A Self-restricting Press is a Big Leap towards Tyranny

The first time I have heard of a self-restricting press was in a classic Japanese movie in which the police asked the press during a news conference to not only withhold the story of a kidnap-for-ransom case the police was trying to solve, but also print in the newspaper a convenient lie in order to catch the kidnappers once and for all.

No doubt, the cooperation between the press and the police, in the end, produced the arrest and the eventual detention of the culprits, and the eventual return of the kidnapped child. But there are two things that troubled my thought as I pondered on a scenario in which this situation is applied into a more serious intrusion on, or perhaps more appropriately - degradation of, press freedom by the press itself: what if the plan failed and the public was exposed to the fact that there were lied upon by press? Could the public again be able to trust the press?

And then another thought came up: suppose the press tried to cover up, in cooperation with the police, the mistake they both created, would it not lead to more cover ups and thus, a symbiosis between these two powerful institutions which have the means of projecting force and controlling information? What might this imply to the public that relies on the police to protect them from harm and the media to bring them news as it is? I suggest a big step towards tyranny.

It is said that information is power. If so, the one who holds information, that is, most information, is the most powerful. In a corrupt regime, if I know that a high official in the government has committed a crime, and I used such information to extort him, he will either get me killed or bribe me to keep my silence. In a regime that has some inkling towards the rule of law, information held by credible witnesses can bring down heads of states, even popular ones.

Through the dissemination of news, events around the globe are instantly provided to the public, which gives it a certain measure of becoming an informed collective entity that is to be reckoned with, even from the perspective of holding national governments accountable.

The "people," "public opinion," and "taxpayers" are some of the terms which one can use to portray this notion, the embodiment of which can only be projected from a platform of mass communication, that is, through newspapers, mobile phones, television, and the internet.

The press, as a medium upon which the notion of public sentiment can be brought to its fullest exposure, and thus act as the tamer extraordinaire of the Leviathan, has the great responsibility of being the most irreverent, if not the most critical voice in society; for there will always be fish to pry; more so, in the current state of our political maturity, big fish abounds to the point that we can invite a whole town without worrying whether there is enough fish meat to broil, chop, grill, or even put into a stake to show that we mean business.

In its duty to deliver factual news, it inevitably evolves into a galvanizing medium that provides forums for the discussion of issues that not only empower those whose voice cannot be heard but also act as the gathering point from which such small voices can direct the rudder of the republic, and indeed, cut the wings of any government branch going beyond its legitimate powers.

Once the press has decided to hold back on its primary function of disseminating information, it deserves the sought after title of "free" no more; indeed, the difference between an independent press and a PR company lies in the notion that news and facts are based upon unwanted and sour truths, not by sweet lies and savory but half-baked ear-pleasing niceties; if so, it would be better to dub the press as a bureau of propaganda within, as George Orwell puts it, the "Ministry of Truth."

Without a doubt, collision, not collusion, is the path which a free press is headed in terms of its relation with any institution in society, and in particular, the government.

The press needs to remind itself that it is the guardian of government-uncensored information and must protect such information even from "prudence" emanating within itself. For it is the price that must be paid in order to encourage the growth of diverse opinions and to prevent the suppression and decay of colliding ideas vital to a strong liberal democracy. Although the press acts as a keeper and presenter of facts, it must stay away, for the most part, from pruning too much what it ought to hold so dearly.

Exposing the truth has never been the most popular deed of all, but it certainly is the public duty of a free press to remain steadfast to its principles and stay in such path. For once it collaborates to curtail the free flow of information, it is high time for the public to find other sources of untainted information.