Ian Boyne

Is the Press being too hard on Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller? Is she overreacting to the media pressure? Does the Observer have an agenda against the Prime Minister? Have the media already drawn the battle lines in the undeclared electoral contest between the two main political parties?

These are some of the questions which some people are posing and they provide an excellent opportunity for me to share some thoughts on media bias and the whole issue of moral and intellectual integrity. It is an issue I feel deeply about.

There is one aspect of Jamaican life which I absolutely abhor and am repulsed by and that is our intense partisanship and blind group loyalty.

Everyone Displays Bias

Yes, all peoples display some levels of partisanship and everyone has biases, coloured perspectives and even prejudices. It's a human, not particularly Jamaican, phenomenon. But, culturally, Jamaicans seem to be more intensely partisan and tribalistic than many others. We are individualistic in terms of economic behaviour, personal ambition, taste, etc.,

but when it comes to political views, we find it difficult to think outside of some narrow confines. We tend to argue from a predominantly visceral and glandular point of view rather than from a cold, rational view. This makes it hard for others to do serious intellectual work in such an environment.

This partisan, tribalistic culture requires courage and integrity on the part of the intellectual. It requires the courage to be misunderstood, maligned and mistreated. But, it is a courage which must be demonstrated if one is to display integrity. The pressure to conform, to toe a particular group or party line is overwhelming, but it must be resisted by the intellectual who is serious about his commitment to truth.

Writing a column is sometimes frustrating in the Jamaican environment where many people have an aversion to rational thinking and scorn the discipline of logical processes. It is much easier to sprout the propaganda line, to carry the party flag, to engage in polemics and histrionics. The standards are not particularly high in such an environment, for here one can easily get away with carrying a particular party line, engaging in embellishment, pandering to the lowest common denominator and spewing out unsubstantiated and undocumented ideas.

It is risky to engage in independent commentary in Jamaica for one can be thrown to the lions on either side. The commentators of the People's National Party (PNP) have the governing party to protect them and the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) commentators have that party to make a lot of noise in their defence and to look after them when they come to power. (Besides, there are powerful JLP people in business who can look after their own, even without their party's having political power.) Taking an independent position plays daredevil risks with being abandoned by both sides.

The independent thinker cannot win in this society, for even his independence is scorned and scoffed at by the partisans who make a vice out of what the independent intellectual considers a virtue: What the independent thinker is doing is merely 'playing bothey' - displaying cowardice by 'sucking up' to both sides so as to hedge one's bet! It's no position of integrity, they would say, this 'so-called independent position', for what it does is to feign staying on the fence when what is being done is really prostitution to various sides. (Rather than being committed to one 'partner', as it were, and making that known openly, one flaunts independence so as to get various suitors and propositions. Immoral!)

Besides, there are those who point out that there is no such thing as a truly neutral position. There is no such person as a person who takes no sides and who has no biases. That's a myth. So, this so-called neutral, independent and unbiased observer-commentator is a fabrication. So, indeed, the independent commentator is under fire from all sides.

There are some who are prepared to say that the media's professional interest is served by ensuring that there are representative voices for the various positions in the society. So, yes, one knows that columnist or commentator G is for the PNP and talk-show host P for the JLP, but what is important is that the media carry their divergent voices. So that each person is not expected to be reflective of various views or even to be fair.

But, I disagree with this position.

I believe that irrespective of which party the commentator might vote for or prefer to have electoral power in Jamaica, that commentator has an obligation to assess issues critically and not to do so as a supporter of a political party.

There are some journalists and commentators who are doing an admirable job and are examples of fair and balanced journalism. Cliff Hughes is an excellent example. Though some accuse him of being too high on adrenaline, Cliff approaches his journalism in a rigorously fair and impartial way, letting the chips fall where they may. He is a man whom no party can trust to carry out its propaganda line and that is exactly how it should be. Cliff is more obsessed with making a name for himself as a hard-nosed, penetrating, muck-raking journalist than he is protecting anyone's reputation. He has rankled and offended people in both parties, which is a plus for any journalist.

There are other journalists who shall be nameless whose agendas are clearly, unmistakably partisan. They will engage in dishonesty and subterfuge just to protect a political position or to malign political enemies. Cliff Hughes has demonstrated that one needs not lose any edge or sharpness by being fair, balanced and impartial. This is not to say that Cliff has never erred in covering an issue or in being intemperate in commentary. But, the general tenor of his work has been according to the highest traditions of journalism and critical commentary.

Another less passionate, but no less intense, journalist is Earl Moxam of the Gleaner Power-106 news team. While some would say they know where his political leanings might be, this is not obvious in his work. There is no malice toward any political party or politician and Moxam's raison d'etre is to get at the news, to find angles others are missing, to provide depth that others are too lazy to accommodate. Moxam is respected by people in the two main political parties, though people from one believe that he is really a firm supporter of the other. But, it is a testimony to his professionalism and rigor that you can't look to his work for discernible bias. His private preferences remain just that.

It takes discipline, integrity and a resolute commitment to professionalism to maintain that position. On the other hand, it is quite possible for one to have a declared party position and still to be a model of fairness, impartiality and detachment. There is no finer example in the media of this than Ronnie Thwaites. I listen to Thwaites every day (along with other talk-show hosts). The man is a former PNP Parliamentarian and is slated candidate for the PNP in the next general elections, but there is no more courageous and firm opponent of Government policies when he believes they are misguided.

No fair-minded JLP person who listens to Thwaites can fail to be impressed. He lashes the Government regularly and praises the Opposition JLP not infrequently. And there is certainly no talk-show host who gives more exposure to JLP politicians than Thwaites. It takes integrity and moral courage to do what Thwaites does, and it shows that one can demonstrate that even when one is openly wearing a party hat. People like Ronnie Thwaites, Cliff Hughes and Earl Moxam are very unJamaican in their non-partisanship.

And one can't fail to mention RJR's Dionne Jackson-Miller. Which party does she support? I have absolutely no idea! She can be tough on all and unsparing with all. The Jamaican media do have some fine examples of professionalism. It is corruption to slant views and put forward positions just because one is benefiting from a political party or hopes to benefit.

For me, I have worked at senior levels for both the JLP and the PNP and continue to enjoy a good relationship with the leaders of the two parties today. Unlike some journalists, I confess to not having any resentment against any political leader. I am not passionately against any political party and can't work up the aversion to Bruce Golding that both Dawn Ritch and Garnet Roper have. For Dawn and Garnett, Bruce can never do or say anything right. There is no politician whom I oppose that strongly. (Add Omar Davies to Dawn's list of can't-do-anything-right politicians.)

In some areas, I am closer to one party than the other but no party has my complete intellectual allegiance. In foreign policy I am definitely and passionately closer to the PNP than I am to the JLP. In economic policy I am closer to the developmentalist state model of the Seaga/Golding JLP than to Omar's neo-Washington Consensus model.

I cannot demonise any political party nor can I hold the view than one party is inherently more moral and less corrupt than the other. I regard it as an insult to think that I could ever sell my soul (or intellect) to any party or be sworn to carrying its line, in my journalistic work, no matter how irrational.

I am too intellectually immodest to believe there is any party that could deserve my unquestioning allegiance. I do not give that honour to any religious group, let alone to any political party. My work as a thinker is to critique all views and all positions, and if the people I work for find that too offensive and intolerable, they are free to apply the economic sanctions.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. Email ianboyne1@yahoo.com