Anuanon, Akwaaba!

Hi Folks! So, it’s me again. I must say that I missed you’ll terribly during the time I was away. There was this huge vacuum that I am glad is now filled as I am with you.

Great! With that said, let’s get straight to business. So I hear a LOT has happened while I was away. Hm? Come on…fill me in.

A comparison and contrast between the Social Responsibilities and Libertarian Theories

The Libertarian and Authoritarian theories were propounded by Frederick Seibert in his “Four Theories of the press”. The “press” in Seibert’s work refers to the media of mass communication namely Radio, television and newspaper.

The Libertarian theory proposes that the media is at liberty to report whatever they deem fit whether true or false and leave it in the judgement of people to decide. They proposed that the media landscape was a free market place of ideas. This theory arose against the authoritarian theory, which proposed government control of the media. The proponents of the theory argued that “if individuals could be freed from the arbitrary limits on communication imposed by church and state, they would “naturally” follow the dictator of their conscience, seek truth, engage in public debate and ultimately create a better life for themselves and others (McQuail, 1987, Siebert, Peterson, Shramm, 1956)

To further consolidate this theory, John Milton, hold that truthful and good arguments will always win out over lie and deceit and this idea became known as the self-righting principle (Altschull, 1990).

Worthy of note is the fact that, with this absolute freedom that the media enjoyed under this theory might tend to use for more harm than good. There are no restrictions to what the media could report and even the state and individuals need to be protected from the excesses of the media.

The Second of Siebert’s theories to be discovered is the Social Responsibility theory. The theory emphasized professionalism and self regulation on the part of the media. This places the responsibility on the media to place priority on the society as against pursuing profits.

In Ghana, the social responsibility theory is enshrined in the Ghana Journalists Association at its Sunyani General Meeting in July 1994.

The preamble of the code reminds the media that “the public expects the media to play their watchdog role. They should do this with a high sense of responsibility without infringing on the rights of individuals and the society in general.

This document guides the media to function in such a way that the public will be protected from its excesses but derive the maximum benefits from them. This is not the case with Libertarian theory.

Article 5(I) states that “Journalists should respect the right of the individual, the privacy and human dignity” (GJA code of ethics).

Upon close analysis, both the Libertarian and social responsibility theories have some things in common. In the first place, both theories have a high regard for the role the media plays in society.

According to (Altschull, 1990, p 117), Thomas Jefferson, after suffering scurribus newspaper criticisms during the second term of his presidency, reaffirmed Milton’s self-righting principle in a letter to a friend in 1787, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without governments, I should not hesitate to prefer the latter.” (Altschull, 1990, p.117).

Both theories, again, are much preferred against the Authoritarian theory, which places strict restriction on what the media can do. Authoritarian theory places censorship and punishment or media houses that do not broadcast in favour of the established authority (a government).

In addition, the main aim of the theories is to see to the well-being of the citizenry or media consumers. The Libertarian proposes a free marketplace of ideas where individuals can discuss and solve their problems rather than elites governments having the control over the media. Social responsibility theory also has the consumer in mind when it tasks the media to be responsible in their reportage. They are to guard against yellow and base journalism for profits and put society’s interest first.

In contrast, the responsibility placed in the social responsibility sets it apart from the Libertarian theory. There is a sort of restriction placed on it which demands practitioners in the social responsibility theory to work in a particular framework. The Libertarian theory however has no restrictions.

The social responsibility theory also protects the public more than the Libertarian theory. It charges journalists to guard against invading people’s privacy and respecting human dignity and national interest. All these are not mentioned in the Libertarian theory and as such, practitioners in this theory infringe on these with impunity.

A

A comparison and contrast between the authoritarian and libertarian theories

A contrast and comparison between the authoritrain and libertarian theories of the mass media

Frederick Seibert propounded the libertarian and authoritarian theories in his ‘Four theories of the press’. The term “press” in Siebert”s work refers to the media of mass communication, namely, radio, television and newspapers.

According to Seibert, the media in an authoritarian system requires government control. In this theory, the assumption is that not all men are endowed with wisdom and as such, only the wise few (government) should direct the affairs of the people.. it also assumes that these wise men are infallible.

The system prohibits the publishing of any material that the government deems to undermine the security of the state, or its social or moral values. The authoritarian practice controls the media by granting licenses and sometimes censorship. The governments do these with the aim of protecting the collective interests of the public; or that is what they believe.

Ghana at one time also did its fair suppression of the media. This authoritarian

“it is part of our revolutionary credo that within the competitive system of capitalism, the press cannot function in accordance with a strict regard for the sacredness of facts and the press, therefore, should not remain in private hands”

On another occasion, he stated, “the truly African press does not exist for the purpose of enriching its proprietors or entertaining its readers. It is an integral part of our society…must carry out our revolutionary purpose”.

The control of the media was reinforced with legislation. A Criminal Code (Amendment) Act was passed requiring “newspapers and other publications of matters calculated to prejudice public order or safety” to be submitted for scrutiny before publication.(Audrey Gadzekpo)

According to Gadzekpo, “the final overt policy… was the passing of the newspaper licensing law (PNDC Law 211) in1989that revoked the registration of all newspapers.

Seibert graphically describes the relationship of the media and authoritarian systems as such:

Government

Media

The libertarian or free pres theory contrasts with the authoritarian theory. It rests on the idea that the individual had the right to publish what he or she likes regardless of whether it was true or not. It advocates for a free marketplace of ideas where each one would choose from among various ideas, which one was true. Even attacks on the government are accepted. The government does not intervene or censor the media in this system’s material.

The First amendment of the United States constitution prevents any law from being passed that blocks the freedom of the press.

Seibert illustrates it thus:

Media Government

This illustration does not suggest any link between the media and government

All this not withstanding, the authoritarian and libertarian systems do share some things in common. The media in both systems are understood to wield tremendous power. Both systems recognize the vital role that the media plays or can play. It is how they manipulate the knowledge that differs in both instances. In Audrey Gadzekpo’s Ghana case study, she cited Joyce Aryee, as giving a clue into the PNDC government’s communication policy when she said:

I do not see the press as laying outside of the political institutions that we have…People ought to realize the role of the media differs from country to country. In a situation like ours when we need to conscientise people and where we have an illiteracy problem, you use institutions like the media to do the conscientisation”(African Contemporary Report,1983-84).

The conscientisation effort meant that private newspapers were randomly banned for “distorting news”…and also for distorting the ideals of the 31^st December Revolution. (Asante, 1996)

In addition both systems have a level of restriction. There is no absolute freedom in either system. This is because the constitution has provision for the protection of citizens against libel and slander by media houses. Any citizen who feels aggrieved can petition any law court against a media house. This acts as a check on the freedom of the press although the check may not come from government.

The law of contempt also curtails the right off the media to publish even what is true... The Sunday Times of London was found guilty of publishing below a picture of Michael Malik, who was then awaiting a retrial for an offense, ‘he took to politicks after an unedifying career as a brothel keeper, procurer, then a property racketeer”

It would also amount to contempt if an accused person’s confession statement is published however true it might be.

In contrast, each system is inclined towards the few in the society (the rulers) or the majority. The authoritarian theory is a tool in the hands of the government or the select few. The libertarian theory on the other hand puts much power in the hands of the people since owning and operating a media could be done by anyone, in the absence of strict regulations.

REFERENCES:

Gadzekpo, Audrey. Communications policy of civilian and military regimes; a case study of Ghana.

Terje, Steinulfsson Skjerdaly: Seibert’s Four Theories of the Media; A Critique.

GEORGE ORWELL IS A PROPHET!

REVIEW OF GEORGE ORWELL’S ANIMAL FARM.
By George Korang Appiah. (DCSM 2010034).
Animal Farm, authored by George Orwell is a classic book that is, by each day, gaining credence as being prophetic.
It would be unfortunate for any of its students to attribute the books issues to the rise and fall of communism alone since its lessons are seen in all sorts of political systems
The most serious tragedy of the book is the total betrayal of a people by their leaders who were rather to safeguard their interests.
With critical analysis, one would realize that the "illusion" Old Major made the animals believe that all animals were equal set the stage for their disappointment. When the animals were under Joneses’(colonialist) influence, life was understandably better but to have made them believe that it would absolutely better under their fellow animals was a bit naïve,. For one, any maltreatment from Jones would be understandable since he was not one of them and as one of the hens confessed, "Jones used sometimes to mix some (the milk) with our mash" but at the least chance, Napoleon stole it all.
It was evident from the beginning that this equality among the animals would not work even with the description the writer gave them as they were convening their first meeting. Orwell describes them as making "themselves comfortable after their own fashions" and even Moses, the raven, was not there at all (Pg 1.). There were foolish ones, skeptics, dreamers, weak ones, and all sorts of differences.
The irony is the deception on which the pigs rode to raise false hopes in the other animals. The only equality they shared was in the fact that they were all animals and Squealer rather later, summed it up in the commandment: ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.
It would also be greatly unwise for opponents of the animals communist system and communism for that matter, to gloat over their failure since it was not a failure of the system itself but a failure of the characters (the pigs) implementing them. This is to say that the failure of any political system, including democracy, lurks in the attitude of it’s peoples with the display of such like greed, indifference, ignorance and deceitfulness as was the case on the farm.
Orwell is not at all bias but presents, although not explicitly, all characters who contributed to the fall of animal farm. Old Benjamin should have ideally played a major role in the farms new organization. His experience and knowledge he had gained as a result of being the oldest on the farm was not used to anyone’s benefit since he had even made it a rule not to meddle in the political affairs of the farm let alone read one of the commandments to Clover. His apathetic attitude towards the politics of the farm furthered the tyrannical rule of Napoleon. The least he could have done was to educate his comrades since he could be seen to be "one of the smarter animals".
This situation is no different from our societies where we have learned and experienced professionals and academicians who refuse to give their impute to national development. They have detached the knowledge they have accumulated from practical implementation in society hence leaving the government for ignorant people who know little.
Again, another character also uses his oratory talents but for the wrong cause. Squealer becomes a master of deception who helps Napoleon to maintain his tyrannical rule. This instance further enhances the "prophetic" credentials of the author and his book. Today in Ghana, a new term "spin doctoring" has been coined for what Orwell is espousing on. We also have in Ghana, a political party that has dedicated a whole office to propaganda. These information ministers barely inform today but manage the image of their government by telling whatever lies can protect them as they loot and misrule
It is also amazing the role that was given to the most foolish animals in even helping to sustain the napoleon regime. Squealer capitalized on their stupidity and fed them with propaganda and by sheer reason of the level of their voices, they could stop any important thinking or decision making process with their chant of "four legs good, two legs bad" both in and out of season’. These people are the ones who further oppression by their ignorance. Today, some people refuse to do political reasoning and analysis but will be seen making noise for them. Their support is not based on a parties performance but on trivial insignificant matters. These people muddy the waters when others who really understand the political state of the nation and want to seek change. They can chant all their lives because of the fact that they have been given a few cedis. The earlier people become aware of their political environment and begin to hold their leaders to account the better it will be for any system.
Animal Farm again exposes the unacceptable role the Church plays in in the state. Moses represents the church, in Orwell’s book. He was aloof and unconcerned when the new political order was being created. It would seem that just because he was having a different level of experience ("sugarcandy mountain" and eating with the Joneses) than the other animals, he had forgotten that he was one of them. He didn’t contribute anything to the rebellion nor the work on the farm. The pigs however had to counteract Moses "preaching, " because it had the potential of being an "opium" to the animals suffering on the farm rather than forcing for change.
Churches of our day should not detach themselves from the hardships of the day but also practically seek to help address them as they preach of a "better place".
We have the church sitting unconcerned when gross injustices are being perpetuated but even Orwell concedes that Moses was a "clever talker" and despite the counteractions of the pigs "some of them believed in sugarcandy mountain"
Surprisingly enough, as things got harder on farm, Moses was allowed to stay there without working and received rations daily. Could this be that as things got worse Moses was "bribed" to be silent? Or that as it got worse the pigs rather needed him to help them drift the animals hopes from the "perfect" state to sugarcandy mountain?
When a government is disillusioned and selfish like Napoleons, it begins to look for all avenues to satisfy itself to the extent of forming alliances with people who will further their cause but not the interest of the people. This is seen in napoleon’s change in attitude and relationship with the humans.. The animals could no longer decipher whether their rulers were the same pigs or humans.
We have of late been trooping to "foreign donor partners" for assistance. These people in turn give us terms and conditions that are unfavorable to the ordinary masses. A recent example is the grant, which the Indian government made available for the building of the presidential palace. The condition however was that an Indian firm would do the actual construction. This means that competent Ghanaian contractors were deprived of the opportunity to do the work and earn some money. The consequence of this is that their contractors will repatriate the money the Indian government gave us to India. This would make one wonder whether the government has served the interests of its citizens or foreigners.
For a people’s lives to be changed and political stability to be maintained, governments must realize that these will not be achieved through merely arousing national pride and handing of luxuries to the citizens but rather providing opportunities for the citizens to develop themselves through education. When they are educated, they fully understand the system their nation is operating and can fully participate without feeling ‘used’ as was in the case of boxer; who in my opinion represents the working class who do laborious work and in the end retires paupers with nothing to show for their work. The whole tragedy in Orwell’s Animal Farm came as a result of the animals being unaware of their leaders’ intentions and this could have been avoided if they had been educated enough to discern and also actively participated in their decision making processes

Looking at the book in a different light, Orwell’s book exposes the greed hypocrisy and selfishness that the international communities sometimes display.
The book exposes this through the attitude that the humans, the drinkers at the tavern and the two adjacent farms, Foxwood and Pinchwood, had towards the Animal Farm.
The rebellion had taken place and Jones is complaining to his colleague farmers at the tavern (the EU or UN) . No one really does anything to help him but each is thinking of a way to use the situation to their advantage. The two farms closest to the rebellion Pinchwood and Foxwood are afraid that the rebellion might spread to their farms.
Most of them being farmers (colonialist oppressors) were not were not happy about the revolution the animals had launched. The history of Africa is abundant with instances where are reluctant to hand over power to revolutionaries like Dr. Nkrumah and Mugabe for instance. When they finally succeed in taking it, the foreign community sees them as mavericks and begins to bear ill will and ‘policy traps’ for these new leaders to fall in and fail. The case in point to be analyzed will be that of the Ghana’s infancy as a nation and the rule of Robert Mugabe.
Major players in the playing of young Ghana’s foreign policy were the United States of America (USA) and Russia. These two nations represented two different ideological backgrounds and like the Pinchwood and Foxwood farms, they disliked each other so much that "It was difficult for them to come to any agreement…",but these would begin to court the attention and seek to influence young Ghana.
Dr. Nkrumah was rather inclined to the soviets’ socialist ideals as against the USA’s capitalism.
These alliances also brought about it’s own blessings and challenges. The Russians lived in a colder climate and as such could not produce much food to feed itself let alone help its friend Ghana. Even farm machinery that the exported to Ghana rotted at the docks because they were made for the Russian climates and as such were useless in Ghana. The Americans also left us to our fate.
The animals on the manor farm lived in constant fear that the humans would attack them and reestablish their rule and hence the sighting of Mollie being stroked and given lumps of sugar by one of Pilkington’s men by clover (thinking Mollie would be used to infiltrate the farm) , was an issue of concern. In this same manner, the US government recruited General Acheampong, a Ghanaian, who overthrew Dr. Nkrumah who would have proven to be a problem for them. It was after this that the Americans rewarded us with food aid.
Again, the blowing up of the windmill of the animals by the humans, to sabotage the progress of the farm is also a reality today. The economy of Zimbabwe has been sabotaged by western governments all In an attempt to make it’s leader Robert Mugabe (who was once their favourite) look unpopular. Crude oil bound for Zimbabwe, according to President Mugabe is intercepted and the offering price doubled to prevent it from getting to its destination.
The supposed friend of napoleon, Frederick, who would fit as a modern day development partner, tricked him after carting away at ‘high speed’ the timber of the farm and paying naive Napoleon with forgeries (pages 68 and 69). They will find a way to gain the best for nothing. After cheating Napoleon, Frederick decides to attack the windmill.
Ironically, it is as a result of a similar situation that the people of Zimbabwe and president Mugabe are suffering; after Tony Blaire had refused to make good the Chatham House Agreement which is supposed to have Britain pay President Mugabe an amount of money for the use of Zimbabwe’s fertile lands by white farmers.
These are not to vindicate Napoleon from his greed, misrule and tyranny. One cannot even begin to reason that he was indeed for his fellow animals against the humans. In effect, by his actions, and inactions, joined the humans to rip off his fellow animals.
Animal Farm is strongly recommended to any student of politics because it presents important and relevant examples of what things could go extremely wrong and how they would go. Already scenes analyzed from the book have vividly portrayed Ghana’s past and it’s present and this book could help us shape a better future for our politics