Soft in the middle

US media in 2005 faced a different phenomenon, the unearthing of dishonest, unethical journalists. Their crimes ranged from downright fabrication of stories for placement in well-regarded media outlets to accepting money for placing certain stories or promoting specific views.

I was impressed by the firings and hounding out of office of some of the culprits. One of the major stories was the probe into the CIA leak about Valerie Palme’s identity and the involvement of former New York Times reporter Judith Miller. The actions of media houses to purge themselves of unethical journalists suggested that they have an interest in maintaining or regaining public confidence that media practitioners are honourable and trust worthy.

Looking at our own landscape, I recall one article which described in detail the “goings on” at a laboratory in central Trinidad and to date public verification has not been forth coming. This is just one example of a society “gone soft on consequences”.

I have clients who suggest that “pay for placement” is a viable option to get their views publicised. I have other clients who are stumped by the ease with which unverified statements by “reliable” sources are included in news reports. On the other hand media practitioners assure me that stories are properly verified and there is no intentional mis-representation of the facts, but I wonder! Apart from the few public apologies for inaccuracies, information published in the media remains out there for public judgment and invariably these statements are seen as facts. We now have a significant blurring of the lines between opinion pieces and hard news reporting particularly in the electronic media.

What are the consequences of publishing inaccuracies about products, people or organisations? Immeasurable for the subject, but apparently none for the journalist or media house. We simply move on to the next event. What is it going to take to strengthen the accountability factor for media practitioners? More importantly, is this phenomenon unique to the media or is it a societal problem in Trinidad and Tobago?

I suggest that it is a societal problem and that the changing standards in the media are merely a reflection of the shifting sands in our society. When someone can use as a defence that they are the only one being rebuked for malfeasance and that defence succeeds, we are giving licence to others to perpetrate the same acts or worse without fear of consequences. It is now becoming accepted that if I could jump the red light then I have right of way. These behaviours are informed by the same thinking that encourages the criminal to trample on my rights at will. It is also the same thinking that causes reluctance to complain about infringement of rights.

We fear no consequences because often there are no consequences for our action. It seems that might is right and we operate on the basis of survival of the fittest.

Former president of the Republic - ANR Robinson captured this shifting of the sands aptly with his now famous quote “streams into rivers and rivers into seas.” My understanding then was his plea to put a halt to the societal demise. We however have continued to preside over the demise of our own society by committing seemingly minor acts of indiscretion but expecting the larger society to be pillars of virtue.

Until we change the operating environment and demonstrate that there are consequences for our actions, the “mas” will continue with pundits and politicians alike expressing horror at the shifting sands.

In every sphere, there must be a connection between action and result; we must experience the relationship between breaking the laws and the penalties of our actions. There is an overarching responsibility by those in charge of governance to ensure that consequences are known and experienced. There can be no relenting on the implementation of what is right and just. There can be no “sacred cows”; the “Mr Bigs” must suffer the consequences for all to see. Only then will we have the moral right to demand enforcement of all laws.

While the “Mr Bigs” are damaging society, there is a greater damage being done by those media practitioners who are failing in their role as the eyes and ears of society. Like it or not, society depends on the media to have a greater insight and to act as filters for our understanding.

The time is now to dig beneath the shifting sands and rediscover the foundations on which we can truly build a society of consequence.