Ian Boyne ANTOINETTE HAUGHTON-CARDENAS' dramatic departure from HOT-102's Disclosure programme last Tuesday over disagreements about her continued trenchant criticisms of the former Butch-Stewart-led management of Air Jamaica raises the issue of how much freedom media practitioners really have, vis-à-vis the power of media owners and commercial interests.
The myth of the free press being fearless, unshackled and
unrestrained, save for libel and good taste, has long been
relished. But the reporters,
editors and columnists know better. They have lots of stories to tell. And while the media proudly and often arrogantly gloat about their Fourth Estate status 'the lofty guardians of the people', they are often
captive to commercial interests and only selectively 'speak truth to power', to us one of the clichés they like to recite
ritualistically.
QUESTIONS AND ISSUES
The media reserve the right to critically examine and castigate every institution but rarely turn that examination inward. As the media have become more influential in Jamaica, particularly talk radio, it is appropriate that we ask certain questions about media practice and raise certain issues. One of the pertinent issues which are being debated hotly in the United States, from which we derive much of our media
practice, is the issue of the commodification of journalism (the growing influence of
commercial decisions on the operation of the newsrooms).
Media companies are businesses. They don't exist simply to keep the government out of your pockets or to ensure that you get good roads, schools, water supplies and that your political leaders don't steal all your taxes. They exist to make money.
Now, this does not mean that making money is necessarily incompatible with the public interest. That perfectly honourable and laudable goal can coincide with the public interest. But the point simply is, it must not be assumed.
There has been a tradition in journalism, however, which
has recognised that media
companies cannot exist solely for commercial purposes. The early media owners in the west were ideological men who wanted to make money but
who also espoused a certain philosophy which they wanted to get across. Western
journalistic philosophy has always given pride of place to ethical theory. The pioneers in western media knew that unless journalists were
committed to morality more specifically to fairness,
'objectivity', balance and respect for the diversity of opinions' journalistic practice could become hostage to
sectarian interests and the power of the highest bidder.
The Marxist Left has always pointed to the hypocrisy of 'the bourgeois conception of the free press', which it said was deceptively trying to mask its capitalist interests, parading itself as free and disinterested. The Marxists have traditionally seen western media as serving two functions: Making profits for their 'masters' and serving their ideological purposes, which is a defence of 'capitalist exploitation'.
But the early owners of media and journalistic practitioners, living in an age that was less consumerist and
hedonistic, tempered their
commercial interests to a much greater degree than is being done in western media today. I suggest also that the decline in moral values generally and the
relaxing of a commitment
to religious ethics have
contributed to the decline
in journalistic standards
and practice.
CORRUPTION
The U.S. media over the last few years have been hit with a number of scandals, and even prestigious newspapers like the New York Times have had to fire reporters and editors for fabricating stories.
What will keep journalists from using their positions of power in the society to advance their own personal interests rather than those of the public if they themselves are not committed to some higher ethical principle outside of personal advancement? If the journalist or columnist has no ideological, philosophical or religious commitment which elevates ethics above personal interests, then how can he avoid corruption?
If I am a crudely pragmatic journalist who does not believe in objective moral standards, and believes that everything is relative because we live in an atheistic universe, then why should I not corruptly take money to promote certain interests in my columns? If personal interests are primary to me, then why shouldn't I sell my soul to the highest bidder?
So often we try to have a
discussion about corruption outside of a philosophical context but that is both impossible and absurd. The very notion of 'corruption' turns on philosophy because it involves ethics. It is either there are objective ethical standards independent of human construction; binding ethical standards which have been decided by the group or community, or every person can construct his own ethical system to suit himself.
When we talk about disc jockeys who are taking money to play certain records, or editors who take editorial decisions based on who the big advertisers are, or talk-show hosts who skew their comments to please their big sponsors, we are talking about the relaxing of ethical standards. Whatever you say about Wilmot Perkins, what is redeemingly admirable is his courage to stand up to Big Business and any Mr. Big Man in Jamaica. Perkins has strongly criticised Butch Stewart, the Matalons and even the managing director of this powerful newspaper. Money does not intimidate Perkins and even in the face of declining advertising support he remains fearless in his comments.
Another person who has courageously stood up to Big Money interests in Jamaica is Anthony Abrahams.
INTIMIDATORY TACTICS
The issue of the freedom of the press in Jamaica has been too narrowly focused on
government ownership of the media or government influence on media operations. Not enough attention is given to the power of commercial interests and how those commercial interests sometimes seek to
stifle commentary on their operations and seek to subtly and not so subtly intimidate journalists.
Why should it be assumed that a journalist who has a contract with the state is necessarily less free than the one who has one with a commercial company? Do commercial companies have no interest to protect? Of course, they don't have legislative power, but often commercial power influences, even determines legislative decisions. There is a lot of naivety when discussing these issues. There is an abundance of research to show the overweening power which commercial interests have on the state. Starting from the role of campaign finance right through to the influence on politicians when they are in power. Money talks.
There are good would-be
representatives of the people who will never get a chance to represent the masses because the moneyed classes won't
them. If you have great ideas, a compassionate heart and an indomitable will to work on behalf of the public interest but can't muster substantial private funds, you are often doomed.
CRISIS IN CONFIDENCE
Democracy is often purchased! Don't be naïve about it. He who pays the piper often calls the tune. Often, what stands in the way of the piper's making the journalist into a minstrel is the journalist's moral courage and dedication to what he sees as objective moral standards, often seen as decreed by God. As journalists we have the power to malign and hurt people and we can do this cleverly enough to avoid a libel or defamation suit. Only devotion to ethics and emotional control will prevent us from abusing our position of power and enormous influence.
I wish I could say that religious commitment is a guarantee of proper journalistic standard. Regrettably, I have to say that often the opposite is the truth. Many religious people are
bigoted, alarmingly biased, narrow-minded and crudely sectarian. People who believe passionately that they have
the only truth are not always inclined to give exposure
and fair coverage to those
'in darkness'. Religious
fundamentalists and true believers are likely to suppress opinions they disagree with, and portray opponents in an unfavourable and prejudiced light. So while religion furnishes the raw materials for constructing an ethical journalistic edifice, many religious practitioners are stingy in their use of the materials.
So the public is at the mercy of both the religionists and the secularists. No wonder the research in the west, particularly in the United States, is showing declining credibility of the media even as news sources proliferate. The highly reputable Pew Centre for the People and the press reports in its January 2005 study on the media titled Media: More Voices, Less Credibility says, "Buffeted by rising public
criticism, journalists are
confronting something of a
crisis in confidence. A survey last year by the Pew Research centre in collaboration with the project for Excellence in Journalism found journalists voicing widespread dissatisfaction with their profession as growing majorities said bottom-line pressures had undermined the quality of coverage."
GROWING TABLOIDISATION
What we have in media more and more is a pandering to the lowest common denomination, a 'dumbing down' of the
standards and the growing tabloidisation of journalism. Entertainment, gimmicks and theatrics are trumping serious news coverage and serious analysis of critical issues. But as Evan Cornog says in the January/February, 2005 issue of the prestigious Columbia Journalism Review('Let's Blame the Readers') "As journalism tries its best to chase the increasingly recalcitrant public, it risks losing sight of its own fundamental purpose. And making news entertaining is not the answer either. The news can't compete with the diversions put forth by Hollywood in films and on television."
Media practitioners in the west, including Jamaica, must reassert the primacy of serving the public interests over their own interests. Their credibility depends on it. And morality demands it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
* Ian Boyne is veteran
journalist.
You can send
your comments to ianboyne1@yahoo.com or
infocus@gleanerjm.com
