It's enough to make you gag

Some of us media folk like to live by the old adage that the pen is mightier than the sword. For some, the job is rooted in the belief that we are protectors of the truth and through the written word we can overcome corruption and evil at the highest level.

The reality, however, is that the written word is often preceded by word of mouth and inevitably our pursuit of the truth stems from tip-offs by “little birdies” and anonymous calls.

With the absence of any real confidentiality, the potential source will be forced to think twice before engaging the media.

Leigh-Ann Francis, telecoms editor, ITWeb

Even in this day and age, where information, even the confidential kind, can be found with relative ease, a good story still comes down to having a “well placed industry source” who will heed the call of: “Will you go on the record?”

With all this talk of honour and duty, one must not forget the sense of responsibility that comes with it. Thus, any journalist worth his salt will tell you that protecting the source is the first priority.

This is why I'd like to argue that government's proposed Protection of Information Bill and even the possibility of a media appeals tribunal is not entirely about controlling the media or censoring the content.

Rather, if we look at the bigger picture, the real impact of the new law is rooted in controlling the source of information. In my opinion, the threat of the Information Protection Bill lies in the underlying potential to gag the source, the whistleblower, the anonymous tip-off...

Parliament is currently reviewing the Protection of Information Bill. If passed, this Bill will make it possible for government officials to arbitrarily classify state information.

Additionally, it makes possession of such information a criminal offence, with prison sentences of up to 25 years.

The government is also mulling the possibility of setting up a media appeals tribunal that would report to Parliament and have the power to imprison journalists and levy hefty fines on publishers.

One only has to read ITWeb's stories to know that corruption in the ICT sector is rife, ranging from irregular tender dealings, to the millions of rands wasted on unfinished projects, which where awarded to friends and family of the powers that be.

However, the media has played an integral role in fighting corruption in the industry. Moreover, many of these great expos'es were the direct result of reliable sources contacting the media to blow the whistle on dodgy business practice.

For some of these articles the information received, including anonymous comment and confidential document, would, under the proposed Information Protection Bill, be illegal to publish.

Consider when ITWeb blew the lid regarding corruption at the State IT Agency. Integral parts of the story lie in the possession of supporting documents, such as the confidential Henderson Solutions risk assessment report.

Like any journalist in the country, the consequence of the proposed legislation is of great concern to me and is considered by many to be borderline censorship of the media.

But it is the knock-on effect that I urge the rest of SA to sit up and take notice of. Suffice to say it is not just the media who will be limited in its information sharing, so too will the average citizen.

The proposed Bill propagates that it would be illegal for the media to be in possession of classified documents. But, despite what government may think, the media does not have a magic wand that just produces confidential documents at our every whim.

We rely on our sources to share the necessary information, and proof, to oust the corruption within their organisation. In turn, our sources rely on us to maintain their confidentiality.

This delicate eco-system would be at risk under the new laws, as government would be in a position to recall any documents it suspects the media of being in possession of.

The very notion of protecting the source would go out the window as the proposed legislation effectively suggests it would be illegal for the whistleblower to engage the media on issues it deems confidential.

While there are laws protecting the whistleblower, my instincts are screaming that this proposed Protection of Information Bill would undermine the concept, at the very least, on a psychological level.

The threat of “taking this to the media” would be lost. With the absence of any real confidentiality, the potential source will be forced to think twice before engaging the media.

In turn, the media may be bogged down with the kind of information that could oust heavy-handed corruption, but not be allowed to publish it. This too may wreak havoc on the media-source relationship.

The media are known to be a tough lot - the normal working day usually consists of a non-stop fight to get to the truth. Even post-publishing, we prepare for the backlash; from those implicated, the readers and even our peers.

But we fight the fight and we take our role as a “societal watchdog” seriously. It is our job to bare teeth when hunting down the truth and protecting our sources.

Failing that, as would be the case with the proposed legislation, the media would lose its bite in not only relaying the information but in protecting the bearer of the information.

For this reason it may seem on the surface that this is about controlling the media, and it is, but know that you too may find yourself gagged.