The Editor of the Vincentian bares some, but leaves much unsaid
The Vincentianâs editorial of August 20, 2010, captioned âThe print media environmentâ makes for interesting reading. It is clear that something sparked the thrust of that editorial and led the Editor to begin to articulate the position of his paper or rather better said, to more clearly outline what the paper he edits is not. He puts it this way: âOne thing is certain: The print media – at least THE VINCENTIAN – is no mechanical device which can be switched on or off as a political regime sees fit.â{{more}} The editorial was obviously written with some anger, based, it appears, on some misunderstanding of what the VINCENTIAN, specifically, is about. The Prime Minister is singled out and some statement made by him was obviously what triggered the Editorâs need to defend the position of his paper. In fact, reference is made to âopen statements of their politically partisan charged expectationsâ made by âwhoever it is, Prime Minister included.â
The first paragraph is a loaded one. It reads: âThe WORD is that the sitting Prime Minister of this country is holding out hope that two of the newspapers operating here would be generally supportive of his governmentâs administration. Put another way, he is expectant that the two would not follow the role of the other, which, to paraphrase his impression of that newspaper, has become nothing but a mouth-piece of the opposition.â Exactly what was said, when it was said and the context in which it was said were never explained, but what is interesting about the first paragraph, if the editorâs paraphrase of the Prime Ministerâs impression is correct, is that what is demanded of the âtwoâ papers is that they become mouth pieces of the government, of course, not following the role of the other.
Actually there is later a strong denunciation of the Prime Ministerâs expectations: âIt is nothing short of an affront to our founding democratic principles when there is an impulse to seek, to influence a media house, to follow a particular political line. Instead, political parties, those serious about assuming and those desirous of continuing to guide the governance of this country, need to encourage a print media that reflects a diversity of views and interests within the society, and an entity that serves as a forum for a vigorous (or is it robust) exchange of views. It is in doing this that a political party can then boast about enriching the democratic process – about building a national democratic society.â In doing this, however, it plays a role âin influencing political opinions and attitudes in this countryâ and as such becomes âa major arena in the battle of ideasâ, one of the sites, in fact, of ideological struggle (the battle of ideas) which the political parties, âlike other social actorsâ have rightfully sought to engage.
The print media should not in his view be seen, as being of opposite extremes, with first of all, content and ideological allegiances being fixed based on âprevailing interest of ownership and control.â Equally vexatious to the editor is to see the media as an empty vessel easily swayed âby those who are most vigorous and persistent in engaging with it or holds the strength of dispensing state advertisementsâ which in any event, he warns, âis currently unequally spread across print media houses.â Is this one of the challenges that faces the print media? Those views about which he is critical lack the understanding of âthe forces and factorsâ that influence media content. But what are those forces and factors? Do they only influence content or is that the battle of ideas are tied in with content?
So the Editor sees the role of the print media as one that âreflects a diversity of views and interests within the societyâ and as a âforum for a vigorous (perhaps robust) exchange of viewsâ. But he then opens up a can of worms, for in his view the question that still needs to be answered is the capacity of the media to play such a role. Has it, he asked, made progress in this area, and what challenges remain? It would have contributed tremendously to this conversation (that needs to be continued) if he had volunteered an opinion on the ability of the media to play such a role and to outline some of the challenges. The issue of the progress that has been made is best left to others, the readers, to answer and the VINCENTIAN would certainly not get off easily on this one. Mr. Editor, however, acknowledges that newspapers past and present found it expedient to lend support to a particular party or its programme. Was the word âexpedientâ deliberately used, for it suggests taking positions that are advantageous rather than being fair or just?
There is a lot packed into this editorial and there is obviously a lot that is left unsaid. It would appear that the Editor is not prepared to state categorically that the VINCENTIAN is capable of playing the role he assigns to the media. What he states without hesitation, however, is that The VINCENTIAN âis no mechanical device which can be switched on or off as a political regime sees fit.â These are powerful words and the editorial is a brave one, given the different forces at play that hopefully will begin to map out a path for the paper that will allow the Editor to answer unhesitatingly the questions he posed.
Dr Adrian Fraser is a social commentator and historian.