The recent directive purportedly issued by the United Democratic Party (UDP), instructing media houses to use only officially sanctioned photographs of its National Executive in all reports and publications, is deeply troubling, profoundly undemocratic, and dangerously authoritarian in spirit.
At its core, this move raises a fundamental question: what happens to press freedom when a political party begins to dictate editorial choices? What becomes of media liberty when politicians attempt to control not only narratives but images?
This is not a minor administrative request. It is a direct intrusion into editorial independence, a cornerstone of democratic media practice. In any functioning democracy, media houses reserve the right to select images, headlines, framing, and presentation—guided by professional ethics, not party instructions. Once political actors begin to issue “orders” to the press, democracy itself begins to suffocate.
Yes, governments and political parties may advocate for ethical reporting. Yes, media laws exist to regulate excesses. But these laws are deliberately designed to be self-regulating, enforced through independent institutions—not through party circulars and threats of compliance. When regulation shifts from independent oversight to political control, it ceases to be regulation and becomes sanctioning—100 percent.
What the UDP appears to be saying is simple and alarming: the media is not at liberty to decide for itself. That position is incompatible with democratic governance.
Even more concerning is the selective nature of this so-called “official photo album.” The conspicuous exclusion of Lord Mayoress Rohey Malick Lowe—while photos of other executive members, including Local Government Chairman Yankuba Darboe of the West Coast and Chairman Landing B. Sanneh of LRR, are prominently displayed—raises uncomfortable questions.
Is this an innocent oversight, or a deliberate political signal?
In a party that claims to uphold fairness, inclusivity, and democratic values, such selective visibility undermines internal democracy and fuels suspicion of political intolerance. When a party controls images, it controls relevance. And when it controls relevance, it controls power.
This incident reflects a broader and more dangerous trend: the gradual normalization of political hostility toward independent media. Today it is photos. Tomorrow it may be language. Next, it may be outright censorship disguised as “guidelines.”
The UDP must be reminded—firmly—that media freedom is not granted by political parties. It is a constitutional right, earned through struggle and protected by democratic norms. Any attempt, subtle or overt, to suppress or intimidate the press betrays those norms.
If the UDP believes in democratic governance, it must immediately clarify or withdraw this directive. Silence will only confirm the worst fears: that this is not about standardization, but about control.
A party that cannot tolerate independent media scrutiny cannot credibly claim commitment to democracy. And a government that fears free images today may fear free speech tomorrow.
This development is damaging, alarming, and unacceptable. The media must resist it. Civil society must challenge it. And the UDP must answer for it—clearly, publicly, and without evasion.
Democracy demands nothing less.
No comments:
Post a Comment