Avinash and I have been thinking a bit about how to make sure people respect social distancing when supermarkets open in a few days. Click on the link below to see what we have come up with.
We are interested in receiving constructive criticism
On Media, Society and Mauritius
Today, I posted this on Facebook:
I offer this idea to all media houses: please organise a different type of debate with the candidates.
One where a voter of the constituency is randomly selected from the voter roll of each ward to ask questions to the candidates. If people decline, just keep on with the random selection until you find those who are willing to participate.
One where you collect questions from the voters of the constituency and select the ones which get more upvotes and those themes which are more relevant to the constituency.
One where candidates are NOT allowed to talk about their opponents at all and are only allowed to talk about what they intend to do as opposition MP for the constituency:
– how they plan to interact with all those they will represent once in parliament (including partisans and non-partisans – and this should not just be about the weekly meetings which will definitely attract mostly partisans, thus skewing the whole process)
– what type of questions they will raise about the constituency when in parliament (why not ask them what their 3 first PQs would be?)
– how they plan to report back to the inhabitants on the answers they have received and the follow-up they plan to do
Because, we’ve already heard it all about the reasons for their engagement with a particular party as opposed to another one, their current positioning wrt current national issues, their scathing criticism towards their opponents (also known as yesterday’s and tomorrow’s potential friends)…
Please feel free to use my ideas because I am a voter in Quatre-Bornes and I think this would allow me to make, not necessarily the better choice, but at least make up my mind about the one who has the highest probability of being a better MP for QB than the others.
In the comments, I also added:
Since there’s not much time left, why not organise a joint exercise in a neutral venue for once? Maybe at the Media Trust?
(…) the point is that any voice should have the same probability of being heard, not just ‘expert voices’, a category where people tend to think of people of our socioeconomic class only.
The State of the Right to Information in Mauritius in 2017
Transcription of live tweet session
organised by the African Freedom of Information Centre (AFIC)
with Christina Meetoo (@christinameetoo) and Abdoollah Earally (@AbdEarally)
Hashtag #AccessToInfo
This live tweet session was held on Tuesday 17 October 2017 from 15.00 to 16.30 (Mauritian time)
Tweets have been slightly edited for punctuation and typos.
For more information, read the full report and the Mauritius country report at: https://www.christinameetoo.com/2017/10/17/report-on-the-state-of-access-to-information-in-africa-2017/
AFIC @AFIC1
Question 1. @christinameetoo Which are the guarantees for ATI in Mauritius, at national and international level?
Christina Meetoo @christinameetoo:
Sarah @sarahfkiw:
How far has this bill been? Why has it not yet been signed? #SDG16 #accesstoinformation #Mauritius #IDUAI @Gilbertsendugwa
Christina Meetoo @christinameetoo:
The Africa Freedom of Information Centre (AFIC) has published the Report on the State of Right to Information in Africa 2017 in the context of SDG 16.10.2. The full report which covers 23 African countries is available at: here and the summary version here.
I have contributed to the report by writing the country report for Mauritius. If you wish to read it, here is the country report.
Je vois en ce moment beaucoup de critiques souvent justifiées envers les médias en même temps que de beaux duels agrémentés de petits coups bas entre frères ennemis…
En attendant, les articles autour de ce faits divers abondent dans TOUS les titres de presse: décortiquant tous les angles juteux possibles (habitudes de la victime, souffrance des parents, de l’enfant et du fiancé) sans oublier les photos alléchantes de la victime (on peut d’ailleurs se demander d’où proviennent ces photos). Les radios se donnent aussi à coeur joie de faire parler la tristesse et la colère des parents sur les ondes.
À partir de là, que fait-on?
Je “reposte” ici un commentaire que j’ai mis sur un billet sur Facebook de Jean-Luc Emile et un autre d’Iqbal Kallal dans le sillage de la couverture médiatique de la mort de Christiana Chery:
Peut-être faut-il aussi songer au rapport Robertson dont nous n’avons que la version préliminaire. Et enfin envisager toutes ses recommandations, dont une loi sur la liberté d’information ET aussi un press council ? Le modèle sud africain (independent co-regulation) serait intéressant à étudier. Les erreurs ont été commises (et continueront à l’être) et nulle leçon n’en sera tirée sinon.
Ce débat, nous l’avons eu maintes fois… Ce n’est pas la première, ni la dernière.
On a régulièrement parlé d’une instance de régulation (utilisant un vrai code d’éthique). Cela serait souhaitable, non pas par l’État uniquement ni par les médias uniquement, mais incluant ces deux acteurs ET surtout des représentants de la société civile. La régulation étatique uniquement n’est pas souhaitable en raison des risques de censure politique. L’auto-régulation par les médias uniquement n’est pas non plus souhaitable car elle pourrait être dominée par la protection corporatiste. Il est donc important d’inclure les membres de la société civile dans un processus transparent car après tout, dans une vraie démocratie, les médias sont censés servir l’intérêt public.
Le rapport Robertson
Dans la version préliminaire de son rapport, Robertson avait recommandé l’institution d’une telle instance en même temps que la révision des lois concernant les médias et l’introduction d’une loi sur la liberté d’accès à l’information. Il serait temps que la version finale de son rapport soit rendue publique et que l’on se penche sur toutes ses recommandations en vue d’actions concrètes!
En savoir plus: