by Sir Arthur Foulkes
There is bound to be tension between politicians and the media in a democracy. As a certain television commercial used to say, it has always been thus. At certain times, such as election season or when there is a particularly hot issue or when a government or individual politician gets into hot water, the tension is likely to mount.
Bahamians are already looking to the next general election, there are a lot of hot issues and the government of the day is in hot water – at least in the eyes of its critics and opponents. So it is not surprising that tensions between some politicians and the media should heighten.
All politicians are pleased when the media gives coverage to the good things they do or say. But some tend to get quite agitated when the media gives them short shrift, and the more sensitive ones get downright apoplectic when the media dares to point out their mistakes.
It can be discouraging when a parliamentarian makes what he thinks is a brilliant contribution to a particular debate and gets only a few lines -- or no lines at all -- in the press. He is more likely to think that the press is out to get him rather than that his contribution might not have been as interesting as he thought.
It is not that the people responsible for the media get it right all the time. They have a big job to do; they are human, and they often make mistakes for one reason or another.
The media have a number of functions to perform in a democratic society. A prime function is to give the people accurate information about what is happening in their community and the world.
The more important that information is, the more depth, context and interpretation it should be given by responsible media outlets, especially the press; and this should be done as objectively as possible.
Context can include recalling and comparing what a politician says today with what he said yesterday about a particular matter, especially if it appears to be a contradiction.
Obviously, there are endless possibilities for mistakes and sometimes important stories can be missed altogether or misinterpreted because of the lack of good judgment, insight or experience. Sensible politicians will find that most reporters, and certainly editors, will not take offence if this is pointed out to them.
Another function of the media is to lead public debate and to act as a forum for the development and exposition of public opinion. I believe it is better when these two functions are kept separate so that the public can easily tell the difference between information and opinion. This is what most reputable mainstream newspapers practice.
But sometimes opinion can be news. The media can be justified in seeking and reporting as news the opinion of qualified persons or even the general public in certain cases; for example, a controversial ruling by the Speaker of the House of Assembly would almost demand it.
However, I believe it tends to erode confidence and arouse suspicion when journalists frequently drag opinion into their reportage, especially when those opinions are controversial and attributed to unnamed sources. It is certainly wrong to allow personal attacks from behind the veil of anonymity.
It is in the forum of conflicting opinion and debate that the relationship between politicians and the media tends to get really messy. Politicians, like everybody else, have a perfect right to respond vigorously to media criticisms, and responsible editors will feel duty-bound to accommodate them.
What is totally out of line, however, is for governments and individual politicians to attempt intimidation and threaten sanctions against any section of the media they happen to have a disagreement with.
It is not only out of line, it is foolhardy because the fraternity of journalists is likely to put aside its own differences, close ranks and make life difficult for so foolish a government or politician.
Freedom of the press -- which is really an extension of the freedom of citizens to exchange information and express opinions without fear – is an indispensable ingredient of our democracy.
Any attack on that freedom is likely to be viewed as an attack on democracy itself and is likely to raise the ire not only of locals but of the international community as well.
* * *
The press has an inescapable responsibility to protect members of the public from libel, and it is also in its own interest to do so since the law provides aggrieved persons with remedy in the event of failure. In some cases that remedy can be ruinous to the offender.
That is why lecturers in journalism go to great pains to make sure that their students understand the laws relating to libel before turning them loose on the public. It is also why responsible newspaper editors pay particular attention to this aspect of their duty to the public and to the institutions they control.
The law also provides remedy for members of the public in the case of slander. This has become a serious challenge for those who control the electronic media, especially hosts of radio talk shows which have become so popular with Bahamians in recent years.
It used to be said by some outsiders that Bahamians did not have a public opinion culture. That was not true, of course. That perception developed because so few Bahamians chose, as we used to say, to put pen to paper.
More Bahamians are writing today but the truth is that we have always had a strong oral tradition which manifested itself in great oratory in debates on matters local and international. These exercises took place in barrooms, clubs, barber shops, under silk cotton trees or wherever there was some shade.
This tradition was brilliantly captured by the late Eugene Dupuch in his Smokey Joe Says broadcasts over ZNS back in the 1940s.
Smokey, his relatives in the Babbie family and his friends would debate in colourful Bahamian vernacular, laced with humorous pretensions to high English, what Pop Simlet (Sir Roland Symonette) was up to in the House of Assembly as well as what Missa Hess (Nazi leader Rudolf Hess) was about when he parachuted into Britain in the middle of World War II.
According to Smokey’s narrative, when Hess pompously announced that he was “born and bred in Germany”, his British captors responded: “Well, yuh only johnny cake over here!”
So it was not surprising that, with the emancipation of radio by the FNM Government, Bahamians took to the airwaves with much relish. That was a good thing for our democracy, but as with most good things there are those who would spoil it.
There are the chronic callers who have an opinion on everything, the propagandists who deliberately or ignorantly spread misinformation, and the slanderers who seek to ruin the reputation of others.
All of these present a serious challenge to the talk show hosts, but it is a challenge they must take seriously and deal with responsibly. On some future occasion, the damage done to a person’s character may not, with all the goodwill in the world, be written off with an apology.
There are technical precautions that the radio stations can and should take and the talk show hosts should be aware that they place themselves and their proprietors at grave risk by exposing themselves and the public to these malicious slanderers.
They ought to know, too, that a court may be even more annoyed at them if they put their victims to the trouble of having to get affidavits because the tape recorder was not working.
Comments