Stephen Vasciannie

I know a senior state official who has prefaced quite a few of his well-argued emails with the comment that he sent his message to newspaper X, but they did not publish it. I also know a diplomat, now retired, who maintained the same position: the diplomat, though, conceded that some of his letters to the editor were published, but that the sting in the tail was not always retained.

I mention these complaints not to pass judgment on editorial discretion, for each newspaper must, of course, have its own editorial style, orientation, and areas of emphasis. I mention the complaints, therefore, simply to acknowledge that they have been made, and to recall that well-placed persons in society often read newspapers with a critical eye, and with a view to assessing the extent to which the newspapers have decided to influence public opinion one way or another.

As newspapers make political choices, and become more open with those political choices, they become more vulnerable to the criticism that they are no longer fair and balanced.

Blame "Them"

This takes me to the broader question of how we argue about issues in society. In political debate, the tu quoque approach is commonly relied upon. Politician A makes an allegation, and the response is frequently: but you did it too. The point then is not whether the point made is valid or invalid; rather, it becomes a matter of exchanging allegations. Perhaps this is an inevitable part of the process, for political competition is ultimately a game of relativity: is Politician A the best choice or not?

Another feature of our political debate is the tendency of some groups to reach for international positions in a tendentious way. If I want to give support to my position, I say: well, this is the way it is done in some other place, without pausing to consider whether the social, economic or cultural context of that other place is different from mine.

So, for example, "free the weed" is supported by reference to Holland, but not much is made of the fact that over 180 countries do not have liberal policies along the lines of the Dutch model. The exception is held up as the rule. Similarly, "liberalize abortion" is supported by reference to countries that have done so, but without consideration of the perspectives of others that have not.

Reaching for international perspectives also takes other strategic forms.

You can, for instance, refer to various international treaties to support your position. Very often, however, when this approach is taken, the protagonists offer a somewhat superficial reading of the treaty that is being invoked for the cause. And, never mind that Jamaica may not be a party to the particular treaty you have invoked: in that case, you can always say that the treaty represents "international best practice" that we should adopt.

Then there is the emotional approach. This has a number of variants, but the general idea is that you present the most extreme scenario to reinforce your position. Sometimes, of course, extreme scenarios must be offered to sharpen public consciousness and prepara-tion; if overplayed, however, extreme scenarios suffer from the "wolf wolf" syndrome.

Another variant of the emotional approach is regularly in evidence over Air Jamaica. Air Jamaica has generated economic losses on a consistent basis, and this has prompted reasonable calls for reconsideration of the airline's future. However, in the debate, we often hear the opportunity cost argument presented in an emotional form. "We could build several Victoria Jubilee Hospitals" with the Air Jamaica money. "We could refurbish the KPH" by selling Air Jamaica's London slots and air routes.

But do we really know the circumstances in which Air Jamaica came by those London slots, and whether they can be sold, just so? It sounds good - who would deny the need for improvement at KPH?

Clearly, however, it is an over-simplification of rather complex economic choices that the Govern-ment will have to make.

Finally, there are arguments based on political polls. That is another story for another time.

Stephen Vasciannie is Professor of International Law at the University of the West Indies and Deputy Solicitor General in the Attorney-General's chambers.