Politicians and the press

Ian Boyne, Contributor

Ian Boyne, who styles himself as a political agnostic, steps into the controversy stoked by G2K President Delano Seiveright.

I hope that when non-PNP-affiliated journalists and commentators are attacked by PNP tribalists and rabid partisans, the official organs of the PNP would be just as eager to defend them against such attacks. Alarm must be raised against threats to press freedom and

demagoguery when they are issued from whatever quarter. In other words, we must have a principle-centred approach to press freedom, not a party-centred approach.

G2K President Delano Seiveright set off a firestorm of criticism on his party last week and he himself was thrown in the political lake of fire for his statement that he would "go after" People's National Party (PNP)-affiliated commentators masquerading as independent, impartial media analysts and talk-show hosts.

Every arm of the PNP fired off strongly worded press releases condemning the Seiveright statement, and many were outraged by what was deemed his brazenness and vulgar attack on press freedom. Perhaps the only redeeming thing for Seiveright and his party was that they were able to divert some attention from the 'Bruce Must Go Bus' tour, which represented a soft launch of the PNP's electoral campaign.

I hope that when non-PNP-affiliated journalists and commentators are attacked by PNP tribalists and rabid partisans, the official organs of the PNP would be just as eager to defend them against such attacks. Alarm must be raised against threats to press freedom and demagoguery when they are issued from whatever quarter. In other words, we must have a principle-centred approach to press freedom, not a party-centred approach.

The Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) will come out and defend its sympathisers in the media if they are under attack, and the PNP will do the same for its folk, but who will stand up when journalists and commen-tators cursed with genuine neutrality and a plague-on-both-your-houses approach are attacked? My wish for Jamaica is that our respect for ideological pluralism and intellectual diversity will be so strong, so forceful and so resilient that the Voltairean position of disagreeing vehemently while aggressively defending the right to express contrary views would be mainstreamed. My wish for Jamaica is that we would develop such an ethos that neither Delano Seiveright nor any of his counterparts in the PNP Youth Organisation or the PNP Patriots, would ever dare issue any statement remotely resembling a threat to any journalist for the horror of being condemned as passionately and as widespread as that alleged X6 killer.

For tribalism kills more than the body. It kills the spirit of democracy and civility. I am not at all optimistic that we will develop a genuine culture of openness and intellectual cosmopolitanism. There is no cultural respect for pluralism or ideological diversity in Jamaica. Our narrow-mindedness, tribalism and partisanship define us just as poignantly as our distinctive music and sporting prowess. It's that bad.

You read the online comments on columns written by Martin Henry, Kevin O'Brien Chang, Ian Boyne, Gordon Robinson and others when they criticise the PNP. There are certain mindless goons, under the cover of pseudonyms, who show up after every column, which does not evidence any support for the "Bruce must go!" campaign. These political jihadists have mortgaged their souls to a political party.

You should see some of the crude, hateful, vitriolic, demeaning letters I get. I have noticed other columnists making references to such letters, but while they sometimes dignify them by quoting them, I reserve my quotations for serious thinkers. And, of course, there are some famous names on the JLP sycophancy side who make sure that everyone who writes is on their mailing list. Everyone who does not shout "Shower!" is on their hit list. They are always eager to unmask closet "PNP supporters" in media and to spread their conspiracy theory about how these PNP journalists and commentators are hell-bent on removing Labour - and how the naïve Bruce is oblivious to all that and, in fact, is facilitating them.

freedom for all thoughts

I always go back to that profound dictum by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who aptly captured the democratic ideal as "freedom for the thought we hate". I am glad for the vehement defence of press freedom and the journalist's right to dissent and criticise coming from the PNP and others last week. Any attempt to muzzle journalists - even politically-affiliated journalists - must be roundly, unequivocally condemned.

There is a fascinating special report on the news industry in the July 9 issue of The Economist. (I always like these meaty special reports by The Economist). This one is a particular delight and I commend it to all our journalists as an excellent guide to contemporary issues in media. There is a section on 'Impartiality: The Foxification of News'. It says in its subtitle: 'In the Internet Age, transparency may count far more than objectivity." Objectivity, neutrality and impartiality were the standard terms which defined Western journalism. (Though, ironically, the early American press was very partisan and sectarian. Objectivity as an ideal emerged later.)

The Foxification of News represents a particular philosophy of news: that it's okay to have a position, a point of view, a political philosophy. Fox was established to appeal to conservative viewers. It does not pretend to be all things to all men and women. Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck (no longer at Fox) are right-wing ideologues. MSNBC has staked out its position as a liberal network. CNN is still trying to be middle-of-the-road, but like all middle-of-the road people, they get kicked around by Left and Right.

As The Economist says: "CNN continues to lose out to its more strident rivals, in prime time at least." It quotes a former CNN anchor as saying that CNN has "failed to move with the times" by favouring the "disinterested, at-arm's-length anchor". We are in an age of stridency and outrage and the mild-mannered and detachedly rational commentators and columnists are becoming an endangered species. They don't sell papers and certainly don't get top ratings for talk shows. The louder (and usually more ignorant) you are, the better for ratings and 'pram pram'!

The Economist makes an interesting statement, especially in light of what has been dubbed the Seiveright Doctrine: "New York University's Jay Rosen is just one of many media watchers who think it is time to release journalists from the straightjacket of pretending that they do not have opinions - what he calls the 'view from nowhere'.

He goes on to say: "One way forward, suggests Mr Rosen, is to abandon the ideology of viewlessness and accept that journalists have a range of views; to be open about them while holding reporters to a basic standard of accuracy, fairness and intellectual honesty and to use transparency, rather than objectivity, as a new foundation on which to build trust with the audience."

Technology commentator David Weinberger puts it this way: "Transparency is the new objectivity." So let's be transparent.

"In part," says The Economist, "this involves journalists providing information about themselves."

political agnostic

Okay. Let me start. I am a political agnostic. I could never be a 'true believer' in any political party. I don't believe any political party in Jamaica has either the ideological programme or the kind of international environment which is favourable to the amelioration of the living conditions of the masses.

I am not just a liberal internationalist, but a globalist who is deeply pessimistic about national development outside the context of a radical reordering of the international political and economic system. I agree with the Marxist, Leon Trotsky, that you can't have sustainable "revolution in one country". I believe the international political and economic system has to be transformed for meaningfully changes to take place for the masses. That is why, for me, Michael Manley was the most visionary Jamaican political leader we ever had. He had an acute understanding of the indispensable link between the global and the local. Changing political parties with an anti-development globalisation is futile. Whether under JLP or PNP, the International Monetary Fund path will still produce hardships and lead to a dead end.

John Maxwell got me a job at the then Agency for Public Information in 1976 (now Jamaica Information Service) under Michael Manley. I knew Dickie Crawford from then, as he worked closely with Manley, and I used to cover Manley as a young journalist. When the JLP came to power in 1980, they cleaned out the JIS, but left me. Because I was a closet Labourite? I had joined a conservative religious movement which actively spoke against political activism. Political neutrality is my default position philosophically.

In 1982, I went to work as press secretary to Minister of Industry Douglas Vaz, and I have worked as a communications professional with 10 ministers of industry up to Phillip Paulwell, under both political parties. My integrity, impartiality and professionalism have allowed me to work with every political administration while stoutly maintaining my journalistic independence and intellectual freedom.

When I was working as a communications consultant with a PNP minister of industry, having to write occasional speeches for P.J. Patterson, the JLP agreed to have me as moderator of the pre-election leaders' debates between P.J. Patterson and Edward Seaga! Amazing. How did Seaga and 'Babsy' know they could trust me in that important position of moderator for such a crucial debate when I was working so intimately with the Patterson administration?

Then when I was speechwriter to Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller and working closely with her at the Office of the Prime Minister, the JLP again, in tight and tense negotiations with the PNP, settled on me as moderator in the last general election debate between Portia and Bruce. A letter appeared in The Gleaner that very Saturday of the debate saying that as Portia's speechwriter, I was not an appropriate choice for moderator. The poor fool did not know that that decision was made by the JLP!

Those who insult me by saying I am singing for my supper when I praise Golding for anything don't know my history. (Incidentally, contrary to rumours, I don't write speeches for the prime minister). Ask Lambert Brown, who has been active politically from the 1970s, and who has a passion for research. He will tell you that when I was speechwriter for Portia, I was praising Bruce in my columns when I thought he deserved praise. When Wignall and other columnists were attacking him savagely when the JLP was out of power, I defended his decision to return to the JLP. Yet Golding publicly criticised me in 2002 (See Gleaner, November 21, 2002). But we have always respected each other. Portia has criticised me to my face, but I have never doubted her love for me.

Integrity must count for something in journalism.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and ianboyne1@yahoo.com.