http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20060521/focus/focus4.html
Published: Sunday | May 21, 2006

"Glorianna's homecoming sparks near riot ­ Patrons who went to see the Montego Bay premier of 'Glory to Glorianna', threatened a stampede on Thursday."

­The Observer, May 8, 2006

"Exciting premiere of 'Glory to Gloriana' ... Despite their exuberance, the delighted patrons were quite disciplined as they lined up along the red carpet."

­ The Gleaner, May 8, 2006

IT'S HARD to believe these two articles were describing the same event, since even the movie's title was spelled differently. People who were there say The Gleaner was closer to the truth, and got the name right. Spike, where art thou? But, mistakes happen and it was a minor event. So 'no cup no bruk, no coffee dash way.'

But, a wrong front page headline is a more serious matter. The May 11 Gleaner lead story title was 'Davies rejects Shaw's proposals'. Yet, Omar Davies actually agreed to consider Audley Shaw's suggestion to use low interest PetroCaribe loans to reduce the local portion of the national debt. The story below did say 'Omar Davies yesterday rejected the majority of the proposals put forward by Audley Shaw'. But the headline implied total repudiation, and that is what people remember. A fact proved by a Gleaner cartoon the next day along the same 'Omar tell Audley fe go way!' lines.

Now, the Jamaican media probably does more with less than just about anywhere else. There are some niche segments that preach to the choir ­ Mutty Perkins, John Maxwell, Delroy Chuck and Dennis Morrison come to mind. But, on the whole, it does a marvellous job of reporting the facts and giving objective analyses.

ANTAGONISTIC
VIEW OF POLITICS

Yet, our press sometimes seems to perpetuate an antagonistic view of politics. One big story of this Budget Debate was that both sides listened to each other. The Opposition more or less agreed that the current economic model is the best fit for our present circumstances, while the Government accepted three major opposition proposals. Portia Simpson Miller consented to walk with Bruce Golding through the garrisons. Omar Davies heeded Mr. Golding's call to give the National Contracts Commission the force of law. And, as noted, Dr. Davies agreed with part of Mr. Shaw's debt reduction proposal.

But, the media said little about this meeting of minds, leaving the general public ­ which follows budget debates mainly through headlines and sound bites ­ with the 'same old political bangarang' impression.

Now, we're not talking here about 'a shining new dawn'. But there is a more cooperative spirit about our politics these days, which the media should be highlighting. Increased press scrutiny has forced politicians to rethink their attitudes and raise their level of debate. Maybe the media needs to examine itself more diligently.

Portia Simpson Miller's Budget speech elicited divergent views. Radio and TV commentator scores ranged from 4 to 9 out of 10. Newspaper columnists were just as various. 'She has raised the bar'. 'It was uninspiring'. 'Team Portia brilliantly and effectively delivered the blows that gave her a decisive victory'. 'It was an unspectacular but not bad presentation'. 'It was a remarkable presentation'. Well, you pays your money and you takes your choice. Those who actually heard the PM will have little trouble separating objective analysis from naked agenda bias.

EXCELLENT COLUMNS

Arnold Bertram and Colin Steer wrote excellent columns on Portia's speech.

Mr. Bertram vividly outlined the dangers of populism:

"There is a limit, however, to the welfare programmes that an administration up to its neck in debt and presiding over an uncompetitive economy can sustain. Were this not so, Michael Manley would have eradicated poverty long ago. It is unlikely that any other Prime Minister will ever come close to equalling his record of redistributing the country's wealth to the poor. The platform which won for the PNP a landslide victory in the [1976] elections, simultaneously eroded the party's social base. By February 1977, the country was in the grip of an intractable economic crisis, and the debacle of 1980 was just around the corner.

While it is possible to win elections by mobilising the poor on the basis of programmes which promise an eternity of welfare, the price you pay is the racial and class division which inevitably follows along with a fall-off in investment. In the end, it is the poor who suffer most, for their lot can only be improved in a growing economy which gives them opportunity and training."

This is a timely reminder from a man who, so to speak, once inhabited the belly of the beast. 'When fish come from river bottom and tell you alligator down deh, believe him".

Mr. Steer's piece articulated many realities. "Nobody pushed [Mrs. Simpson Miller] from a bridge into a piranha-infested river leading to Jamaica House. She jumped in insisting that she was as capable of swimming with and perhaps better than her male colleagues. It is, therefore, supremely ironic that she should now be asking to be assessed not as prime minister but as a woman. She campaigned for high office and she must function in a manner befitting the position ­ in style and substance."

Those who desire political prominence and adulation but can't abide criticism should aspire to become Governor General. Being Prime Minister is not about gender or background but about improving people's lives over the long run. And the electorate is a much harsher judge than the media.

A free press usually mirrors public opinion. People don't buy newspapers or tune in to radio and television shows that don't reflect observed reality. The number one factor in ratings and sales will always be credibility.

Only foolish politicians pick fights with the media. The JLP since 1989 has been a case in point. Instead of dealing constructively with the usually accurate reports of its disorganisation and lack of ideas, it kept trying to shoot the messenger. A senior member once dismissed the entire Jamaican press as 'incompetent'. No wonder they haven't won a general election in 26 years.

Last month, some Labourites castigated me for making, in their view, derogatory comments about their party. My sin was stating that the public had no idea what the JLP stood for. My defence was that most of the people I talked to shared my views. Their response was 'You talking to the wrong people!' Talk about a mindset guaranteed to bring political defeat. Of course, now that their leader is being widely praised for his budget speech, the JLP suddenly finds the media eminently fair and balanced.

You can usually predict elections by party reaction to the press - the side that bawls the most about 'bias' usually loses. This is not because the media is all-powerful - for Jamaicans especially are not an easily led people - but because the overall press generally reflects the national mindset.

Michael Manley's 'Next time! Next time!' march on the Gleaner was followed by humiliating defeat in 1980. The JLP's 'Mark Wignall is anti-Seaga' demonstration against the Observer in 2000 preceded yet another Labour rout. Bruce Golding's decision to sue the Observer over some now forgotten letter pretty much marked the beginning of the end for the NDM.

Now, Portia Simpson Miller has charged that the Gleaner's 'Long on emotion, short on substance' editorial criticism of her budget speech was written before her presentation, apparently implying that anyone who did not give her higher than 10 out of 10 is biased.

As Hegel said, "What experience and history teaches us is that people and governments have never learned anything from history."