Tweet
Openness, accountability and the public trust
Claude Robinson
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Fresh from his swift and commendable move to correct two early missteps of the new administration, Prime Minister Bruce Golding has been giving other indications of seriousness about his much repeated commitment to a new style of governance.
Claude Robinson
In an interview on Impact with Cliff Hughes broadcast Wednesday night, he repeated his campaign promise to establish new mechanisms to make Parliament more alive and relevant and give more authority to the Opposition.
Specifically, he would honour the pledge to appoint members of the Opposition to chair all the critical committees that will monitor the decisions of the executive.
Consideration will also be given to allowing the Opposition to make statements in the House on urgent public matters, a privilege now reserved for ministers.
And while Mr Golding is considering new initiatives to the work of Parliament, I recommend introduction of 'prime minister's question time' along the lines of the British House of Commons where MPs probe the prime minister on any and all matters. That would liven up the House!
With the swearing-in of the new members of parliament Thursday (minus the representative of eastern Hanover still mired in legal and political controversy), the way is now clear for the prime minister to give concrete expression to his words.
In the same Impact interview, Mr Golding announced that Justice Hugh Small will chair a committee to make recommendations to reform current libel and defamation laws; a controversial issue that Caribbean media owners have been grappling with for more than a decade.
The new prime minister has long been an advocate of libel reform, arguing in the 2006 Budget debate that a Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) government would like "new libel laws that protect the law-abiding, not laws that provide a firewall of protection for scoundrels".
Supporters for retaining the present laws say they are a necessary restraint on publication of potentially defamatory statements by irresponsible journalists and media owners who desire freedom to damage the reputation of public officials and other individuals with impunity.
While we wait to see how the new Parliament will work, especially one with a razor-thin majority and an opposition leader pledging to hold the Government's feet to the fire of scrutiny, early signs are that the Government is listening and will reverse itself in the face of compelling arguments.
By taking the right steps "to remove any appearance of conflict of interest" which Senator Wehby's "continued relationship" with GraceKennedy "might cause", the Government not only acted properly but set a new standard for examining the movement of business leaders from the private sector into sensitive positions at the highest level of policy-making in government.
In the second matter, the Government should also be commended for reversing itself and deciding to continue the tradition of post-Cabinet press briefings, albeit in a different format.
Relationship between media and political life
As these developments unfold, and with the tension over coverage of the general elections as a background, it is clear that we need a new conversation about the relationship between media and political life.
Concern about the relationship between media and political life is a global debate, and I am very grateful to former UWI vice-chancellor Professor Rex Nettleford for bringing to my attention a very thoughtful article in The Guardian of Saturday, August 25, 2007, probing the question, 'What's wrong with television?'
The article by the respected journalist and television anchor Jeremy Paxman is, in part, a commentary on earlier remarks by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair who described the news media in the United Kingdom as "a pack of feral beasts".
Blair, according to Paxman's analysis of the speech, defined the source of the problem of the British news media as "hugely increased competition, which makes impact by far the most important consideration in broadcasting because impact gives competitive edge".
In a choice between impact and accuracy, impact wins. In order to make an impact, reporters are more likely to be sensational and use extravagant language to make a point.
The old journalistic distinction between fact and opinion in news stories is increasingly being discarded. Just make sure the audience are shocked or jolted or revolted.
Furthermore, Paxman argues, too many people in television believe that the answer to the question, "what is television?' is "to make money".
Programmes deemed to be in the public good have no place in the television schedule. The same goes for children's programmes; and the requirement for private broadcasters to carry public service programming has been abandoned.
While noting that Blair had spent too much time 'handling the media' while trivialising Parliament and Cabinet when he was head of government, Paxman believes that the substance of the former prime minister's complaint was valid, namely: The media spend too much time on "triviality, short-sightedness, [and] preoccupation with conflict".
I have quoted extensively from The Guardian commentary on the state of British television and media, because I believe some of the issues are relevant to our own circumstances and go beyond television to the news media in general.
The rapid expansion of media outlets, encouraged by the liberal media and information policies of the Patterson administration has resulted in intense competition for audiences and advertising revenue.
Media managers spend less financial and other resources in developing quality journalism. News programmes have to make noise, and the more crowded the market place the more noise you have to make to have impact.
In this environment media people sometimes forget that the justification of all journalism remains the same as it has been through time. As Paxman elegantly put it, the justification is, "To inquire, to explain and to hold account. The news may have been dull, but it was respected because it made sense of the day."
By the way, there is nothing wrong with journalists being likened to 'feral beasts', if feral means 'untamed'.
The public interest is not served by a tame press. In that sense, it's better to be a 'feral beast' than a poodle. If the relationship between the press and politics gets too cosy the press may forget that their primary responsibility is to the people as citizens.
As I have said repeatedly in this space, the press must retain its scepticism and independence from political or commercial pressure.
At the same time, the search for financial viability and audience does not remove the need to be fair and accurate. This requires investment in journalism and a recognition that the primary duty of the news media is to the citizen (as distinct from the consumer) is 'to inquire, to explain and to hold account'. It's not about making noise or making an impact.
Taking a break
Recently, I was engaged in conversation by a man in a car park in New Kingston who identified himself as an occasional reader of this column, for which I thanked him.
After discussing some of his own concerns with the media he said that my columns tend to offer a balanced view on issues. While he appreciated the need for balance and fairness he remarked that, I very rarely expressed my own opinion.
He said that I should be more forthright in expressing personal opinions because that would help people like himself, whom he described as 'the little people' to form their own opinions.
I disagreed, explaining that what I have been trying to do in this space over the past three-and-a-half years has been to provide information and insight that readers may find useful in forming their own opinion on public issues. I was not trying to get people to agree with me.
We parted amicably and agreed to reflect on each other's position. I recall the exchange as I am about to take a break for a couple of weeks to reflect on the new political situation in the country and how best I can contribute, in this space, "to inquire, to explain and to hold account".
Claude Robinson is research fellow at the Mona School of Business. kcr@cwjamaica.com
Claude Robinson
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Fresh from his swift and commendable move to correct two early missteps of the new administration, Prime Minister Bruce Golding has been giving other indications of seriousness about his much repeated commitment to a new style of governance.
Claude Robinson
In an interview on Impact with Cliff Hughes broadcast Wednesday night, he repeated his campaign promise to establish new mechanisms to make Parliament more alive and relevant and give more authority to the Opposition.
Specifically, he would honour the pledge to appoint members of the Opposition to chair all the critical committees that will monitor the decisions of the executive.
Consideration will also be given to allowing the Opposition to make statements in the House on urgent public matters, a privilege now reserved for ministers.
And while Mr Golding is considering new initiatives to the work of Parliament, I recommend introduction of 'prime minister's question time' along the lines of the British House of Commons where MPs probe the prime minister on any and all matters. That would liven up the House!
With the swearing-in of the new members of parliament Thursday (minus the representative of eastern Hanover still mired in legal and political controversy), the way is now clear for the prime minister to give concrete expression to his words.
In the same Impact interview, Mr Golding announced that Justice Hugh Small will chair a committee to make recommendations to reform current libel and defamation laws; a controversial issue that Caribbean media owners have been grappling with for more than a decade.
The new prime minister has long been an advocate of libel reform, arguing in the 2006 Budget debate that a Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) government would like "new libel laws that protect the law-abiding, not laws that provide a firewall of protection for scoundrels".
Supporters for retaining the present laws say they are a necessary restraint on publication of potentially defamatory statements by irresponsible journalists and media owners who desire freedom to damage the reputation of public officials and other individuals with impunity.
While we wait to see how the new Parliament will work, especially one with a razor-thin majority and an opposition leader pledging to hold the Government's feet to the fire of scrutiny, early signs are that the Government is listening and will reverse itself in the face of compelling arguments.
By taking the right steps "to remove any appearance of conflict of interest" which Senator Wehby's "continued relationship" with GraceKennedy "might cause", the Government not only acted properly but set a new standard for examining the movement of business leaders from the private sector into sensitive positions at the highest level of policy-making in government.
In the second matter, the Government should also be commended for reversing itself and deciding to continue the tradition of post-Cabinet press briefings, albeit in a different format.
Relationship between media and political life
As these developments unfold, and with the tension over coverage of the general elections as a background, it is clear that we need a new conversation about the relationship between media and political life.
Concern about the relationship between media and political life is a global debate, and I am very grateful to former UWI vice-chancellor Professor Rex Nettleford for bringing to my attention a very thoughtful article in The Guardian of Saturday, August 25, 2007, probing the question, 'What's wrong with television?'
The article by the respected journalist and television anchor Jeremy Paxman is, in part, a commentary on earlier remarks by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair who described the news media in the United Kingdom as "a pack of feral beasts".
Blair, according to Paxman's analysis of the speech, defined the source of the problem of the British news media as "hugely increased competition, which makes impact by far the most important consideration in broadcasting because impact gives competitive edge".
In a choice between impact and accuracy, impact wins. In order to make an impact, reporters are more likely to be sensational and use extravagant language to make a point.
The old journalistic distinction between fact and opinion in news stories is increasingly being discarded. Just make sure the audience are shocked or jolted or revolted.
Furthermore, Paxman argues, too many people in television believe that the answer to the question, "what is television?' is "to make money".
Programmes deemed to be in the public good have no place in the television schedule. The same goes for children's programmes; and the requirement for private broadcasters to carry public service programming has been abandoned.
While noting that Blair had spent too much time 'handling the media' while trivialising Parliament and Cabinet when he was head of government, Paxman believes that the substance of the former prime minister's complaint was valid, namely: The media spend too much time on "triviality, short-sightedness, [and] preoccupation with conflict".
I have quoted extensively from The Guardian commentary on the state of British television and media, because I believe some of the issues are relevant to our own circumstances and go beyond television to the news media in general.
The rapid expansion of media outlets, encouraged by the liberal media and information policies of the Patterson administration has resulted in intense competition for audiences and advertising revenue.
Media managers spend less financial and other resources in developing quality journalism. News programmes have to make noise, and the more crowded the market place the more noise you have to make to have impact.
In this environment media people sometimes forget that the justification of all journalism remains the same as it has been through time. As Paxman elegantly put it, the justification is, "To inquire, to explain and to hold account. The news may have been dull, but it was respected because it made sense of the day."
By the way, there is nothing wrong with journalists being likened to 'feral beasts', if feral means 'untamed'.
The public interest is not served by a tame press. In that sense, it's better to be a 'feral beast' than a poodle. If the relationship between the press and politics gets too cosy the press may forget that their primary responsibility is to the people as citizens.
As I have said repeatedly in this space, the press must retain its scepticism and independence from political or commercial pressure.
At the same time, the search for financial viability and audience does not remove the need to be fair and accurate. This requires investment in journalism and a recognition that the primary duty of the news media is to the citizen (as distinct from the consumer) is 'to inquire, to explain and to hold account'. It's not about making noise or making an impact.
Taking a break
Recently, I was engaged in conversation by a man in a car park in New Kingston who identified himself as an occasional reader of this column, for which I thanked him.
After discussing some of his own concerns with the media he said that my columns tend to offer a balanced view on issues. While he appreciated the need for balance and fairness he remarked that, I very rarely expressed my own opinion.
He said that I should be more forthright in expressing personal opinions because that would help people like himself, whom he described as 'the little people' to form their own opinions.
I disagreed, explaining that what I have been trying to do in this space over the past three-and-a-half years has been to provide information and insight that readers may find useful in forming their own opinion on public issues. I was not trying to get people to agree with me.
We parted amicably and agreed to reflect on each other's position. I recall the exchange as I am about to take a break for a couple of weeks to reflect on the new political situation in the country and how best I can contribute, in this space, "to inquire, to explain and to hold account".
Claude Robinson is research fellow at the Mona School of Business. kcr@cwjamaica.com