The Editor, Sir:The ongoing 'debate' between the Office of the Prime Minister and The Gleaner and, by extension the rest of the nation, with regards to the question of the costs of overseas travel is a matter of concern on which I would like to comment.
Since The Sunday Gleaner's very dramatic headline on January 28, it appears that neither party is prepared to address what I believe are the real issues at work in this discussion. As pointed out by H. Edison Humphries, another letter writer in these columns, the question of the amount of monies allocated for overseas travel for public servants, if not sufficient, should be increased as a matter of national urgency. This is especially so, considering the extent to which questions of security and other related matters are impacted by this process. The Office of the Prime Minister is squarely affected by this situation.
That said, however, it hardly appears a responsible act of good journalism when the question of the PM's response to the article is treated with the obvious contempt portrayed in the cartoon on page A6 of the Thursday, February 1, edition of The Gleaner. There can be little doubt that all that is printed or what gets reported in the pages of the press or on air does not always find favour with their audiences. However, I have always felt that some modicum of responsibility and balance have attended The Gleaner's positions. This time, though, I am not inclined to be as optimistic.
In fact, it appears from the obvious readings of the cartoon in terms of its portrayal of the PM as a '(careless) ghetto girl', with nose ring to boot, that there is a very clear breakdown of these values on The Gleaner's part. Indeed, we are well aware that Mrs. Simpson Miller appears to answer defensively and with some regularity, some of the concerns raised in the media more often than her predecessor and that, there are, in fact, times when those pronouncements have been construed in particular ways.
More regard needed for the PM
However, the levels of disrespect and contempt displayed by this cartoon are worrying signs particularly so as they clearly communicate that criticizing the press is not a well supported goal in this two-way press freedom relationship. Surely, there should be a little bit more regard for the high office of the PM, if not for the woman herself. The personalisation of the attack on her position leaves much to be desired. The editor will certainly agree that there comes a time when hard choices must be made between responsible reportage and self-defence.
At the time when the question of the now legendary doodles was 'debated', it was felt that the ruling administration (meaning the PM) was too harsh in its treatment of press freedoms. The administration's insistence on certain courtesies (from the media), among them the prevention of the press from sitting in the Hansard Box while members of the House debate matters of grave national concern was felt, in the main, to be high-handed and communicated a clear lack of regard for press freedoms.
Media bosses insisted that they needed room to do their jobs effectively; and rightly so. However, this new round of criticism has gone way below the belt and certainly reflects badly on the parties involved.
I am quite confident that good sense still prevails in the context of editorial judgments, as much as they do in the Office of the PM, in terms of how real issues are addressed. Let us not forget though that the reading/viewing/hearing public is setting its standards in tandem with that reflected at the highest levels in the land. Perhaps there is need for a time out by the 'debaters'?
In the meantime, we wait to see.
I am, etc.,
AGOSTINHO PINNOCK
Kingston
