The G2K samba

The irony could not be richer. The accuser has become the accused, and the purported victim the would-be victimiser.

Nearly six years ago, on Tuesday, February 14, 2006, The Gleaner reported, inter alia: "New president of the University and Allied Workers' Union (UAWU), Lambert Brown, came out swinging against the People's National Party (PNP) government on Sunday.

"The guest speaker at the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) Area One meeting held at Shortwood Teachers' College, St Andrew, Brown charged that Labourites were not doing enough to beat the PNP after 17 years in office.

"Among other things, he said, the party needed to develop better media and public-relations skills to win over uncommitted voters and counter what he said was the 'downright biased' coverage by news organisations."

The report added: "Arguing that the PNP groomed supporters to call talk shows, he said the JLP should emulate their example, and that the party needed to better 'talk up' the likes of Kingston's mayor, Desmond McKenzie, of whom he said no other mayor is comparable.

"The UAWU president had been invited on-stage by Area One chairman, Desmond McKenzie, to talk about the Memorandum of Understanding wage agreement between the Government and trade unions."

It seems young Delano Seiveright, president of G2K, the group of young professionals allied to the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), took copious notes but failed to engage his brain. As one of my late elderly neighbours used to say: "If you live long enough, you will see (and hear) everything." So here we are in 2011, and Brown and others have been similarly accused of being part of a generally biased media against the JLP, as he, Brown, did in 2006.

unsophisticated

The intensity of the media-bias charge is cyclical. Although always present, whenever political tension mounts on the cusp of a general election, railing accusations take on a new shrillness. Yet, for all the familiarity, last week's press conference by the G2K was remarkably unsophisticated, with all the elegance of an 800-pound elephant dancing the samba.

Seiveright specifically named three commentators as being hostile to his party and the incumbent government. He may as well have called a news conference to announce that he wears eyeglasses. If Seiveright can see through his thick lenses that these commentators are pro-People's National Party mouthpieces, why does he think readers and listeners are unable to discern similarly for themselves? The real issue is that politicians, whether PNP or JLP, whether practising in media, like Ronnie Thwaites, or on the sidelines, like Seiveright, tend to quarrel most frequently about media bias when they don't like the message at particular times. When the "bias" is on the other foot, it doesn't bother them.

In reality, the three named anti-JLP, anti-Bruce Golding 'villains' hardly constitute the totality of media offering.

Seiveright might have made a more compelling argument had he brought to the press conference a content analysis of news reports, as well as commentary from radio, television and newspapers, and said:

"Here is the evidence of distortion or outright lies. This is Fact A and Fact B; this is what was said and here is what was reported." But, that would be too much work.

Frankly, quite apart from any perception of bias, real or imagined, on the part of media personnel and news outlets, there is a bigger issue which G2K, the reputed young-professional arm of the JLP, should be concerned about addressing and which it seems less willing to undertake.

If G2K has something to say which its leadership thinks the wider Jamaican public should hear, it is going to have to learn a few lessons. For one thing, cussing out the media over perceived bias is self-defeating. Some media reaction to last week's criticism typically bordered on the hysterical, with RJR reporting that G2K had threatened "to launch an all-out attack" on its media critics.

Second, G2K needs some thinkers. For, despite the pervasiveness of opinionated contributors, analysts and commentators in media, people do not spend nearly as much of their waking hours listening to talk-show hosts as politicians apparently think.

Third, while reporters and their bosses are not beyond criticism, media gatekeepers are not going to be intimidated into doing his or any other party's bidding.

Of note, the background to Seiveright's complaint is that the "positive achievements" of the JLP Government are not being highlighted enough by media. But he failed to show, substantially, whether his angst resided in news reports, commentary as a whole, or both. Any political party that expects media outlets to provide ready-made, uncritical platforms from which to air their propaganda will fail before they start. Delano and his companions need to get up off their padded seats, spend less time listening to Garnet Roper's, Dickie Crawford's or Lambert Brown's tirades - if that is what they are - and get out in the field and do the hard work - the old-fashioned way, albeit with new technology.

identify mission and aim

If Seiveright cares to consult his elders, they will tell him that there was a time when the JLP had a very active group structure of constituency 'branches' whose members met regularly (not only when elections were near) to engage in discussions about the organisational state of their party and talk about wider public issues and specific matters affecting them at the grass roots. The PNP had something similar in their groups in which there used to be what was called 'public education'.

If today's young political activists are to serve a more useful purpose than they currently do, to the building of a better Jamaica, they will need to identify and articulate the main mission and aim of contemporary politics; the role that they expect to play and how the wider citizenry can be engaged. Are they the same as when their political 'fathers' entered the arena 30, 40 or 50 years ago?

If they are, what new methods are needed to get the job done? What do they understand by the concept of public service? Do they have any appreciation for the physical sweat and mental energy that it requires to engage in the process of building a better society and the kind of sustained application it will require? While the media can aid that process to a limited extent, they cannot function as mere conduits for the propaganda of any particular group and maintain their credibility for long.

Today's under-40-year-olds may not be as willing to sit on wooden benches, metallic or plastic chairs in a poorly ventilated classroom the way their parents and grandparents did to share political information - not when they can easily send instant messages to each other on their smartphones. But they must be challenged to move away from their self-indulgent whining to address in a more meaningful way the problems of the country. After all the tweeting and Facebook exchanges, what will they do with the information? And will they be bothered to go out and join the lines moving at snail's pace on election day to cast a vote?

The problem with Seiveright and his counterparts on the other side of the political divide is that they have developed a sense of entitlement to the gravy train, a yearning to profile in SUVs as soon as they leave school, while remaining out of touch with significant segments of the population who are not impressed with their tribalism. There remains a critical mass of people who have given up on the political process and who still yearn for a better standard of living for themselves, their children and grandchildren. They want intelligent information and discourse, and not just the kind of 'Star Bwoy', K.D. Knight, nonsense of last week as the PNP caravan rolled across the island.

Seiveright's call for balanced media fare is not without merit, notwithstanding his self-service, but there is a bigger project - nation building through public service - to which he and his colleagues need to turn their energies.

Colin Steer is editor of The Sunday Gleaner. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and colin.steer@gleanerjm.com.