Ian Boyne, Contributor

It is never in the interest of politicians publicly to attack or criticise the media. They can't win that battle. While they have the right, like every other citizen, to criticise the media, it is a right they should waive.

Getting into a public brawl with the media is always ill-advised, for politicians will never command the air space or newsprint on the ground to declare victory over the media forces. Nothing unites the competitive media more than the sense that they are under attack from politicians. Media bosses and journalists in various newsrooms don't unite on many things, but a common sense of being under siege from politicians galvanises them the way sports galvanises the nation. For pragmatic reasons alone, quite apart from a commitment to democracy, politicians should use irenic avenues to voice their concerns over alleged media bias.

But the debate over media coverage of the political parties and media bias is good for both the media and Jamaican democracy. However unfortunate might be the genesis of this debate, it provides us a useful opportunity to engage in an important conversation about commitment to fairness and impartiality and power relations in the society.

Guardians of public good

Itis a fact that our media are reflexively defensive about their conduct, while they boldly proclaim their divine right to criticise anyone and everyone. The media anoint themselves as guardians of the public good, esteemed members of the Fourth Estate, valiantly putting fire to the feet of the elite, fearlessly speaking truth to power. This is the dogma which is proclaimed with infallible authority.

But who will guard the guards, as the Romans asked? "The people," shout back media practitioners. "People who buy newspapers; people who have a little thing called a remote," as some like to say; people who constitute the invisible hand of the market.

The freedom of the press is intimately connected with not just the forms of liberal democracy but with the deep-rooted culture of democracy. The press thrives not just in a society which allows newspapers and electronic media to freely publish and broadcast. It strives best - and is best nourished - in an environment where the people place the highest premium on the right to dissent, tolerance and respect for pluralism.

Stifling press freedom

A culture which is hostile to dissent, contending opinions, genuine debate and intellectual ferment is one which ultimately stifles freedom of the press. Even when the forms exist. Jamaica is an intolerant, bigoted, prejudicial and deeply partisan society. Sure, we are very open to new technologies and the latest gadgets and fads from the United States. We are avant-garde with fashion, materialistic tastes, trends, etc. No wonder our use of cellphones is one of the highest per capita in the world, and that our average poor home has more gadgets than perhaps any other comparable poor home in the world.

But that's the paradox: We are on the surface very 'with-it' and cosmopolitan, but in terms of ideas and respect for intellectual diversity - whether we talk politics, religion or social views - we are cultic and generally close-minded. Our penchant for violence is merely an outworking of our intense, passionateintolerance. We really abhor pluralistic values. And this runs across all classes.

In a civilised society, a politician could go on the platform and attack anyone or any media house without anyone fearing - legitimately - violence as a result of those utterances.

Right to opinions

Had democratic values been deeply embedded, party followers could even accept that the platform criticism is true, but just as strongly assert people's right to their misguided opinions. But it is not just the masses who despise dissent. The journalist, Desmond Allen, told Power 106 last week what all of us in the media know: That there are business people and advertisers who call up editors angrily complaining about how their companies are covered or not covered, and reminding of how much money they spend with the media house. There are advertisers who have pulled ads from programmes because the talk-show hosts have offended them. This shows a gross disrespect for democratic values.

Respect democratic values

It should be of no concern to me that I have to blast Michael Lee Chin or Digicel, even though they happen to sponsor my television programmes. I should have every confidence that I can write caustically about NCB, Digicel and Jamaica Broilers without any consequences at all, because of my assurance that the principals of these companies so respect democratic values that, like the philosopher Voltaire, they would disagree with me passionately but just as passionately defend my right to my erroneous views.

There is a lot of discussion today about whether President Bush's democracy promotion efforts can work in a culture such as exists in the Middle East. Some conservatives say that Western democratic values cannot be transposed in a place like the Middle East, for Islamic culture is vehemently opposed to the spirit of democracy. This is why you can succeed in having parliamentary democracy but ending up with an illiberal regime because the people simply find democratic values alien.

Among too many peoplein Jamaica we find distaste for genuine democracy and freedom of expression.

If the editors of The Gleaner are serious about what they dogmatically preach about the sanctity of freedom of speech, etc., then I must be free to strongly criticise The Gleaner without those criticisms being edited. A commitment to freedom of the press must include the freedom to criticise the paper itself. (Thankfully, I have been given free rein so far).

I must be free to criticise Television Jamaica strongly without any fear that there could be any repercussions (and I have done so on their very station), I must be free to criticise the Government even though they use my professional skills.

Do content analysis

Integrity and a commitment to democratic values are intimately related. If media practitioners are not passionately, resolutely and wholeheartedly committed to fairness, impartiality and balance, they will use ingenious ways to perpetuate bias. Bias is sometimes very subtle. I agree with the Observer editorial of Thursday that those who are criticising media should do the work of a content analysis and share that with the rest of us.

I believe in evidence-based journalism, certainly when one is doing commentary. In my view, the media are doing an excellent job in covering the political parties fairly and impartially, especially the electronic media. We have certainly come a far way from the 1970s when both The Gleaner, under the editorship of a former chairman of the Jamaica Labour Party, and the Jamaica Broadcasting Corporation with communist Workers Party and People's National Party activist-journalists vulgarised journalism.

The media are not only more plentiful but are generally responsible and fair in reportage and coverage of the parties.

Some people have had a raw deal. Edward Seaga, for example, has been unjustly typecast and framed in a prejudicial way that helped to tarnish his image. (As I have always said, he contributed immensely to that tarnishing). But journalists and commentators, especially since the 1990s, have unfairly and unjustly slanted information on him. Portia has not even begun to have the kind of systematic misrepresentation that Seaga was subjected to, which aided - not caused - his eventual demise from politics. Some social scientist must one day do a study on 'The Media and the framing of Edward Seaga', for history's sake.

Cherish press freedom

"Let a hundred flowers bloom," as China's Chairman Mao once said famously. We should so cherish freedom of speech, dissent and even intellectual promiscuity that we stand ready to punish anyone who would seek to muzzle.

The big capitalists who seek to use their economic power to get their way in the media should be scorned and made pariahs. Any media manager who would use his or her power to protect commercial interests should be shamed, and any journalist who uses his power unfairly, dishonestly and partially should be disgraced.

We must cherish democratic values to the extent that when the spotlight is turned unfavourably on us we seek not to punish the whistle-blower but to accept the glare, in the interest of the wider democracy. I defend the right of the Sunday Herald to report the rumours circulating as to why the Stone polls were not published.

As long as the paper gave the official version of the story, which it did amply, it cannot justifiably be faulted for reporting the negative spin on the non-publication. The reaction or overreaction of The Observer's executive editor of operations was, therefore, unfortunate. We journalists must let the big boys fight their own battles. We must stand up for journalistic principles and the right of our colleagues to turn the spotlight on us.

Ironically, The Observer was the pioneer in Jamaica of the kind of speculative, backgrounder, analytical-type reporting, rather than the standard bland reporting of facts, and that the Herald modelled in that story. It was an excellent story, not "political journalism of the lowest order", as the Spike screamed. The Herald served them some of their own medicine which they regularly dispense to politicians.

What hurt The Observer's owners was that it was in the public domain that they might have suppressed the polls for political reasons. That Cliff Hughes broke the news story (after Trevor Munroe mentioned it on the Breakfast Club) must have been a source of embarrassment for the Gorstew people. But it is ok for the moneyed class to be embarrassed sometimes. That happens in a democracy. The problem is, in this country it does not happen often enough.

Big capital must realise that any attempt to suppress information - or even non-libellous rumours - is an implicit attack on democratic virtues.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist who may be reached at ianboyne1@yahoo.com