Journalists Under Fire? A Day Later And The World Is The Same. Surprise!

Perhaps people have unrealistic expectations when a topic dear to their hearts gets into the public's eye. They give the impression that all of the hard issues that have been there, whether discussed before in public or not, will be resolved and are terribly disappointed when preferred topics get less than their due coverage or no commitments are made to make the world a better place. I must admit I had no expectation that a two-hour radio call-in program would change much. So it was. One of my better forecasts, I'll say, tongue in cheek.

The Nation covered the event this morning (see attached photo from their report under Journalists weigh in on Freedom Bill, a headline which is a way to focus the reader even if it was not THE focus of the discussion).

A lot of the flow of radio discussions, including call-in shows, comes from the person in charge of the studio, both the host (I do not like 'moderator', as it suggests a style that is not necessarily accurate) and the producer, who holds many keys in terms of who from outside the studio gets to speak, and what words they say get aired. In Barbados, one of the important constraints that journalists face is to skirt the waters of the defamation laws, and one sees the problem daily on Down to Brass Tacks, when callers are 'cut' or 'silenced' when saying something that may get the radio station into hot water. Inside the studio, one gets to hear the full conversation and can always second-guess any censorship (though one only gets to hear of this at the time from those listening in).

The panel I was part of was made up of:

Host:
JULIUS GITTENS - Barbados Association of Journalists (BAJ), Interim Vice-president

Panellists:
ADRIEL “Woody” RICHARDS, Caribbean Media Corporation (CMC), Secretary/Treasurer, BAJ

SALEHA WILLIAMS, head of new media at Starcom Network,

ANTOINETTE CONNELL, Editor, Daily Nation

I was pleased to be included in the panel discussion, and tried to speak not as a spokesman for all bloggers, which was a two-edged sword, but important because they are not like one, and each should have the chance to speak for him/herself, but anonymity on the part of some bloggers puts a natural barrier up to certain types of participation. Perhaps the radio and TV stations will have to focus solely on blogs one day and get a discussion involving the practioners in that area only.

The discussions were quite lively and got a little testy at times, especially between the host, Julius Gittens (Interim Chairman, Barbados Association of Journalists), and Senator Orlando Marville (Chairman of the Advisory Board on Governance), who could not initially agree on how to proceed and then got into a little spat when the Senator uttered an acronym and the host asked for an explanation. The "You don't know what that is?" clearly indicated that the Senator had forgotten that the audience was more than just the one person to whom he was speaking. But, that's how it is sometimes and hopefully as grown ups no one will be sobbing still or playing alone this morning. But that incident touched well one of the major issues facing the media houses and politicians: how to package information so that understanding can be as broad as possible.

As I intimated above, it is unrealistic to think that we would be further ahead after two hours of Sunday radio broadcasting; that would put a lot on the shoulder of a 2 hour radio program.

I took away some key points that I think were not clear before:

• Media house journalists feel that a major constraint on good reporting is limited personnel resources, and job cuts have not helped. We heard that CMC is working with a ’skeleton staff’.
• New media formats are being developed by the Nation Group/One Caribbean Media, and this has boosted revenues with little need for additional resources.
• News houses are not sending reporters to cover stories (Roosevelt King, Secretary General, Barbados Association of Non-Governmental Organisations (BANGO), and Chris Halsall, Technical Advisor, BANGO, corroborated this in the recent BL&P hearings case).
• News media houses believe that they have rigorous standards of fact checking and accuracy and that blogs are not held to the same standard. I tried to counter that and argued that some blogs/bloggers do exercise similar standards. They should not be swept away with a generalisation that is incorrect.
• Politicians manipulate the press and the media houses were criticised (by lawyer, former journalist and now MP, Stephen Lashley) for poor news room management, notably relying too much on press conferences and releases.
• Media houses clearly employ self censorship, fearing and being made fearful of defamation cases. We heard of the stories of how merely filing a defamation case will kill a story and gain someone a few easy dollars as the press prefer to settle rather than get caught up in a lengthy and costly legal case.
• Mr. Lashley said he would support Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation measures in principle and removal of defamation constraints on journalists.
• Senator Marville explained that an 'Information Commissioner' would eventually decide what information could be made public. However, he could not understand why it was taking so long to move forward on FOI legislation.
• Citizens do not help investigative journalism, often pulling back from getting full stories reported.
• The question was posed whether ‘activism’ should be the role of the press or the role of citizens. The on-air discussion was not conclusive (no surprise). [This may be an interesting topic on which to get views.]
• Media house follow-up on stories is weak, but they claim lack of resources and pressures to report new stories.
• Jeff Cumberbatch, a lawyer and columnist who has looked a lot at defamation laws in the region, argued that there is a need for reform of how defamation cases are handled so that they can be speeded up. He felt that existing legislation, especially in Barbados, is very good. The ‘public interest’ defence and the ‘Reynolds’ case does not apply only to the UK and at least two cases have been filed in the Caribbean (Jamaica).
• Media houses need to make information more digestible and Roosevelt King spoke to how ‘packaging’ of complex issues needs to be improved. I raised with him how BANGO could perhaps help in that process.
• Media houses were criticised for lack of preparedness and unwillingness to be better informed by those who understood issues, getting facts wrong as a result (Chris Halsall made this point referring to recent BL&P hearings and received an on-air apology for errors not corrected).
• Malcolm Gibbs-Taitt, Director General, Barbados Consumer Research Organisation (BarCRO), criticised the media houses for how they treat consumers.

We can argue till the cows come home about the quality of the program but I would never think that such an airing can be transformative on major issues. One only has to think about the many hours of broadcasts that go on world wide with no apparent changes in any aspect of life.

The Power Of Boycotting

I know that by refusing to give my custom to an entity I can bring it to its knees. If I can get my foreign friends to do likewise, the knees will stay buckled. If my foreign friends persuade their foreign friends to do likewise, then the legs will drop off. If the foreign friends' foreign friends persuade some Barbadians to do it that would be a miracle. I have the proof. Look at what has happened to the restaurant business since I started my boycott nearly two years ago (see Boycotting restaurants). The weekend Sunday Sun showed the trail of restaurant closures, some with stellar reputations and ratings in the Zagat guide (see Crisis eats into restaurants). Restaurants in Barbados have learnt the hard way what economists mean by 'income effect' and 'substitution effect'. I am not sure if I started it, but I was a part. So, I have to take responsibility for the job losses that have occurred as a result. But, they were ripping money from me. They also had things wrong with how they did things. I had to get back and I will take care of myself. Eat me? I will eat you!

Now, voices are being raised to boycott The Nation, and to boot, maybe The Advocate too. Many reports indicate that circulation of the national dailies is dwindling; their online offerings are neither timely nor very interesting--some are barely in existence. Somehow, with a bevvy of staff they manage to produce not much at all. I alone am churning out articles as if I were Rumpelstiltskin at his spinning wheel.

Black Americans mounted effective boycotts to help speed racial integration, most famously in Montgomery, Alabama. Going my way? No way.

One of the longest-running boycotts is of Nestlé products. During the 1970s, consumer groups working in developing countries became concerned about the lack of breast-feeding and rising infant mortality. They concluded that 1.5 million infant deaths annually were due to unsafe (unsanitary) bottle feeding. These groups targeted Nestlé, the largest seller of infant formula in the developing world. The boycott is still on. Now, there is no membership card so we do not know who has stopped naturally, or who has newly joined, etc. I know that Nestlé felt the pain: one of our good friends in Guinea was their managing director in the country, and he explained. boycotts of fast food have also occurred, though I wonder where is the sacrifice in not eating what some call "artery clogging" cardboard.

But to boycott effectively you have to have self-sacrifice.You cannot say even with your deepest voice, "I'm going to boycott just as soon as I have a last...." No, it must be immediate and it must be sustained. The call regarding the papers means what, though? For those who read the papers online but like to feel the inky print, they will still get their fix of news from those 'despicable' sources. Phaw! For those who then upload and send around links, they are still promoting what some call 'diabolically biased' organs of national downfall.

Is the fuss really well focused? Screams were heard as far as in Sascatoon, Canada, that The Nation is biased. Well, hello. Newspapers express opinions. Duh. Oh, I get it. I must hear how much yu lerv me? I want to hear you whisper in my ear "Come here, Sugga." You need to understand the right answer to "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?" You look me deep in the eye and say (no coughing or spluttering, or looking away now). "You, oh, heart felt sweet dumpling one." No, you may not leave and go to the bathroom. Say it again!

With my youngest child I say "Do not start a story with 'He was mean to me'. Tell me what you did first." So, she backs up and stiffens her back and starts. "I pushed Matthew, and then he was mean to me." Sometimes she gets it and says "...mean to me back." So, we may need to look a little deeper, deeper.

How did this all start? Who hurt you, sweetie? Tell us the names. He forced you to do what? He made you tell what stories? What did you do, honey? You just did as you were told? Then you must feel really terrible about that. So, what do you want to do now? Lash out at anyone who looks and sounds like him? I understand, baby. But, you know. that wont make things better; it just spreads the pain. Not all people that look like him are like him. Understand? You need to be a little more trusting. I know, baby. Life IS short. Anyway, you're both hurting, that's clear. He's gone and says he wont miss you. You say you don't care. All the best to you both, then.

An international perspective always helps and you can read from the World Press Freedom Committee site. I was also fascinated by the reports of how things were under the previous government in Barbados, and skimmed passages of a few books online. Not pretty reading at times.

The proposed local newspaper boycott is rather odd as one of its main proponents purports to uphold freedom of expression and wanting freedom of information and looking to avoid muzzling of its rights to write what it wants. It is extremely biased. But, I guess if you are biased you do get crinkly when others are also showing bias. Maybe it's the mirror. Maybe it's the 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' situation.

It may be worth rereading what I had to say about this 18 months ago (see What do people think of the press?). Also worth a read is Freedom of the press 2007: a global survey of media independence, By Karin Deutsch Karlekar, Eleanor Marchant.

I am not clear why you need to bother what one private newspaper writes when you own the national TV channel and have major broadcast rights through three government-owned radio stations (out of 11). The other private newspaper is normally very favourable to you, including running weekly articles from the main government advisor. I am not sure either why one would bother when one has the Internet and one's own blog. The means to deal with any bias from others are firmly there in your hands. Why bother? It draws attention, sure, but normally not favourable. International opinion will at the least register on the negative side. Domestic opinion will be mixed at best, maybe net negative at worst if one has misjudged the people's sentiments. It's also interesting to see what international company one keeps with certain actions.

Whether one likes it or not, US political opinion is important. I recall the US government's 2008 Human Rights Report: Barbados. Its general message was:

Although the government generally respected the human rights of its citizens, problems included excessive use of force by police, poor prison conditions, and societal violence against women and children.

On the pertinent area discussed here, Freedom of Speech and Press, it reported:

The constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press, and the government generally respected these rights in practice.

There were occasional incidents involving police altercations with the press. On December 19, police arrested two journalists who were attempting to cover the arraignment of a police officer charged with drug possession and trafficking charges.

The government restricted the receipt and importation of foreign publications deemed to be pornographic.

The 2009 report will no doubt make interesting reading.

Freedom Of Information (FOI): Part 1--Basic Concerns And FOI Legislation

This is the first of a multi part series on freedom of information. Part 1 deals with the some basic concerns and the state of legislation in Barbados. Part 2 will look at rights to privacy. Subsequent parts may follow.

*****************************************************************************

My interests in freedom of information stem from several viewpoints.

• That of a person who is now in the 'business' of disseminating information (personally liable on several fronts).
• That of a person who receives information from others who ask that it be disseminated (need to confirm donor's rights to information and extent to which it can be disseminated).
• That of a person who has personal information, which has not been disseminated, that he may wish to protect and whose dissemination should be limited and only with permission (rights to personal privacy).
• That of a person who has given information to other organizations (governmental, corporate, social) and would like to be assured that they and others are not playing 'free and loose' with it (concerns with abuse of personal rights).

The issues concerning property rights are complex, and have changed much in an era where things are no longer simply 'brick, mortar, and land', but have taken on forms not previously envisaged, and whose tangibility is sometimes hard to determine. 'Property' can now be moved electronically and be in another place in nano seconds.

Some countries are known to be relative 'rogues', who care little to protect property rights because of the gains they may accrue. Some countries (ironically, some are the same 'rogues'), seek to limit access to information with various forms of state control. Laws on freedom of information are not universal, so one can move into a real minefield about what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'.

Benign use of information is often ignored and even welcomed. However, malicious use of information is a cause for general or particular concern. In that regard, one needs to look at intent as well as actions.

I became increasingly aware of freedom of information as I increasingly used the Internet. I hosted a website for the girls soccer team that I coached in the US. I know that the world is full of human predators, and young children are often their prey. In the American suburbs soccer is now the sport of choice, and girls soccer is hugely popular, thanks to legislative changes that gave girls equal opportunities in sports at schools and university--scholarships are on the line right up to the Ivy League schools. However, with that change of focus comes active parents; many were lawyers or legislators in the area where I lived. As soon as I broached the website idea, a non-working lawyer parent got me to copyright the site (I owned the team name and URL in various domains) and the team's name, but she owned the logo (which she had designed); she set up the necessary arrangements.

I tried to get assurances at all stages from parents and the administrative organizations for the team concerning the appropriateness of posting text and pictures to do with the team. If necessary, I sought written consent. As a minimum, I did not associate images with names. I tended to avoid solo shots, but used pictures of team play. If the team was being photographed by a professional photographer (even if he was a friend or parent), I tried to get an idea of what images had been taken and how they may be used. It's a lot of hard work and some hard areas to control. Though not absolute proof, I never heard of any abuse of our material and never heard any complaint from a parent or child (now adult).

Most of us think of freedom of information in terms of having a right to know things about government or corporate activities. We are often aware of, or suspicious that, institutions hide things that reflect badly on them, even though the public may also be at risk from what has been done and what is being hidden.

You would think that a strand of democratic thinking would lead to automatic creation of freedom of information legislation. But just look at Barbados. The current government entered the 2007 election campaign having announced they would introduce Integrity Legislation and Freedom of Information laws within 100 days of taking office in January, 2008, and also “immediately” declare a Ministerial Code with conflict of interest rules. Neither has happened yet, and we are over 18 months into the administration.

Last December, we heard that the government was still 'looking at it' (see Advocate December 12, 2008): "The drafting of integrity legislation and the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2008 are expected to be concluded in less than two months and soon after brought before Parliament." [my stress].

But eight months later, people are being told that the draft legislation will not be in Parliament until 2010. In last week's papers (see Advocate, August 10, 2009), Senator Orlando Marville, Chairman of the Advisory Board on Governance, and who heads the department charged with preparing the "highly-anticipated" legislation, but now long-overdue, did two things. First, he explained the process of Integrity and Freedom of Information legislation; its complexities; its time consuming nature. I have a general concern about the quality of government and governance. The cynic in me immediately asked whether these 'stumbling blocks' were just discovered; they should have been know at the start. As I coached, if in doubt, don't commit: 100 days is not very long, especially when you are brand new in a job.

Second, he reported that drafts of several new pieces of legislation aimed at improving transparency and accountability in Barbados, including integrity legislation, have been completed and sent to Cabinet. He "hopes" that all the work will be finished by January 2010. The integrity legislation is expected to include a Code of Conduct for Ministers.

We think that we can deal with the person peeping through our window because we can see him or her and give chase if needed. No one should feel that an open door means free entry and freedom to take whatever they find inside. We can try to call the police and see if together we can nab the culprit, or at least warn them off, or stop others from trying the same. We can try to have better security: we lock windows and doors; put up bars at windows; increase locks on doors; install alarms and sensors. All of that restricts our personal freedom--we become imprisoned.

But, the determined 'privacy invader' will always be looking for any crack through which to enter--like the loose plank in a fence. We hope that when our children are away from us the predators are not near them and that those who are in charge of our children truly have their interests at heart and will protect them. But in the Internet age we have issues of identifying perpetrators: there is no need to show or prove identity on the Internet. The 'truth' can also be hard to find, and many people are gullible. Imagine a world full of anonymous persons doing as they feel. That sounds like anarchy (total freedom but 'absence or denial of any authority or established order', lawlessness).

We hope that, without legislation, public officials or those with corporate responsibility will act honestly and fairly. But we have too much evidence that such standards are woefully lacking. Just comb the newspapers here or, better, elsewhere to find out about acts of malfeasance.

The need to protect information is important because we can all fall victim to abuse. People who utter malicious intent may be capable of carrying it out. We would not stand idle if a man with an iron pipe raised it and said, "I am going to hit you with this." The same applies, using the right metaphoricial changes, with information. If the laws need to be used, we know that ignorance is no defence (see Ignorance Is No Defence).