Basil Jarrett | Social media, free press and corruption

LAST WEEK, billionaire Elon Musk decided that buying a spaceship wasn’t enough for the world’s richest man. Perhaps Musk realised that owning Mars wasn’t as easy as owning half of Earth, so he decided to do something a bit more pedestrian with his money. And what’s more pedestrian than spending $44 billion on…Twitter?! My grandmother used to say, “Dog have money, him buy cheese,” and while I can see the wisdom in that adage, I can think of a lot of ‘other’ cheeses that I could spend my money on. But, alas, who knows if I had that sort of money what I would actually buy. TikTok, perhaps?

Musk’s purchase of Twitter has left a number of people scratching their heads. After all, aside from the commercial value of the social media platform, why else would anyone be interested in a communications app that limits your communication to 280 characters? Following the purchase, Musk declared, “Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated. Twitter has tremendous potential – I look forward to working with the company and users to unlock it.”

But what does this capture really mean for Twitter and its 200 million subscribers? More specifically, what does it mean for free speech and a free press? Many observers and free-speech watchdogs have questioned whether Musk’s move would undermine, rather than bolster, democracy. Fears abound that Musk may try to erode Twitter’s recent attempts to protect marginalised users and tackle harassment and misinformation.

While I am admittedly not a fan of Twitter, I am a big believer in the importance of free speech, a free press and their role in a democratic society. I’m also a big believer that sunlight is the best disinfectant. While that may not have been necessarily true against the COVID virus, it has certainly been true for those of us on the anti-corruption frontlines, where a free press has been absolutely vital in discouraging and dissuading persons from corruption. Well, for most of the world that is. You see, more and more, the statement that Jamaica is not a real place, is quickly becoming more than a social media meme. Despite being ranked highly, at No. 7 globally, for press freedom, we inexplicably rank near the bottom for corruption. Everywhere else, however, there is a significant correlation between high levels of press freedom and lower levels of corruption, all other variables being equal of course. This is why, whenever any serious dictator worth two cents ascends to the throne, his first act is to either attack or try to own the free press, and to suppress free speech. Perhaps the simple answer is that press freedom and democracy are complements rather than substitutes in the fight against corruption, and ultimately, it’s the law that has the real teeth in the anti-corruption fight.

But what does all of this have to do with Musk, Twitter and a few misplaced naughty pics? One of the least appreciated impacts of social media today is a possible deleterious effect on the corruption-discouraging effects of the free press. I’m not saying that social media encourages or facilitates corruption, but rather, that it reduces the effectiveness of one of our most critical corruption watchdogs, the free press.

Now, before you start gathering your pitchforks to chase me out of the room with another ‘oh-no-not-another-anti-Twitter, anti-social-media rant’, hear me out. Studies have shown that in real countries – which we’ve accepted that Jamaica is not – a free press typically helps to lower the level of corruption, simply because there is an increased likelihood that the corrupt individual may be found out and exposed, particularly through aggressive and dogged investigate journalism. What social media does, however, by widening the available communications options, is to challenge advertisers to spread an ever-dwindling dollar right across the board, just to remain visible.

What this means, in a nutshell, is that advertising dollars which would typically be spent in a traditional news house with properly staffed and resourced reporters and journalists, now has to be spread out across a wider landscape, to include TikTok content creators. This not only results in lowered earnings and income for traditional media and news houses, but also makes it difficult for them to attract and retain the best reporters and news hounds. This is part of the reason why we’ve seen such consolidation of media outlets in recent times. Advertising revenues have plummeted, restricting their ability to continue to do the type of disinfecting journalism that keeps corrupt persons and corrupt acts at bay.

The short answer and logical conclusion may be that traditional media must embrace social media more and attempt to harness the technology for its own journalistic benefit, as opposed to seeing the technology as a competitor or disruptor; and to their credit, they have. But there is no denying that there is a worrying paucity of investigative journalism here in Jamaica today. After all, how do you fit all the sordid details of some very complex financial crimes into 280 characters? Add an emoji, perhaps?

I am not trying to put the social media genie back in the bottle. That horse has already bolted. What I am suggesting, instead, is that a free and democratic society must ensure that the survival of the free press is guaranteed. It is not only critical to a democratic society, but is also a fundamental part of any country’s effort to discourage and reduce its level of corruption.

Major Basil Jarrett is a communications strategist and CEO of Artemis Consulting, a communications consulting firm specialising in crisis communications and reputation management. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.