Government withdraws advertising deal
A free and independent media is essential to democracy. It is a fact. Harness the media, and you kill the whole idea of democracy (or you try). Especially in a country that has few outlets for public expression, like our beloved Lesotho. The government of Lesotho has just decided to withdraw its advertising relation with the newspaper The Public Eye, and some people are rightly wanting to know why.
The government of Lesotho is just about the only advertiser with The Public Eye and this action perhaps seeks to effectively shut down the paper through strangulation, but if the action does not seek to do so, the end result will still be death by strangulation. That immediately deprives the country of free and independent speech, it deprives some Basotho of their livelihood in a country that has a 45% unemployment rate (2002 figures), and it plunges Lesotho back into the abyss it is still struggling to get out of (where criticising the government resulted in a sure backlash).
The newspaper has the largest readership in the country, so the motive does not lie there. According to the All Africa article quoted here, the government is reluctant “to support its recent decision;” it further says that if the motive, undisclosed, is to stifle the newspaper into silence or submission, then the action is illegal.Public Eye, an independent newspaper with the largest distribution and widest readership in the country, has recently lost its single biggest advertising client. That client is the Lesotho government, which provides 80% of Public Eye’s revenue.
Lesotho is so dependent on SA for commerce that there are few local businesses capable or desirous of taking out advertising space in a national publication. Public Eye thus has little prospect of attracting other business to offset its recent loss. It faces a significant reduction of operations and the people of Lesotho, in consequence, will have diminished access to independent news.
[source]
The Lesotho constitution, Chapter II-14, guarantees free speech when it states that “Every person shall be entitled to, and (except with his own consent) shall not be hindered in his enjoyment of, freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference (whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons) and freedom from interference with his correspondence [source]”
In 2001 the Botswana High Court ruled that its government’s decision to cut advertising from two publications (that were critical of said government) was a violation of those publications’ right to free speech. It stands to reason. A government that cannot stand criticism, on the other hand, must toil to make sure there is no cause for it. Non-criticism by the populace and the media cannot be imposed… it is earned. Let it be so!
Did the Public Eye tabloid analyse critically and report objectively or was it peddling street gossip? I urge you to go through the the last 10 months’ issues before answering that question.
Another question is, has the government taken any specific action to SILENCE Public Eye? Why should a government continue to support a publication that doesn’t report anything it does in a positive light? If the South African government stopped publishing job adverts in the Sunday Times would people be crying about the SA government stifling free speech? I don’t think so, because Sunday Times has diversified its sources of revenue - why shouldn’t Public Eye be held to the same standard, especially if it has the largest distribution. Surely those who buy Public Eye buy it for its content, not for its advertising.
We need to draw the line somewhere. I think it is a testament to the freedom of expression that is enjoyed in Lesotho that people have hurled such torrential abuse at the government without suffering any consequences. Why should the government continue to finance publications that seem to exist only to abuse it?
Comment by Motaung — 11 July 2007 @ 3:04 pm
“Did the Public Eye tabloid analyse critically and report objectively or was it peddling street gossip?”Motaung,Your question in itself isn’t objective. “Peddling street gossip” is opinion and does not belong in the discussion.We have a constitution that protects free speech. Moshoeshoe had a manifesto that protected free speech. Mooa khotla ha a tsekisoe. In effect, it doesn’t matter whether the newspaper reported “objectively” or “peddled street gossip,” the government is above that. The government should be happy either way, happy that Basotho are free to talk, as the constitution says they should be.The government should, in fact, listen carefully to what is being said, and act either to rectify error, or to clarify a misundertanding. But never to punish free speech. That’s what Apartheid South Africa across the border used to do. Idi did that, too. And it looks like W is doing that in America, too.
“…has the government taken any specific action to SILENCE Public Eye? Why should a government continue to support a publication that doesn’t report anything it does in a positive light?” That is just it. Is the action in question a move to silence the paper? If so, it is illegal and should be reversed. It is illegal if the reason is to silence the paper, because withdrawing such business without breach of contract or another reason, is tantamount to putting duct-tape on the mouths of reporters, and we all know that that is against the law, and against every principle of a democratic society, such as the one we want to build in Lesotho. So, yes, the government should “continue to support a publication that doesn’t report anything it does in a positive light.” It is the duty of the government to do so.
We’re on the threshold of a new horizon, where we go with the government that gives us jobs, protects us, and respects us, as opposed to the past where we followed the charisma of one leader, or were born into a political party, and remained in it for life.
“I think it is a testament to the freedom of expression that is enjoyed in Lesotho that people have hurled such torrential abuse at the government without suffering any consequences.”I agree with you up to a point, Motaung oa heso. I have written many blog articles praising the present Lesotho government. But that has its limits, and is only in comparison with previous governments. But we cannot keep comparing the government with other governments that were clearly corrupt; we need to pitch the government against the aspirations of the Basotho people, now, full-stop.
Comment by Rethabile Masilo — 11 July 2007 @ 4:23 pm
Ntate Masilo, I understand and appreciate the points you raise.
I haven’t lived in Lesotho for about 5 years. Having said that, I have a major concern about the way Basotho in general address issues, because it generally doesn’t lead to any consensus. Whenever people have an altercation, one party might say “o teng motho ea nang le kelello ea ka reng XYZ…” or something along similar lines. It really bothers me that this is how we (Basotho) generally debate. What is very unfortunate is that this has manifested itself on such a large scale that no party is willing to listen to the other.
How do you propose to teach people have become so polarised that they all need to concede some ground for the greater good?
Comment by Motaung — 12 July 2007 @ 10:50 am
“How do you propose to teach people have become so polarised that they all need to concede some ground for the greater good?”
That is the best question to which I have no answer.In my opinion it is the question that should be framed and put on the wall of every government office, and at the bottom of every government memo, until someone says, “Hey, maybe we should…”
Nobody listens to the speeches or reads the projects. That is secondary. What matters is to beat the other party. “Why beat the other party?” Often, there’s no answer to that.
I agree with you.
Comment by Rethabile — 12 July 2007 @ 11:37 am