Judgment No. CCZ 9/2016 34 Const. Application No. CCZ 316/2012 Being wholly owned by the State, the ZBC as a public broadcaster could be compromised by the pressures of operating with an inherent conflict of interest in the discharge of the dual responsibility of reporting information and bringing critical judgment to bear on public affairs. The structuring and dynamism of the public broadcasting service system provided for by the provisions of the Act reveal an acceptance of the principles of institutional and editorial independence. Section 2A(f) of the Act provides that one of the objectives of the Act which the Authority must have regard to as the regulatory authority is “to ensure the independence, impartiality and viability of public broadcasting services”. Part 1(d) of the Seventh Schedule to the Act requires the ZBC to “provide news and public affairs programming which meets the highest standards of journalism, and which is fair and unbiased and independent from government, commercial or other interests”. The provisions show a commitment to freedom of expression. Selection and presentation of programmes should be an exercise of editorial discretion. For better or for worse editing is what editors are for, “and editing is selection and choice of material”. Columbia Broadcasting System v Democratic Nat’l Comm 412 US94 (1969) at 124. The provisions of s 2A(f), Part 1(d) of the Seventh Schedule to the Act and the application of the principle of company law to the effect that shareholding and management of a company must always be kept separate are important in this respect. They show that the public broadcaster is vested with substantial editorial discretion and judgment in deciding how to meet