the government but must also address the effect of commercial interests. Independence in media regulation could also include protection of media established by public authorities. Thirdly, media regulation must encourage diversity and pluralism. Media regulation laws must not inhibit the growth of media but instead encourage development and pluralism of media outlets. Fourth, media regulation must address the need for professionalism. This could be tackled through specialist training or strengthening of the community and associative aspects of the profession. Fifth, media regulation laws must provide for high standards of transparency and accountability. This essentially entails freedom from interference by authorities in the codes of conduct as well as allowing due process when journalists are found on the wrong side of the law. It is, perhaps, for this reason that some of the practitioners have described the content as not being fully representative of the aspirations of the media fraternity with the danger of ushering in a regime of statutory regulation. Likewise, during the period under review, some stakeholders, among them the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) and BBC Media Action therefore announced through the media that they would support a pure self-regulatory mechanism that allows media houses and practitioners to take the lead in setting up their own media regulatory mechanism. The two indicated that they had not withdrawn from supporting the setup of a self-regulation mechanism for the media sector in Zambia but would not support the proposals under the current ZAMEC Bill with the current detrimental clauses and the targeted punitive measures to individual journalists. The two organisations said they would support a purely selfregulation mechanism and stood ready to work with anyone wishing to set up a purely self-regulation mechanism which would help guarantee a good, sustainable, professional media sector in Zambia where reporters and 18