Accra — The P.A.V Ansah memorial lecture would be taking place on Thursday, June 12, 2008 at 4.00 p.m. at the Christ the King Hall.

To coincide with the occasion, we reprint one of his most insightful articles.

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 country 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 groveling 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 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 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 brand 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 humanly possible and if there are 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 marginalized 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 honeymoon 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.

A responsible press in a developing country has great responsibilities beyond informing, educating and entertaining. It should be an instrument for promoting development and ensuring popular participation in the decision-making process which alone can secure the personal commitment and devotion to the development process and secure wholehearted co-operation and support. The proponents of this position ought to be reminded that even poor and hungry people should have the recognized right to say loudly and clearly that they are hungry and responsible press becomes the channel through which they articulate their plight.

Responsible journalism is one that accepts its watchdog role and acts as a champion of the rights of the people. Some people have even gone to the extreme, arguing that it is not enough for the press to behave objectively in co-operation with the government. They want the press to declare itself to be in an adversarial role on a constant basis because that is the work of the watchdog. I think this is a prejudiced, extremist and untenable stance which will eventually undermine the credibility of the paper which will be perceived to be biased and unfair.

On the other hand, responsible journalism is not one that takes the opposite stand and says that for stability and the need not to compound the work of the government, there should be no criticism or that it should be muted as much as possible. The situation is not defensible or tenable either and a middle course that aims at balance and fairness can be plotted. The commitment should be to the truth as perceived by the journalist, no more and no less, as any deviation from this will also certainly subvert the credibility of the paper.

When you are very critical of the government, even if legitimately, and really go to town and are liberal with your adjectives, you are perceived as a saboteur, nation-wrecker, bourgeois, unpatriotic, counter-revolutionary, etc. This position is taken because of certain cultural traits which we have inherited. In traditional society, criticism of authority was muted and never done publicly. That is why our elders say, Sebew, se ekeserew opanyin ne ta wo ayer ase a, wogu ayer no hye wo, meaning, if an elderly person breaks wind at a public function and you make any noises about it, the function is abruptly ended and you are blamed and deemed to have caused the break up. This attitude is not peculiar to us. It is a cultural trait of most Africans with the emphasis on respect for age. In medieval and renaissance Europe and later when newspapers were started, printers were admonished to criticize with deference and respect, and as far as possible not in the open.

That deference for age seems to be the dilemma of the African journalist. When it suits them, politicians in power invoke the privilege of age to cajole people into acquiescence. Every boss is a big man and one has to get to the top to become "old man" even if you are less than 50 and the proper respect shown to you. I was talking to a friend recently who said that in Sierra Leone where the head of the military government is just 27 years old, he is called "old man" and there is nothing in the world he resents more than this misplaced compliment.

This poses a great problem for the African journalist in general, and his Ghanaian counterpart in particular. People expect them to treat Heads of State with extreme caution as if they were holding an eagle's egg. But that is not what responsible journalism is about, treating persons in authority with kid gloves. Responsible journalism is meant to be a regular scrutineer of the government's activities, to praise and commend when commendation is deserved and to excoriate and censure when censure is deserved. When the occasion demands it, people can "go to town" and really give it to them, and if they deserve to go to the infernal world, please let there be no mercy, and expedite them there without any qualms at all. African politicians behave like people who want to swim, but don't want to get wet. We go back to Harry Truman's "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen."