The Kern Spencer affair as signal

[Karl]

The Kern Spencer affair as signal
GEOF BROWN
Friday, February 29, 2008


The guilt or innocence of former minister of state Kern Spencer, who is facing nine charges of fraud and related misdeeds, is of lesser consequence than the signals provided by the case.


GEOF BROWN
It has been clearly shown that the watchfulness of a minister, the integrity of a fearless contractor general and the due diligence of an impartial police force make our system of attacking corruption indeed possible.
Too often we have feared or perceived that people in high places can easily cover up their misdeeds and be protected, unlike the ordinary citizen's quick apprehension for committing the simplest of misdemeanours. If this is a new beginning in the long overdue fight against corruption in high places, then we can rejoice.

But there should be no rejoicing at the potential downfall of a young and very promising politician. Many are saying that he is merely the victim of a system of embedded corruption in the political culture of the society. And although that would not excuse his personal responsibility as an intelligent individual with his own volition, there is much merit in the observation. And that is a signal that the society at large does not see Mr Spencer as the only one who has fallen short. What the man and woman in the street are saying is that Spencer's case merely typifies what is widespread in the political culture of which he is a part. A 14-year-old boy put it to his mother yesterday that it is only because Mr Spencer is young in the business why he is the identified sacrificial lamb..

This youngster's assertion is not just youthful wisdom, but a reflection of what he and his peers are hearing around them. They, as youngsters, see a rotten political culture in which most of the wrongdoers are more guilty than Spencer may be, if convicted, but more skilled in the art of siphoning off taxpayers' money into their own pockets. Thus, the Spencer case may well signal a change coming where the young, already demonstrating apathy and distrust of politics and politicians will call for change in the prevailing political culture. Thus, there had better not be any posturing of superior morals by politicians of any stripe, for the young are saying in effect, "a plague on both your houses".

The action of the contractor general is a most refreshing signal. We have been seeing, for quite some time, the man Greg Christie, carrying out his assigned role with absolutely no fear of, or favour to, special interests. This column named him "Man of the Year" proudly. (See January 18 column). Several attempts have been made to destroy his integrity in the manner of killing the messenger who brings the unwelcome news. Jamaica ought to be proud of this man. That is, if we are really serious about ridding the country of corruption in the public arena. For if he can help us make an effective breakthrough there, we can then turn our attention to manifest corruption in the private sector as well. Of course, the two sectors are not necessarily separated, as we have seen in the current case of the Spencer affair.

There is no question the Spencer episode is a strong signal to the PNP, if one was needed, that the party must pay serious attention to its internal integrity as well as to its external credibility. It is welcome to see that in addition to the party leader's immediate statement supporting the law taking its course, the party chairman has now conceded that the party's image is tainted. That is the least the two leaders could do. But they are going to be required to do much more. Having commissioned an external review which has been made public, it must now take clear steps to signal to the public that it is serious about the steps it will take to clean house and prevent further taint from the fallout of any similar cases which may be lurking within its fold.

There are too many suspicions from other unresolved rumours for the party to take any comfort at this time. It has an honourable legacy from its founding fathers to protect. Norman Manley did not lack the courage to purge the party of some of its leading lights when in the early days, the integrity of the party's political philosophy was brought into question. It is true that although there have been several arrests and even imprisonment of JLP leaders convicted of fraud over the years, the Spencer case is the only one in the history of the PNP. But that must not be a comfort to the party if it wishes to demonstrate the seriousness of its anti-corruption stance. This is now a matter, not of cleansing being done, but "manifestly seen to be done", to quote the famous judicial ethic.

At any rate, the PNP must not be caught in the trap of defence lawyers mouthing allegations of "witch-hunting" at the press which is doing its duty of informing the public about matters of national significance. Politicians try hard to get the attention of the press when they parade their good deeds. They cannot expect to have it both ways when their deeds are brought into question. And there for what it is worth, is another signal of the Spencer case. The Jamaican press, especially in its current competitive mode, is not about to be muzzled. There is no hiding place any more in the context of press freedom in today's Jamaica. Let that be duly noted.
- browngeof@hotmail.com or
geofbrown07@gmail.com

[Karl]

Paparazzi in the House

Paparazzi in the House
BARBARA GLOUDON
Friday, February 29, 2008


WELCOME to the age of the Paparazzi in JA. Why should media in world centres - New York, Paris, London, Hollywood alone have all the fun - stalking their prey with camera, microphone and determination? Anything they can do, we can do smaller but no less fiercely.


BARBARA GLOUDON
The arrest of Member of Parliament Kern Spencer provided the opportunity this week for the media, especially the electronic division, to indulge in celebrity-stalking to bring high drama right into our living rooms. We, of course, are already familiar with Paparrazi-style journalism through imported television.

And what is wrong with that, you may well ask? We live in an age where people demand the right to know. It is not our fault that some hapless public figure gets into hot water of his own making, especially if he/she is one in whom the public has placed its trust. Read the media's lips - there is absolutely nothing wrong with recording a politician's moments of discomfiture and disgrace. It goes with the territory. Be advised, however, that there are legal limitations as to how far media can go.

Attorneys for Mr Spencer have expressed their disagreement with the way the media have treated their client. They're crying "witch hunt" and accuse them of "trying him in the court of public opinion".

To those in the public - especially in the political arena - who hold no brief for Mr Spencer, there is nothing wrong with the way the matter is being reported. Most media practitioners have no problem with it either. In their view, the man is a public figure. His falling from grace is a public matter and the public has a right to know. "But know what?" others have been arguing. "That he chomps on Oreo cookies and swills down peach-flavoured drinks while facing police interrogation?"

We know already that he is prone to bouts of weeping under pressure. What else do we need to know, besides the fact that he is facing a long and formidable list of charges which, should they be proved, could affect his freedom in no inconsiderable way?

Does the reporting of minutiae of his every move present him in such a way that he will not be able to get a fair trial, as his attorneys seem to be saying?

There is no doubt that Kern Spencer is being tried in the court of public opinion. People are talking about the matter everywhere, every hour, and everyone has an opinion. Most are influenced by the fact that there has been growing concern about probity in public life. As far as they are concerned, "the Spencer affair" proves what they have been saying.

The word CORRUPTION is perhaps the most widely used in evaluation of the current of our political culture. It follows that Mr Spencer will be tried and a verdict reached (by the street), long before the official court gathers up its documents, dons its robes and works its way towards a just conclusion. That leaves us with the question of how the media should behave in the circumstances. Should they play to the gallery or toe the line of innocent till proved guilty?

Currently, there is on the table the matter of freeing up the libel laws in order, it is said, to allow the media more access for investigative journalism and to provide greater transparency in public affairs. The committee, empowered by the government to canvass the opinions of the public, has just ended its visits to three major centres across the island (Kingston, Mandeville, Montego Bay), and in the fullness of time, we will hear its findings.

It is of interest to note that not all journalists are at one about the "freeing up". Media people know how to get around libel laws. If they didn't, many media houses would've been shut down long ago. They serve a public which isn't too fussy when it comes to the finer details of what is legal and what isn't. Just give us the news. Meanwhile, the public has tradition on its side in the homespun proverb - "If a nuh so it go, den a nearly so." In that spirit we, the people, put each other on trial and sentence each other every day and don't even try to confuse us without evidence. Obviously, that is what Kern Spencer's attorneys fear.

The drama played out over recent days therefore is no less than what the public wants and expects, and those expectations are being facilitated, some will say. The hot tips from police contacts resulted, say attorneys, in the media being informed of Spencer's arrest before even he and his lawyers knew of it.

The camera-lights-action scenario might be new in our environment but everyone with access to a TV screen knows that's how it is done Over So. The Kern Story is not even a patch on the hounding of Britney Spears. (While we're at it, just for the record, a whole lot of little Jamaican girls are named Britney. Not many boys are named Kern, as far as we know).

THE SPENCER TRIAL LIES AHEAD. There can be no doubt that it will be one of the most covered by the media. This will be only the fifth time, according to historians, that a parliamentarian attends court in the role of the accused. The outcome of the first four cases of serious misbehaviour by politicians were not at all favourable to the accused. Heightened interest in the outcome of the fifth is to be expected and understandable.
Can Kern Spencer get a fair trial - or, as his attorneys feel, is he already being tried and sentenced in the court of public opinion? The issue of the media's style in the presentation of a high-profile event such as this will continue to spark argument. Don't expect it to go away. These are new times, the media will tell you. Does that bring with it new rules of propriety? Should innocent till guilty mean anything? The verdict is yours.

WINNERS AND LOSERS: Definitely a winner. the newspaper business on Wednesday. It was like a good night in the dancehall. "Sell off" was the cry as the morning papers, bearing the details of the Kern case, disappeared from the sales stands. Who seh Jamaicans don't read?

LOSER - BIG TIME: House speaker Delroy Chuck, whining about the newspaper photo of Daryl Vaz's yawn, takes the loser-cake. True, it was a bit off-putting to be introduced in such a public manner to the fillings in Mr Vaz's back teeth and be forced to ponder his tongue and tonsils, but somebody should've reminded Mr Speaker of the useful JA adage... "Same knife stick sheep, stick goat." Remember the camera capturing the Portia doodle in the said same House of Parliament? And what about the "gotcha" shot of Maxine catching a wink? Chuckie, mi bwoy, nuh de same ting. "Today fi me, tomorrow fi you."
gloudonb@yahoo.com