“It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.” Thus starts George Orwell’s masterpiece, 1984, the perfect depiction of a totalitarian state and its propaganda media apparatus. We are still far (just how far is debatable) from this nightmare scenario, but controlling the media is a government’s favourite occupation, probably after corruption and deceit. And we might like to think that the media straightjacket came off at the end of the Cold War. But propaganda and restrictions on the media continue covertly, if not blatantly, in some cases.

It is no wonder then, that the private radios rejected the preposterous guidelines put forward by the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA). What Mauritius does not need is a throwback to the darkest days under the Labour Party, when freedom of speech was a luxury doled out by the State. As reported by this newspaper, one of the guidelines went: “The interviewee shall be made aware, before the interview, of the format, subject matter and context of the interview and the nature of any likely contribution from him, and shall be informed of the way in which the interview shall be broadcast.” This should stand to careful analysis to understand what exactly the geniuses in the IBA were up to.

Killing debate

This single guideline shows the length to which the authorities would go to reduce the level of political debate in Mauritian society. It literally means that the broadcaster should not ask awkward questions. Topics that are too hot to handle on air would be prepared beforehand by the countless advisers and campaign managers so that ready-made answers full of positive electoral sound-bites can be thrown at the audience. Basically, the IBA wanted the private radios to do a little bit of political propaganda disguised as genuine political discussion.

Next, was the time limit. First, it urged radio stations to give a 48-hour notice, presumably to give the parties time to prepare their answers, and devise ways to circumvent polemic. Secondly, and even more worryingly, it required, “not less than 5 days before the scheduled broadcast of any political public meeting or rally”. Now, this is the kind of policy that would have made Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, proud. Having your feathers ruffled by probing questions on air would certainly not attract the eye-catching crowds that parties expect at their public meetings. The size of rallies usually allows our politicians to validate their popularity in the process.

Eventually, had these proposals not been rejected, the entire broadcast media would have been muzzled. The audiovisual situation is even worse in Mauritius. A vibrant press and the emerging radio sector earned the country 41st place (out of 166 nations) in a survey in 2003 by Reporters without Borders (RSF), ahead of Italy and most of our African counterparts. But, the problem of the MBCTV is pressing. The national broadcaster often resembles a stage where ministers display their ribbon-cutting skills more than a serious media organisation. Its directors also fail to differentiate, in many cases, between culture and religion, having to appease socio-religious groupings. And all this is at cost of the tax-payers.

However, Mauritius is not the only country suffering from lack of media freedom. Though we might associate government control of the MBC as the root cause of the problem, censorship exists under different forms even in liberalised media environments. Until the 1990s, Ireland had very severe restriction on the State broadcaster. Section 31 prevented both the state television and radio from carrying any statements by the Northern Republican party Sinn Fein. This was even while serious negotiations were taking place in Northern Ireland to bring the conflict to an end.

However, Ireland suffers from another kind of media restriction that is now afflicting many countries. Concentration of ownership is a dangerous noose around freedom of expression, getting ever tighter each time media organisations add new titles to their collection. In Ireland, 80% of all newspapers sold every day are controlled by companies owned fully or partially by one corporation, Independent Newspapers. Obviously, the views do not change from one title to the next, the political and economic agenda is recurrent under all Independent Newspapers titles.

<B>Domination of political landscape</B>

Other countries, which we like to think as beacons of democracy, also suffer from the effects of concentration of ownership. The big powerhouses of the media are now all in America with Time Warner, Viacom, News Corporation, Vivendi Universal, Sony being the exception. Between them, they have a collection of some of the most important media organisations, from film and music to publishing. In Britain, the power of News Corporation has managed to hold the government hostage over full European membership. While in the 1980s, News Corp helped Thatcher to get elected, in 1997, it repeated the trick for Tony Blair.

The effects of concentration are getting clearer as they can now dominate the political landscape through the media. Big media companies form de facto alliances with governments, the latter relying on the former to get elected and the corporations then expecting favourable legislations. Eventually, the public suffers the biggest loss. On the one hand, they have governments more intent to please their benefactors and, on the other, there is a clear lack of diversity of ideas in society. For all we know, the clock might well be striking thirteen.

In Mauritius, there is still a big diversity of newspapers. The biggest problem comes from the tight grip that the government tries to keep on the broadcasting sector. Governments come and go but the state television remains a powerful tool for propaganda. And now officials in a state body try to draw up guidelines that would have turned the radio sector into a publicity machine. Though the IBA is important to ensure fairness on our airwaves, it should not operate outside its remit to make life easy for politicians.

<B>Diren VALAYDEN

Outlook Correspondent in Dublin</B>