Taking the press out to lunch By Owen Baptiste Story Created: Dec 29, 2014 at 1:26 AM ECT (Story Updated: Dec 29, 2014 at 1:26 AM ECT ) From PEOPLE magazine, January 1983 The problem is, so many people come to expect handouts as a right, and corruption as a way of life, that journalists have to be alert to the dangers of accepting any largesse from individuals. Generally, the press in Trinidad and Tobago labours under the stigma of irresponsibility and unreliability. Was that Kamaluddin Mohammed at the Mount Hope Medical Complex with Emile Elias? Did seven people die in a crash at Valencia, or was it only six? There is no way that any sane person can speak up for the weeklies, but in a large measure both the Express and the Guardian do not deserve this reputation. I know that indiscretions occur and that errors are made—these are occupational hazards because of the dismal lack of training in the profession. But even the most unlikely recruits to journalism approach the job with a kind of dedication and valour that is common among missionaries only. They may not think integrity is the shield they carry in a world filled with wretchedness and wrong, but they know, intuitively and positively, that “the facts” are what their readers want. The question is who responds in their quest for the truth? How are they to distinguish between truth and propaganda? And, finally, should they say “no” to every offer of lunch or dinner which the public may rightly interpret as an attempt to compromise their reporting? Emile Elias raises this troubling question when he says, in an outburst against the $500 million Mt Hope Medical Complex, that “all the wining and dining of the media by Sodeteg does not change the fact that they are doing no satisfactory training and are not maximising the use of local resources”. But, really, December is the month of parties for the press and the question should be occupying the hearts and minds of newspapermen and women who are sensitive to the complaints against the press. When I joined the profession 30 years ago, both my parents sincerely believed I had made the wrong choice. My father in fact made no effort for years to conceal his disappointment and disgust. Newspapermen, he believed, were drunks, had little or no family life and were without the virtues of honesty and thrift. For a time, when I sowed my own quota of wild oats, I might have added to his discomfiture about the Fourth Estate, but now I believe he has come to view newspapermen as humans, possessing neither more nor less avarice nor honour than doctors, lawyers or teachers. It is a view that most people share today, I feel sure, but journalists remain more vulnerable than doctors, lawyers and teachers to the intrigues of politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen. As a youngster, for instance, I came quickly to understand that “rum and roti” politics was not confined to an election period, nor to politicians. Businessmen played the same game in order to ingratiate themselves with the reporting community. I doubt very much the mentality has changed over the years, though it is obvious that the techniques of influencing journalists have been refined. But it was crass and undisguised in the fifties and sixties and newspapermen did not appear to be affronted by those crude efforts to procure coverage of an event or exposure of an individual. What was worse were the stories that some journalists actually solicited gifts or favours from time to time, and the theory of one bad apple spoiling the whole barrel finds no more apt situation. Irrevocably, the idea that the press must be feted at least once a year has firmly established itself in the agenda of the business community. I have no doubt there is a sincere desire to thank the press for its support during the year, even if that support at times is grudging...that companies such as Neal and Massy, WITCO and Huggins, and corporations such as the Royal Bank, Republic Bank and Scotiabank invite newsmen and newswomen to lunch or dinner. All these companies spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every year on public relations programmes and the press is a valuable ally in the search for a good corporate image. It is a very poor judgment therefore not to demonstrate even an awareness of the existence of reporters and photographers whose assistance is always required in the revelation of company activity and involvement in the community. My trepidation about this whole business of “wining and dining” the press is rooted in our natural inclination to disregard standards of behaviour. If the priest could play, who is we? Trinidadians do not see it as their responsibility to lead; instead, they are quick to follow, especially in the direction of least resistance. The problem with this philosophy is that any attempt to be different, any desire for excellence is regarded as foolish idealism. The problem too is that things are always what they seem...there is no intellectual attempt to get below the surface of an action or an appearance. So that a journalist gorging himself at a Christmas party, or becoming drunk and disorderly, is not just making an ass of himself but is plunging all journalists into disgrace. I have witnessed this indiscipline and ill-mannered behaviour so often in the past and feel unable at times to defend the intelligence of colleagues whose work I otherwise respect. But the gravest danger, as Emile Elias suggests, is that corporations which are engaged in “wining and dining” the press may succeed in getting journalists to turn a blind eye to their faults. It is an accusation, of course, that is hurled at journalists by every section of the community. Thus, trade unionists occasionally denounce the press for white-washing the sins of the private sector, and businessmen retaliate that the press, which is made of working newspapermen and women—all salaried people—cannot be sympathetic to their problems and take sides invariably with trade unionists. No journalist today is naïve enough not to be aware of these charges and counter-charges in a society where freedom of expression is practised, but it seems to me to be a foolish irrelevancy for the press to encourage any possibility of bias or inefficiency. There is no doubt in my mind how to treat the scores of invitations I get every year from individuals and corporations. Even if I were so disposed, it is impossible to take up every offer to lunch or dinner or drinks. No working journalist would ever be able to do so and put in a fair day’s work. But those accepted must be done with honour. I am punctual; I make polite conversation; I eat and drink with moderation; I say thanks and I leave. It is not that the gesture, the nod of recognition if not respect which big business is now ready to bestow on the journalist are not recognised; but I am wary of losing the advance we have made by any familiarity or indiscretion on my part. That is why if I believed there was more to an invitation than genuine thanks for a job well done, I would carefully excuse myself. It is what every professional-minded journalist must do.
Posted on: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 08:39:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015