Devon Dick

Last week Tuesday, The Gleaner's editorial cartoonist depicted the President of the Press Association of Jamaica (PAJ) as backstabbing press freedom because of 'cartoon contempt'. This was an unkind cut.

My understanding of the cartoon is that the cartoonist felt that to criticise him was to launch an attack on press freedom. Some persons have claimed that the cartoonist must be free to make cartoons as he deems fit and that he has a licence to go overboard. However, the cartoonist does not believe he can be criticised or that press freedom should be extended to the PAJ president. This, paradoxically, would be more an attack on press freedom when making criticism is restricted only to cartoonist.

The position of the cartoonist reminds me of that well-known play in which Caesar was shocked that Brutus was one of his backstabbers and exclaimed "Et tu, Brutus."

Strange also that the same persons who are saying that there is an appropriate behaviour for Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller are claiming that there are no standards for a cartoonist and anything goes. Every society has appropriate standards for prime ministers and cartoonists. In some countries, a cartoonist must be sensitive to portrayals of the prophet Mohammed.

There is no absolute press freedom. Each society places restrictions either by law or convention. In America, the press cannot carry photos of body bags coming from Iraq. In the United Kingdom, the monarch's children are off limits for the press.

Off limits

In Jamaica, there appears to be an unwritten rule that media owners and fellow journalists, excepting the PAJ president, are not subjected to the cartoons' pen. In addition, the private sector leaders are off limits. Everybody knows that big private sector interests use the press for PR purposes. There are stories about private sector leaders that will not see the light of day. And some politicians who are darlings of the press will be safe.

Every editor acts as a censor. Every letter sent to the editor will not be published. Some views will not be aired. And that is the nature of the beast.

The press protests too much every time someone criticises it. Too often, it is automatically seen as an attack on press freedom. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has a programme which airs criticism of its operation, and they respond to those criticisms. Sometimes they agree that the corporation was not fair and balanced in its reporting. The press here can take a leaf out of the BBC's book.

Is this déjà vu?

Last week Friday, a television station carried a newscast about West Indian cricketer Marlon Samuels and labelled it 'Match-fixing saga'. However, not even the Indian police has made that allegation. It could instead be described as the 'unauthorised leak' or 'Indian Trap' or 'sabotage'. Samuels must be treated as innocent until proven guilty. We made the same mistake in the way the media treated Onandi Lowe with the drug allegation. Is this déjà vu? Press freedom demands some responsible and appropriate journalism on the Marlon Samuels issue. There can be no licence for anyone to engage in inappropriate behaviour.