Tweet
Golding must guard against taking on the media
By Al Edwards
Friday, July 09, 2010
Yesterday it was reported that Prime Minister Bruce Golding, responding to former Police Commissioner Rear Admiral Hardley Lewin's claim that Christopher 'Dudus 'Coke was tipped off about the extradition request, said: "The problem with these things is, with the kind of media that you have today, scurrilous, unsubstantiated allegations or innuendos have a DNA effect. You can never remove it. You can never undo the damage that it does, and that is part of the problem."
Now as far as it is understood, the former Police Commissioner volunteered the information on CVM's 'Direct' current affairs programme hosted by the excellent Garfield Burford. Lewin's declaration in itself is most instructive and is headline news given the magnitude of events surrounding the extradition of Coke.
Prime Minsiter Bruce Golding
Prime Minsiter Bruce Golding
1/1 
Indeed, the media can ask Lewin whether he can substantiate his claims but the claim itself by the subject in question is the news and Golding must understand that.
If President Obama announces that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or for that matter Russia has been harbouring Osama Bin Laden, that is newsworthy.
Golding is now in the hot seat and he must guard against blaming the media for what essentially were missteps on his part.
In a more sophisticated, literate and politically astute country he would have had to resign over this sordid affair. Why? Because he clearly misled Parliament and was economical with the truth regarding the government's dealings (or Jamaica Labour Party, if one prefers) with the United States law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. Note I make it clear he did not in fact lie to Parliament but more subtly duped it in a case of verbal dexterity at which Golding is rather adept.
Then he vehemently sought to prevent the extradition of Coke who was wanted in the United States for alleged drug-trafficking and gun-running crimes. By this he jeopardised the country's relationship with its largest trading partner and incurred the displeasure of the greatest power on earth by using technical loopholes to avoid what had to be done. He subsequently had to do a U-turn and is now championing anti-crime measures in an effort to placate what many people viewed as heinously wrong in the first place.
A more vigilant media landscape would have had his guts for garters and insisted vociferously on his resignation. His situation would have been untenable. Can one think of any modern developing society where a Prime Minister, perceived to be defending an infamous gangster to the detriment of the international well-being of the country, survived the opprobrium of the people and the press?
The press in Jamaica did not insist on his resignation nor was it indignant. Golding should be thankful for its lack of probity and bite and instead should seek to court it, not irk it.
Jamaican media is regarded as anodyne and insipid, lacking a willingness to pursue investigative journalism. As the columnist Devon Dick has pointed out, "The PM has not explained how Manatt was 'made to believe' that they were employed by the Government, neither has he provided documentary evidence that Manatt was not paid with tainted money." The local media has not pursued the Manatt story and has not continued to ask pertinent questions. The incident has fallen off the news cycle. The American journalists Woodward and Berstein uncovered the Watergate scandal bringing down President Nixon via a source called "Deepthroat."
The Washington Post's Ben Bradlee let this happen because he believed in his journalists, backed them and let them pursue the story. Think about it - all they had to initially go on was an anonymous source who refused to give up his identity. For all they knew he could be leading them down the wrong path. But it was a path they were prepared to stick with which led to other paths and so the story unravelled. One can never discount a journalist's instinct for a story. A story is like an unfinished quilt - you have to keep going back to it before it is completed.
The way things stand now, a Woodward and Berstein could never come out of Jamaica, not because Jamaica doesn't produce good journalists, but the system prevents them from tracking big stories.
Media managers favour more innocuous copy that doesn't rock the boat. Severely cash strapped, the fear of having to contend with libel suits means media owners and their senior executives fear to tread into areas which might prove a tad too hot. Many Jamaican media houses do not have libel insurance and this is another problem as people are increasingly becoming litigious. Today in Jamaica every man and his dog wants to sue a media house for exorbitant sums once the media owner is deemed to be a person of means. People are now suing for psychological damage, people who cannot spell the word "psychological". On top of that, they are insisting on retractions and apologies that should be printed for a month of Sundays on stipulated pages of the publication. All this means that writers and broadcasters become reticent and avoid situations likely to jeopardise their media house. It's better for your career that you play it safe rather than put your neck on the line. Great journalists live to put their necks on the line.
Granted one should always be vigilant, check and double-check with sources, remaining fair and balanced. Indeed that is the journalist's stock-in-trade. It is wrong to impugn anyone's character because one has been lax and careless. But it is equally reprehensible to sue for inordinate sums in order to obtain an easy payday.
Then there is the case of the advertisers. Jamaican media houses more so than most are dependent on advertisers and to incur their wrath means that one cannot pay their bills. Very few Jamaican companies grasp the concept of a free and unshackled press. Many are unable to take it on the chin and shrug it off. There are those who seek vengeance by withdrawing advertising . This means there are certain sacred cows in Jamaica one dare not touch because they call the shots, and if you want to stay in the game and continue to collect a pay cheque you dare not venture there.
All this means is that Bruce Golding can escape from a media that lacks vigour and so he should do his best not to rile it at this point. The smart play would be to let it work for him over the next two years ensuring there are no scandals or slip-ups. He does not want to be in the media spotlight right now for all the wrong reasons nor does he want to be the subject of probes and inquisition. He wants to be a media darling for all the right reasons. It is not too late from him to extricate himself from this tale of sophistry because after all, politics is the art of the possible. It was possible for him to get away with it once. Perhaps he will be unable to get away with it twice.
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/busin...-media_7784289
By Al Edwards
Friday, July 09, 2010
Yesterday it was reported that Prime Minister Bruce Golding, responding to former Police Commissioner Rear Admiral Hardley Lewin's claim that Christopher 'Dudus 'Coke was tipped off about the extradition request, said: "The problem with these things is, with the kind of media that you have today, scurrilous, unsubstantiated allegations or innuendos have a DNA effect. You can never remove it. You can never undo the damage that it does, and that is part of the problem."
Now as far as it is understood, the former Police Commissioner volunteered the information on CVM's 'Direct' current affairs programme hosted by the excellent Garfield Burford. Lewin's declaration in itself is most instructive and is headline news given the magnitude of events surrounding the extradition of Coke.
Prime Minsiter Bruce Golding
Prime Minsiter Bruce Golding 1/1 If President Obama announces that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or for that matter Russia has been harbouring Osama Bin Laden, that is newsworthy.
Golding is now in the hot seat and he must guard against blaming the media for what essentially were missteps on his part.
In a more sophisticated, literate and politically astute country he would have had to resign over this sordid affair. Why? Because he clearly misled Parliament and was economical with the truth regarding the government's dealings (or Jamaica Labour Party, if one prefers) with the United States law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. Note I make it clear he did not in fact lie to Parliament but more subtly duped it in a case of verbal dexterity at which Golding is rather adept.
Then he vehemently sought to prevent the extradition of Coke who was wanted in the United States for alleged drug-trafficking and gun-running crimes. By this he jeopardised the country's relationship with its largest trading partner and incurred the displeasure of the greatest power on earth by using technical loopholes to avoid what had to be done. He subsequently had to do a U-turn and is now championing anti-crime measures in an effort to placate what many people viewed as heinously wrong in the first place.
A more vigilant media landscape would have had his guts for garters and insisted vociferously on his resignation. His situation would have been untenable. Can one think of any modern developing society where a Prime Minister, perceived to be defending an infamous gangster to the detriment of the international well-being of the country, survived the opprobrium of the people and the press?
The press in Jamaica did not insist on his resignation nor was it indignant. Golding should be thankful for its lack of probity and bite and instead should seek to court it, not irk it.
Jamaican media is regarded as anodyne and insipid, lacking a willingness to pursue investigative journalism. As the columnist Devon Dick has pointed out, "The PM has not explained how Manatt was 'made to believe' that they were employed by the Government, neither has he provided documentary evidence that Manatt was not paid with tainted money." The local media has not pursued the Manatt story and has not continued to ask pertinent questions. The incident has fallen off the news cycle. The American journalists Woodward and Berstein uncovered the Watergate scandal bringing down President Nixon via a source called "Deepthroat."
The Washington Post's Ben Bradlee let this happen because he believed in his journalists, backed them and let them pursue the story. Think about it - all they had to initially go on was an anonymous source who refused to give up his identity. For all they knew he could be leading them down the wrong path. But it was a path they were prepared to stick with which led to other paths and so the story unravelled. One can never discount a journalist's instinct for a story. A story is like an unfinished quilt - you have to keep going back to it before it is completed.
The way things stand now, a Woodward and Berstein could never come out of Jamaica, not because Jamaica doesn't produce good journalists, but the system prevents them from tracking big stories.
Media managers favour more innocuous copy that doesn't rock the boat. Severely cash strapped, the fear of having to contend with libel suits means media owners and their senior executives fear to tread into areas which might prove a tad too hot. Many Jamaican media houses do not have libel insurance and this is another problem as people are increasingly becoming litigious. Today in Jamaica every man and his dog wants to sue a media house for exorbitant sums once the media owner is deemed to be a person of means. People are now suing for psychological damage, people who cannot spell the word "psychological". On top of that, they are insisting on retractions and apologies that should be printed for a month of Sundays on stipulated pages of the publication. All this means that writers and broadcasters become reticent and avoid situations likely to jeopardise their media house. It's better for your career that you play it safe rather than put your neck on the line. Great journalists live to put their necks on the line.
Granted one should always be vigilant, check and double-check with sources, remaining fair and balanced. Indeed that is the journalist's stock-in-trade. It is wrong to impugn anyone's character because one has been lax and careless. But it is equally reprehensible to sue for inordinate sums in order to obtain an easy payday.
Then there is the case of the advertisers. Jamaican media houses more so than most are dependent on advertisers and to incur their wrath means that one cannot pay their bills. Very few Jamaican companies grasp the concept of a free and unshackled press. Many are unable to take it on the chin and shrug it off. There are those who seek vengeance by withdrawing advertising . This means there are certain sacred cows in Jamaica one dare not touch because they call the shots, and if you want to stay in the game and continue to collect a pay cheque you dare not venture there.
All this means is that Bruce Golding can escape from a media that lacks vigour and so he should do his best not to rile it at this point. The smart play would be to let it work for him over the next two years ensuring there are no scandals or slip-ups. He does not want to be in the media spotlight right now for all the wrong reasons nor does he want to be the subject of probes and inquisition. He wants to be a media darling for all the right reasons. It is not too late from him to extricate himself from this tale of sophistry because after all, politics is the art of the possible. It was possible for him to get away with it once. Perhaps he will be unable to get away with it twice.
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/busin...-media_7784289
Comment