Tweet
Media amid disillusion
By Sunity Maharaj
Story Created: Mar 30, 2013 at 8:07 PM ECT
Story Updated: Mar 30, 2013 at 8:12 PM ECT
Caught between a rock and a hard place, the Prime Minister has opted for naivete over complicity.
Less dangerous to claim to know nothing than to explain why, knowing, she chooses to waffle.
In the life of the Partnership administration, we seem to have entered that stage of the cycle where politics as purely the art of the possible has run its course, leaving only impossibilities before us.
We have been here so many times before that the future can be scripted.
Except for the tightening noose over the triumvirate of power, the scenario is all too familiar.
Disillusion has passed the point of critical mass to become the organising force of popular opinion. It now stands before us on legs of its own and with a mind of its own.
The mood of discontent is no simple creation of the media or of opponents of the Government, or even of the Government itself.
In three short years of the Partnership administration, we are right back to where we were in 2010 when on April 7 Patrick Manning concluded that his best bet for quelling the rising tide of disillusion was to call a general election- only to be swept away.
Swept into office by the same tide that swept him out, Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar must be mystified to find herself so quickly on the wrong side of the popular tide. In Tobago two months ago, it was enough of an enigma when it rose to tsunami proportions.
Now, faced with the torrent of discontent in Trinidad, disbelief has led her to challenge our perception of reality by indicting the media’s portrayal of reality as unreal and, therefore, unfair.
Having witnessed the political impact of confrontations between previous governments and the media, she had committed herself, from the beginning, to a close relationship with the media—Christmas hampers and all. But in the logic of our politics, it was always inevitable.
In our long history of political resistance, our most practised form of mobilisation and political participation has been the organisation of disillusion and discontent as our weapon of choice against distrusted authority.
For longer than we have had the vote or the Press, we have mobilised opinion, effectively and subversively. Independence, Westminster democracy and communication technology have brought new avenues for expression into play but these exist alongside the still powerful old culture of information dissemination and opinion formation that have shaped our politics, media and other institutions.
The notion that the media is an independent agency of paramount power misses the crucial dynamic between mass interest and mass media.
The widely-held perception of the media as a power unto itself that controls the politics is yet another creation of our arbitrary politics which leaves us groping for logic in both victory and defeat. Given the worthlessness of what passes as election campaigns, how else are we to interpret victory and defeat except in such terms as who controlled the media or not?
This is where we have now found ourselves.
Sensing a weakening of its grip on government, the Persad-Bissessar administration seems to think that salvation lies in strengthening its presence in the media while changing the media narrative on its performance.
If anything, this double-barrelled strategy of bringing the media to heel while expanding State access to radio and TV is likely to backfire. In response, the culture that has always organised discontent and implemented subversion is likely to stiffen its resolve. Beyond the point of critical mass, the dynamic between mass interest and mass media comes sharply into play with the culture co-opting the media.
This is the point in the political cycle when the media’s role as watchdog of the public interest is most emphasised- in stark contrast to its cheerleading role when administrations enjoy great popular support.
In focusing on the media as both source and solution of its problems, the Persad-Bissessar administration is no different from its predecessors in not understanding that the T&T media, like our politics, is a creature of the culture.
Like the politics, it exists as a variant model of a British tradition influenced by an American agenda and attitude.
In this way, the T&T media is another of our creole institutions, inherited but adapted to purpose.
What makes our media unique and different from the imported forms is the extent to which it is being co-opted—almost substituted—in response to a weak political system.
Daunted by the challenge of creating a strong political system, we have taken a shortcut through the media. It is to the media that competing interests go to seek representation and governments go to draw their political agendas for action.
Inevitably, the greatest representation goes to those with the greatest access to the media, making the media the focus of competition among rival interests.
Neither designed nor equipped for mediating competing political interests, the media risks contention and damage, including to the public trust it holds. For governments that ride to office on the tide of organised disillusion, without a programme for effective governance, the media shortcut to representation is equally risky. As the Partnership Government is finding out.
In her campaign for office, few politicians benefited more from their association with the media than Kamla Persad-Bissessar.
Indeed, the large number of journalists who found quick employment as communications specialists and managers in her Government, testifies to the value she found in their work in the media.
For much of her three years in office, she has been a media darling, assured of prime-time coverage every step of the way.
Now, frustrated by public disapproval of her Government, she has reached for the easy answer, identifying media rogues as the source of her problem and greater access to media as the solution.
Her emphasis on the media has always been misplaced. If she thinks about it, she might see that it was the disillusioned electorate that brought her into office in 2010.
Unless she finds a way to dispel it, it is disillusion that might take her out
By Sunity Maharaj
Story Created: Mar 30, 2013 at 8:07 PM ECT
Story Updated: Mar 30, 2013 at 8:12 PM ECT
Caught between a rock and a hard place, the Prime Minister has opted for naivete over complicity.
Less dangerous to claim to know nothing than to explain why, knowing, she chooses to waffle.
In the life of the Partnership administration, we seem to have entered that stage of the cycle where politics as purely the art of the possible has run its course, leaving only impossibilities before us.
We have been here so many times before that the future can be scripted.
Except for the tightening noose over the triumvirate of power, the scenario is all too familiar.
Disillusion has passed the point of critical mass to become the organising force of popular opinion. It now stands before us on legs of its own and with a mind of its own.
The mood of discontent is no simple creation of the media or of opponents of the Government, or even of the Government itself.
In three short years of the Partnership administration, we are right back to where we were in 2010 when on April 7 Patrick Manning concluded that his best bet for quelling the rising tide of disillusion was to call a general election- only to be swept away.
Swept into office by the same tide that swept him out, Prime Minister Persad-Bissessar must be mystified to find herself so quickly on the wrong side of the popular tide. In Tobago two months ago, it was enough of an enigma when it rose to tsunami proportions.
Now, faced with the torrent of discontent in Trinidad, disbelief has led her to challenge our perception of reality by indicting the media’s portrayal of reality as unreal and, therefore, unfair.
Having witnessed the political impact of confrontations between previous governments and the media, she had committed herself, from the beginning, to a close relationship with the media—Christmas hampers and all. But in the logic of our politics, it was always inevitable.
In our long history of political resistance, our most practised form of mobilisation and political participation has been the organisation of disillusion and discontent as our weapon of choice against distrusted authority.
For longer than we have had the vote or the Press, we have mobilised opinion, effectively and subversively. Independence, Westminster democracy and communication technology have brought new avenues for expression into play but these exist alongside the still powerful old culture of information dissemination and opinion formation that have shaped our politics, media and other institutions.
The notion that the media is an independent agency of paramount power misses the crucial dynamic between mass interest and mass media.
The widely-held perception of the media as a power unto itself that controls the politics is yet another creation of our arbitrary politics which leaves us groping for logic in both victory and defeat. Given the worthlessness of what passes as election campaigns, how else are we to interpret victory and defeat except in such terms as who controlled the media or not?
This is where we have now found ourselves.
Sensing a weakening of its grip on government, the Persad-Bissessar administration seems to think that salvation lies in strengthening its presence in the media while changing the media narrative on its performance.
If anything, this double-barrelled strategy of bringing the media to heel while expanding State access to radio and TV is likely to backfire. In response, the culture that has always organised discontent and implemented subversion is likely to stiffen its resolve. Beyond the point of critical mass, the dynamic between mass interest and mass media comes sharply into play with the culture co-opting the media.
This is the point in the political cycle when the media’s role as watchdog of the public interest is most emphasised- in stark contrast to its cheerleading role when administrations enjoy great popular support.
In focusing on the media as both source and solution of its problems, the Persad-Bissessar administration is no different from its predecessors in not understanding that the T&T media, like our politics, is a creature of the culture.
Like the politics, it exists as a variant model of a British tradition influenced by an American agenda and attitude.
In this way, the T&T media is another of our creole institutions, inherited but adapted to purpose.
What makes our media unique and different from the imported forms is the extent to which it is being co-opted—almost substituted—in response to a weak political system.
Daunted by the challenge of creating a strong political system, we have taken a shortcut through the media. It is to the media that competing interests go to seek representation and governments go to draw their political agendas for action.
Inevitably, the greatest representation goes to those with the greatest access to the media, making the media the focus of competition among rival interests.
Neither designed nor equipped for mediating competing political interests, the media risks contention and damage, including to the public trust it holds. For governments that ride to office on the tide of organised disillusion, without a programme for effective governance, the media shortcut to representation is equally risky. As the Partnership Government is finding out.
In her campaign for office, few politicians benefited more from their association with the media than Kamla Persad-Bissessar.
Indeed, the large number of journalists who found quick employment as communications specialists and managers in her Government, testifies to the value she found in their work in the media.
For much of her three years in office, she has been a media darling, assured of prime-time coverage every step of the way.
Now, frustrated by public disapproval of her Government, she has reached for the easy answer, identifying media rogues as the source of her problem and greater access to media as the solution.
Her emphasis on the media has always been misplaced. If she thinks about it, she might see that it was the disillusioned electorate that brought her into office in 2010.
Unless she finds a way to dispel it, it is disillusion that might take her out