Media standards for countries boasting of democracy need scrutiny and development on a regular basis. The standards which are appropriate should not be taken for granted because the expected outcome of high standards is freedom of discussion and interpretation throughout the community and in the case of more important events other countries or even worldwide. Freedom of this nature ensures transparency and accountability and is a fundamental requirement if human rights are to be safe in each of the world’s communities. Its unrealistic to believe that without such fundamental rights that individual liberty would result in a mature and sustainable form.
Political and moral progress without freedom of discussion and freedom of information is too restricted without media standards that make it possible for the advantages of democracy to be widespread. This does not mean that freedom of information is always required in an absolute sense because there are privacy concerns protected that modern legalisation makes possible for a variety of reasons to protect without unnecessary disclosure personal details such as individual and family names, or personal information which should be restricted such as addresses and contact details so long as the individuals and families believe would fairly need and prescribed to make this possible. However this can mean when access is granted to materials such a public records many individual words and paragraphs and possibly pages are not given to enquirers to protect individuals who are or have been in authority, as well as restrictions stemming from secrecy provisions (such as military or other intelligence concerns) for very long periods.
The sensitivity and secrecy often surrounding milestone events of importance therefore means that introduction of public discussion which might otherwise be expected in parliament and the media suffers significantly or prevents introduction of resulting restricted material for use in debate or by journalists because information needed to be effective in these ways to challenge or determine outcomes readily therefore is to restricted or not possible. The secrecy and sensitivity even if known off the record of a key issue may scare off or in effect prevent opinion makers and law makers for developing appropriate questions of sufficient warrant, accuracy and sufficient time to resolve an issue and defend the community who are due better service and proper accountability when such matters are apparent and require action to sort out the facts and remedies appropriate for the community.
The purpose of parliament and public accountability therefore can suffer greatly as milestone events which need debate and scrutiny cannot be independently scrutinised because of red tape (often of a temporary but sometimes long term nature) prevents the introduction and maintenance of a public agenda which means the working of democracy is effective or ideally superior and timely for individual communities, other countries and the world. If you have attempted to introduce new issues to parliament or the media you no doubt would have been surprised also of the barriers imposed by red tape and associated legislation which has the effect of raising the risk profile which would stem from an individual seeking to lead discussion of new issues
because the restrictions prevent knowledge of what might best be possible if a balanced call is made or indeed what this maybe without having all the facts.
Restrictions concerning older issues can also make it difficult or not possible to lead discussion referring accurately to past positions (especially if not resolved) or be able to seek supportive advice when appealing or otherwise seeking correction to a decision- this can mean that the restrictions prevent compensation because of the catch 22 nature of restrictions of information believed too sensitive but essential for accountability especially in cases where compensation is expected for an incorrect decision or unjust decision which needs correction. In these circumstances without better knowledge the restrictions have been imposed most likely to make less likely new decisions, which would open doors to further discussion and complaint even if this might be justified if the restrictions did not apply.
Freedom of access to information in the ideal world should not be an aspect of regulation, which is too restrictive, or intended or otherwise detrimental to liberty, which is the foundations stone of democracy, and transparency required for the public and related domains.
