Ian Boyne, Contributor
THE VERY thought that this is an election year drives terror in the hearts of Jamaicans, accelerates their pulse rate and produces a churning in the stomach. They would hope - desperately hope - that their worst fears don't materialise, but the death toll so far this year discourage such hope.
Greater Kingston seems set to maintain its reputation as one of the bloodiest and dangerous areas of the world. The fact that the political tribes will be vying for some high stakes in this election year should ensure that the reputation stay intact. But while Jamaicans fully expect that many heads will literally roll, little attention is being given to the battle for the minds of the voters - which will be no less intense. The propaganda war between the two main political parties will be keenly fought, and the media will be the primary battleground.
In the best of times, the media, following the honoured tradition of Western journalism, have always seen themselves as adversaries of the state. The Press was called the Fourth Estate precisely because of this assumed independence from the institutions of the state. This adversarial role of journalism is the most romanticised of all the images of Western journalism.
Associated with this adversarial view of journalism is the notion of 'objectivity'. Journalist and former CNN correspondent, David Minch, in his I998 book , 'Just The Facts: How "Objectivity" Came to Define American Journalism', puts it well : "If American journalism were a religion, as it has been called from time to time, its supreme deity would be 'objectivity'. The high priests of journalism worship objectivity; one leading editor called it the 'highest original moral concept ever developed in America and given to the world'".
Journalists are supposed to be 'objective' creatures, without bias or prejudice; or, in the more sophisticated version, they are people who have their biases and self-interests in check and who put the public interest and the public good ahead of their private agenda. The notion is riddled with philosophical and practical problems.
First, this notion of a journalism which is objective, interest-free and without bias has been exploded by philosophers, psychologists and sociologists of knowledge. A range of thinkers from Michael Polayni, Karl Mannheim and Thomas Kuhn to Jacques Derrida, Michael Foucault, and Richard Rorty have shattered our confidence in the ability of humans to perceive truth objectively and to operate outside of our cultural, social and historical conditioning.
Notions of objectivity, freedom from bias and unmediated knowledge are grounded in Modernist, Enlightenment philosophy and in sophisticated circles in academia today, Post-modernism is the current wave. Indicating just how journalistic notions of objectivity are outdated, David Minch in his book, an excellent historical work, says: "It is no less than remarkable that years after consciousness was complicated by Freud, observation was problematised by Einstein, perspective was challenged by Picasso, writing was deconstructed by Derrida, and objectivity was abandoned by practically everyone outside newsrooms, 'objectivity' is still the style of journalism --"
But things are changing, reflecting developments in the social sciences and the humanities. The Code of Ethics of The US Society of Professional Journalists in 1996 dropped "objectivity" from its Code of Ethics. Says Minch: "A decade ago, in seeming acknowledgement of human bias, (Dan) Rather replaced Cronkite's 'And that's the way it is' with his own 'And that's part of our world'. What you have been watching, Rather seemed to say, is not the world, but part of our world, through our filters. Journalists must always remember that their vision is coloured by their culture".
While objectivity might be difficult-perhaps impossible - it is possible to be fair and impartial. This takes considerable work and self-discipline and it eludes many persons. One has to learn to tame his passions and emotions. One of those emotions is fear. We live in a deeply divided, tribalised country where journalists are threatened with victimisation, and social ostracism if they take a certain line. It is very difficult to practise as a professional journalist in Jamaica because people are constantly trying to pigeonhole you. Frequently, I will hear ordinary Jamaicans ask of a particular journalist, "A which party him support?" as if every journalist is committed to a party or is at least against one.
It is important to note, too, that it is quite possible for one to have a bias or a conviction in a particular direction and yet be completely fair and impartial in dealing with opposing views. Again this might not be common but it is certainly achievable. There are people who are personally and philosophically committed to a notion of integrity and fairness which impel them to treat certain issues dispassionately.
Ronnie Thwaites is a good example of a PNP politician and media practitioner who is committed to impartiality and fairness and who is no virulent anti-JLP opponent. He runs his Independent Talk radio talk-show on Power 106 FM with a fairness and even-handedness which cannot be remotely claimed with credibility by some other talk-show hosts who have not publicly declared their hand politically.
There are people like Cliff Hughes and Hugh Crosskill who are clearly not fond of the PNP Government.
EXCESSIVE PASSION
Hughes and Crosskill are committed to the principle of journalistic rigour as well as impartiality and fairness and while Hughes will have his lapses into emotionalism and excessive passion - note his recent discussion with John Junor where he really "lost it" - his trademark is a striving for journalistic excellence and a sincere desire for truth. Yet make no mistake about it: He is anti-PNP. But he is my Journalist of the Year for 2001.
Wilmot Perkins is anti-PNP but has abandoned all notions of fairness, impartiality or even rationality when it comes to P.J. Patterson or the PNP. He is not so much pro-JLP as he is blindly, viscerally anti-P.J. Patterson. In the not too distant past he was also grossly unfair to Edward Seaga and in the height of his pro-NDM campaign, attacked Eddie Seaga unjustifiably.
This year the politicians will be spending a lot of time trying to use journalists for their cause. Some journalists will willingly comply out of either fear or a desire for advancement or political spoils. Anyone who knows me can attest that I am too intellectually vain to parrot anybody's line. I never confuse my journalistic and public relations roles. Those who watch and read me are the jury.
The Breakfast Club hosts represent another fine team who, while clearly not supportive of the PNP, could never seriously be accused of running the programme in an unprofessional and politically biased way. They also demonstrate that personal opposition to the PNP need not lead to the violation of the journalistic requirement of fairness, even-handedness and impartiality. The PNP has very few friends in the media, which is not surprising for a party in power for three terms. (Seaga, incidentally, has perhaps fewer and largely benefits from the disaffection with the PNP. The journalistic support for him is mainly one of convenience --"My enemy's enemy is my friend."). Colin Campbell, Minister of Information, should not be perturbed by that in itself. What must concern him is that the increasingly influential talk-show hosts are fair, control their biases and give equal opportunity for the PNP to air its side.
In terms of the print media, The Gleaner and The Observer are maintaining their general fairness and professionalism in our tribalised environment. Nobody can detect which, if any, of the tribes the Gleaner Editor belongs to and the paper has not carried any "line" against any party. A tribute to the Observer was that in a matter of days pro-PNP Sunday Herald columnist Garnet Roper accused the paper of openly campaigning for Mr. Seaga while Delroy Chuck was telling Wilmot Perkins that most of the editorials were apparently written at the PNP Hope Road headquarters!
The RJR Communications Group has been a model of professionalism, impartiality, incorruptibility and balance - to the point of almost being staid and unexciting. But I would choose staid over sensational any day - though I prefer neither. The politicians and their spinmeisters will be working overtime to get journalists to see and promulgate their point of view.
Nothing wrong with that. But the country will have to depend on the integrity, decency and professionalism of not just the news reporters but the opinion writers and commentators to show enough respect for them by not pushing propaganda, but by genuinely educating them about alternatives and varied perspectives.
The journalists and talk-show hosts themselves must be well-read, on the cutting edge of information and must have a firm a grasp of international issues so that they can put the national issues in a broader context.
Failing which, you as readers had better be extra vigilant this year as the propaganda war heats up. This column hopes to be a voice for all those who have not pledged their minds over to any political party or who are not so consumed with hostility and rage against any that they cannot think straight about the issues.
