The New York Times yesterday reported the death of Amadou Mahtar M’Bow, who died at age 103. I didn’t recognize his name at all, but it turns out he was a native of Senegal, who became the first African director of a United Nations agency, UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, in 1974, 50 years ago.

I read that in the first few paragraphs of his obituary, but the obituary took up a full half of a page. So there must be more to it than that. And there was.

I am not going to repeat everything in the Times (you can read that yourself if you want), but will focus on part of his legacy that is quite controversial.

From the article: “Criticism of Mr. M’Bow centered on his promotion of what came to be known as a “new world information order”, a vague body of recommendations that many in the West regarded as a threat to freedom of the press…..an international “code of conduct” for journalists; proposed that they carry identification cards, which governments could withhold if they were dissatisfied with the news coverage; and backed ‘the notion that governments have the right to control information for their own ends’.”

This sounds like (and probably is) a wholesale attack on free press, right? M’Bow would respond to that, I think, by saying that there is really no such thing as a free press. Or to put it differently, someone will always decide what is news, and how the days events should be portrayed. That “someone” can be the journalist (or the boss of the journalist), or it can be the government. The government is responsible for order in the community, for establishing the direction of the community. The journalist is responsible for nothing, other than satisfying their boss, or maximizing their profit. Why should the unelected journalist, lacking any official responsibility, make the determinations as to what constitutes news?

I am extrapolating a bit here – the article does not state that M’Bou actually said all of this in this manner. But this does express his thinking. And he came upon this as an African leader during, or just after, the end of European colonization of much of the continent. And he did a lot of complaining about the nature of the news coverage of emerging independent Africa. He declared that the news that was selected to be published was being selected not by Africans, but by what he called people from the North, who had their own agendas, and whose agendas were much different from the agendas of Africans, themselves.

Okay, you can argue with this, of course. And you may be correct. But it does raise a perspective that is not normally raised by the journalism I see.

My assumption here is that he is not necessarily talking about what you see in opinion pieces, whether opinion pieces by established journalists, or op-ed pieces or letters to the editor by others. I assume he is talking about what purports to be straight news, the kind of straight news that purports to be factual and unbiased. And about which news articles are published or aired, and which are not.

Let’s for a minute compare, say, MSNBC and Newsmax. You know, tuning in, that these two networks have very different political biases, and you expect this to be obvious from what the commenters say. But, beyond what you see on the air, there is what you do not see – what subject matters a network chooses not to cover. For example, as we are in the middle of an election campaign, one network can choose to cover the policy statements of one candidate and cover the verbal gaffes of the other candidate, even if they give them equal time. Or, to put things more in M’Bou’s thinking, there may be very important things going on in Senegal, but American TV networks may not even mention Senegal. In each case, someone will make that decision.

There are plenty of countries that don’t have a free press. Russia today certainly does not. Nor does China. Neither country will permit journalists to say things against their national interest. Russians don’t come close to getting unbiased articles about the “military action” in Ukraine. The Chinese don’t hear what is going on with the Uyghurs.

On the other hand, in countries where there is a free press, like the United States or, say, Israel, you have other problems. You still have subject matter ignored, but you also have articles that are meant to be provocative. You have journalists who stand in the tradition of investigative journalists, who like to prod, to uncover secrets, to find weaknesses in those who appear strong, and so forth.

In the countries with controlled journalism, you can have a controlled society – for better or for worse. In countries with free journalism, you can have a chaotic society – for better or for worse.
I am not arguing for a controlled press. But I think we should be cognizant of the risks and dangers of an unregulated press. They are real, as well.

Let’s go back to M’Bou for a minute. As a leader of an emerging society, the one thing you want to avoid is social chaos. If you are part of a group not just governing a nation as a temporary shepherd, but creating a nation out of a subservient colonial society, chaos can be fatal. So you don’t want investigative journalists running around uncovering all of your skeletons and encouraging your political opponents. This is true for journalists who are citizens of your aspiring country, or journalists who are reporting on your activities for foreign interests. Particularly, where those foreign interests may serve your former colonial overlords, or serve those outsiders with deep commercial interests in your country.

Free press may only work in democracies. And may only work in stable democracies. We have a greater challenge today than before. With the easy ability to spread falsehoods, and with the ease with which false news seems to be believed by so many, will we one day find out that a free press endangers the stability of our democracy and no longer works? And if we do (understanding the constitutional ramifications), how will we react?

Yes, a free press can certainly help in overturning dangerous or harmful governmental policies, or even dangerous or harmful governments. But today, a free press can also help destroy governments which are neither overly dangerous or harmful. This is a conundrum, to be sure. This is also a topic about which I knew nothing – has anyone come up with the best path to follow in the year 2024?