EDITORIAL

The Media's Role In An Election

Tuesday, February 10, 2004

Over the next 10 months, as the general election machinery goes into high gear, Cayman will once again be witness to the process of examination of candidates that will take place for incumbent and prospective politicians. While some of this discovery process will be acted out on campaign platforms across the country, it will be principally through the media, both print and broadcast, that the various messages will be brought to the wider population.

The information that will come to the public will naturally rest, to a large extent, on the actions or statements of the candidates vying for a seat in the Legislative Assembly, and coincidentally we now have a similar process going on in the United States where Democratic Party candidates for president are on the campaign trail. 

To pay even passing attention to the process in the US would be instructive for our would-be politicians in that it shows the level of maturity and professional attitude towards the media that is expected, indeed required, of persons seeking political office. It should be obvious to even the unenlightened among us that to answer to the media is nothing more than answering to the people; it is towards them that the response is ultimately directed.

It is therefore axiomatic that a politician at any time, but particularly during an election campaign, must be prepared to handle all the media with equanimity and poise; that to behave otherwise, as we have seen in one instance with Howard Dean in the current US primaries, is to see one's campaign falter as a result. 

The painful lesson learned as a result of Mr Dean's indecorous outburst might well be repeated here in the ensuing months.

It is equally axiomatic that questions or subjects of a political nature cannot be avoided, no matter how sensitive. Indeed, to take the axiom further, the more sensitive the issue, the more the voting public will want to have it addressed, which is precisely the role that the media must fulfill. 

It is not a question of harassment by the media; rather it is a question of professional duty. Not to ask the question, not to pursue the point, is to be negligent, and particularly so in an election year.

However, there is equally an obligation on the media side not only to be attentive to potential issues, but to exercise their mandate in a professional and mature manner, to operate with respect, and to deal with matters in balanced and factual manner. The latter point, in particular, crucial at all times, is particularly in play when a citizen's vote can be swung, one way or the other, by what one reads in print or hears on the airwaves. 

However, it must be emphasised that once the criterion of balance and accuracy has been met, the ball is truly in the politician's court. Petulant outbursts, or a refusing to respond to enquiries, are nothing more than bluster. Threats of lawsuits are pertinent when, and only when, the news story or the sound bite is erroneous. Political aspirants should understand clearly, and some apparently do not, that an accusation or a report is not libelous if the information is true. 

A media practitioner may be guilty, as is often the case in large metropolitan scenarios, of being insensitive or of displaying poor taste, but one can only be guilty of libel if one is playing games with the facts. 

Potential and incumbent politicians who attempt to silence criticism by threats of legal action would do well to remember a well-worn creed of journalism practice: the ultimate defence of libel is the truth.

Back...