[ad_1]
The National Media Commission congratulated the Multimedia group and the government for pursuing the case.
The National Media Commission (NMC) has stated that the JoyNews documentary on the presence of the D-Eye group at Christiansborg Castle in Osu was in the public interest, but cites such sensational aspects.
In March of this year, the government filed a complaint with the commission against Joy News, demanding a retraction and an apology. The commission did not grant the reliefs. However, the documentary citing the activities of so-called self-defense groups in the country made part of the story misleading. The 30-minute broadcast described how the specter of violent vigilance had almost overshadowed the partial election of Ayawaso Wuogon. But the CNG said that since the D-Eye group was not responsible for the disturbances, it was wrong to include it in the documentary.
However, the commission stated that it "considers the presence in the D-Eye group castle problematic and unacceptable.
Here is the decision of the CNG:
THE NATIONAL MEDIA COMMISSION DECISION ON THE VRS GOVERNMENT. MULTIMEDIA
On March 13, 2019, the Minister of Information, Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, filed a complaint on behalf of the government against the Multimedia group before the National Media Commission, in accordance with Article 167 (b) of the Constitution. 1992 and Article 2 (1). (b) the 1993 Law on the National Media Commission (Law 449).
The complaint was against a documentary by Manbadeh Azure Awuni of Joy FM / TV entitled "The Militia at the Heart of the Nation". The complaint was that the documentary had made certain badertions that could not be substantiated by the facts invoked and, according to law, it was necessary for the CNG to investigate the case and order the retraction and an apology as well as any other appropriate sanction. .
It is unfortunate that, prior to the presentation of the complaint, the government made its complaint public.
As part of the settlement process, the complaint was forwarded to Multimedia for response. In their response, they claimed that the documentary reflected the facts collected by the journalist.
They claimed that the complaint was intended to censor and undermine their freedom of expression, that the government did not have the capacity to take legal action and asked the NJC to reject immediately the complaint.
Multimedia did not respond within the legal deadlines and unfortunately published the answer before filing it with the Commission.
The response was sent to the government, which then began the hearings.
At the first hearing, the Commission admitted the complaint and affirmed its ability to deal with the matter. Both parties accepted the decision but raised objections against some members of the committee. While the Applicant raised objections against Mr. Roland Affail Monney for congratulating Mr. Manbadeh Azure Awuni on the documentary and could therefore be prejudicial, the Respondent raised objections against the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Yaw Boadu-Ayeboafoh, of the he was the candidate of the President of Ghana.
The procedure was therefore adjourned for the determination of objections. This prompted the Chair and Mr. Affail Monney to recuse themselves to allow the other members of the Committee to rule on the objections. After two meetings, the panel rejected the objections and explained that the chair was not chairing the committee and the commission simply because he was appointed by the chair, but because he had been elected by its members . In the case of Mr. Monney, the Committee considered that his comments were not biased since it was an ethical problem to be determined on face value.
This then paved the way for the determination of the substantive issue.
The Minister of Information, after opening the government file, reiterated that the documentary contained no important fact and was filled with an exaggeration causing sensationalism.
He indicated that the respondent used the wrong word to describe the D-Eye group, which showed no predisposition to violence and that more importantly, at the time of the storytelling, the respondent knew that the castle was no longer the seat of government and was not a security zone. The place was open to the public.
In its defense, the Multimedia group reiterated that the documentary was factual, that it offered the government a more than sufficient opportunity to explain the problems that had been postponed, and that there was evidence to suggest that the castle was a security zone.
They claimed that they felt justified in their use of the militia and that they did not name anyone as a teacher, Professor Henrietta Mensah-Bonsu, academic and jurist member of the Committee of Justice Emile Short, who investigated the violence committed during the by-election of Ayawaso West Wuogon who reiterated the word. They further argued for justification, privilege, fair comment, public interest and the badertion of their fundamental freedom of expression.
The Commission defined the issues to be resolved to include the question of what a militia or activist was, when the group left the castle and if the part of the documentary devoted to the group revealed an act of violence. The Commission took into account the arguments of both parties and concluded that the disagreement did not affect the meaning of the word so much, but the question of whether certain violent behavior had been exposed.
In the end, the Commission discovered that the attempt to expose the fact that the group operated from the castle was in the public interest. However, in the attempt, the investigation did not comply with the ethical standards set by the Ghana Journalists Association Code of Ethics, in particular Guideline 23, according to which "a journalist shall ensure that photographs and multimedia content adequately reflect an event and do not do so. highlight an out-of-context impact.
This resulted from the fact that if the respondent had used a photo of a BBC report about an attack on the Nigerian Senate to promote the documentary online, they had not reported it properly.
Again, the inclusion of Ayawaso West Wuogon violence shots and Ashanti regional security coordinator's attack was in contradiction with the activities of the captured D-Eye group at the castle. The Commission concluded that the documentary had no predisposition to violence. Therefore, the badociation of the D-Eye group with Ayawaso West Wuogon Violence and the history of the BBC from Nigeria were sensational.
On the issue when the D-Eye group came out of the castle, while the government insisted that the group be expelled in October 2018, the Multimedia group insisted that it was after the documentary that the deportation had taken place.
Again, although Multimedia provides evidence of attempts by government officials to remove the group from the castle, he still badociated the president with the group and the Commission found that it was unfair, especially when the Multimedia group then presented a public apology to the president.
The Commission considers that, while holding that the presence in the D-Eye Group Castle is problematic and unacceptable, the group did not show any violent behavior that could be described as a militia or self-defense group. from after the documentary, like the people of Ghana. came to identify these groups.
The Commission is of the opinion that the comments on Ayawaso West Wuogon's documentary and violence badociation are misleading and misrepresentative. However, as the multimedia group has released a replica of the government, we order that it publish our decision.
The Commission congratulates both parties and their lawyers for their cooperation and the diligence with which they treated the matter before the Commission.
YAW BOADU-AYEBOAFOH
PRESIDENT
[ad_2]
Source link
