Jamaican media and democracy
Responding to last week's column on the predicament Rupert Murdoch's media empire finds itself in and issues they raise for Jamaican media, a reader sent me an interesting email.
I reproduce the interchange here with minor editorial change and cuts to meet the word limit.
"On any level, your ideas are only partially right, and your attempt to make generalisations about our politico-economic situation under the assumption that you 'the journalist' are more accurate, knowledgeable and objective and, hence, trustworthy than the politician, is demonstrably false. One has only to listen to Fox and its news and commentary and to read the publications of the right-wing press, to realise that editors, reporters, commentators and news anchors have agendas just like politicians. Newspapers often have only one constant guiding principle: 'Is it profitable for our shareholders?'
"In our democracy so far, we can vote out the politician, but The Gleaner, for example, can pursue a long-term agenda since its writings often are taken as holy writ and are very influential for many of our people - not necessarily the least educated.
"Delano Seiveright, president of G2K, to use a football metaphor, felt a contact as he dribbled near the 18-yard line and fell down in apparent agony, rolling over twice. You - referee - should have given a free kick. You are wrong in giving him a red card and sending him off for simulation. Why?
"Newspapers also have hidden agendas. Perusal of their contents over time often shows bias, and they do try to influence voters by various devices for their own selfish ends. He is, therefore, on to something when he tries to fly a kite about ethics for journalists and commentators, even though he does not have a hope in hell of attaining a general agreement about that anywhere in the Western World. Delano is wrong to be worried, because newspapers, according to some pollsters, are even less believable than politicians."
Here's my response: I should point out that I am not a journalist. I would and never should claim that professional qualification. Writing for a newspaper or making comments on radio or TV do not a journalist create.
A bit of history: The editor-in-chief of The Gleaner wished for me, initially, to write on the Jamaican economy, business and financial issues. My columns appeared in The Gleaner's Wednesday Business, which, if my recall is correct, led to my writing for the Friday weekly Financial Gleaner. I suggested that to concentrate on the issues they wanted covered would be, for me, stifling. I never would agree to confine my writings to the stock market, inflation and savings rates, etc. Their solution was not to pass me over to the editorial page of the Sunday paper or 'In Focus' but to have me continue with the Financial Gleaner, while giving me latitude to cover other issues in 'commentary'.
I write columns of 'opinion', obviously my opinions, however formed. So I consider myself what has come to be known as an 'Op-Ed Columnist'. That title, description, derives from an historical practice in United States newspapers or journalism, in which an interested person, whom the editorial staff of the newspaper considered worthy and competent, was asked to give opinion on current matters thought to be of interest, or importance to the town, or place that the newspaper covered. Their columns generally appeared on the page opposite that of the newspaper's editorial, hence 'opposite editorial' or 'Op-Ed'. Such writers never usually went through journalism school.
I am an economist by training and a student of society - with, of course, the economy as my major focus. I'm not sure if I know you, I can't recall (beautiful phrase!) if I do, but that's irrelevant.
I am a Caribbean nationalist who knows - note, I don't say believe! - that we inhabit a place of tremendous beauty, capacity (historically demonstrated), blessings, potential. Yet we have never, not yet, been able to achieve what's possible.
I have taught people - children including my own, teenagers, adults - for the greater part of my life. I am not materially wealthy, but feel I possess much 'uncommon wealth', a deep understanding of our Caribbean society honed over half a century that includes particularly, the teachings of my father, research, reading, participant observation and ordinary 'living' in the Caribbean, Britain, United States, etc.
My major asset resides in two attributes: the quality of my evolved, trained mind and depth of knowledge acquired through a lifetime of inquisitiveness, and my reputation for integrity. You must be aware of Shakespeare's notion of the difference between stealing my purse versus taking away my reputation.
I am from a family of professionals: lawyers, doctor, artist, linguist, homemaker, explorers and adventurers, plus, I must tell you, at least one adventurer turned vagabond. I try to share my acquired knowledge and experience, through my opinion columns. I consider neither myself, nor opinions to be, as you wrongfully assert, "more accurate, knowledgeable and objective and, hence, trustworthy than the politician". I don't know from whence you would arrive at such an opinion. I try never to pontificate nor assume holier-than-thou attitudes in what I write.
You are clearly someone who keeps abreast of the goings, on around you. This makes me happy. When I consider abandoning this column - and I often do - because of a feeling that it matters so little, someone emerges who makes me think that my minuscule efforts may, perhaps, make a difference. You've done this.
Pardon the length of this response, for I have not the time to go over it and squeeze it into a briefer email. Did you take the point of the Harpy Eagle, the Guyanese predator bird with the broadest wingspan on the planet? And the politician as falconer? Have you seen the book about Dudus the President?"
I should add that Fox News is an overtly right-wing propaganda machine. Accuracy, objectivity, trustworthiness and the like, in the end, depend on verifiable fact and judgement of one's readership.

