Dear Editor,
Free media, independent of government influence, are at the heart of a vibrant, open, well-functioning democracy. The media bring information to the public. The media scrutinize public officials – both within and outside the government. The media advocate for social justice. The media create avenues for the voicing of dissent – for the birth of new ideas and the promotion of alternative leadership.
The paradox however is how societies reconcile the ‘watchdog’ role of the media without institutions that have wide-reaching oversight and control over what is broadcast and printed; who will guard the guards?
In an attempt to resolve this dilemma several journalists have, over the years, proposed a voluntary code of conduct for media workers but this proposal is yet to win widespread support within the media fraternity. Notwith-standing the absence of this voluntary, self-regulatory measure, individual media houses have internal codes (and, as a result, we routinely see apologies published in the press), in Trinidad the publishers and broadcasters have established the Media Complaints Council (MCC) to adjudicate on complaints from the public, the Telecommunications Authority of T&T (TATT) has tremendous punitive power over broadcasters through licence agreements for use of the various frequencies and T&T’s laws provide ample tools for persons whose characters have been damaged via the media to get redress (the Ken Gordon vs Basdeo Panday defamation law suit is a recent example).
The media and the people who hold public office often have a very delicate relationship. When the media’s coverage results in the public official or organization receiving a favourable rating by the public, the officials lavish praise on the media.
However, when the media criticizes and causes what public officials perceive to be embarrassment – even if the source of the problem is with the officials themselves – the media are demonised. In the United States, the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin is still blaming (unfairly) a biased media for her party’s defeat at the polls.
When Prime Minister Patrick Manning was seeking to cultivate the media through private meetings at PM’s residence with select journalists, he had no problem with the media. When the media were highlighting alleged corruption by the then UNC government, he had no problem with the media. Now that the tables have turned and the media are allowing for the expression of public disappointment with his lack of competent leadership, he has chosen to go on the warpath.
Mr Manning claims that he cannot identify a single media house with a pro-PNM agenda. He must ask himself why. He would be well-advised to take a look at the talk show hosts and columnists currently expressing views in the media and ask himself how many of them supported him in 2002 but do not any more. The withdrawal of support has to do with his inadequacies and excesses as a leader. Nevertheless, there are still several pro-PNM opinion shapers on the airwaves. In any case, there is no requirement that in a democracy one or more media houses must support the party in power, or any party for that matter.
It is in this context that Mr Manning’s recent ‘visit’ to radio station 94.1FM and the subsequent comments surrounding the matter raise some very important issues for consideration as we develop our fledgling democracy.
Implied threat
Mr Manning’s argument that: “If it is proper for a citizen of T&T to visit a radio station, then it cannot be improper for the PM as a citizen of T&T to do the same (Guardian 7.11.08),” is fundamentally flawed.
No ordinary citizen can get access to a media house as freely as Mr Manning did on October 25. He was given access because of his position and, as a result, when he told the station’s management that “…I run the country…” there could be little doubt that implicit in his statement was a threat.
Consider that Mr Manning could have initiated legal action if he believed that he had been defamed by the announcers; or he could have written to the station’s management; or he could have written a letter of complaint to the MCC; or he could have called the management directly (as politicians do on a fairly regular basis); or, if he wanted instant redress, he could have called the station and asked to go on air. Instead, he chose to go to the station in person – on a Saturday afternoon when senior management was unlikely to be there – just to throw his weight around.
Mr Manning has said that from now on, “if the spirit moves me… I have taken a personal decision… that if ever I am aggrieved by anything the media does in the future, I am going to the courts.” He has clearly declared war on the media and is seeking to create a climate of fear in which journalists, editors and media managers engage in heavy self-censorship. Thankfully, that has not happened and the media is standing its ground.
Government advertising
Beyond the present issue of the Prime Minister’s attempt to intimidate the media and the beginning of an antagonistic period of relations between the executive and the media, there are a couple other issues which are worthy of consideration. The first is the impact of unprecedented advertising by government ministries, departments and agencies.
If one were to look into the development of Latin American society (Brazil in particular), the impact of government spending and the resulting influence on the media was a major obstacle for the development of an open society. Indeed, closer to home, the decision by the Bharrat Jagdeo government to withdraw all government advertising from the Stabroek News has alarmed the media fraternity around the region and placed a significant blot on an administration whose party’s roots are in the struggle against authoritarianism and for transparency in government.
Although that government claims that the decision was economic in nature – that it wanted to advertise in the newspapers with the largest circulation – only the PPP/C diehard have bought that argument.
With the massive amount of government spending on advertising via the media, and given the Prime Minister’s statements this week, it is likely that either the government as whole or senior officials of the Manning administration will attempt to exert influence over media houses, using advertising spend as leverage.
Broadcast code
Even more troubling though, is the assertion by the TATT that if the Draft Broadcast Code had been adopted the TATT would have been able to take action against 94.1FM. That statement proves that the Broadcast Code is too far reaching and inappropriate for the maintenance of a climate where the media is free and independent.
The TATT has no business settling or adjudicating on matters such as these. Trinidad and Tobago’s laws regarding defamation are quite clear and courts are well qualified to determine if complaints are justified or not. In each broadcast license, the TATT has the authority to revoke a station’s ‘right’ to broadcast in the event of seriously egregious behaviour in several circumstances. The TATT needs no more authority over content than it already has.
Given the utterances of the Prime Minister with regard to his future relationship with the media, the media must be extremely vigilant and civil society has a very important role to play in support of free speech and transparency.
Both the Media Association and the Publishers’ and Broadcasters’ Association have taken very strong and independent positions. Hopefully, they – and the wider media fraternity – will be able to withstand the coming onslaughts. Such strength will define our democracy – or lack thereof.
Yours faithfully,
Nirad Tewarie
Fmr Secretary
Media Association T&T
