Ian Boyne, ContributorTHE THREAT to press freedom in Jamaica does not come from overweening Governmental authority or from an oligarchic Press ownership. It comes, instead, from journalists and commentators not inflexibly committed to fairness, impartiality and balance, as well as from a divisive society. It also comes from a culture steeped in materialistic values -- which are not always consonant with the best ethical practice in journalism.
Ahead of the celebration of National Journalism Week, and in light of the significant influence of the media on public opinion, I offer some reflections for my colleagues and the wider society. The media boast of their watchdog role in a democratic society, and never tire to tell politicians and the power brokers of the media's sacrosanct Fourth Estate obligations. But 'who will guard the guards?' as the Romans asked.
In the Jamaican context, there are some particular challenges to press freedom in the broadest sense. The intensely tribalistic society in which we live acts as a pressure on journalists and commentators' doing their job well. It takes a lot of courage to do good journalism in Jamaica, for in this kind of divisive, partisan and fanatical political and social culture, many have an inability to distinguish fair comment from partisan attack. In other words, it is hard to speak or write things unfavourably of a particular party or interest group without many persons connected with that party or group becoming visceral over the issue, rather than calmly and rationally analysing the arguments.
ANTI-DEMOCRATIC SENTIMENT
This is not a society which values reason, dissent and rational debate. Even among the middle class there is an excess of emotionalism, gut feeling and intuition. While Jamaicans love to express themselves, cherish their own freedom of expression and would crucify anyone who would threaten our pluralistic democracy, there is a profoundly anti-democratic undercurrent in the society.
People would die for their own free speech, but would not flinch to suppress yours. Journalists and commentators who are not firmly on any side of the political fence, but who feel free to criticise, question and attack all political positions run a serious risk in a society like this, for at crucial times they can be crushed without anyone standing by their side. If pro-JLP journalists are threatened with victimisation, then that party might stand up for them and the same with the pro-PNP journalists.
But a culture which is favourable to press freedom in its broadest sense is one which is so deeply respectful of democratic dissent and free expression that substantial sections of that society and its elite would raise such a howl over any attempt to victimise a journalist known for impartiality that the partisans would never dare even make a threat. There are some societies in which journalists and commentators can be muzzled, fired or victimised without much murmur from civil society, and in those societies press freedom is inherently threatened.
CULTURE
Press freedom cannot exist in a vacuum. It is not just a matter of the laws which exist on the books, or whether a particular government is authoritarian, repressive or democratic. It has to do with the political and social culture and the level of social capital in the country. There are certain pressures from below which will serve to constrain certain actions against journalists, and where those pressures from below do not exist, press freedom is always potentially threatened.
So no matter how obnoxious, unfair and prejudicial Wilmot Perkins might be perceived by the PNP or how biased, hysterical and anti-American John Maxwell might be in the eyes of the American Embassy and the pro-American supporters in Jamaica, there should be the utmost vigour in defending their right to free expression. Dawn Ritch might not be fond of Omar Davies and Bruce Golding, but their supporters should be the first to defend Dawn's right to free expression should it ever be threatened.
If you want a fair idea of just how partisan and irrational we can be, just spend some time listening to the talk shows. If you ever want to know what true believers and cultists sound like, listen to the PNP and JLP fanatics who call the talk shows and the levels of irrationality and stupidity to which they can sink. Some of these persons might represent the extreme on a spectrum, but if you go to social events, talk to people in your office or in your social and community settings, you will see that people's views are shaped more by their feelings and emotions than by their thinking. This is an implicit threat to press freedom, for this culture provides no protection to the journalist committed to impartiality, the search for truth and boldness to criticise.
Our religious people are some of the most bigoted and unthinking people you can find. As someone who does a controversial and out-of-the-box show on religion, I can testify to the narrow-mindedness of the traditionalists who would just as soon ban the programme from radio and television because it dares to question their unquestioned beliefs. I had warned Moya Thomas of this reaction to the programme when I first broached it to Radio Jamaica a couple of years ago. She said firmly that she would not be bothered by the reactions of these traditionalists. She has stuck to her guns, as has the TVJ management.
Fundamentalists are generally afraid of thinking and questioning their cherished beliefs.
Indeed, many continue being fundamentalists because they do little thinking. They can stay in their narrow world of self-delusion, but the problem is, if they have their way with power in Jamaica they would suppress all ideas and viewpoints contrary to theirs. It is not only the Islamic fundamentalists who are a threat to democracy: The Christian fundamentalists generally are a threat to democracy, too. Because they are sure God is on their side and that they are the only ones who possess the truth, why should they be tolerant of infidels who disagree?
INTERNAL THREATS
With such a large number of glandular fundamentalists and traditionalists in Jamaica, as well as the political partisans, the culture is hardly nurturing of deep-rooted democratic values. Don't get me wrong: Jamaicans would die for their freedom, for their right to speak their minds. But they would kill you for yours (as a general rule). The journalist or media practitioner who would do his job well, therefore, has to have courage and a high ethical commitment to the principles of journalism.
The journalist who is a nihilist or who does not hold to objective moral values is a threat to journalism. The crudely pragmatic journalist who is not bound by certain ethical principles like truth, fairness, and balance cannot be trusted with information. In the United States there is a major debate over the ethics crisis in journalism and over the scandals which have hit the media there. There is a fascinating article on this subject in the August/September issue of the American Journalism Review. titled 'Confronting the Culture' and written by the magazine's managing editor Lori Robertson, the article explores the ethical and cultural challenges to good journalism. Journalists are not well paid -- not even in the United States. If they are materialistic and greedy, journalists will write what their Pied Pipers tell them and they will use their talk shows and columns to push their public relations interests.
If a journalist would not choose to continue to take the bus and to live in a working class community, rather than use his position to advance certain commercial interests to get ahead, then is the Press not threatened? The Press is not only threatened by external forces. The internal threats can be the most insidious and the most devastating. Journalism is one profession that is coterminous with ethics and morality. The amoral journalist is an oxymoron, if we are to take journalism for what it ought to be.
So I am afraid of journalists and commentators who are crude pragmatists and who ridicule morality. (Incidentally, I don't believe one has to be religious to be committed to ethical principles). Journalists have to be committed to some moral standards if they are to turn down bribes or not to prostitute themselves to supplement their incomes.
As the American Journalism Review article says: "Huge financial rewards can't help but distract people form the integrity of their trade", unless they have a deep religious or philosophical commitment to ethics. Continues the article: "Journalists are getting squeezed more than ever. And I think that's a formula for bad ethics" unless people have a strong religious or philosophical commitment to high ethical standards.
There are other pressures, too, including greater competitiveness and the urge to outperform the competition. "The more pressure that is put on journalists to produce more, faster, quicker, cheaper, the more the industry encourages cutting corners, which is just another way of saying cheating," says Robertson in the article. The plagiarism and fabrications are part of this phenomenon.
The preponderance of commercial interests in the media, the obsession with the bottom-line, and the lure of entrepreneurial journalism are all temptations for the compromise of journalistic principles, and hence potential threats to press freedom.
For Journalism Week this year, I suggest that we do some introspection. Perhaps then we can say, like Brutus: "We have found the enemy and he is us."
Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. You can send your comments to ianboyne1@yahoo.com
