Country must hear good, bad and ugly

THE EDITOR: I feel obliged to comment on your thoughtful Editorial of last Saturday (July 12, 2003, page 10) which commented on my Senate motion to have the proceedings of Parliament broadcast live to citizens. Indeed, as you recalled, I did say that parliamentarians must not remain “prisoners of the privately-owned mass media.” You said that this implies an “indictment of a deliberate attempt ... to suppress or contain” the speeches made in Parliament. No. I was not on the point of media bias or suppression of views. I was on the more troublesome professional point of the inherent limitations of media reporting. Tell me, can your newspaper really carry all that is said in Parliament? Can you really carry all that is said the very next day? Tell me again, is everything said in Parliament newsworthy? The answer to all three questions, in my view, is no. This is what I mean by “inherent limitations,” nothing spiteful, but merely part of news dynamics in a competitive marketplace. And this is one of the other points I made. Maybe, the word “prisoners” is a bit too overbearing, but it is the word that attracted your journalistic attention, not so? And this brings me to another point. The more dramatic, more titillating, even more abusive the expression in Parliament, the likelier it would get reported. This is all part of “good” news reporting but in my view again, the country ought to hear more than this — the good, bad and even the ugly.

I do not believe that the press can be blamed or be expected to carry all the information provided in Parliament. And this was my major point. Parliament ought to do its own job of being accountable to citizens, at least through the provision of information. (The quality of speeches is for now a separate matter). It is indeed quite grievous to read time and time again, how a particular senator has not spoken, or spoke but did not say that, or how this senator “always supporting Mr Chin Lee,” etc, etc, when a responsible examination of the proceedings will show something quite different. How does a senator reply to aggravated ignorance? To repetitious propaganda without getting in the mud himself? This is why the word “prisoner” might have crossed my mind during the debate on the motion. We can easily become prisoners of other people’s ignorance, mischief or self-serving politics. Anyhow, some good news. The public should know that both the Government and the Opposition in the Senate have indicated support for the motion. Your Editorial spoke well for the press. You said that “media houses must remain free to decide how they will treat various issues that come before Parliament.” And that is my point. I agree. You added: “We do not believe that Professor Deosaran would want to abridge that freedom in any way.” Not at all. In fact, that is another reason for my motion. So as I said during the debate: “The media has its job to do, and Parliament must also do its job.”

SENATOR PROFESSOR
RAMESH  DEOSARAN
Champs Fleurs