The International Press Institute (IPI) is becoming increasingly concerned at the desire of governments around the world to create statutory press councils that will have a detrimental impact on journalists and the media environment.

Since the January 2002 passage of the Zimbabwean Access to Information and Protection and Privacy Act (AIPPA), IPI has noticed that a number of governments have either introduced or are proposing to introduce legislation similar in content to this law.

The AIPPA calls for the registration of all media organisations and creates an accreditation system for journalists under a body called the Media and Information Commission. Under AIPPA, the MIC has the power to discipline journalists and close down media outlets for alleged breaches of the law.

In Ethiopia, the government continues to discuss a draft press law that includes a press council with powers to penalise and censure journalists. Elsewhere, the Brazilian government of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva sent a bill in early August 2004 to Congress that creates a Federal Journalism Council to “orient, discipline and monitor” journalists.

Throughout 2003 and 2004 there has also been increasing speculation that a statutory press council will be introduced in the Republic of Ireland. In an interview with the Irish Times on 4 October 2003, Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said he was in favour of such a body; albeit with the necessary legal safeguards. His comments followed a 23 June 2003 report titled, “The Report of the Legal Advisory Group on Defamation, which aside from making recommendations on defamation called on the government to create a statutory press council.

Commenting on the use of statutory press councils, Director of IPI, Johann P. Fritz, said, “The growing desire to introduce statutory press councils goes against the commonly accepted view that the best means of regulating the media is to encourage the creation of voluntary and self-regulatory bodies.”

“As an example of this view, Regulation 1165 (1998) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, when dealing with the specific issue of privacy states, ‘the media should be encouraged to create their own guidelines for publication and to set up an institute with which an individual can lodge complaints of invasion of privacy and demand that a rectification be published.'”

“If the media are to be successful in scrutinising the actions of government then they must be at arms-length from those they would investigate. A statutory press law breaks down the barrier between media and government and introduces avenues of influence through which a government might pressure the media,” said Fritz.

“Instead of an enforced press council, governments should take up the opportunity to form a dialogue with journalists and work with them to help create voluntary media accountability systems that fulfil the role of a statutory press council without having the close ties to the state.”

Regarding the role of older democratic countries, Fritz commented, “It is important for countries such as the Republic of Ireland to realise that their actions generate the justifications for other less democratic countries. Attacks on press freedom are not constrained by borders and democratic countries must realise that their actions will have wider consequences in other parts of the world.”

“Statutory press councils should not be the model for the media environments in Latin America and Africa where governments will be able to use them to silence independent journalists and close down offending media organisations. Instead, these countries should abandon the legislation to introduce a statutory press council and lead the way in showing that the most successful model for a media environment is one where the media are encouraged to create their own self-regulatory systems.