Upholding freedom of the press

The media protest in Estonia for the proposed legislation that compels journalist to reveal their news sources is an effort that world media should uphold. The bill is viewed an act violating the sanctity of press freedom, particularly the off-the cuff privilege. Freedom of speech in all democratic countries is a constitutional guarantee provided for the people and a doppelganger of journalist’ inherent task; forcing journalist to reveal their sources is next to infringement of the constitutional guarantee given the fourth estate. The off-the-cuff interview that is supposed to be a source and a journalist privilege is no longer a benefit but becomes a compelling duty to reveal sources.

The bill is not only focusing to prohibit the media from doing investigative reporting whereby the objective is to ferret out corruption and wrongdoings in the government and in the private sector but netting the journalist to face probable imprisonment for the expose’ on government’s malfeasance and misfeasance.

If the Estonian Bill pushes through and becomes a law, journalists of that country should start rolling their mats as government’s watchdogs and fiscalizers because they no longer are protected by the sanctity of press freedom. They will be haunted by fear to face prosecution for felony against government officials who have the power, influence and control, and above all, the fear of being netted to prison will certainly make them think into threading on with government expose’.

For this fact, democratic liberty to freely criticize the government is put into limitation and the media has the tendency to being gripped by the powers-that-be. The fourth estate will become merely an institution of news delivery and a tool to simply inform the people of only the good side of governance and never its wrongdoings. It appears more as accomplice of the government rather than its adversary.

Nonetheless, there are countries that media does not symbolize adversarial journalism. In Indonesia, Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore for instance, the media serves as an accomplice in the government’s thrust and development. Not much with its watchdogs functions. But these countries have moved forward leaving the string attached between the government and media as good partners to bring the country move forward.

The difference caught between countries with strong media adversary are those that are prone to corruption and not, and fear the presence of the fourth estate as watchdogs of the government abuses viewed to bereft the people of their benefits.

The Estonia bill might be a precedent to curbing freedom of speech in other countries; aware that media is threat and gripping it becomes an opportunity to achieve what leaders wish to in their governance.