RBSC

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If a campaign news blackout becomes necessary.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • If a campaign news blackout becomes necessary.

    If a campaign news blackout becomes necessary.

    Wednesday, June 13, 2007


    Going by our story out of Mandeville in the Sunday Observer, it is clear that media personnel are feeling increasingly at risk in covering political activities related to the coming general elections.

    There is an emerging sense of militancy among some media personnel who believe that it is already time to send a signal to the political parties that journalists will not sit idly by and take any abuse from party supporters.

    Among the measures being contemplated is a news blackout of election campaign activities, which, to our recollection, has never been done in Jamaica.

    We suspect, however, that it might not come to that, although we believe that strong action is necessary if the party leaders do not grab hold of their wayward supporters before they do harm to any journalist covering their campaign.

    We feel with the Mandeville television cameraman who says he is seriously contemplating staying away from all further political meetings in the build-up to parliamentary elections which must be held before November.

    The videographer complains that he had discerned a pattern of threats, intimidation and verbal harassment from party supporters at recent political events that had left him fearing for his own safety.

    "I don't think I want to cover any more politics," he was quoted by the Sunday Observer as saying. And he is not alone.

    We really wish that People's National Party (PNP) leader, Mrs Portia Simpson Miller had not launched her attack on a television station from a political platform. After that, what could anyone expect from passionate, over-enthusiastic supporters but the belief that media personnel are fair game.

    Being so spiritual and all that, we expected that Mrs Simpson Miller would have bridled her tongue, and her temper, somewhat, instead of launching into her tirade on the media.

    Election campaigns are opportunities to test how genuinely we believe as a country in freedom of the press and freedom of expression. We, for our part, uphold the right of politicians to express their views about the conduct and performance of the media. What we certainly don't expect is that political leaders would do so in a manner that sends the wrong signal, in the highly charged environment of a political campaign.

    Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. The PNP leader did wrong and she should make every effort to help her supporters understand that the media have a job to do, on behalf of the nation, in covering the party campaigns.

    We would not like to see the day when media are forced to resort to a news blackout, for the very reason that what we do is a service to the people of our country. It is clearly one of the weapons that we have in our arsenal, and if push comes to shove we should be prepared to use it, if only as a last resort.

    Before it comes to that, the Media Association of Jamaica (MAJ) and the Press Association of Jamaica (PAJ) should get together and agree on joint action that will wake up the political parties.
    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

  • #2
    We need to do away with these stupid motorcades. Move to a more civil town hall meeting where people from the constituency can ask questions of the candidates and those of the party top brass. Let the candidates debate the issues in the constituency than have people coming from all over, creating problems on the road.
    "Jamaica's future reflects its past, having attained only one per cent annual growth over 30 years whilst neighbours have grown at five per cent." (Article)

    Comment


    • #3
      The question of freedom of expression and the right to 'journalistic freedom' is one the media holds dear.

      The media is powerful. Some media types boast that the media is all powerful.

      Isn't it interesting to note that the PM thinks she is not getting a fair shake from the media and voices same...and, the media, the same media that 'claimed for itself' the right to term the PM a sketel in an EDITORIAL - albeit EDITORIAL laughing at/mocking of/ridiculing/tearing down of/debasing the PM/taking a not too subtle attack at the PM's ability to lead/in effect sending a message to, at the very least some members of the population that there should be a vote against the PM and her party...are now saying that the freedom to speak its mind is A-OK...but, the PM's right to speak her mind is not a freedom she should enjoy?

      Can it be A-OK for the media to not exercise restraint in the public good...not use good judgement in actions?

      Oh...it will be argued that the public good is served to destroy the image of the PM. After all, all is fair in attempts to drive the PM out of office...
      ...but, the question arises what gives the media the right to portray the PM as a sketel and at the same time the right to be not called to accounts for what the PM sees as flawed actions?

      ...who confered on the media types the right to tear-down any person they so wish without consequences?

      Does the person at the receiving end of that 'tear-down' attempt have any right to put the media under the microscope? ...does anyone have a right to put the media under the microscope?

      Frankly I have noticed the Observer in EDITORIALS defending Bora's actions and I have serious doubts about the reasoning explained. If fact, I think the person and or persons...the Observer (Aren't EDITORIALS expressed opinions and postions of the media house releasing same?) - does not have a clue what it is defending where Bora's actions are concerned.

      In my mind, the EDITORIALS defending Bora's actions are based on ignorance of how TEAMs are formed and our ignorance of what holds with the TOP OF THE WORLD expert footballing nations. In short, in my mind, a nonsense position. A wrong being perpetuated!

      Is the Observer and its media collegues now going to declare me as unfair for exercising my right to disagree and to critisize its position? ...and, if a group of citizens/football loving/Jamaica loving citizens...yet misguided citizens...start shouting in the faces of Observer staff and or the staff of all media houses...and, or start threatening Observer staff and or all media staff...is the Observer going to start claiming, There is an emerging sense of militancy among some media personnel who believe that it is already time to send a signal to the lovers of Jamaica's football (the football party) that journalists will not sit idly by and take any abuse from football party supporters?

      My thoughts were media types lived and died by their convictions. They were guided by a 'higher calling'...and, no amount of discussing in open or on verandahs/patios/cocktail parties/sports arenas/rum bars/churches/etc... a disagreement or disagreements with stated position(s) would cause a budge...even a small budge from 'the 'principled position' founded in belief.

      Well the media houses may find it strange but others outside of the media also 'live and die' by their convictions. That principle, one would think, the media houses would grant to all of us...and, that would not exclude the PM?

      ...but, then the media houses may think they have moved beyond responding to a higher calling and now believe they banded together sit on the highest throne - have become 'The Highest'?! How dare any one of us have opinions that differ from their own!

      Hey...there is a saying, "What is good for goose, is good for the gander"!

      Rightly or wrongly the PM believes the media houses are biased towards the JLP and has said so. The media houses either believe in what they do or they do not! They should act according to that belief, not attack those of us who may differ. Yup - a good response to the PM would have been to present facts showing the correctness or otherwise of their stance. Hey...the media stands for fairness, isn't it the Most High and therefore defends right?
      Last edited by Karl; June 13, 2007, 09:15 AM.
      "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

      Comment


      • #4
        The media didn't portray Portia as a sketel ... Portia did that all by herself. Then again, you're a good comrade so you'll embarrass yuhself to defend Portia.
        "Jamaica's future reflects its past, having attained only one per cent annual growth over 30 years whilst neighbours have grown at five per cent." (Article)

        Comment


        • #5
          I wouldn't take our sport writers too seriously about anything. And this is not to continue a "fight" with sickko. I say that with all due respect to the many good people in sports journalism/reporting.


          BLACK LIVES MATTER

          Comment


          • #6
            Tonight, Comedy Central will air the first in a cartoon series called L'il Bush. I'm sure Bush will not be portrayed as having a lick of sense in that thick head of his.

            Could that ever happen in Jamaica?


            BLACK LIVES MATTER

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mosiah View Post
              Tonight, Comedy Central will air the first in a cartoon series called L'il Bush. I'm sure Bush will not be portrayed as having a lick of sense in that thick head of his.

              Could that ever happen in Jamaica?
              Some people need to watch Bill Maher on HBO. He would be unemployed if he was in Jamaica.
              "Jamaica's future reflects its past, having attained only one per cent annual growth over 30 years whilst neighbours have grown at five per cent." (Article)

              Comment


              • #8
                Bill Maher and Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and every other comedian.


                BLACK LIVES MATTER

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mosiah View Post
                  Tonight, Comedy Central will air the first in a cartoon series called L'il Bush. I'm sure Bush will not be portrayed as having a lick of sense in that thick head of his.

                  Could that ever happen in Jamaica?
                  Why not?

                  ...and, btw -
                  ...my point was if the media can dish it out...the media must be able to take it!
                  "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Why not? I don't know, because it certainly does not happen in Jamaica. When people barely mek fun of our leaders they get themselves into a tizzy and cry "no fair!"


                    BLACK LIVES MATTER

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      You mixing appless and oranges.

                      The media is not a monolithic bloc.

                      Finally, no politician has ever received the villification that Seaga did, but there were no protests from you...I am sure.

                      If you are in the public sphere, then tek U licks like an adult.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Willi View Post
                        You mixing appless and oranges.

                        The media is not a monolithic bloc.

                        Finally, no politician has ever received the villification that Seaga did, but there were no protests from you...I am sure.

                        If you are in the public sphere, then tek U licks like an adult.
                        Seaga?

                        Depends what the licks were about. If it was, in my mind, unfair...dem hit unfair...I wouold have defended him.

                        Matters not if the media is monolithic or no.
                        If 'it' is seem as unfair and or for any reason the person thinks worthy of licks...it must stand and tek 'its' licks.

                        Simple - If it gives it out, it must be able to take it.
                        Where would be the willingness to have itself tested be...self-policing?

                        It is not unkown for Media houses have from time to time to hidden under the banner of being impartial and fair when serving own and or owner's and or a particular bloc's private interests.
                        "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          "If it was, in my mind, unfair...dem hit unfair...I wouold have defended him."

                          Is there anyone on this forum that actually believed Karl? No ... stop laughing people .. seriously!!!
                          "Jamaica's future reflects its past, having attained only one per cent annual growth over 30 years whilst neighbours have grown at five per cent." (Article)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Lazie View Post
                            "If it was, in my mind, unfair...dem hit unfair...I wouold have defended him."

                            Is there anyone on this forum that actually believed Karl? No ... stop laughing people .. seriously!!!
                            ...defended him, on that issue! You certainly do not think I would defend him for the wrongs I have marked against him...do you?
                            "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Karl View Post
                              The question of freedom of expression and the right to 'journalistic freedom' is one the media holds dear.

                              The media is powerful. Some media types boast that the media is all powerful.

                              Isn't it interesting to note that the PM thinks she is not getting a fair shake from the media and voices same...and, the media, the same media that 'claimed for itself' the right to term the PM a sketel in an EDITORIAL - albeit EDITORIAL laughing at/mocking of/ridiculing/tearing down of/debasing the PM/taking a not too subtle attack at the PM's ability to lead/in effect sending a message to, at the very least some members of the population that there should be a vote against the PM and her party...are now saying that the freedom to speak its mind is A-OK...but, the PM's right to speak her mind is not a freedom she should enjoy?

                              Can it be A-OK for the media to not exercise restraint in the public good...not use good judgement in actions?

                              Oh...it will be argued that the public good is served to destroy the image of the PM. After all, all is fair in attempts to drive the PM out of office...
                              ...but, the question arises what gives the media the right to portray the PM as a sketel and at the same time the right to be not called to accounts for what the PM sees as flawed actions?

                              ...who confered on the media types the right to tear-down any person they so wish without consequences?

                              Does the person at the receiving end of that 'tear-down' attempt have any right to put the media under the microscope? ...does anyone have a right to put the media under the microscope?

                              Frankly I have noticed the Observer in EDITORIALS defending Bora's actions and I have serious doubts about the reasoning explained. If fact, I think the person and or persons...the Observer (Aren't EDITORIALS expressed opinions and postions of the media house releasing same?) - does not have a clue what it is defending where Bora's actions are concerned.

                              In my mind, the EDITORIALS defending Bora's actions are based on ignorance of how TEAMs are formed and our ignorance of what holds with the TOP OF THE WORLD expert footballing nations. In short, in my mind, a nonsense position. A wrong being perpetuated!

                              Is the Observer and its media collegues now going to declare me as unfair for exercising my right to disagree and to critisize its position? ...and, if a group of citizens/football loving/Jamaica loving citizens...yet misguided citizens...start shouting in the faces of Observer staff and or the staff of all media houses...and, or start threatening Observer staff and or all media staff...is the Observer going to start claiming, There is an emerging sense of militancy among some media personnel who believe that it is already time to send a signal to the lovers of Jamaica's football (the football party) that journalists will not sit idly by and take any abuse from football party supporters?

                              My thoughts were media types lived and died by their convictions. They were guided by a 'higher calling'...and, no amount of discussing in open or on verandahs/patios/cocktail parties/sports arenas/rum bars/churches/etc... a disagreement or disagreements with stated position(s) would cause a budge...even a small budge from 'the 'principled position' founded in belief.

                              Well the media houses may find it strange but others outside of the media also 'live and die' by their convictions. That principle, one would think, the media houses would grant to all of us...and, that would not exclude the PM?

                              ...but, then the media houses may think they have moved beyond responding to a higher calling and now believe they banded together sit on the highest throne - have become 'The Highest'?! How dare any one of us have opinions that differ from their own!

                              Hey...there is a saying, "What is good for goose, is good for the gander"!

                              Rightly or wrongly the PM believes the media houses are biased towards the JLP and has said so. The media houses either believe in what they do or they do not! They should act according to that belief, not attack those of us who may differ. Yup - a good response to the PM would have been to present facts showing the correctness or otherwise of their stance. Hey...the media stands for fairness, isn't it the Most High and therefore defends right?
                              It appears you have completely missed the point.

                              The issue is not if there is a media bias.. the issue is how the Prime Minister in an election year chose to address her concern.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X