President Granger and the press: What the future holds?

Jan 06, 2016 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

President Granger told journalists at the media brunch last Sunday that while he would appreciate critical examination of his government, he would expect truthful reporting.  Almost all the leaders of almost all the countries in history, started out with the appreciation of the importance of the media but as power settled, the divide became inevitable. So the question is asked; could the two have an enduring working relation?
My answer is no. I believe there is an inherent contradiction between the Fourth Estate and the power establishment, and the reason for that is because of the nature of power.
I remember the media’s cheerleader for candidate Obama in 2008 was Rachel Maddow of MSNBC. But in 2009 she roasted President Obama for his policy of retaining thousands of troops in Iraq after he declared the war had ended and the troops were coming home. The Obama Government actually asked to see what the New York Times would be reporting on the Snowden tapes. The Times refused the request (see NYT online edition, Sep. 6, 2013; story by Margaret Sullivan).
One of the most infamous confrontations between a government and the press in the 21st century took place under the watch of Prime Minister Tony Blair of the UK. The lowest point in that relationship was Blair’s opaque role in supporting the Iraqi War. The term, “sexing up a document” has become a common jargon in reporting on governmental scandals.
The BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan first used the term in exposing Blair’s press secretary, Alistair Campbell’s use of dramatic embellishment in the dossier on Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq to support Blair’s endorsement of President Bush’s decision to go to war.
In one of his early interviews after he demitted office, Blair referred to the press as ‘feral.” But was the press feral or was it the reporting on the use of power by Blair that caused Blair to use that adjective? Blair conveniently forgot when he used his “feral” remark that the biological warfare scientist, David Kelly committed suicide after the BBC pressured Gilligan to name his source; Gilligan named Kelly. Kelly’s death was the greatest tragedy of Blair’s tenure in office.
It comes back to the inherent contradiction between power and the press. When Gilligan exposed Campbell, it was a terrible blow to Blair’s effort to go to war. From thereon, the relation between Blair and the British media deteriorated. Could a Prime Minister or President maintain a correct, friendly and cordial relation with the press if reporting on their secret ways, lack of transparency, refusal to be forthcoming, downright withholding of public information, constant evasions of answers characterize their use of power?
Just within months of its life in office, the Stabroek News accused the government of dilution of the Cummingsburg Accord. This newspaper has reported on questionable attitudes on some sensitive issues, one of which is the situation at GPL. There was a little spat between PM Nagamootoo and the Chronicle. There is the Simona Broomes reshuffle.
This columnist believes that the extension of the barriers around Parliament against the background of both APNU and AFC voting for their removal in 2012 is unacceptable. The Coalition needs to offer an explanation.
Herein lies my greatest fear – the deterioration of the relationship between the Granger Administration and the press when explanations are frowned upon or bluntly refused to be offered. The press then has to report, and in reporting without governmental explanations available, mistakes are liable to be made. When mistakes are made the power establishment blames the media, but politicians don’t blame themselves for their evasive habits.
I think one of the uneasy things in the relationship between the Fourth Estate and the corridors of state power is that the media is constantly lectured on its responsibility, the need to be factual, awareness of the damage the media can cause, the vigilance to check before rushing to print. But the press is not allowed to lecture the power establishment on the humane use of power. Why should the media be responsible when the use of power is irresponsible?
There is no doubt in my mind that David Granger is a committed nationalist, a decent man, and a politician who wants to do good for his country. But he is a politician nevertheless. He exercises power over an entire country. And power has its inherent psychic limitations. Power has its Freudian fears. Power has its irrational side. Mandela ran from it. Gandhi stayed away from it. Gorbachev turned his back on it. Only time will tell how David Granger handles it. The media’s role should always remain that of the watchdog.

---

---