PM press-ing his luck

'The higher the monkey climb, the more him expose himself.' This proverb is as ancient as the age-old remedy of camphorated oil, which John Brown applied, or eucalyptus oil, which a grandmother used for the cold upon a child's chest. Medicine is often difficult to swallow. However, an abi seed is not as difficult to ingest but far more painful to eliminate, if the ram goat overestimates the dimensions of his own colon and beyond.

We have such short memories, and when it is inconvenient to us, we play the victim and blame the messenger for pointing out our flaws. Andrew Holness was foisted upon us a year before the general election was constitutionally due. As with Portia Simpson Miller in 2006, we did not ask for him, nor did we elect him. Yet, even if he were the popular choice via the electoral process, we did not beg him to take public office and, therefore, expose himself to full scrutiny.

When Portia became prime minister, we latched on to her every word. Her faux pas in speech, her intemperate utterances, her losing her drawn-out tongue on the campaign trail and her toying with us as she played hide and seek with the election date, her apathy on the Trafigura matter, her attempt to secure probity and transparency by putting clergymen on boards and Jesus in her camp and her less-than-gracious acceptance of the loss to the Jamaica Labour Party in the 2007 election, all made our pages and airwaves.

seeking truth

As responsible media, we reported and commented on things which we saw and heard. Our simple motto was: "If you don't do it or say it, we can't report or comment on it." Of course, some elements among us went overboard and overbored us with one-sided broadsides against her. Indeed, for want of a better terminology, the 'rival' of this newspaper publishes cartoons which are so anti-PNP and anti-Portia that even the most rabid of Labourites has to admit it. The last time anything good was drawn about the Opposition and its leader was when none about them was printed.

However, on the whole, there is a range of commentators in that paper, including persons who are known or suspected PNP members and sympathisers. The truth is, we are not a PNP or JLP press, and the uncommitted voters, who swing elections, like facts.

Our media entities, in seeking a higher level of professionalism and greater transparency among us, took on the mantle of doing fact checks. This simply means that as we seek to be more truthful and accurate, we subject all political utterances to a comparison based on data.

So then, where is the best place to start? Our newly selected prime minister failed our fact test. Indeed, as I watched his body language, my first suspicion that the truth was eluding him was when he included in the list of persons he saw in the audience, the half-dozen members of the government-loving Jamaica Teachers' Association who could possibly be there.

Not minor mistakes

It is not my intention to repeat what Holness said, but making inaccurate statements on a political platform is unacceptable. It either means that he was deliberately lying or perhaps worse, he really, as prime minister, did not know. Such errors are not minor mistakes or passing peccadilloes, and his attempt to brush them off is even more unpalatable. My advice to Holness is, if you're wrong, you're wrong, and don't try to downplay major mistakes.

Notwithstanding this, it is his vitriolic response that seriously crossed the line, "The media that is here is not going to carry that," said he. "You can't depend on them, so I am talking to the people of Jamaica directly, unfiltered." The former information minister, Daryl Vaz, accused a media house of bias and in the process riled up the crowd to such a level that media workers felt endangered. What needs to be recognised is that in a democracy, however uncomfortable the truth is, no politician can tell the press, "Shut the fact up!"

Taking swipes at the press is acceptable in a democracy. However, starting a war and making veiled threats is not only repugnant and fascist, it is just downright stupid.

Though more ideal than real, a free press is one of the linchpins of true democracy, and what we have here ranks very highly in the world. Just this year, Jamaica was rated 23rd out of 191 countries by Freedom House, the global press association. With a rating of 18, one point below the United States, and one point ahead of Canada and Britain, we placed fourth in the Americas. In July, Vaz was quick to boast, "In Jamaica, we have not just a robust but raucous and irreverent press, and that's not a complaint by the way; just a statement attesting to our vibrant press freedom." He continued that his government was committed to "press freedom and unfettered investigative journalism", in tooting his horn about legislative moves being made. He then asserted that the Government intended to facilitate journalists in digging out information in the public interest, because "Journalists have an obligation to inform the people and to get out the truth."

Some media houses here are more neutral than others. However, the degree of bias varies far less than the amount of intelligence among our politicians as they shoot off their mouths under the influence of political zeal or other more tangible substances, clearly derived from a diet pasteurised of logic and truth.

free from influence

For all the criticisms one may have about The Gleaner, there is no interference in the professional activities of editorial by senior management or the directors. In fact, the editorial department has so much variation in political beliefs, values, norms and lifestyles that one cannot identify a typical reporter or columnist.

Furthermore, the very same media house the JLP attacked has a legal limit on share ownership which prevents anyone from having majority shares. Senior management does not interfere in the professional activities of its workers. On the other hand, the Public Broadcasting Corporation of Jamaica, originally intended to be independent media in its design, is now another arm of government propaganda. Who knows? This might be one of the reasons our ranking is not higher.

Nonetheless, let it be known that attacks on the press have almost invariably led to losses in general elections in this country. Not simply using 2007 as an example, one only needs recall that in the 1980s, there was a purge of the Jamaica Broadcasting Corporation and other anti-media action by government. Before that, the same party in the 1960s banned books about Black Power, including Black Beauty, the story of a horse. They lost in 1972. Later in the 1970s, Michael Manley attempted to suppress dissent and fetter the press with its "subversive elements". He lost in 1980.

This newspaper, founded in 1834, has survived every government since. The media house being singled out has lasted more than 61 years. No political party has ever held on to power for even 20 years, and importantly, no JLP regime has spent more than 10 years in Jamaica House.

Mr Holness & Company better 'tikya' because the media are an election result-changing abi seed which cannot simply be bypassed, attacked or passed out.

Dr Orville Taylor is senior lecturer in sociology at the UWI and a radio talk-show host. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tayloronblackline@hotmail.com.