Ian Boyne
TO HEAR journalists and editors wax eloquently about press freedom, it would be hard to believe that there is any limit to the commercial journalist's freedom to explore any issue. We owe our cherished liberties, they will tell you with a smug look on their cherubic faces, to the media's relentless, unfettered "search for truth".
If that is so, is it purely coincidental that issues which are close to the interests of media owners don't usually get covered in those media?
In these instances, is the public treated to balanced, fair and rigorous journalism? And in a market economy, where so much power has transferred to the private sector, why is it thought that only the Government poses a threat to people's rights? Clearly, the Government exercises political power and uses public funds so we must be vigilant in ensuring that they exercise that power responsibly. But why is there not a higher level of rigour and diligence in tracking issues of corruption and the abuse of power in the private sector? Is it because there is no such thing in the private sector?
Today, everybody can kick around the politician and he dare not even speak up about the abuse of media power. We in the media would just raise the red flag of "censorship" and "threat to press freedom". As a journalist who holds several positions in both the private and public media, I have greater freedom in criticising the Government, especially this Patterson Government, than I have in criticising my bosses in the private media! And if my freedom is threatened by any Government or public official, all I would have to do is to break that story in the private media and all hell would break loose on them. I would not be able to generate as much steam if my freedom of expression is violated in the private media. Isn't it time we honestly discuss these issues?
THE MYTH OF FREE PRESS
The media always insist on scrupulousness and frugality in Government expenditure, but very rarely do they apply the same scrutiny with companies within the private sector. In many instances where the interests of media owners may be threatened, journalists and editors, being astute, sensitive and rationally self-interested souls freely decide how they would cover or not cover those issues.
But never for one minute question the free press!
Some journalists and editors, when they have had a few drinks or are smitten with a rare mood of reflection and no-holds-barred honesty, will tell you some hair-raising stories about the day-to-day operations of the free press. A lot of it involves commonsensical self-censorship. In the May/June 2000 issue of the highly respected Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) there is a report of the findings of a major survey by the noted Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press on self-censorship.
Says the CJR: "About a quarter of those polled have personally avoided pursuing newsworthy stories. About three in 10 believe that stories are ignored because they might conflict with financial interests of their news organisations or advertisers". This is in the land of the free and the home of the brave America, the journalistic paradise and paragon of the virtuous "free press".
Some friends in the media have commented that we end up with a truly free press in Jamaica when: What The Observer is afraid to publish, The Gleaner, and The Sunday Herald will publish and what The Gleaner is afraid to publish, The Observer and The Sunday Herald will publish. What is undeniable is that both The Gleaner and The Observer have done a remarkably good job of publishing views contrary to those of their owners.
Let the editors of both papers constrain their boast about absolute freedom in going after any story possible, and with that humble concession out the way, we can begin to commend them for achieving a lot and maintaining a high degree of journalistic rigour.
IMPROVED COVERAGE
I have been a harsh critic of the Jamaican media, but over the last few years there have been significant improvements here. Without seeking to ingratiate myself with Gleaner Editor Garfield Grandison, it must be said that he has made a remarkable difference to this newspaper.
His predecessors have made their own important contributions, but he has brought the paper to a new level of excellence. Those who know me will know that I do not say this because I write for The Gleaner. If I were not genuinely impressed, I would have, at the least, remained silent!
Grandison has taken Jamaican newspapering from the parochialism and anti-intellectualism which many of its practitioners used to shamelessly parade. I remember the revolt and howls of protests from the "working journalists" when "outsiders" like Carl Stone were brought in as columnists. These "working journalists" could not care less that Stone had brought a level of sophistication, empirical research and breathtakingly rigorous analysis to newspaper journalism at a time (in the 1970s especially) when it was sorely needed and when the Jamaican people were being asked to make serious ideological choices.
In the earlier days of journalism it was a badge of honour that one had not attended university and was not much for "theory"; just a practical person who could "hold his liquor" while uncovering some investigative story in some bar downtown. For years, since the death of Carl Stone Jamaican newspaper journalism had been in a virtual intellectual wilderness. No one had replaced Stone, in terms of erudite commentary made simple. No one brought the latest research and empirical data from the best sources in academia so that ordinary people and the intelligentsia could inform their discourse. Now, under Grandison we have access to this type of journalism.
There are now columnists from the University of the West Indies, particularly Robert Buddan, who treat us to sophisticated analysis and serious scholarship. They have brought back to Jamaican newspaper journalism a social scientific rigour and scholarship which has put The Gleaner on par with world-class newspapers like The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The Financial Times and The London Guardian, whose op-ed pages and features provide intellectual stimulation.
The publication of in-depth analyses from Buddan and other intellectuals shows much foresight on the part of The Gleaner. It is a foresight which is being lost by a number of newspaper editors even in the United States. In a book which bemoans falling standards in American journalism, The News About the News: American Journalism In Peril, Washington Post Senior Editors Leonard Downie Jr. and Robert G Kaiser say, "When editors are asked what makes a good newspaper, the best ones have similar answers. None of them mentioned shorter stories or fewer jumps (the continuation of a story on another page). A good newspaper gives them something that they can't get anywhere else and that's vital".
HIGH QUALITY JOURNALISM
At a time when the electronic media are generally doing a fine job in giving up-to-date coverage of the news, people come to newspapers for in-depth news, the story behind the story and for analysis and context. This requires that newspaper columnists and feature writers are themselves on top of the latest research and that they are widely read. The single greatest threat to journalism in Jamaica is precisely this: Not enough of our journalists are widely read and cosmopolitan or show evidence of the sophistication needed to make sense of the information overload that people are struggling under. This is not limited to Jamaica.
Former NBC News President Andrew is quoted in The News About the News as saying of some journalists: "I was shocked at how little they read. I had the feeling they just sort of listened to the radio and watched TV News." Mourned Frank Magid, who for 30 years has been paid by hundreds of stations to advise their news operations: "While they may be trained to write the fact remains that many who call themselves journalists have no notion whatsoever about history, geography, political science, economics and other things which an informed individual should have some grasp".
The Gleaner has gone outside the profession to have contributors who actually spend time on their columns, to give us serious research and analysis and that is commendable.
Observer Editor Paget deFreitas, himself one of the finest journalists in this country and a first-rate stylist, has made an indelible contribution to Jamaican newspaper journalism. No one exceeds him in passion and obsession with his craft. He has in his employ, some of the sharpest, most analytical, urbane and cosmopolitan columnists in the country.
The country today has two bright, energetic, bold and enterprising editors running daily papers, and the country is better for it.
Ronnie Thwaites has brought depth and difference to talk-show journalism and escapes the charge of pandering to the lowest common denominator, which is the usual fare of talk-shows. The Breakfast Club used to be the most sophisticated and intellectually engaging programmes in the electronic media, and you could hear interviews with the best and the brightest around the globe, but, unfortunately, it has reduced that cosmopolitan focus. But it is still the best produced and most cutting edge morning talk show. The Sunday Herald has run some excellent, piercing investigative stories and has some hard-hitting editorials.
But in terms of the electronic media, Cliff Hughes has no equal as a newsman. No one brings more energy, excitement, passion, daring and a keener eye for the news in the electronic media than Cliff Hughes. Yes, he is occasionally unfair and melodramatic in his comments but his outstanding qualities as a newsman who could take his place in any of the Big Media in the First World pale into insignificance his foibles. As long as Cliff Hughes is practising journalism in Jamaica, don't worry about Press Freedom. He is the newsman's newsman.
RJR's Earl Moxam is another journalist who is passionate about research and quality journalism. Younger journalists should be sitting at his feet. I have criticised Wilmot Perkins countless times and have many, many problems with how he practices his journalism, but his courage, his fearlessness and iconoclasm should be an inspiration to all journalists. He is not afraid to attack anyone, no matter how powerful commercially or politically. But is it really possible to have objectivity in the media and what role do values play?
