In democratic societies, part of the media’s role is
supposed to be to inform people so that they can make educated choices. In such
political systems, the media act on behalf of the common people to ensure that
politicians do their job. The media, therefore, include a diversity of voices
and political opinions, and seeks a fair balance of news and views.
The media, however, are not necessarily impartial reporters
of events. Indeed, impartiality may be the exception rather than the rule.
America’s highly profitable Fox News channel (part of Rupert Murdoch’s News
Corporation) is unafraid to say what it thinks and is prospering as a result.
Other examples include the Al-Jazeera television network, with its unabashed
support for Arab reform, and The Economist news magazine, which has promoted
free trade, internationalism and minimum interference from government since
1843.
As The Economist itself has noted, the idea that journalists
should be “impartial” in reporting news is, in fact, a relatively recent one,
and finds most support in America. In Europe, the magazine notes that overt
partisanship in newspapers is widespread and state-run television channels
often have party allegiances.
Last weekend, in a Sunday Guardian interview, Minister of
Food Production Devant Maharaj said reporters should declare their political
affiliations. SHEREEN ALI asked freelance journalist Wesley Gibbings about this
and related issues. Wesley Gibbings is the founding president of the
Association of Caribbean MediaWorkers, deputy convenor of the International
Freedom of Expression Exchange and member of the Steering Committee of the
Global Forum for Media Development.
Q: Food Production Minister Devant Maharaj recently called
for reporters to declare their political affiliations. He says he was
supporting Independent Senator Viera who said that media individuals or
businesses with political agendas should be honest with the population and
declare their hand. Do you agree?
Should journalists be open about any financial interests or
political leanings that may colour their reporting? And should journalists,
therefore, also provide much more detail on their source material, to enable
their audiences to evaluate the strength of their stories?
A: Both Minister Maharaj, who should know better because he
has some knowledge of how media work, and Senator Viera are failing to make a
distinction between media houses and the journalists who work within them. They
also appear not to have considered the fact that journalistic content,
particularly in broadcast media, constitutes but one component of overall media
output.
What obtains in some countries is that some media houses,
the print media in particular, exercise the option to declare their editorial
positions or support or lack of support for political parties, and particular
public policy issues. I cannot think of a single situation (in a democratic
country of course, because autocratic states are a different thing altogether)
in which individual journalists have systematically declared their political
preferences or allegiances as a matter of choice or obligation.
Indeed, most journalists vote at election time and,
therefore, express a political preference on that occasion. But does this
challenge someone’s independence of thought? Mr Viera, for instance, is an
independent senator. If he voted in the last election, didn’t he express a
political preference? Using his logic, he should perhaps be telling the country
and the world how he voted in the last election.
It is said that the role of the media is to inform,
entertain and educate. But for many media, their role has also been to
influence and to persuade. Should a mass medium strive to be impartial in order
to give the fullest coverage possible to its audience? Or should it be free to
embrace a narrower, more partisan approach? Should respectable news organisations
strive to be fair and balanced, or not?
The value of media output as a whole needs to be discussed
alongside the work of journalists because they are not the same. Content in the
mass media is a mish-mash of entertainment, educational material, satire,
commentary, opinion, analysis and news. When it comes to news, there is no
option but to be fair, balanced and accurate.
Columnists and other content providers in both print and
broadcast media are not necessarily under any obligation to meet the same standards,
though this would be useful. A newspaper columnist or talk show host is fully
entitled to state his or her personal view on public issues.
This represents opinion. Opinion has the characteristic of
freely expressing someone’s preference or allegiance or conviction. In free
societies, the ability to do so is sacred. It is a pillar of freedom of
expression. The opinion leaders, satirists, comedians, artists all have a role
to play in mass media.
Do you think there is political bias in the mass media in
T&T? If yes, to what degree? What about the role of state-owned media?
For the most part, I do not believe that there is
institutionalised, systematic political bias in the local media. It might be
that some operatives in the State media are of the belief that it is their role
to facilitate the use of content in support of whichever party is in power.
This, of course, is wrong and is an abuse of their positions but is something
that has spanned political administrations, including the current one.
Hopefully, this will change in the future.
Some media operatives do indeed have difficulty containing
their political enthusiasm and this sometimes, but not always, has an impact on
journalistic content. It is the role of enlightened media leadership to weed
this out, because it destroys the credibility of the media house both as a
commercial enterprise and as a place where people go to derive the truth about
our society. The state media are particularly problematic when it comes to
this. I have not seen the situation change over the years. But it needs to
change.
Do privately-owned media houses, as private businesses, have
any duty to make their editorial policies public? Shouldn’t this be up to the
media owners?
Newspapers in fact make their editorial positions, as an
institution, public via their editorials. But this does not mean that a news
editor necessarily sends reporters out in the field with the injunction to find
information to support such positions post facto. In fact, my experience is that
positions on public issues are usually developed following a period of
journalistic inquiry and not the other way around. Nothing is wrong with that.
What is the obligation of our media workers in a small
island where we already have a culture that is politically incestuous—and at
times volatile? How should media workers negotiate the many issues and
potential conflicts? What should guide them?
I am a believer in codes of professional conduct for
journalists and stringent application of them by media employers. Not all my
colleagues agree this should be a function of the industrial relations process,
but I think it should be. Such values are non-negotiable and not subject to
cultural specificity. Codes of conduct supported by strong editors are an unbeatable
combination. Through this, journalists can best negotiate pretty overwhelming
commercial and political forces.
Can individuals or even the media ever hope to be truly
objective, as the very selection and framing of media content involves subjective
value judgments? How can ideals of objectivity be encouraged or maintained?
This is a very old and interesting discussion, settlement of
which I am yet to see. But it is a pervasive consideration spanning a wide
range of professional pursuits. The key to it though is freedom of expression.
Through freedom of expression all ideas contend. All interpretations of reality
are placed in the public domain. This is how it ought to be—whatever we think
of the subjectivity or objectivity of substantive content. Freedom has many
responsibilities, but in order to be responsible you often need to be free.
Journalists cannot be free to be responsible if there is an
environment in which information is suppressed or people are punished in one
way or the other for the views they express. Such a situation promotes
one-sidedness and tacit bias.
