FHRI media freedom report factually inaccurate Foundation for Human Right Initiative (FHRI) on Monday, December 10, at Hotel Africana released a report on Press Freedom in Uganda covering the period between June and November 2007. Whilst Uganda Media Centre (UMC) shares their values for the existence of human rights in all aspects of life, the report is flowed with a lot of inaccuracies. FHRI dishonesty is seen in the report’s cover page which bears a picture of a Radio one journalist who was injured during the Mabira demonstration in Kampala, creating a sensational impression to the reader that the journalist was targeted as a reporter, yet he was an unfortunate victim of a demonstration gone nasty. The credibility of the report and FHRI in general is further questioned when it relies on allegations rather than citing facts in their investigations, ‘A case in point is The Daily Monitor newspaper, where government allegedly complained to the Agha Khan…’ – reads the report in part. Uganda Media Centre (UMC), that works towards consolidating government information and communication machinery has also been grossly misrepresented in the report - as an agent that stifles media freedom. It is utterly ignorant for FHRI to insinuate that UMC instructs talk show hosts on who should or should not appear on their programmes. If anything, media houses often take the initiative of asking UMC to field a policy maker or Minister in order that their shows have balanced views. In cases where there is bias towards government, UMC has rightly challenged it and has often come to amicable terms with the stations concerned. Given the global importance of the media today, UMC recognizes the need to create and sustain a harmonious relationship with media houses and journalists alike if it is to effectively disseminate government information and policies to the wider public. It would therefore be self-defeating for UMC to antagonize the tools by which it achieves its objectives. One of the fundamental tenets of media freedom is access to information, Uganda Media Centre, therefore, enhances rather than obstructs media freedom. Non Government Organisations like FHRI have had to be creative in order to keep themselves funded. By producing negative reports on a country’s human rights record regardless of its accuracy – it is trying to justify its means where they are bankrolled by their western counterparts. Given the time-frame of the report, FHRI recycled issues by publishing events that occurred over two years ago. Quite often, such reports never target Uganda’s readership but foreign nationals who still identify Uganda with Amin’s era. Whilst constructive criticism should be embraced, perhaps any self-worth Ugandan should wear a nationalistic hat that selfishly protects our country’s image - albeit internal debates on the challenges our country faces. Pressured by the age-old culture of subservience to the western donors, organizations like FHRI are simply feeding the appetite for negative publicity by the western media and NGOs about Africa. Since the era of rampant coups and instability, African governments, progressive organizations and individuals are working tirelessly to demystify the believe that Africa is incapable of sustaining stable governments with stable economies, security and social infrastructures. The magnamity of Uganda’s liberalization of the airwaves has enabled 144 radio stations to operate; this by itself demonstrates the NRM government commitment on the principles of a free media. It is such attributes that have made Uganda the envy of most African people and indeed the world, in the past 21 years. Our confidence as a people and as a nation continues to show no bounds as we all look forward to 2008. Fred Opolot Executive Director Uganda Media Centre
Monday 29 December 2008
FHRI media freedom report factually inaccurate Foundation for Human Right Initiative (FHRI) on Monday, December 10, at Hotel Africana released a report on Press Freedom in Uganda covering the period between June and November 2007. Whilst Uganda Media Centre (UMC) shares their values for the existence of human rights in all aspects of life, the report is flowed with a lot of inaccuracies. FHRI dishonesty is seen in the report’s cover page which bears a picture of a Radio one journalist who was injured during the Mabira demonstration in Kampala, creating a sensational impression to the reader that the journalist was targeted as a reporter, yet he was an unfortunate victim of a demonstration gone nasty. The credibility of the report and FHRI in general is further questioned when it relies on allegations rather than citing facts in their investigations, ‘A case in point is The Daily Monitor newspaper, where government allegedly complained to the Agha Khan…’ – reads the report in part. Uganda Media Centre (UMC), that works towards consolidating government information and communication machinery has also been grossly misrepresented in the report - as an agent that stifles media freedom. It is utterly ignorant for FHRI to insinuate that UMC instructs talk show hosts on who should or should not appear on their programmes. If anything, media houses often take the initiative of asking UMC to field a policy maker or Minister in order that their shows have balanced views. In cases where there is bias towards government, UMC has rightly challenged it and has often come to amicable terms with the stations concerned. Given the global importance of the media today, UMC recognizes the need to create and sustain a harmonious relationship with media houses and journalists alike if it is to effectively disseminate government information and policies to the wider public. It would therefore be self-defeating for UMC to antagonize the tools by which it achieves its objectives. One of the fundamental tenets of media freedom is access to information, Uganda Media Centre, therefore, enhances rather than obstructs media freedom. Non Government Organisations like FHRI have had to be creative in order to keep themselves funded. By producing negative reports on a country’s human rights record regardless of its accuracy – it is trying to justify its means where they are bankrolled by their western counterparts. Given the time-frame of the report, FHRI recycled issues by publishing events that occurred over two years ago. Quite often, such reports never target Uganda’s readership but foreign nationals who still identify Uganda with Amin’s era. Whilst constructive criticism should be embraced, perhaps any self-worth Ugandan should wear a nationalistic hat that selfishly protects our country’s image - albeit internal debates on the challenges our country faces. Pressured by the age-old culture of subservience to the western donors, organizations like FHRI are simply feeding the appetite for negative publicity by the western media and NGOs about Africa. Since the era of rampant coups and instability, African governments, progressive organizations and individuals are working tirelessly to demystify the believe that Africa is incapable of sustaining stable governments with stable economies, security and social infrastructures. The magnamity of Uganda’s liberalization of the airwaves has enabled 144 radio stations to operate; this by itself demonstrates the NRM government commitment on the principles of a free media. It is such attributes that have made Uganda the envy of most African people and indeed the world, in the past 21 years. Our confidence as a people and as a nation continues to show no bounds as we all look forward to 2008. Fred Opolot Executive Director Uganda Media Centre
