[dropcap]J[/dropcap]ust about every Monday since being elected a little more than a year and a half ago, prior to its weekly cabinet meeting, the government holds a press briefing. Not to be outdone, the main opposition SLP has followed suit by fairly recently designating Thursdays for its own weekly official powwow with the media.
With so many press briefings and conferences, the public is surely extremely well informed, right? After all, the purported purposes of the confabs are to officially distribute information and answer questions posed by the fourth estate in the public interest. Sounds great, doesn’t it? The government and the opposition disclosing information and held made to account by a dutiful media. But alas, this particular piece of fiction even Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (the writer of Alice in Wonderland) would find far-fetched.
At this point, anyone who desires the perpetuance of this deceptively harmful delusion should stop reading and remain in wonderland. Those in the media fraternity who are content to merely transcribe the words of politicians, ungoverned by investigation, analysis or even common sense. The sycophants who desperately and selfishly wish to avoid anything which could potentially interrupt the suckling which they currently enjoy — secretly or otherwise. Those among you who find comfort in the familiar, no matter how ill-fated. However, those of you who wish to see how deep the rabbit hole goes, come with me.
The first political press conference was a mistake. In 1913 the secretary of newly elected US President Woodrow Wilson advised Washington journalists that he (Wilson) would, on March 15th of that year, “look them in the face and chat with them for a few minutes”. It was Wilson’s intention to meet with the journalists individually. Instead, one hundred and twenty-five journalists showed up at his office all at once, forcing him to give what he called a “speech en masse.”
By the time it was done, the media seemed enamoured with Wilson. “There was something so unaffected and honest about his way of talking under this unexpected call on him that it won everybody,” wrote a Times reporter who was in attendance. And the president, for his part, didn’t attempt to hide his requitement of the media’s affection.
However, the meeting was devoid of any meaningful information. Pretty much all the president did was repeatedly blink his famously kindly eyes and assure the assembled newspapermen how much he liked them. Wilson, a former political science professor, quickly realized that he could use these sessions to efficiently share his vision while maintaining control of the message, as the sessions were largely off the record. He was, however, in for a rude awakening for the purposefully keen national media wasn’t about to go along for the ride. It is worth noting that from the Kennedy presidency, the meetings began to gradually take on a more balanced ‘on the record’ format.
Now back to the 238 sq. mile rock between the Caribbean Sea and Northern Atlantic Ocean which we call home. Be it ever so dysfunctional.
The relationship between politicians and the media is inherently adversarial. This holds true in Saint Lucia as it does in first world countries like the US. Politicians would have only that which portrays them in the best of light publicized. Conversely, the media wants to know everything, particularly information of a personally and politically compromising nature. For, as George Orwell put it, “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”
So when politicians and the media interact, as in the cases of press briefings and conferences, they engage in an intricate dance with each party constantly jostling to lead. It is almost always a clumsy toe-crushing affair because of the intent-based lack of coordination. However, in Saint Lucia, because of an insouciance and ineptitude cocktail-induced functional inebriation of many in the media, and the political gaucheness of their dance partner, it is particularly ungainly.
Early Saint Lucian leaders sparingly held press conferences. In some cases due to a lack of appreciation for the benefits which were to be had if handled adroitly. In others, because they deemed the political risks of such an exercise not worth any potential benefits, opting instead, in many cases, to disseminate information via the controlled, safe format of addresses to the nation.
It wasn’t until a former law professor and general counsel to CARICOM by the name of Kenny D. Anthony ascended to the prime-ministership that press briefings became a regular occurrence. Like Simba being presented on Pride Rock to the animals waiting below, he had been heralded as the answer to all of our problems, including by the media, particularly one famously, cynically intrepid, world champion bodybuilder turned journalist. Transparency and accountability was the battle cry. However, as in the case of Wilson, the relationship soured when it became uncomfortable. When it did, such interactions became fewer and further between.
The Allen Chastanet-led administration has granted significant media access since being elected; even its most ardent detractors would readily agree. Besides the weekly press briefings, individual members of the administration frequently appear on the various talk shows and otherwise actively seek out members of the media to provide general information or respond to specific indictments. Unlike the Anthony-led administrations, which started out like communicative gangbusters but chose to err on the side of strategic silence and enact draconian legislation like section 361 of the criminal code when the press wasn’t all good, the current administration, almost two years in, hasn’t altered its level of accessibility due to unfavourable coverage. And there has been no shortage of unfavourable coverage or uncomfortable encounters for that matter.
Our media members attend all of these press briefings and conferences — and have from administration to administration — reporting on the policies, initiatives, arguments and counter-arguments of the respective entities. However, too often, the questions asked in response to these utterances are not rooted in relevant research and often not buttressed by earlier pronouncements on the subject matter in question. This creates the “tennis ball head effect” with the citizenry, not minded to do any measure of fact checking, doltishly following the unsubstantiated reporting of our media workers from one camp to the next.
I spoke with a few other media workers in preparation for writing this piece; all of whom believed that the press briefings are of use to all parties involved — themselves, the politicians, and general public. However, a number of them, when pressed, admitted that greater investigative journalism was needed.
“These briefings are sometimes a waste of time,” said one media worker who did not wish to be identified. “We sometimes go through the process for the sake of going through the process,” she continued. When asked who’s to blame, she acknowledged that more needs to be done by some in the media to add context to what’s said by politicians.
So are these weekly press conferences really worth anything? Well, they are to the politicians — on both sides of the aisle. They have proven effective for the legitimization and dissemination of propaganda, unchallenged. They are also of value to the media workers, if for no other reason than a means to the end of filling their broadcasts and the pages of their publications with minimal effort. Perhaps most importantly, they are of worth to much of the citizenry but not in the way you would think. It’s not that they give them access to information which would not otherwise be accessible in one way or another. Nor do they offer any insight into the information disclosed. It’s because most Saint Lucians have long determined their immutable ideological hue and are thus contented to exist in the appropriate echo chamber.
All we can realistically expect of those in power is accessibility — and we are lucky when we get even that much. It is the responsibility of the media to ensure that we are prepared to call them on their BS, ask the right questions, and keep asking until we either get satisfactory responses or the stench of their lack of accountability is so palpable that it’s politically precarious.
Some may question the right of a fairly new member of the media fraternity, like me, to draw such conclusions. To those I say: you need not be in a room for an inordinate amount of time to detect a foul odour. In fact, the longer you’ve been exposed to it, the less sensitive you tend to be to its offence.
Improvement only becomes possible when we are willing to admit that there is a problem. While what I have written is not an indictment of the media in its entirety, certain members need to admit that there is a problem. For our part at the STAR, we will continue digging below the surface of issues to the end of bringing the truth to light.
