I find it rather interesting that the Media Association of Trinidad & Tobago (MATT), the People's National Movement (PNM) and the Movement for Social Justice would all have the same frightened reaction to Jack Warner getting into the media business.
The Express newspaper broke the story that the National Security Minister and chairman of the United National Congress (UNC) is negotiating to buy controlling shares in the TnT Mirror and substantial shareholding in the Newsday newspaper. Jack confirmed that he has held meetings on the matter. And JYOTI's sources have confirmed that the deal would be sealed on Monday.
The PNM's Fitzgerald Hinds has jumped on the issue, calling Jack's move to get into the media business a "grand plot" through which Jack would become Prime Minister. The 'Warner-for-PM' yarn is something the PNM has been peddling for some time now without any evidence to support it although Jack has made it clear that he has no interest in being head of government.
But that's far from the case. There is a mix in media ownership with a clear bias to the private sector. In fact the only state-owned media organisation in Trinidad & Tobago is CNMG. The Government Information Services Limited (GISL) is not in the same category as the rest of the media since its mandate is to communicate the government's agenda.
Freedom of the media in Trinidad & Tobago has never been under threat from the present government and anyone who does a fair and professional content analysis of the media would conclude that at times the media have been hostile to the government.
The Express newspaper broke the story that the National Security Minister and chairman of the United National Congress (UNC) is negotiating to buy controlling shares in the TnT Mirror and substantial shareholding in the Newsday newspaper. Jack confirmed that he has held meetings on the matter. And JYOTI's sources have confirmed that the deal would be sealed on Monday.
The PNM's Fitzgerald Hinds has jumped on the issue, calling Jack's move to get into the media business a "grand plot" through which Jack would become Prime Minister. The 'Warner-for-PM' yarn is something the PNM has been peddling for some time now without any evidence to support it although Jack has made it clear that he has no interest in being head of government.
Still Hinds remains paranoid and now he seems to be running scared that Jack's venture into the news business could mean bad news for him and the PNM.
David Abdullah, the MSJ leader, is also sounding alarm bells, telling reporters on Sunday that no politician should have ownership of two media houses. "I don’t know that a person who is a minister of government can continue to engage in private transactions as a business person," Abdullah said.
“The issue of how you control and spin ideas must be addressed...There really ought not to be an approach by political people in government to control the media in that way," he added.
And MATT added its voice to the chorus as well. "Perhaps this is something that Parliament should examine to see whether it represents ipso facto a conflict of interest," MATT said in a media release. The media body suggested that it is wrong for "wealthy and politically powerful political figures to own media houses" since it would open the door to censorship and self-censorship by employees.
I have no quarrel with any of the points raised but the reason I find it so interesting is that none of them - David, Hinds or the leadership of MATT - seemed to have a problem while the Mirror operated with a clear anti-government, pro-PNM bias.
David Abdullah, the MSJ leader, is also sounding alarm bells, telling reporters on Sunday that no politician should have ownership of two media houses. "I don’t know that a person who is a minister of government can continue to engage in private transactions as a business person," Abdullah said.
“The issue of how you control and spin ideas must be addressed...There really ought not to be an approach by political people in government to control the media in that way," he added.
And MATT added its voice to the chorus as well. "Perhaps this is something that Parliament should examine to see whether it represents ipso facto a conflict of interest," MATT said in a media release. The media body suggested that it is wrong for "wealthy and politically powerful political figures to own media houses" since it would open the door to censorship and self-censorship by employees.
I have no quarrel with any of the points raised but the reason I find it so interesting is that none of them - David, Hinds or the leadership of MATT - seemed to have a problem while the Mirror operated with a clear anti-government, pro-PNM bias.
They didn't have a problem that the general secretary of the PNM was a head honcho at the Mirror and a key decision maker at the weekly paper and that the Mirror was leased to a man who was the Chief Executive Officer of the Government Information Services (GISL) during the Manning PNM administration.
I have always supported a free and independent media, which is an essential part of any democracy. I also believe in the idea of a free marketplace of ideas that is created with a plurality of media.
I have always supported a free and independent media, which is an essential part of any democracy. I also believe in the idea of a free marketplace of ideas that is created with a plurality of media.
I would be deeply worried if Jack - or anyone for that matter - owned all the media because that would provide the opportunity for a one-sided view of what is happening in the country.
But that's far from the case. There is a mix in media ownership with a clear bias to the private sector. In fact the only state-owned media organisation in Trinidad & Tobago is CNMG. The Government Information Services Limited (GISL) is not in the same category as the rest of the media since its mandate is to communicate the government's agenda.
Freedom of the media in Trinidad & Tobago has never been under threat from the present government and anyone who does a fair and professional content analysis of the media would conclude that at times the media have been hostile to the government.
There is nothing wrong with that. The media have to be watchdogs on behalf of citizens and they would be abdicating their responsibility if they didn't keep checks and balances.
So why the paranoia over Jack's latest business venture? In our modern connected world, no single media institution can shape public opinion. People learn about their world from different sources and they read, see and hear the news from different points of views.
Let's hear, see and read everybody's views. Let the government tell its story, let the private media have its say and let the people decide what they want to believe.
Let's hear, see and read everybody's views. Let the government tell its story, let the private media have its say and let the people decide what they want to believe.
We in the media have a responsibility to present the facts as best as we know them so that citizens would be well informed about what's happening in their world. Jack's paper (or papers) would tell the stories according to the agenda of the owners in much the same way that the other media do.
We must not underestimate our audience; they can figure out the story, separate fact from fiction and news from propaganda.
Jai Parasram | Toronto, 27 August 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment