of media self-regulatory bodies dates back to 1916, when the Swedish media created the media council which quickly spread across the world. In Africa, Benin is the country where one of the richest experiences in this area resides, with the observatory of deontology and ethics in the media (ODEM), created in 1999, and which has been an abundant Source of inspiration for OGAM.
But in reality, what is media self-regulation in a simple way? It is a set of mechanisms or means put in place by the actors of the corporation to ensure compliance with the rules, duties, principles and values which govern the exercise of journalism.
In other words, it is self-control or self-censorship that turns into a court of peers. It aims to erase the recognition of individual responsibility in favor of the recognition of collective responsibility, with a view to establishing the credibility of the media.
Having a corporatist character, it sometimes tends to only defend its interests to the detriment of those of the society that the media are supposed to serve. Because the members of the self-regulatory body find themselves judges and stakeholders. Which calls into question their impartiality and independence in handling citizen complaints.
If self-regulation also aims to protect press freedom, the independence and safety of journalists, it cannot make them effective. Only the State is capable of guaranteeing them through legal instruments and institutions. Hence the danger of seeing self-censorship being exploited by its omnipotence. The State can possibly do this in a convenient and submersible way, because it is less blatant.
It should also be noted that a media self-regulatory body has no legal sanctioning power, at the risk of treading on the toes of the body institutionally empowered to sanction the failings of a journalist. It deters, it assumes, it represents, it trains, it seeks opportunities, it protects and defends common interests.
Furthermore, the announcement made by the colleagues relating to the creation of a self-regulatory body for the private press, on the occasion of the celebration of press freedom, seems to be less mature.
In the hypothesis that they take action, the nuance between press and media requires that self-regulation does not apply to the press but to the media (mass media). If this is so, there cannot be in the same country, a self-regulatory body for private media and another for public media. We must eradicate this vision of initiative to avoid ostracism.
Likewise, with regard to the functioning of the future structure, it is urgent to remove them from the amalgam which consists of thinking that it is an organ. The State has already provided for an institutional body for this purpose, the High Authority of Communication. Rather, it is simply an instance of self-regulation of the media. Like everyone else.
It could be provided for by the HAC law or not. But it should necessarily be full of credible, respected professionals with several years of experience. This body should also, in conjunction with the HAC, take into account several public services, to broaden the range of its influence.
Bella KAMANO, former Vice-President of OGAM
){kind=link}