Today, we travel down memory lane to bring to our readers Professor Paul Archibald Vianney Ansah's proposition of what responsible journalism is, first published in The Ghanaian Chronicle a little over 12 years ago:

The question looks straightforward, simple and innocent enough, but is only deceptively so. It becomes really complicated if one wants to answer it candidly. To answer the question, one has to take into consideration a certain number of factors and variables.

The answer depends to a large extent on who is asking the question in the first place. Does he or she belong to the ruling group or not? What is the prevailing political atmosphere? Are we speaking of the private, independent paper, or are we dealing with state-owned papers or those serving as mouthpieces of political parties? What is the political system like - is it an open, multi-party system or is it a military junta in power? What have been some of the political and newspaper traditions established in the county for the last decade or two?

This is just a small sample of the questions that must be satisfactorily answered if we are to begin doing justice in answering the question.

First, the person who belongs or not to the ruling party: to him or her, a responsible press is one, which is a megaphone for the government, avoiding controversy and flattering the ruling clique, however mediocre they may be.

If the person belongs to the opposition, he sees moderation in the criticism of the regime as sycophancy lily-livered cowardice. Incidentally, when people are in opposition they see the strengths and virtues of a free, liberal press.

As soon as they get into power, the story is completely different, and it is difficult to guess the kind of political chameleons we are dealing with.

Newspapers, cannot exist in an atmosphere that is different from the prevailing political environment, such that depending on whether one is operating in a world free of coercion or one grovelling under a despotic regime of the military or its civilian variety, the answer will be different.

There are some tolerant military regimes that are liberal, although the possibility of that draconian decrees and edicts can be issued limiting the freedom of the press is always present, hanging and dangling like the sword of Damocles on the head of journalists.

This was, for example, what happened with the notorious Decree 4 of the Babangida regime in Nigeria. Now that the military rule is soon bound to come to a close, the military has become very intolerant because they want to leave office with a clean slate, whereas the paper analyzing the achievements of the regime is publishing negative results.

But who really cares if all that is said is true or not? Is it every time that it is proper and convenient to tell the truth?

It is obvious from what has been said above that it is not possible to give a cute, short and sharp definition of a responsible newspaper, but I shall venture to propose a description, which comes quite close to what is responsible journalism.

It is that of journalism that provides general information, separates fact from comment and provides a forum for the sharing of ideas.

It is the kind of journalism that studiously separates facts from comments, impartially, fairly, accurately and in a balanced way presents the facts as objectively as is humanly possible and if there two sides to a case, presents both in a balanced way.

Responsible journalism is also one that strictly adheres to the professional code of ethics. It is also one that respects the rights of others and accepts to publish rejoinders from people who feel genuinely aggrieved by the articles written about them.

It is also one that for the sake of accuracy, calls a spade a spade rather than a digging implement. Responsible journalism is also one which seeks to influence, reflect and mould public opinion. It is also one which has as one of its aims to act as the voice of the voiceless and the marginalised and socially handicapped This is only a perfunctory attempt to indicate some of the factors that go into achieving a responsible press. Other functions can be added to elaborate the responses.

Some people think that in a developing country, a responsible press is one that is docile, almost sycophantic and uncritical.

The argument is that at this juncture of development, there should be national integration and harmony, and that a critical press risks provoking divisiveness and encouraging parochialism.

They say that the government needs a long period of honey moon and every criticism is tantamount to rocking the boat.

Their argument is that a critical view of the activities of the government risks undermining the power and authority of the government and indirectly challenging its legitimacy.

The argument then is, development now, democracy later.

The falsehood of this belief is attested to by the fact that the most repressive countries on our continent and elsewhere in the Third World are not the most developed; on the contrary, they are among the most backward and least developed.