The Editor of the Vincentian bares some, but leaves much unsaid

The Vincentian’s editorial of August 20, 2010, captioned “The print media environment” 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: “One 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.”{{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 Editor’s need to defend the position of his paper. In fact, reference is made to ‘open statements of their politically partisan charged expectations’ made by ‘whoever it is, Prime Minister included.’

The first paragraph is a loaded one. It reads: “The 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 government’s 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.” 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 editor’s paraphrase of the Prime Minister’s impression is correct, is that what is demanded of the ‘two’ 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 Minister’s expectations: “It 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.” In doing this, however, it plays a role ‘in influencing political opinions and attitudes in this country’ and as such becomes ‘a major arena in the battle of ideas’, one of the sites, in fact, of ideological struggle (the battle of ideas) which the political parties, ‘like other social actors’ 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 ‘prevailing interest of ownership and control.’ Equally vexatious to the editor is to see the media as an empty vessel easily swayed ‘by those who are most vigorous and persistent in engaging with it or holds the strength of dispensing state advertisements’ which in any event, he warns, ‘is currently unequally spread across print media houses.’ Is this one of the challenges that faces the print media? Those views about which he is critical lack the understanding of ‘the forces and factors’ 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 ‘reflects a diversity of views and interests within the society’ and as a ‘forum for a vigorous (perhaps robust) exchange of views’. 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 ‘expedient’ 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 “is no mechanical device which can be switched on or off as a political regime sees fit.” 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.