It is to be expected that, as the campaign intensifies for this year's general election, politicians on the hustings will perceive - real or imagined - instances of bias in the media coverage they receive. This is par for the course. Sometimes the complaint reflects nothing more than a cynical attempt at subtle intimidation, trying to coerce media into soft pedalling on issues which cause them discomfort.

Journalists, on the other hand, and the media generally, must be wary of the temptation of presuming themselves beyond criticism, while insisting on the right to criticise others, particularly people who hold power and are in authority.

For, if the press holds itself beyond scrutiny, it not only narrows the realm of debate, but effectively, even if unwittingly, calls for the narrowing of the foundation of its existence: the constitutional right of the individual to free expression and to hold and exchange ideas.

But there is also a far less esoteric and even more elemental issue: The press in a liberal democracy thrives on truth and fairness. And these are always worth testing.

We raise these points in the face of recent media criticism of Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller for her public complaint - at ruling People's National Party (PNP) rallies - of her, and apparently, the party's claim of unfair coverage by the media.

This newspaper is insistent on the right of journalists to report and comment in the absence of intimidation and fear, and in that context urges political leaders to avoid language that would incite supporters to physical attacks on reporters. Intemperate outbursts such as Mrs. Simpson Miller's about the number of minutes allocated to her political opponents in one night's television newscast are misguided at best.

Nor should political leaders use the resources of the State, as is the case in Guyana where the government of President Bharrat Jagdeo has withheld advertising against the newspaper, Stabroek News, in acts of economic intimidation against the press.

Moreover, we repeat our call for a widening of defamation laws and specifically the right to criticise public officials, so that even when errors are made and there is no provable malice on the part of the press, that this should not be actionable. Such a legislative change, to bring Jamaica to the situation in the United States, would allow for a more robust search for the truth on the part of the Jamaican press and allow to more effectively fulfil its part of the compact it has with the society: to be a watchdog of governance.

Yet, there is nothing incongruous with the right of the press to hold public officials accountable and to mirror the society by reporting its facts, with others having the right to scrutinise and comment, sometimes unfavourably, on what reporters do. We call it fairness.

There lurks grave danger, we feel, when journalists become so self-absorbed that they become greater than the stories they cover and, in the event, lose the larger perspective of their role. So, any question about how they do their jobs or conduct themselves becomes a matter of crisis.

The press must report robustly, fearlessly and fairly and be willing to engage in vigorous and rigorous debate, willing to defend its action. But this can't happen in an environment of knee-jerk defensiveness.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.