Media gateway - Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Speech

Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer

Sydney, 24 February 2000

The Media and Democracy in Asia - Developing Roles

Speech by the Hon Alexander Downer MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs at the Media and Democracy in Asia Conference

(Check Against Delivery)

Introduction

It is a great pleasure to be asked to speak at this dinner for the Media and Democracy in Asia Conference. The Research Institute for Asia and the Pacific and the Centre for Democratic Institutions are to be congratulated for their work in organising this conference. And at a function which is closely examining the benefits of the free dissemination of information in society, may I take this opportunity to place on the record my appreciation for the great work that both institutions have done to encourage mutual understanding and closer cooperation between Australia and its neighbours.

The subject of this conference is both timely and important. If we look at the record of democracy in the countries of Asia after a tumultuous Twentieth Century we are able to chart some remarkable achievements - the defeat of fascist aggression in World War Two, the end of colonialism and the emergence of a host of new nations, and, particularly in the last two decades of the century, the establishment of democratic governments across the region. But much remains to be done. In some of the new democracies in our region, freedom is still a young and very fragile shoot. And in other nations - too many of them, even yet - democracy remains the unrealised dream of their peoples.

When I was considering this speech, I came across some remarks by Thomas Jefferson that seemed to sum up the profound, and sometimes contradictory, issues that are the subject of this conference. Some of his words are no doubt familiar to you, like his comment that "were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter". But for those of you who may begin to doubt that Thomas Jefferson was ever a politician, I give you one further quote: "The man who never looked into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; in as much as he who knows nothing is nearer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors."

In looking today at the relationship of press freedoms to the broader political, social and economic freedoms of nations, I want to address those two broad aspects of the media's relationship to democracy in Asia - the potential impact of governments on the media, and that of the media on governments and on society at large. As the media in Asia strive to establish their role in rapidly changing societies, attention must be given to both of these very important issues.

Asia and media freedom

Experience has long shown that a free and impartial media plays an integral role in ensuring that governments and bureaucracies are accountable to the people they serve. The media provides a platform for issues to be brought more fully into the public arena, which in turn stimulates wider debate and criticism. And freedom of thought or opinion has little value if the means to express those thoughts and opinions is not also free - which is the very reason why Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds that the right to freedom of opinion includes the freedom to "seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".

Before I proceed any further, let me address the argument that, somehow, such rights do not apply in Asia. The starting point of our Government is that human rights are universal. Whether it is the right to freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial, or the right to vote in free and genuine elections, such matters are fundamental to human existence and not determined by the accident of one's birthplace. The human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration should and must transcend national boundaries.

Some who challenge the universality of the rights set out in the Declaration couch their arguments in terms of cultural relativism, arguing that, in developing economies, economic and social rights are more important than political and civil rights. Others claim that a preoccupation with civil and political rights may undermine the social cohesion of a more communitarian tradition.

These claims are often couched in an appeal to "Asian values" in our own region, but you will find exactly the same kinds of arguments advanced in countries in Africa, Latin America, and even Eastern Europe. In truth, all too often such arguments are simply justifications for frustrating the natural inclination of people to participate in the democratic process, or excuses for not permitting the appropriate evolution of an open civil society.

If one needed authority to refute such claims, one could do no better than to recall the words of Korea's President, and one-time political prisoner, Kim Dae Jung:

"Actions infringing upon the dignity of human beings should not be tolerated. Regional or cultural characteristics should no longer serve as excuses for the violation of human rights. We must uphold what history has already proven, that human rights are universal values."

Of course, this is not to say that all countries in the world must fit into one universal mould. Australia's experience differs from that of the United States or Britain, and we should not be surprised if it also differs from that of countries in Asia. Cultural differences are real, and to be appreciated. But they can never be used as an excuse to deny the existence or importance of fundamental human rights. The citizens of Asia - in every country, and throughout history - have proven, often at great personal cost, that they treasure their right to freedom of expression, and the freedoms of the media used to express them.

The media's crucial role

For a society - any society - to develop successfully, it needs many foundations. It must develop a sense of unity of purpose, but a sense that accommodates and values differences of opinion, and treasures individual freedoms. It must have strong institutions and guiding principles that allow debate and criticism to flourish.
Those institutions include an independent legal system, a truly representative parliament, an accountable government - and a free and open media. That is a fact that has been recognised since the time Lord Macaulay described the press as the "Fourth Estate of the realm" in 1843. And when all these elements work effectively, together they help guarantee the maintenance of a truly free, open and dynamic society - one that is flexible and responsive to change, while maintaining the highest levels of freedom for its citizens.

Where any of these elements is lacking, government processes lose transparency and the welfare of the people suffers. That lack of transparency was a significant factor in the development of the Asian economic crisis, when the financial and prudential rigor that comes naturally to a transparent civil society was absent from many nations in the region. Perhaps if the region's media had been more thoroughly reporting on corruption and mismanagement, had been questioning the economic policies of their governments, and had challenged the notion of pursuing dreams of economic riches above all else, the effects of the crisis may have been more muted. Certainly President Kim Dae Jung has commented that the practice of freedom was the greatest contributor to South Korea's success in overcoming its biggest economic crisis since the Korean War.

Debate and criticism are absolutely essential if openness and accountability are to be maintained in society. Now I would be the first to admit that this may make policy-makers uncomfortable on occasion, and sometimes can slow down decision-making. But the result is far better policy decisions, a freer society and greater economic flexibility. If you don't have a free society, if government policy-making is not open and contestable, the decisions made are likely over time to deteriorate in quality. And freeing up the flow of knowledge also makes for greater social equity, as groups or individuals are prevented from establishing monopolies on information.

In our own region we've seen how important such matters can be. I've already alluded to the situation in the Republic of Korea, where freedoms - including media freedoms - have developed robustly over the past two decades. I think it is no overstatement to say that, had Korea faced this economic crisis back in the 1970s, it would not have been able to bounce back in the way it has.

In Indonesia, too, we are witnessing the evolution of a more open and accountable society, where ideas are contested and criticisms aired. It has held its most democratic election since 1955, and the painful lessons of the economic crisis are being learned and implemented. And throughout that process, necessary change has been aided by the development of a more independent stance by Indonesia's media. Let me tell you as someone who has been gang-tackled by a scrum of Indonesian media several times outside the presidential palace in Jakarta, that the Indonesian journalistic community seems to be thoroughly embracing that independence.

I do not want to use all my time tonight by commenting on the situation of the media in all Asia's nations. In any case, the Centre for Democratic Institutions is launching at this conference a book entitled Losing Control - Freedom of the Press in Asia, edited by Louise Williams and Roland Rich, which performs that task. You will forgive me for making the editorial comment that there are some aspects of the book with which I do not and cannot agree.

What I do want to emphasize, before concluding my remarks on this point, is that the experience of countries in Asia over the past two decades - and in particular in the varied responses to the East Asian economic crisis - has proven beyond question the value of a free and independent media. Those countries where the media have been able to exercise effective scrutiny and criticism of government have been the most resilient and adaptable. And those where the media has merely functioned as an additional arm of government have lost a valuable means of countering abuses and raising policy standards.

It is clear that in an increasingly globalised society, attempts to muzzle information flow or the transmission of opinion are becoming more and more futile as the communications flow becomes quicker. Indeed, even within Australia with its free media, news outlets are actively considering how best to harness new technologies to work with them, rather than against them. Let us remember as we begin the 21st Century, that CNN and its other international equivalents are found on television sets around the globe. Computer useage and internet useage are proliferating. Information dissemination is a global growth industry and those regimes which try to block it or pretend it is not happening are increasingly likely to fail. We are all now working in a different communications environment to that which existed even 15 years ago.

The responsibilities of the media

From considering the need to promote and defend media freedoms, I want now to talk about what you might call the other side of the coin - the responsibilities of the media.

Now, I don't want what I am about to say to be misconstrued as just another example of media bashing. As I have said before on many occasions, such an approach is perhaps the most self-defeating game in town - and I do believe that a politician complaining about the press is a little like a fish complaining about the nature of the water it swims in. I also want to avoid sounding like the character in Tom Stoppard's play, Night and Day, who says: "I'm with you on the free press; its the newspapers I can't stand."

So for the sake of clarity, let me underline what I have said so far - a free and independent media, whatever its foibles, is an essential part of the foundation of any free, fair, open and transparent society. The media is just as crucial a building lock of society as the executive, legislature and judiciary.

But like those other institutions, the media must be prepared to make itself accountable, to hold itself up to public scrutiny. And one of the matters which I think warrants close scrutiny is the nature of what passes for reportage and commentary in the modern-day media, including here in Australia.

Earlier in my remarks I spoke about the value of a free press challenging governments to test the validity of their assertions in the cold light of public scrutiny. But we should not assume that an independent press will automatically lead to open debate and the free contest of ideas. One needs to ask - is the media itself open to competition?

The question is relevant because free media markets can still result in monopolies of opinion. I myself live in a city where there remains only one major daily newspaper, which operates in tandem with its national stablemate. Apart from my home city of Adelaide, there are similar situations in Australia in Brisbane and Hobart. And we must remember that the proprietors of media outlets may have private interests that they want to advance through their outlets. It was Harry Truman who said that "you can never get all the facts from just one newspaper; and unless you have all the facts, you cannot make proper judgements about what is going on".

The rise of "negativism"

I also very much regret the apparent trend , both in Australia and other countries, towards a "dumbing down" of journalism. Complexity and subtlety of argument is, it seems, to be eschewed. Reports in the print media grow shorter and shorter, while those in our news broadcasts are dominated by the three-second soundbite which reduces most debate to images of shrill abuse or denigration. If an issue cannot be explained inside thirty seconds or three column inches, it is increasingly rarely deemed worthy of the media's attention.

Editors have become obsessed with conflict, and if an item does not cause blood to be literally, or at least metaphorically, spilled, it will not be featured. Consider the lexicon of the average reporter - hopes must be "dashed", people must be "angry" or "shocked", while scenes are always "dramatic". Issues are presented as a clash or a fight - a gladiatorial contest in which there must be a winner and a loser. And once the bout is decided (at least to the satisfaction of the newsroom), the issue sinks without trace as the reporting circus, with its short-term memories, moves on to another issue, another conflict and another loser.

This style of reporting has long been with us and, to be fair, will always have its place. But while it was once only one element in a broad stream of journalism that also emphasized the thoughtful, and the longer-term and the positive, these days it appears to be coming the norm. And that, I would argue, is a great pity, because it does little to encourage a culture of lively debate, or of open discussion of new ideas and concepts.

Just think about what your lives would be like if you put your faith unquestioningly in the morning newspaper or the nightly news bulletin. Likely as not, you wouldn't leave your home - which would resemble a small fortress - because your city seems to be gripped by a perpetual crime wave. You'd have hardly anything to eat or drink, because what didn't contain mutant genetic modifications was probably manufactured by companies who didn't care if you were poisoned as a result of their shoddy practices. And there would be no point in asking the politicians to do anything about it, since they are all only interested in warming a seat in parliament just long enough to dip into the public purse for the rest of their lives.

Of course, the reporter's art does not always reflect reality. In Australia, overall crime rates are not skyrocketing. Unemployment is declining and inflation is low. Industrial disputes are at their lowest levels for 80 years. We have good education systems with high literacy rates. Australia is among the world's oldest continuous democracies, with a society that has successfully melded over 130 different cultures. The end of the world as we know it is not nigh.

What we are seeing, with the decline is straight news reporting, is a convergence between information and entertainment. Reason, balance and proportion are becoming less important, as sensationalism increases its hold. Now, that has very unfortunate consequences for public debate in any society, because extremism gains credibility while due process and reasoned argument loses weight. A rowdy and violent demonstration by a handful of people grabs more media attention than any number of well-reasoned and rational arguments. As we all know, demonstrators have a habit of disappearing as soon as the cameras do, so we are left with this conundrum - what comes first, the cameras or the protest? The fact is that public perceptions of issues are being skewed by editorial priorities that have very little to do with the pursuit of truth, and a lot to do with "crash and bash" entertainment.

The importance of the media to any society is, as I have noted, undeniable. The media must retain its freedom and vitality if society is also to be free and vital. But, like any institution or individual, the media can never be above reproach or criticism. The media has rights but it also has responsibilities.

Making sure that the media lives up to its responsibilities is no simple matter, as Australia's own experience shows. There is, it is true, the Press Council, but it has little real regulatory power. Defamation is available, but it is hardly a deft instrument of public policy, and is not available to those who can't afford to match media outlets lawyer-for-lawyer. Otherwise, the most effective means of scrutinising the media is, perhaps, a fifteen minute television program on the ABC on Monday nights. Now, the public embarrassment doled out on that program may be amusing for the colleagues of those named as engaging in wilful wrong-doing, but it is no real substitute for a close examination of the media's role, rights and responsibility in our society.

We in Australia are still wrestling with these issues, and similar problems will face the nations of Asia as their media networks evolve. The question is how to find a mechanism that makes the media accountable for what it prints and broadcasts while not undermining its freedom of speech or its important role as a public watchdog. This is not an an easy issue to resolve even in Australia and it is obviously a difficult issue as well across the region.

I've spoken a lot about the lessons other countries can learn from Australia, but the education should not all be one way. Australian journalists need not automatically reject the approach taken by some of their colleagues in Asia, who see the task of reporting positive stories about their countries as both proper and desirable. Such stories here are all too often seen as government propaganda. But why should that be so? Why, for example, should we not think twice about reporting on the international success of Australia's sports men and women, while we balk at reporting on, say, a national economic or international success.

Perhaps we take our cynicism, our tall poppy syndrome, too far. Why shouldn't the Australian media occasionally lift its sights above looking for the worst in everything and everybody, and forego their favourite pastime of tearing down anyone who, for mostly worthy motives, puts themselves in the spotlight in a well-meaning way to develop our society.

Conclusion

May I conclude by wishing you all well as you look at the merging role of the media in relation to democracy in Asia. This is an important matter, and one which will have a significant impact on the future directions of many countries in our region.

During the American Civil War, Union General Irvin McDowell sarcastically suggested that the journalists who were covering the fighting be issued with white uniforms so as "to indicate the purity of their character". One suspects that the General was also hoping that the war correspondents, dressed in white, would also make an easier target for sharpshooters.

While I might on occasion agree with the good general about the purity of character of some journalists, I make no bones about my support for the role of the media in an open society. Of course journalists are not all white-hatted sheriffs in some old western movie, fighting against the black-hats of corrupt bureaucrats and grasping politicians - no section of society is ever so one-dimensional. Indeed, because of the great power the media does have, journalists above all should be prepared to accept appropriate public scrutiny of their performance.

But the value of the media's role - that ability to play sheriff when governments seek to avoid scrutiny - can never be doubted. And, in Asia as elsewhere around the globe - including Australia - the record in recent years has proven beyond any question that societies where the freedom and independence of the media are valued are those that have adapted and flourished amid all the challenges of the modern world.

ENDS