Tips on how to handle freedom of expression to your benefit when in authority…from Andrew Sesinyi

It is a lot easier, and more beneficial to grant press freedom than to restrict it; when people, feel free to express themselves, it exhausts your critics and fills your supporters with a great deal of pride.

When you suppress press freedom, not only do you give amplification to the volume of empty vessels, but you become also a source of embarrassment to your supporters.

People want to be able to give support to their chosen principals in an atmosphere of freedom so that they can have living verification of the correctness of their choice. Critics wane and wander aimlessly in an environment where their freedom of expression is not only guaranteed but facilitated.

Your most successful enemies will be those to whom your supporters cannot provide tangible evidence that they are wrong- that comes when you limit their freedom, or cause an environment in which your critics cannot be heard by your supporters. To strengthen your support base is to empower your supporters as your best spokespersons by placing your potent messages in juxtaposition with the criticism of your opponents.  Your propensity to hear and let others hear your critics gives weight to your facts. Facts on their own do not build a person. Perceptions do, and perceptions are a deeply emotive abstract phenomenon that is promoted largely by an atmosphere of freedom.

You are only on the right when your supporters wholly believe that you are fair, tolerant, confident and hence able to defend and uphold their integrity. Factions in your own front are created by the atmosphere you create to engage your critics. If your critics can speak themselves hoarse, your front will not be a haven for gossip among your supporters. It is in the nature of the human being to doubt oneself, to question one’s position and choice of allegiance. To fortify your defences, you must exist in a transparent atmosphere, where you and your supporters can prove that you harbour no malice.

Tinkering with media freedom when you are in a position of authority wears out the trust and confidence fibre of your supporters. There will always be a little voice in your supporter that wants to protect those that you may be seen to be prejudiced against. If you use your power to silence your critics, the little voices among your supporters will grow into a cacophony that eventually benefits your opponents.

-       

On videoTips on how to handle freedom of expression to your benefit when in authority…

It is a lot easier, and more beneficial to grant press freedom than to restrict it; when people, feel free to express themselves, it exhausts your critics and fills your supporters with a great deal of pride.

When you suppress press freedom, not only do you give amplification to the volume of empty vessels, but you become also a source of embarrassment to your supporters.

People want to be able to give support to their chosen principals in an atmosphere of freedom so that they can have living verification of the correctness of their choice. Critics wane and wander aimlessly in an environment where their freedom of expression is not only guaranteed but facilitated.

Your most successful enemies will be those to whom your supporters cannot provide tangible evidence that they are wrong- that comes when you limit their freedom, or cause an environment in which your critics cannot be heard by your supporters. To strengthen your support base is to empower your supporters as your best spokespersons by placing your potent messages in juxtaposition with the criticism of your opponents.  Your propensity to hear and let others hear your critics gives weight to your facts. Facts on their own do not build a person. Perceptions do, and perceptions are a deeply emotive abstract phenomenon that is promoted largely by an atmosphere of freedom.

You are only on the right when your supporters wholly believe that you are fair, tolerant, confident and hence able to defend and uphold their integrity. Factions in your own front are created by the atmosphere you create to engage your critics. If your critics can speak themselves hoarse, your front will not be a haven for gossip among your supporters. It is in the nature of the human being to doubt oneself, to question one’s position and choice of allegiance. To fortify your defences, you must exist in a transparent atmosphere, where you and your supporters can prove that you harbour no malice.

Tinkering with media freedom when you are in a position of authority wears out the trust and confidence fibre of your supporters. There will always be a little voice in your supporter that wants to protect those that you may be seen to be prejudiced against. If you use your power to silence your critics, the little voices among your supporters will grow into a cacophony that eventually benefits your opponents.

-       I’m Andrew |Sesinyi

I WOKE UP AT 2:30 AM, TROUBLED, AND HAD TO WRITE THIS… IN DEFENSE OF MEDIA

If state media, who are supposed to be public media, play their proper role of informing the nation objectively- with balance and fair play- there would be no need for recent commentators to be concerned about the prominence of allegedly unfair private media reports.

The state media have the widest circulation and broadest reach that cover virtually the entire country. It is a bizarre development that there should be rising anti-private media activists who complain of private media unfairness without addressing the credibility complexion and fair play of the largest information source in the country, the state media.

Audiences and readers resort to alternative sources of information when the establishment or main media channels such as state media, fail to provide information that reflects opinions of all the constituent groups and players in society. Bias breeds distrust and loss of clientele.

It is presumed that the latest complaints about private media reports are an indication that there is a move towards refurbishment of the editorial responsibilities of the state media to ensure that the public receives balanced reports and objective reflections of the expressions arising from public debate.

If, however, it is maintained that the sole responsibility of state media is to report some viewpoints to the exclusion of other properly constituted views, it should not be surprising that more and more people will continue listening to and reading private media reports, no matter how incorrect these may be. Notably, unlike state media, private media operate on poorly trained and weak facility status and should be thus expected to have grave shortcomings. That is all the more reason why the state media should play the objective role of a balanced policy reflection of opinions and observations by all key players in our society.

State media have previously discharged balanced, objective and credible services to the public through publication and broadcast of fairly constituted articles and programmes. This was done without departing from the state media role of promoting state policy and development priorities. This attitude of fair play should be reverted to by state media.

We have expressed before that single stream communication affects media credibility and naturally redirects audiences and readers to alternative sources of information, no matter how poorly presented the latter may be. A two way flow of information gives credence to media and captures audiences with enhanced credibility ratings, audience loyalty and reduced diversion of the public towards unfair sources of information. That is why in other countries where, democracy did not thrive, as it does in Botswana, all the cornucopia of state-owned propaganda media establishments to influence public opinion failed abysmally.

Audiences are a natural, scientific and unpretentious virtual entity. Their natural instincts and inclinations are to receive and process only balanced, two-way flow of processes of information. If state media package information in this manner, the public will rarely be distracted towards other sources of the same type of information. No matter how huge and articulate the sermons are against private media, public reception and reaction to information will always be in the framework of their make-up as people. Unless we provide balance, we can only increase dissent- that is a proven communications fact.

Meanwhile, the trials and tribulations of the private media should continue to be seen as a phenomenon that is consistent with the trials and tribulations of our growing democracy; and we can help productively by enhancing good quality information packages by state media rather than lambasting buddying media houses in their nascent stages.

Let us return to the times when there was little to no private media and reflect on how state media filled the vacuum to present balanced information packages that elevated Botswana’s democracy ratings even during the worst of times. State media of the time were the key instrument of freedom of expression, and they did so without abdicating the responsibility of promoting government policies and development priorities.

It worked in the past, because it was credible; it will work now, if it is credible. You cannot talk people who hear and read out of what they perceive to be their good feed. There can be no competition between private media and state media, so, if the approach is right, the public will be informed responsibly at all times. Then we won’t have to worry about any segments of a perceived biased private press.

We part with a fundamental question:

Why are people listening to and reading biased reports in the private media when state of the art state media houses cover the entire reach of the country?