Do we need laws to regulate media content?
This is the question the UK has been actively debating recently. Many lobbyists and some in government think the answer is yes. However, many other countries are backing away from legislation that specifically targets content.
In Rwanda, the government passed legislation in 2012 with the aim of reducing its role in media regulation, placing much greater emphasis on self-regulation.
In Libya, a country not previously known for press freedom, the new  government was quick to declare its support for freedom of speech and has as yet done nothing effective to limit the media’s new found freedoms to broadcast. 
The debate is not just about curbing the media. There is as much international concern being expressed about protecting journalists and their rights, as there is about limiting it. Some are advocating special status for journalists because of the important job they do.
In 2012 more than 120 journalists were killed worldwide.  2013 is likely to see an even higher figure. 
Many of those killed were speaking out to defend Human Rights or risking everything to ensure that the world knew about wrong doing. Time and again the press and media have proved that without them we would not get to know about corruption in business or politics. The media’s habit of asking the simple questions and following up the answers days, weeks or years afterwards, has revealed broken promises and hypocrisy that, in a democracy, contributes to election defeats or criminal charges and, in a dictatorship, can result in the overthrow of a regime.
So are those who argue for greater protections for journalists right?
To find an answer we need briefly to consider what makes the media effective and forceful.
What makes the media effective?
First, the media’s role in challenging wrong doing gives it moral authority.  As a result of media coverage, laws get changed, law breakers are arrested and tried and new consensuses are forged. But the news coverage and documentaries that create such changes are in turn driven by people’s willingness to talk to and engage with the media.
The media needs people to engage with it.
Without the active participation of society and a desire by people to contribute to output, such coverage would not be possible.
So, the voices we hear are not simply the voices of journalists, they are voices from within society.
If people fail to engage, through fear or ambivalence, then the media loses all force. It can no longer be the forum where arguments and new ideas can be hammered out, so that a new consensus can be forged.
To be effective, the media needs people outside the profession of journalism to provide it with the information it needs and to participate in the debates it can facilitate. Without this fundamental link, the media will not be very effective.
A mirror on Society:
Great journalism holds a mirror up to all parts of society and constantly reminds everyone of the issues and challenges that different people face. It can enable a shifting consensus to be found to address fairly the needs of all, while preserving individual liberty. This is what places media close to the heart of a vibrant democratic society.
However, when society begins to fall apart, through lack of proper political leadership or because external forces overwhelm individual rights, the media’s ability to hold things together can be very limited. 
Because of the media’s connection to forces that are often already at work in society, it can end up being a force for evil, if not managed by people of integrity who will defend its independence at all costs.
Rwanda provided one of the most horrific examples, where media was used to provoke violence and terror. At the beginning of the genocide in 1994, the forces that wanted the killing to start, used the state media to incite violence, telling the killers where to find their victims and when to attack. Remember this was not a public broadcaster as we know it. It was a state broadcaster hijacked by vicious people bent on destruction.
The media is only as good as the people who run it. It is, on occasions, vulnerable to being hijacked by some prevailing force.
What does the media need to remain healthy? 
To remain effective the media needs a number of things to guard it and nurture it. It needs:
Øpeople to fight for its continued independence;
Øregulators to ensure that monopolies do not emerge;
Øa strong professional culture that learns from mistakes and supports and builds on best practise
Ødiversity - so a wide range of outlets can give voice to a wide range of opinion;
Only then can the media provide enough information across different outlets, so people can find out what is really going on, and make up their own minds.
What more can be done to keep media healthy? 
This brings us back to the original question: should there be laws to govern or protect the press?
Should we have media legislation to prevent any media putting out highly controversial or divisive news or opinions to prevent the invasion of privacy or provoking dissent?
Should we have special laws that protect journalists from prosecution when they broadcast information that is in the public interest even when they break laws related to privacy law or security?
In the UK in 2013, as a result of the publication of secret information which revealed that innocent members of the public are having their communications bugged by the security services, the Director of Public Prosecutions suggested that new guidance should be issued to prosecutors, to provide a “public interest defence” for journalists who break the law to reveal such dubious practices.
Also in the UK, there has been a move to regulate the press to prevent it invading the privacy of citizens in search of sensational stories. It is called “self-regulation” but it is underpinned by a new law that is passed by politicians and can be changed by politicians in the future.
Well, the current batch of politicians may be well intentioned and very virtuous people but politicians generally do not like the press. They do not like having their policies minutely scrutinised and there are several examples of British politicians who have ended up in prison as a result of penetrating press coverage. So putting the long term fate of journalism in to politicians’ hands seems a reckless thing to accept.
No special treatment for journalists
We need to think very carefully about introducing any new laws that would apply only to media and the press when it comes to content.
What we all need are journalists who operate by the same standards that are expected of all in society.
So, if a journalist openly incites one person to kill another, they should be tried and, if guilty, sent to prison.
Nobody should be outside the law: not journalists, not politicians, not judges; not the poor or the rich. However, if anyone apparently breaks a law in order to prove wrong doing or reveal corruption, then any sensible court should have the flexibility to weigh up the wrong done against the benefit received. But such a defence ought to be open to anyone – not merely journalists.
Any person should have the right to publish anything that brings in to the open any information that is in the public interest. Trying to define the difference between a journalist and a member of the public, who uses the internet to reveal information is a waste of time. It is an academic and, in this case, futile discussion.
Should journalists have some kind of special status because they potentially enable society to support enlightened thinking when it comes to Human Rights?
I would argue not.
Journalists are an integral part of society.
Nothing should be done to set them aside from the very people on whom they depend for information and support to do their job.
Journalists are not a special breed.
They are sometimes very brave but fundamentally they are not different from a blogger or committed person who posts information on the internet because they think other people should know.
Any attempt to define who is and is not a journalist risks leading to some kind of registration system. And once you have names on a list, you make it easier for new controls to be introduced and greater controls to be applied.
The press does not need its own set of laws.
Democracy is built on freedom of expression for all.
Anyone in a democracy who is posting ideas and information, from whatever background, for anyone to see, is part of a process that drives debate and opens up the potential for agreement and consensus. It is a necessary part of a process whereby society can strive for peace and stability.
The media is simply the place where all these forces come together and journalists must be left free and independent to allow them to give voice to all the forces at work, so the public can make up their own minds.
Journalists are not a species apart. They are necessarily part of the society on which they report and anything that separates them from it, threatens to undermine the very important role they perform.
Any protection for free expression within the law needs to be available to all, not just journalists.
Any law that attemtps to define boundaries between freedom and responsibility should apply to all. There should be no exceptions and where exceptions are allowed (like “acting in the public interest”) they should be allowed for everyone. That way everyone can indeed act in the interests of all and not only a few. 

Jerry Timmins, Managing Director GMT Media Ltd