Media meditations

A  columnist in another newspaper recently implied that I am a paedophile. She has also called me homosexual, sexist, and racist. What has her enraged is that I have on several occasions described her as a bad writer: an assertion which, unlike any of hers, is both true and provable. I won’t be suing this person for libel, though. There are several reasons for my reluctance. Firstly, this matter is not worth my getting involved with our horrible courts, especially since I am neither wealthy nor friends with any judge (but I am being redundant). Second, I have noticed that people who sue the media often do so because they have cocoa in the sun. And third, I am not sure I could win the case. You see, a charge of libel rests on the argument that a ‘reasonable person’ would accept the opinions put forward by the defendant. So I could just see a clever lawyer arguing, “Your Honour, my client has no reasonable readers.

Her views are not considered credible, though some people view them as incredible, and are incredulous that someone is allowed to write such drivel in the newspapers. But even her editors treat her with complete contempt, since her column is the first thing they cut when they have an extra ad or another article. I therefore hold that nobody, including Mr Baldeosingh, takes anything she says seriously.” And that last argument I could not deny without perjuring myself. But my overriding reason for not suing is this: as a newspaper writer, I am a public person who believes in freedom of speech. As such, I feel that other people should be given every privilege to voice their criticisms of me, even if such criticisms are entirely unreasonable or, in the case of that columnist, outright lies. In fact, I don’t ever write letters to the editor in the newspaper I work for, since that would mean taking space from people who do not have a forum, as I do, to write about anything I choose. In my opinion, whenever there is a conflict between a person’s right to privacy and the people’s right to know, the decision should always be in favour of the latter.

This is why it was correct for the media to publish the correspondence between Chief Justice Sat Sharma, Attorney General John Jeremie, and Director of Public Prosecutions Geoffrey Henderson. But did the fourth estate undermine  the judicial foundation by doing so?  Perhaps, but the media only cracked open an already existing flaw: to wit, the unequal treatment of the privileged over the average citizen in our courts. In recent history, there was businessman Anthony Amoroso Centeno being placed on bond after killing a man, because the judge felt the sound of the prison gates closing on him was punishment enough. There was Brad Boyce walking free because the coroner’s evidence was viewed by the judge as unreliable, even though the same coroner’s evidence continues to be accepted in cases involving less prominent persons. There were the teenage children of the wealthy getting off a charge of marijuana possession, while little black boys are jailed every week for the same victimless crime.

The Vijay Naraynsingh case was simply the culmination of all this. From his medical colleagues to religious leaders to newspaper columnists to the CJ himself, Naraynsingh’s wealth and connections were enough to make his stay in prison the mildly unpleasant experience which, at worst, it should be for everyone awaiting trial. And the privilege seems to have continued on his release, for he has asserted that his third wife is innocent of the charge of killing his second wife. And, if he is allowed to make this comment on a case before the courts can I, a mere journalist, assert that she is guilty? I doubt it. But, although the provision of news remains solid,  I am worried about certain small trends which may signal that the media is failing in its duty to educate the general public. For example, when I see an editor writing factually incorrect feature articles on abortion, it upsets me, since a newspaper, in matters of news as distinct from opinion, must always give reliable information.

And when I see columnists and radio talk show hosts being promoted precisely because they are ignorant, it concerns me. When I see psychics being interviewed as though they are political experts, I feel aggravated. When I see the views of New Age gurus and religious fundamentalists given prominent space, it discomfits me. Not because such voices shouldn’t be heard, but because there must also be knowledgeable, rational and moderate voices to counter them: which is not the case. Since the media, apart from being an estate of itself, is often the mediator between the other estates, it is crucial that it adheres to its professional and ethical duty to air all views. However, in an underdeveloped society it is difficult — indeed, virtually impossible — to keep to the highest ethical standards. This is because a key characteristic of underdevelopment is inefficient or corrupt institutions.

It is true that, even in developed nations, no institution is perfect. As a result, you always have to make compromises or accept certain insults to your dignity. But compromise is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is having your dignity insulted every once in a while. Having to compromise in certain ways can help you attain more important goals by giving up lesser ones. The man who refuses to compromise is often a man who simply has an exaggerated opinion of his worth. But, if you are concerned about ethics, your compromises should always be dictated by one overriding principle: that the institution you belong to does more good than harm. The media, I think, still functions mostly within that parameter. But I also think that, with the voices of irrationality and bias baying louder every day, the media is in real danger of succumbing to the rot that infects all the other institutions in this place.

E-mail: kbaldeosingh@hotmail.com <mailto:kbaldeosingh@hotmail.com>
Website: www.caribscape.com/baldeosingh <http://www.caribscape.com/baldeosingh>