Do journalists need protection and are they special people?

Are journalists special?
SEMINAR PAPER DELIVERED BY MR STEPHEN SAH, DAILY GRAPHIC, ACCRA, GHANA AT THE WOLFSON COLLEGE PRESS SEMINAR UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE (27 FEBRUARY 2006)

Permit me to begin my paper with this quotation (the thrust of my argument) from the Accra Herald of Monday October 5, 1857.

Charles Bannerman then writing in the Gold Coast said "In civilized communities, the press deservedly occupies a high position. The mass of mankind (lack) either the leisure or the capacity to form a sound opinion on most questions of the day - an opinion founded on calm reflection and thorough examination of the subject. Men's opinions therefore, where there is no press, are often mere whims and fancies, formed on very trifling knowledge of the matter. Their information is often incorrect. It is good therefore for the public that there should be a set of men who devote their time and ability to collecting and distributing general information. And it is good that these men should make it their duty to examine questions of importance, and submit their opinions, when matured, to the public. As long as these men do their duty fairly and with judgment, they ought to be supported by the public."

The above quotation points to the fact that the issue as to whether journalists should have special dispensation by the nature of their work has remained crucial for quite sometime especially when the media is considered as the fourth estate of the realm.There are those who believe that journalists are non entities and they should be placed at where they belong- they do not play any meaningful role in the development of the society. After all journalists are trouble rousers and should be blamed for the confusion within the world polity, they argue. After all, they invade the privacy of individuals. They report lots of government secrets and engage in other irresponsible practices just to sell more newspapers, or to get higher viewer ratings.There is yet another group who think that journalists already enjoy much freedom and the question should be put to rest. And this is supported by the results of a 2002 survey conducted by the American Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center in which 42 per cent of those polled thought that the press has "too much" freedom.Those who think this way further believe that journalism can be practiced by anybody who can put pen to paper and there isn't the need to train people as journalists and much more give them special privileges just for them to engender chaos in the society.This argument was bolstered recently here at Wolfson during a lunch conversation. Since we are press fellows the issue of journalism came up and one gentleman did not hesitate to remark that "Journalism is all about ethics and nothing else".I however hold a different view and am of the opinion that journalists should be specially trained and given the necessary support in the form of laws to allow for press freedom, protection of sources and immunity during war because of their role in society. Anything but this will absolutely throw journalism to the gutter. In spite of the fact that the Internet has become a medium that crosses borders instantaneously, enabling information and ideas to be disseminated in the twinkling of an eye determining whose standards and laws should apply to the speech and the speakers who use it to communicate will be one of the major challenges of the 21st century.This notwithstanding there need not be a long screed here on how journalism benefits our society. That has been well-documented. The press, for instance, helped build the American society and facilitated the independence struggle in my country Ghana. Journalists strongly fight for the vulnerable in society, freed innocent and wrongly-accused people from bad governments and laws. They have helped to unseat many corrupt governments and have told stories of war which would otherwise not have been told. A world without the journalist would be in total darkness. May I then say that journalists are the light of the world? How many of us gathered here this evening could imagine life without knowing what's happening in other parts of the world? When people are at their leisure best is it not the journalist who sweats and dreads to light the flame of the world by highlighting in eerie situations and circumstances?Should journalists not be protected during times of war, in searching for the truth and for that matter about information? Why should there be restrictions in their way?Journalists don't have to take a test or pass a series of board interviews to practice their profession. There isn't any journalist's license, nor should there be.Journalism, while a practice in objectivity, is a subjective art, there can be no test to measure such art. And, frankly, just like there are bad journalists, there are bad doctors and bad lawyers. However the bad doctors and lawyers are afforded the same shield as the good ones. Hence, journalists should enjoy the same protection as doctors, lawyers, and the like.If people who know the news cannot feel free to reveal the news, then there will be no news. Those people who know the news should feel comfortable trusting a journalist to not later reveal their identity. If not, who knows what would go on behind closed government doors?For example why should a man who has classified government information, which if not released would lead to the death of thousands of people lose his job if found to have released that information?If journalists cannot promise source anonymity, the sources will dry up and if the sources dry up, journalists will be relegated to reading well-edited and censored press releases. In situations where there is no protection for journalists the society will not be far from Hobbes' postulations of war for all against all.Asking protection for journalists should not provide us with the license to kill. No. As those who mirror our society journalists should be shown the way and to quote a proverb from Ghana "He who is charting the path does not know whether it is warped or not". And journalists like path charters will not know whether the path is warped or not so obviously there should be someone behind to point out the right path. This is where the issue of ethics becomes relevant.Lazy journalists who don't feel like working to actually confirm a story will talk to one person and say "According to unnamed sources" while eager journalists will let government officials use them to trash political opponents under the guise of "government sources tell us..." Some so-called journalists just make up stuff and attribute it to "sources."It's all about responsibility on all sides. It's up to journalists to use a measure of good sense about what they report and what they do not. It's up to journalists' superiors to make sure their employees are acting in a responsible manner.