STORY OF  TRANSNATIONAL COMPLAINTS MECHANISM:

HOW IT HAS  BEEN BLOCKED

                                                             Oktay Ekşi

                                                   Former  President of WAPC

                                                                                                                                                           cil

“Is there a remedy for those who claim that  unfair attacks or unsustained stories of the transnational media have been detrimental to them? Or If a mechanism were created to establish  a voluntary journalist prototype   damage  democracy and Freedom of Communication (Free Expression and  Press)?”

These questions have been widely discussed  by the media world in recent  years. But they  are  still far from being answered..

I would like to relate  a  story of such an attempt and draw your attention to a problem that still exists and awaits to be solved . :

It was the very first time that an Indian journalist, Mr. H. K. Dua, then Editor-in-Chief of  Indian Express daily,  asked a question to the panelists of the  44^th General Assembly and World Congress of the International Press Institute  held in Seoul in May 1995, who said::

“Dailies, magazines, radio and television  broadcasting across the borders do not merely provide  cultural transformation. But they also lead to  an unjustified and audacious aggression against the individuals they target via the false  news and other material they publish noncommensurate with basic professionalism. I wonder if it is not possible to set up a mechanism whose goal would be to audit ourselves in order that  such aggression may be avoided?”

None of the panelists could give a satisfactory answer  to Mr. Dua’s question.

Mr.Dua’s question was  brought up by the Turkish Press Council in a WAPC meeting in Helsinki in early June of the same year. The idea was, ”Is it possible to establish a voluntary mechanism that would  deal with the complaints about internationally delivered print media outlets, radios, TV channels and other media?”

We proposed a mechanism based on the voluntary  cooperation of the concerned parties.

This proposal was received with interest and  included in the  agenda, despite the objection of the delegates from Austria,  Cyprus and Finland.

In March 1996, The Turkish Press Council organized a “round-table” meeting in Istanbul.   At this point Prof. David Flint, then Chairman of WAPC, in the name of Working Group –which was established in theAugust 1995 Colombo meeting of WAPC-  presented a “proposal” to the Round Table.

Some participants like late Lord Oliver McGregor (then President of WAPC) and IPI Director Johann Fritz objected.

Their objection was based on the  fear that, “Such a mechanism might eventually come under the influence or pressure of governments, thus creating a system that would  hinder  free expression.”

At the same meeting some participants questioned the possibility of setting up an “international code of ethics.”

The delegates, who supported the proposal gave detailed information as to the advantages of such  a mechanism. As an example, a program of a German TV Channel was brought to the meeting where “ Turkish peasants helping the PKK in the Antalya mountains” was proven to be lie. In fact, this program had been fabricated  in Greece.

Also, the attention of some delegates was drawn to documentaries claimed to have been  shot in the Kashmir area, whereas they were actually taken in the Bosnian war.

Finally the Working Group was assigned to:

·        Study the attitude of organizations that carry transnational  broadcast or printed matter upon receipt of such complaints.

·        Publish the results of these studies.

The crucial meeting was the Istanbul Conference of WAPC that was held in September 1998.

It was crucial because the question (or proposal) was the main topic of the agenda and all concerned parties were invited.

At this point, Mr. Ronald Koven, The European Representative of World Press Freedom Committee, who was against the idea of creating a mechanism of this kind, from the very beginning started a campaign to kill the proposal. He –I understand- convinced some prominent journalists like Rosemary Righter of London Times and some professional organisations like American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE).

Mr. Edward Seaton, then President of ASNE said, “They (WAPC and its  supporters) are going out into deep water, and it is water that they shouldn’t be swimming in.”

ASNE’s Executive Director Mr. Lee Stinnet accused the organizers (namely the Turkish Press Council and WAPC) of “trying to devise yet another collar for the press.”

Rony Koven wrote to Oktay Ekşi in his letter of 12 June 1998, to remind “the long standing objection of WPFC” to the proposal. His points were:

·        The very existence of such a mechanism would be “a standing invitation for proposals to make  its rulings mandatory under international law.

·        The press in many democratic countries, including France and the United States, where the press is generally acknowledged to be among the world’s freest, has rejected the idea of organizing a national press council, let alone the global creation  of an association of national councils.

·        The very existence of an “International Code of Ethics for the Media”  voluntary or not, would  inevitably be used by governments against the press.

As a matter of fact, we could not convince Mr.Koven that:

·        As transnational  broadcast and publishing is a common practice in a global society, no one can resist the need of regulation for long. The point is, regulations must meet  the needs of a democratic society and and provide genuine  free expression. That is why, the best way of preventing  governments from intervening in the  press world is to create a mechanism of this kind.

·        It is certainly much better and safer to do this  by ourselves and create a voluntary mechanism which –I underline again- would be a staunch defender of  freedom of communication (free expression and free communication).

·        No one  has ever claimed that an “Internationally applicable Code of Ethics for the Media” is a must. As once Prof. David Flint pointed out, “A voluntary mechanism for trans-national media complaints would act like the Quebec Press Council” which is renown   for not having a written Code of Ethics.

In fact, when Prof. Dr. David Flint defended the idea of establishing a Voluntary Mechanism for transnational  complaints, he said that:

·        Alternate to this, is “to allow injustice to continue.”

·        If we create such a mechanism, it would be “A response to the growing loss of confidence in the media.”

·        It would balance the power of the concerned Government.

·        And it would be a response to  globalisation.

When he was explaining his views he emphasized that:

 “We live in a world where national boundaries seem to be evaporating. At least in the field of communications and the media (…).

We shall have newspapers without frontiers. We shall have radio without frontiers. We shall have television without frontiers. We do not want to propose control, beyond frontiers.

Should we not equally enjoy an opportunity to respond  across frontiers?

Should we not expect accuracy and fairness across  frontiers?

Should we not therefore extend the working  market place of ideas across national frontiers?”

As it is clear, there were numerous  contradictory views on this question. Also some –like Mr. Ronald Koven- claimed that it was about  establishing a tribunal, which had nothing to do with the idea.

As this was another point in the debate, let me summarise how this mechanism would work:

The main object of the mechanism was to mediate first, as Prof. David Flint once suggested:

If the question can not be resolved  through mediation then it would adjudicate and declare   its opinion.

The mechanism would ensure that, in respect to any complaint, local remedies would be exhausted first.

There would have to be a formula for selecting “ad hoc” complaints committees to hear and adjudicate  the complaints.

These would not only be complaints about  the media but  also complaints about  media conduct.

Also a Freedom Committee could monitor legal and political restrictions to ensure that   the restrictions were those necessary in a civilized and democratic society.

It could select the world’s best application   in relation to freedom of communication, and argue that this would apply  to other interested  countries.

Complaints could be evaluated conforming  to “general guidelines” of  law and “free and responsible” journalism sustained  by the practices of  the International Court of Justice and the Quebec Press Council.

At the Istanbul Conference three Working Groups were established.

The Working Groups studied all views expressed in this question.

Eventually WAPC decided to remove this proposal from it’s agenda  until  appropriate conditions are established. 

Is it to late to ask?

If we could  succeed in establishing  such a mechanism, would the Danish Caricature  of September 2005, hurt all the concerned parties to such an extent?

                            ----------------------------