Whatever problems this nation may be facing, we have never been better informed about happenings across the country and the doings of our leaders. For the Jamaican press is more varied and vigorously outspoken than ever before. Especially heartening is the proliferation of community newspapers, radio stations and even cable television channels which report on grassroots news that never reaches the national press. And the healthy competition in all sectors is producing an increasingly more professional media.

Some claim the press is anti-government. But every political party seems to think the media is biased. It is very amusing to hear comrades, labourites and democrats all fulminate in turn against the ‘bad press’ their party is getting. Yet to a non-aligned observer, the Jamaican media appears pretty even handed. Still, if the press is to have a bias, it should always be against the rich and powerful - to whom much is given much is expected. And is the government not the most powerful entity in any country?

Jamaica was once a “nine day wonder” society. Events would burst into the news, be heatedly argued about, and then suddenly forgotten.  Politicians could simply spout a few platitudes and depend on the public’s short attention span to spare them having to deal properly with the most embarrassing of matters.

But last year this changed. Time and again – in the street people scandal, the Michael Gayle incident, the anti-corruption muzzle bill, the fat cat public salaries affair, the Hope Gardens controversy - the media tenaciously gripped the issue by the throat and refused to let go. held on to the issue. In the Michael Gayle and Hope Garden affairs, they got positive results. And c Continued pressure will surely no doubt force appropriate government responses in the other events.

Programs like “Five To Seven Live” and “Nation Wide” have made it very difficult for public figures to hide from their responsibilities. Look how Even now, six months after it took place, the media’s media persistence has shamed slumbering bodies like the Jamaica Council of Churches and the Private Sector of Jamaica into joining the call for an independent inquiry into the street people incident. The media’s prominent And prominent press coverage of responsible citizens action groups like Jamaicans For Justice means that effective power is no longer the exclusive province of politicians and businessmen. More than ever before ordinary citizens can make their voices heard. And how can this do anything but strengthen the democratic process? , which surely strengthens our democratic process.

Jamaica is not a rich country, and reporters here are paid only a fraction of what their British and American counterparts get. So it would be unfair to expect the same level of expertise and insight. But few countries get better value for money from their media. The performance of the press was definitely the most hopeful sign in the country last year, and it would win any award for Jamaican sector of 1999 hands down.

But it is not without faults. For one thing our written press tends to be lazy. Few columnists seem to do more than one draft. And as they say, easy writing is hard reading. But then writers only try as hard as their editors and public demand. Why bother if no one seems to care? (Though “The Spike” is certainly helping in this regard.)

As with any small country, the Jamaican media is concentrated in the hands of a few powerful businessmen. This must at times result in conflicts of interest between say a newspaper owner’s business affairs and thorough investigative journalism. Was it merely coincidence that the story of Air Jamaica’s large back tax bill was not deemed news worthy by the Observer though it warranted front page coverage in the Gleaner? But such occurrences may be an inescapable reality of life - even the august London Times was once accused of downplaying a controversial story concerning owner Rupert Murdoch. In general our media bosses seem to honour the concept of a free press.

Some accuse the media of having a class bias, a charge that rings true at times. Why for instance was the newly formed Citizens For A Civil Jamaica given so much media coverage while the much older and far more effective Citizens Initiative Organization has been consistently ignored? Is it  because one was headed by a rich uptowner while the other consists mainly of lower and middle class persons?

And no objective observer can help being struck at how differently the media has treated the current commissioner of police and his predecessor. Trevor MacMillan was talked to with respect and even deference, and was consistently lauded for the job he was doing. On the other hand Francis Forbes, the most educated and qualified commissioner of police Jamaica has ever had, is regularly berated and his accomplishments belittled, especially on certain talk shows.

Now being commissioner of police in Jamaica is never an easy job, and certainly Colonel MacMillan made many worthy improvements in the force. But between 1993 and 1996 when he was in charge, homicides in Jamaica went up 41%. Since Mr. Forbes has taken over murders have fallen 8%, and overall crime has dropped significantly. So there is no justification for the assertion that Mr. Forbes is doing a worse job. Why then is this charge so often made? Is it because Colonel MacMillan is of a certain class and hue while Mr. Forbes is not? One hopes this is not so. But it would be interesting to hear other opinions on the matter.

The charge that the local media is overly negative and sensationalist is definitely justified. Bad news is generally given the widest possible publicity, but positive events are rarely highlighted. The upsurge in murder in early 1999 produced banner headlines and almost hysterical news reports, which the international media naturally picked up. But since then crime has fallen substantially without anything like commensurate publicity. Last year major crimes fell by 21%, the biggest fall since 1976. Homicides also fell by 11%, and road fatalities by 17%. Yet end of year wrap ups still pontificated about “soaring crime” and “road carnage”. Of course our homicide and traffic death rates are still far too high. But why does our media have such an aversion to good news?

It is healthy for a society to face up to its faults and not to hide from reality, however unpleasant it may be. And professionalism means telling it like it is and reporting the facts, both good and bad. But our media heads, who set the standards, must seriously address this negative obsession. If we keep telling ourselves, and the world, that things are worse than they really are, will the end result not be a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom?