Editorial | ECJ, the code and the press

The Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ) has, up to now, been silent on the recent political targeting of journalists employed to this newspaper, and on The Gleaner’s suggestion that behaviour and speech that might incite violence against a free press and its reporters be forbidden under the Political Code of Conduct.

Should the ECJ not be aware, or does not recall, this issue is appropriately within its remit. In February, Parliament – wrongly in this newspaper’s and many other people’s view – amended the Political Ombudsman (Interim) Act to subsume the office of the Political Ombudsman into the ECJ. All members of the commission, including those appointed by political parties, carry out the ombudsman’s role ‘indivisibly’.

More important, the matter we raise is live and real, and has implications for people’s lives and safety. Which is why, even if they cannot physically protect journalists, the ECJ/Political Ombudsman must pay attention and act in accordance with their remit.

Earlier this month a video, whose generation was apparently AI-assisted, emerged on social media with unfounded and spurious accusations of The Gleaner being against the current administration, and suggesting that the paper’s reporting was skewed to encourage the defeat of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) at the next election.

The nonsense of that argument notwithstanding, it might otherwise have been ignored if the assault was only on The Gleaner as an institution. But what made this video particularly egregious and dangerous was its naming of six of The Gleaner’s senior reporters who, supposedly, are viscerally anti-government and act in support and at the behest of the Opposition People’s National Party (PNP).

PLACING BULL’S EYES

In a historically volatile and political environment that grows increasingly febrile as an election approaches, that is tantamount to placing bull’s eyes on these reporters’ backs.

When asked at a press conference, the information minister, Dana Morris Dixon, declared the Government’s support for a free and independent media and implicitly condemned the targeting of the reporters. As did Horace Chang, the general secretary of the JLP, in a letter responding to a written complaint by The Gleaner’s editor-in- chief.

Prime Minister Andrew Holness has also insisted on his commitment to a free and independent media and the safety of journalists, without that being a limitation to his government and party’s use of alternative sources to transmit information to voters.

These interventions notwithstanding, the perpetrators of the assault did not relent. There was a new, slanderous attack on the previously targeted journalists and on the RJRGLEANER, of which this newspaper is a member.

Clearly, neither the administration nor the ruling party can be held specifically liable for what hot-headed supporters do on their own accord. But political parties can be indirectly complicit if they create or contribute to the creation of an environment for these attacks by failing to aggressively rein in members and supporters who engage in such behaviour, or do things that encourage them.

That is the context for our surprise that the JLP has not repudiated its member of parliament and former minister, Everald Warmington, for his public targeting of RJRGLEANER and, by extension, its reporters. He, spuriously, claimed that RJRGLEANER brought down the former JLP leader, Edward Seaga (presumably when he was in Opposition), as well as the JLP prime minister of the 2010s, Bruce Golding. Now, he claims, the target is Mr Holness.

In his latest rant at a public rally, Mr Warmington said: “If the Labour Party comes out tomorrow and say they condemn me attacking the media, it cannot quiet me.”

Mr Warmington, in that speech, said he was happy to speak ahead of the arrival of Mr Holness, to give the prime minister cover from association with his remarks. Mr Warmington, insofar as we are aware, has not been rebuked by his party.

POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS

As we have noted, such tirades, particularly when they target individuals, are potentially dangerous. It is why The Gleaner has in the past called out inappropriate statements by politicians, and why we called on both the JLP and the PNP to formally, and perhaps jointly, declare their commitment to a free press and insist that members eschew targeting reporters. That in no way delimits the right to parties to air legitimate criticism of media or to highlight their errors and omissions – deliberately made or not.

But we also believe that there should be a formal mechanism – outside the civil courts in matters of defamation, or the criminal ones in the event of an offence against the person or a journalist – for the airing and determination of political attacks and incendiary speech against the press, of the kind aimed at the six Gleaner reporters.

Under the law, the Political Ombudsman is empowered to investigate and rule on behaviour that “constitutes or is likely to constitute a breach of any agreement, code or arrangement, for the time being in force, between or among political parties in Jamaica”.

The law speaks about inflammatory language that is likely to incite confrontation or violence. However, the existing Code of Political Conduct does not specifically address assaults on media that are capable of undermining a free press, a key pillar of a properly functioning democracy.

The ECJ has been excellent in organising and managing the mechanics of free and fair elections. It has little experience in handling these ethical/philosophical issues, which, with respect to its new role as political ombudsman, is likely to be compounded by an unwieldy setup in which partisan voices are part of the discourse.

Nonetheless, the ECJ should urgently begin the process of updating the Political Code of Conduct to include specific endorsement and protection of the role of the press in a free and democratic society.