A prime example is negative press. Practically every day of the week one hears the complaints about all the “bad news” in the papers and in media generally, and the wish is often expressed for more positive or uplifting stories. Well, here’s the reality. While the newspaper business is trading in news, the bottom line is that it is a business, and the reality in the news business is that “bad news” is good for business. It is what the public buys in every country on earth.
Imagine two newspapers on the newsstand: one headlines the opening of a water plant in the interior, improved check in at the airport, and a feature on a devoted social worker. The other paper carries a picture of two robbers dead in the street, a headline involving juvenile rape, and allegations about a Government Minister in a bar fight. Which newspaper will you be drawn to read?
Most businesses start the day with stock on hand to sell – shoes; hardware; groceries; etc. The shelves are full of items for their customers. The newspaper business starts each day with the shelves virtually empty. In the ensuing 12 hours or so they must generate a new product, virtually from scratch, on whatever news has arisen since yesterday. Furthermore – and here’s the key – it must be news that grabs the public attention which naturally leads the editor to select the latest scandal, the shocking accident, the horrific murder, the official caught, the fraud disclosed. He’s selecting a product in demand.
As the former CBS anchor Dan Rather put it, “In the news business, if it bleeds it leads.” What Rather is talking about is a business choice. If you want to succeed in the business you have to meet the public interest, yours and mine, for all this shocking stuff. A newspaper editor in any country who decides to go against public demand and produce a benign read, will soon find himself with a publication that is ignored, even made fun of, and in short order he will be out of business. Of course the ideal is to strike some sort of balance – to have both the bad news and the good news – but an effective editor is always going to be pulled toward the shocking stuff because he knows that what his readers are demanding. Lurid photos on the front pages of our papers may shock and offend some (my hand is up), but those editions sell out. That’s one reality.
Test cricket is another one. It’s obvious; it’s dieing. You don’t have to bring a Ph.D from Oxford to do a dissertation; Bacchus cutting cane at Diamond can tell you it’s dieing. The reality is that Test cricket was born in another time – a time when the pace of life was slower, with fewer distractions, with more room for leisure – and time has passed the game by. Turn on the TV and the evidence is there in the empty stands in Test matches compared with the overflow crowds for the shorter game with its high scoring.
People these days want fast-paced games, with lots of scoring, constant action, and a result in four hours or less. Follow the TV camera as it pans the scanty crowd you see in most Test matches these days. People are reading newspapers or leaning back in their seats and chatting; some are even sleeping. There are times when the cameras show even the players in the pavilion paying no attention to the game. Do the same thing at a 20/20 or 50-over match. The place is packed. People are on their feet, waving flags, roaring their team on. The players are on the sideline cheerleading. Sleep? Are you kidding? The energy could light up Georgetown.
And by the way, pay no attention to those solitary voices, like Ian Chappell, who come out after a thrilling Test and tell us “this is the real game”. They’re dreaming. It may be the real game to a cricketer who labours long and hard to develop the technique for a 5-day match, but that’s not what the public wants. Also, while one can indeed find a Test with a thrilling finish, that is the exception proving the rule that Test cricket is a ponderous drawn-out affair that appeals largely to purists, and fewer of them with each passing day. In 2010 the sporting public wants excitement and that means the shorter cricket game. Even the ladies and the youngsters are flocking to cricket for the first time. Test devotees, like my friend Freddie Abdool, may be upset, but that’s the reality, fellows.
Finally, there is the exhortation, frequently appearing in our media, for Guyanese to come home. In recent months, with the economic story in North America gone bad, the suggestion is being raised more often, and I am surprised at the naivety of it. The reality is that there are powerful and pervading factors that militate against that reverse migration that is being hoped for, and until those factors are considerably mitigated or dispelled, the hope will die aborning.
I believe fervently in the Guyanese culture and its manifestations – our dynamic dialect; our immediate sense of humour; our warmth; our creativity; etc – but it is beyond naïve to expect people to see that as a “come home” magnet. Most of our people who have left here are living in safer environments, with far better infrastructure, with better education possibilities for their children, and with greater potential for personal advancement. Certainly, to live away is to experience a somewhat more artificial way of life, a disconnection, a loss of community, even a remoteness, and for some of us that feeling grows to the point where you can’t ignore it. But as a general rule those conditions are not enough to counteract the concerns so many Guyanese feel when the “come back” flag is flown. Until the conditions behind the concerns change substantially, the entreaties will generally fall on deaf ears. That’s the reality.
Whether it’s negative press, waning Test cricket, or “come backees”, understand I’m not saying stop preaching. I’m simply saying, understand the reality in front of you.
