PROTECT INFORMATION

I am riddled with worry at the level of leaks, particularly of conversations held by the Prime Minister with relevant presumably high-level information sources. We live in an age of information, and information has profound effect on economic activity. If we are going to be this reckless with information or rather unethical with information, one wonders what economy we hope to build. The role of the media in sharing information and investigative journalism is critical to help steer the country in the right direction, by providing information that the electorate, consumers, suppliers and all economic agents can consume. Furthermore, we live in an age of fake news, hence all sources must be verified for authenticity. This article does not aim to protect certain individuals or attack a certain individual, but I worry about State security, individual freedoms, the right to consent and the right to privacy.

Disclaimer

Let me first put out a disclaimer that I am not a trained journalist, nor have I practiced in the field. My thoughts are premised on information economics and my experience working in the sphere of human rights. Information Economics or the economics of information is the branch of Microeconomics that studies how information and information systems affect an economy and economic decisions. This is a tart different from Media Economics embodying economic theoretical and practical economic questions specific to media of all types, which may be viewed as a subset of Information Economics. The underlying conclusion of media economics is the fact that the media plays an important role through advertising, influencing consumer choices and preferences. Also, the media plays a critical role in influencing economic legislation shaping economic decisions. The media is an important tool for advocacy on lobbying on issues of national interest. I argue however, that the media has to act within ethical confines.

Ethics

I am reminded of the Hulk’s case against Gawker Media for publishing erotic scenes which were recorded without his consent. Though the Hulks was a public figure as Gawker claimed, the courts found that albeit the Hulk’s Celebrity Status, his right to privacy was violated and awarded a settlement of US$115 million. The Gawker eventually settled at US$30 million and eventually had to close because the suite bankrupted the media firm. One cannot understate the value that the firm was bringing in sharing information with the public. However, publishing information obtained through unethical means and destroying a livelihood in the process is and remains unethical. Hence, the media cannot be allowed to operate outside the realm of ethics and respect for basic privacy and claim media freedom. Human rights are universal and responsibility in consumption of said right falls on the right bearer. The Prince Harry case also brings to mind the fact that public figures have rights too.

Whistle-blowing

The media shares news of public interest and by right, must share these with the public. One cannot over-emphasise that the country needs to shine the spotlight on corruption so that those in power eventually do something about it. However, it should be done ethically. Whistle-blowing is allowed and it is incumbent on the media house to protect the privacy of the whistle-blower. However, I argue that sharing recordings in which one of the parties did not consent to requires a rethink. I strongly believe that this may be very unethical, I may be wrong though, however this is my opinion on the issue. I also ask myself how the whistle-blower is protected in this case. Imagine a situation where a handful of people are gathered in a room and then a recording is leaked. It would not take long for the accused to identify the whistle-blower and this puts whistle-blowers’ lives and livelihoods in jeopardy.
I find this to be reckless and any ethical media house must avoid this at all costs. It is incumbent to ensure that whistle-blowers and sources are protected to always come forth with cases that need the public’s interest.

Protect the PM

I call on the PM’s security detail to do better in protecting the integrity of the office and information flow within the office. This is in the interest of national security and ensuring that we breed an ethical media that will contribute positively to national development, through shining the light on all positive news and negative news. State apparatus need to do a better job, it is high time they caught up with the information age. I have entered a number of diplomatic settings where we had to leave all electronics at the door. This is to protect the integrity of the conversations that are held in those quarters. If the PM can be recorded, then no government meeting or State apparatus is safe. Let us do better to protect the highest office in Cabinet and Cabinet overall.A vibrant media is critical for economic and political accountability. The media should not lose sight of ethics in their conduct in pursuit of this growth. The third estate must self-regulate to vibrancy and growth.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: