Abstract

This paper argues that voluntary self-regulation in Botswana and the United Kingdom as a means of regulation of the press is unreliable, ineffective discredited and has no future. The paper draws from history of press regulation in the United Kingdom and developments in Botswana. It disagrees with scholars who say that governments have no right to regulate the press: it dismisses negative conception of press freedom. It argues that democratically elected governments have the right to govern on behalf of the masses and that an unelected press cannot hold the public to ransom as if it is a government. It argues that the press is a business and must be treated as such. Further, it is undemocratic not to regulate the press.  It also argues that self-regulation is often based on narrow neo-liberal interests and perhaps a United States Constitutional provision which itself is contested and is inapplicable to Africa and the rest of the world. It makes a case for co-regulation, which operates in the public interest.

Key Words: Self-regulation, Co-regulation, The Press, Botswana, United

                     Kingdom

^JCMRJournal of Communication and Media Research, Vol. 4, No. 2, October 2012, 59 –  70.

© Delmas Communications Ltd.

About the author

[1]Dr. Letshwiti Batlhalefi Bruno Tutwane is a lecturer at the University of Botswana and recently completed a PhD in Mass Communication, University of Leicester, United Kingdom.

Full Article

Words: 7,431; Pages: 13