Keep media independent of the government

Posted on Tue, Sep. 19, 2006

Keep media independent of the government
BY SAM TERILLI
sterilli@miami.edu

The tempest over the journalists paid by TV and Radio Martí has been
brewing for at least week, but the time has come to take a deep breath
and smell, if you will, the coffee -- American or cubano, take your choice.

Let's start by defining what this controversy does or does not involve.

• First, it is not about journalists opposing the Castro regime in Cuba
or supporting the cause of a free Cuba. Journalists are entitled to
their own opinions. No one is applying a litmus test.

• Second, The Miami Herald Media Company terminated its relationships
with a number of journalists paid by the agencies, and journalism
experts have offered their criticism of the journalists. But neither The
Miami Herald nor the experts have offered one word of support for Fidel
Castro. This is not about Castro, at least not in that sense.

• Third, this controversy is really about the relationship between
government and an independent press. In that sense it is a little about
Castro because the Cuban press is so clearly not independent of the
Cuban government, but hold that thought for now.

Americans expect their news media, including The Miami Herald and El
Nuevo Herald, with all of the flaws that come with being institutions
run by mere humans, to be as independent of government as possible. Yes,
we are all dependent on government to, for example, protect the public
welfare, defend the republic from invasions, pave the streets and
provide some social services. We are all citizens or residents of a
country and, thus, not truly independent of our country or national
interests.

An informed judgment

As I remind my college media-ethics students, journalists do not
parachute into a community from Mars. They live here. Many have children
in our schools. They have many of the same concerns as everyone else.
And, many have strong political beliefs. Many in Miami want a free Cuba.
That's all great. That is America at its finest. We should support
freedom and the rule of law for all.

This does not mean that all journalism is hopelessly slanted. In a
mechanical sense there is no pure objectivity, but there is the next
best thing and that is the acknowledgement and disclosure of one's
biases, affiliations or connections that might be relevant to a
reasonable reader.

If a journalist is working for -- paid or not -- any person or
organization that might be even remotely relevant to the news media's
mission, then when in doubt (and one should often be in doubt) the best
course is to disclose to the editors or management. Only then can an
informed judgment be made in terms of who is doing the reporting,
opinion writing, editing or other work of the news media. If the editor
or management fails to make the right decision, then they will have to
suffer the consequences with readers.

The reason is simple. The public in this country understands that the
news media may be opinionated or flawed, but it wants the members of the
media to be what they appear to be -- independent, owned by a major
corporation or, perhaps, an arm of government. The latter, of course,
might be called a government propaganda tool -- perhaps accurate and
fair, or perhaps not -- but at least we would know the source so as to
make our own judgments.

When journalists deny the public this information, they deny the public
the freedom to chose and decide.

When journalists accept payments from a government agency or even just
work for a government agency, they run the risk of being viewed as
agents of government. Their reporting and writing may be very fine,
objective and honest, but the problem is one of appearance and judgment.

No two cases are alike. Employee or staff journalists might be different
from freelance columnists. People being paid a lot might be viewed in a
light different from those paid little or doing it for free. Hacks
simply parroting the government line are certainly different from and
worse than an independent person simply selling some of his or her time
to an agency, but not changing his or her opinion or the facts. Yet in
each case the underlying questions of trust, disclosure and appearance
are basically the same.

Agencies ought to know better

Too many good and honest people have been caught up in this little mess,
and that is very unfortunate. Some perhaps belong in the mess, some
perhaps not. Either way, a fair degree of the responsibility for this
lies at the doorstep of the government agencies involved.

These agencies ought to know better than to do anything that compromises
the independence or appearance of independence of the American news
media. If Radio or TV Martí felt compelled by law to make such payments,
those agencies need either new lawyers or a new law. Our government
should do nothing that makes our news media appear to be an arm of the
government.

Sadly, these bone-headed actions by our government only benefit those
who would harm this country, someone like, say, Castro himself, who has
for years been claiming the American media are just a tool of the U.S.
government. We ought not give a tyrant such an easy and ironic shot to
take against us, especially when we know his media are neither free nor
independent.

Sam Terilli is a professor at the University of Miami's School of
Communication and former general counsel of The Miami Herald.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/15552258.htm