Government and media

Martin Henry, Contributor

Yes, there are other things happening in the country.

Government and media here have unsheathed their swords again for another battle in a never-ending conflict. As a student of media and communication, I have more than a spectator's interest.

The latest cause of conflict is the action of the Government to redesign its formats for programmes presented on commercial media "in time allowed for government broadcasts" by law. The Government plans to move from the long-established 15-minute and 30-minute programme formats to shorter ones to be broadcast with greater frequency throughout the day.

Defending the Government's position, Minister of Information Daryl Vaz says the programmes aired by the Jamaica Information Service (JIS) in single blocks over the last 50 years were not adequate based on the technological changes now taking place. "Not because it has been used in one way for so long a time (means) that is the only way that it can be used," JIS has reported the minister saying.

"Some of this information is critical, that will explain a lot to the people as to why they are being affected in their various communities ... we have a responsibility and we make no apologies for that."

Attentive regulators

Vaz, who says the Government has sought advice from the Office of the Attorney General and the Broadcasting Commission about the legality of the new initiative, is arguing that there are checks in the system to ensure that the Government does not abuse the time it is allowed for daily broadcasts. "The regulators will be very attentive to this," he says, "and I know that the Media Association and the Press Association will be the watchdogs to highlight any area that they think is crossing the line from Government message to political propaganda."

The Government, he declares, is committed to keeping the populace informed using modern formats. Information on the extradition issue and the Manatt debacle seems to have been exempted, though. "The programme changes are something that we are totally within our right to do," the minister loudly pronounces. "We are utilising it in the way that we deem best to carry Government communication to the people ... just as everybody has adjusted their way of marketing or advertising over time."

Naturally, the media are up in arms. As the Caribbean Media Corporation reports it: "The Jamaica Government is heading towards a showdown with media owners after insisting that it would not back down from a new policy regarding how radio and television stations broadcast government programmes."

Actually, the reverse is more to the point: Media owners are heading towards a showdown with the Government over the matter. That's the power of media framing for you. The title and lead of the JIS counter-story are 'Vaz says Government committed to press freedom' and 'Minister with responsibility for information, Hon Daryl Vaz, has reiterated the Government's commitment to press freedom'.

The bone of contention, on the part of the media, is that shorter government spots throughout the day will distort and damage standard programming formats and will compromise differentiation among commercial broadcasters. In a full-page advertisement on Monday, May 3, World Press Freedom Day, the Media Association Jamaica Ltd (MAJ) said that the airing of Government of Jamaica news 10 times a day on all radio and television stations has the potential of:

i. Distorting media formats

ii. Undermining media houses by confusing the editorial profile of independent or non-government broadcasters, and

iii. Destroying brand identity and the commercial base on which media compete.

The MAJ has invoked the assistance of the Commonwealth Broadcasting Association (CBA) and has not ruled out having the Supreme Court rule on the matter.

The CBA has written to the Government to say: "This will damage the independence and credibility of media in Jamaica as well as reduce their commercial viability through the destruction of formats. We know of no Commonwealth country which has adopted such measures, and urge Jamaica - which has an excellent reputation for media freedom - to engage in discussion with the Jamaican media and to abandon this intended provision."

Some would argue that this is media serving media in the interest of media, which is not necessarily consonant with the public interest. The fundamental issue which the neutral court of justice will have to decide, I think, and without the benefit of precedence in the Commonwealth, is the issue of 'damage' - whether, in fact, the Government's intended course of action will produce the damaging results the MAJ is predicting.

Natural justice

Natural justice would dictate that a course of action which, on the face of it, is contractually 'legal' but which manifestly damages the interests of the other party in ways not foreseen or anticipated when the contract was entered, would be disallowed by the court. The matter of press freedom is only a secondary corollary, if it can be shown that damage does in fact occur, thus indirectly inhibiting press freedom.

Jamaica has one of the freest presses in the world, as things now stand. The CBA acknowledges this in its letter to the Government. Last year's Freedom House press freedom ranking placed Jamaica 16th out of 195 countries ranked, ahead of every other country in the Caribbean and with the powerhouses of English-speaking democracy ranking well below: the US, 25th; the UK, 31st; Canada, 28th; and Australia, 38th. Reporters Sans Frontieres has us at number 23 of 175, with the powerhouses now leading us, but not by a long shot. The United States is number 22 and the United Kingdom is number 21! Take your pick of rankings, the world agrees that we have a high level of press freedom here.

Almost by definition, there is an irreconcilable tension between Government and the media in open democratic societies, although both rely heavily on the other. The media 'watchdog' instinctively attacks Government, although, in general, not nearly with the depth vigour and tenacity which media lore would have us believe. The Government has vested interests both in restraining the hostile watchdog and in getting its information out to the public (both as standard need to know information and as propaganda) without the distorting filters and frames of the media.

In a generally non-self-critical media, the Boston Globe, a few years ago, ran a double entendre opinion piece, 'At war: government and the media', by Michael Socolow, a teacher of journalism at the University of Maine. Socolow recalled how President Roosevelt instructed his press adviser to acquire one of the national radio networks when the United States entered the Second World War so as to allow unmediated and direct communication with the American people.

Interpretation problems

Ultimately, no 'acquisition' took place but the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission 'arranged' for the networks to work closely with the Office of War Information to ensure government access to the airwaves. While praising the American system of private commercial media, Socolow noted the government's dilemma of "how to speak directly with the people ... journalists - then and now - interpret the government's action and words".

That system "trusts an essentially indefinable group of people ('the press') to serve the public interest by interposing itself between political authority and the citizenry". The US government at the time, Socolow noted, was developing "multiple strategies to connect directly with the people", as the Jamaican Government in this administration has been seeking to do.

Socolow's conclusion should detain us. "But the government," he said, "is not acting in a vacuum. It is reacting to a media environment marked by enormous hostility. Scepticism is healthy, but too many journalists practise reporting informed by a pessimistic cynicism. This corrosive attitude is damaging the news industry.

"The tension between the press and the (US) government has hypertrophied to the point that neither is acting in the public interest," he argued.

"It is time for these two adversaries to discuss the patterns of behaviour creating such rancour and frustration. This is not to say that the press must abandon the critical scepticism that informs its watchdog role; nor that the Government should stop promoting efforts to reach citizens directly. But the mutual antagonism has confused and angered the public. It's a troubling situation, bad for both democratic governance and the news industry. But the real loser is the constituency that both claim to be serving: the people," the teacher of journalism concluded. Ditto Jamaica?

Locally, analyst Kevin O'Brien Chang is reckoning, in response to an email encouraging the Government not to 'back back' on its programming decision, that every Jamaican political party leader that has got into a fight with the media has lost the next election. While his cases are too few to clearly establish cause and effect, some very provocative questions arise.

Trust media over government?

The Guardian in the UK ran a story a few years ago, 'Who should you trust more - the media, the government, or neither?' A 10-nation survey by the BBC, Reuters and the Media Centre in the UK found that, although trust in either was low, in six countries media were trusted more than government while in three government was more trusted than media.

"But a pattern emerges when you compare the results of this survey with Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index: the greater the perceived corruption, the more people trust the media over the government," the story said.

Clearly, Government and media here in Jamaica have a lot more to talk about than programming changes in their ongoing struggles which won't go away with the resignation of the Golding government, should that call be heeded.

Martin Henry is a communications consultant. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.