THIS week I conclude my analysis of the coverage of the report of the Dudus/Manatt Commission as published in the Jamaica Observer and the Herald on Sunday of June 19.

Four articles and one news release each were published in the Observer and the Sunday Herald, including the Herald’s editorial, dealing with the commission’s findings. The opinions were all negatively framed, although to varying degrees.

The headline announcing Claude Robinson’s column in the Observer, ‘Expected little, got less’, effectively summed up the writer’s opinion of this report. The columnist pointed to a number of holes in the report, resulting in several unanswered questions. Noting that the bulk of the report supports a conclusion that the Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) signed by the former minister of national security Peter Phillips with agencies of the US Government were unconstitutional, this writer argued that the commissioners were “less assertive in dealing with other major players”.

He criticised their approach as ‘timid’, as reflected in their use of several vague and inconclusive terms, such as ‘inappropriate’, ‘unfortunate’, and ‘imprudent’ in describing Prime Minister Golding’s involvement with the extradition when available evidence suggested that he was more involved.

He chastised them for ignoring available evidence, while concluding that it was the Jamaica Labour Party that instructed Manatt, Phelps and Phillips (MPP), rather than the Government. He further noted that the commissioners’ protection seemed to extend beyond the prime minister to then Justice Minister Dorothy Lightbourne.

Tamara Scott-Williams also chided the commissioners for the vagueness of their findings, using what she refers to as “58 pages of legalese and diplomatic language”, in which they “exonerated our public servants of any form of misconduct in their roles”. From this perspective, she joins other critics who have voiced the question that: “if no one did anything wrong, how is it that so many people ended up dead?”

Howard Gregory’s half-page column (‘Of diplomacy and truth-telling’) was similarly critical of the report’s play on words in steering clear of any punitive recommendation against any politician or public servant. He too noted that the commissioners opted for “the language of diplomacy so that they can be all things to all people and not cause any offence or rock any boat”.

Gregory, though, seemed especially critical of the commissioners’ failure “to address the catastrophic events that transpired in Western Kingston in the wake of the extradition request, especially the loss of lives in Tivoli and the killing of businessman Keith Clarke”.

Mark Wignall’s article seemed to echo Gregory’s question about the Tivoli fallout, while acknowledging that his perspective on that community’s reputation had been changed, albeit not necessarily in their favour. Written under the headline ‘A Tivoli enquiry would also be a waste of time’, the column, while making no direct comment on the report, left no doubt about his views on the futility of another such enquiry.

Both the Observer and the Herald published one news item each on the report. In the case of the Observer this was a straight news report by Alicia Dunkley on the call by Opposition members in Gordon House for a debate on the report following its tabling and the parrying by Government members that indicated a resistance to such a call.

A similar report of the wrangling between Opposition and Government members inside Gordon House regarding the censure motion was given in Ronnie Thwaites’ regular three-quarter page column (‘From the Backbench’) published in the Herald. Thwaites referred to the report as “a mind-numbing waste of money”. His account referred to the report as “pliant”, “slavish” and “a flat-tyre verdict”.

In the remaining ‘opinion’ articles in the Herald, the writers were similarly caustic but also provided a basis for their criticisms. The editorial ‘Grand cover-up’ used such terms as “brazen”, “barefaced”, “nonsensical” and “an expensive fiasco”, to describe the commissioners and their report.

Garnet Roper’s near three-quarter page column under the heading: ‘That sugar-coated report’ was the most damning. He was relentlessly sarcastic in his description and referred to it as “political genius at best”. Like Robinson, he noted the significant space devoted to the so-called ‘secret MOUs’ (14 of 58 pages), that builds misleadingly on a suggestion that “the extradition was caused by Dr Phillips”. He argued that the findings have been used by Coke’s lawyers to file a motion that the US used illegally obtained evidence against their client.

In a further indictment against the report, Roper affirmed: “I do not think that the attempts by the commission to slavishly accede to the arguments advanced by the lawyers that appeared for the Government, the prime minister and the JLP will have any lasting effect. The people of this country are far too sophisticated to fall for this.”

Regular columnist David Rowe was also scathing under the heading, ‘The Manatt Report’, although slightly less so. In the lead paragraph he affirmed his dissatisfaction with the report as lacking in “exhaustive research” and dismissed it as “more opinionated than scholarly”.

He favoured Roper’s ‘cover-up’ theme, and argued that the commissioners appeared to be in a rush to protect the prime minister “when the hearings suggest that he may have deliberately misled the COE” (Commission of Enquiry).

Rowe also introduced the notion that the role of the foreign affairs minister was usurped by political party interests and that the report needed to have devoted “more time and rancour in dealing with this issue”. This writer, who was also identified as a professor of law in the US, differed with the commissioners on the issue of the MOUs. He affirmed that the minister concerned was the authorised government representative, hence there could be no question of its enforceability in law.

This writer highlighted several other ‘omissions’. These included, the “mythical” JLP financial contributor, and the allegations by the prime minister against US diplomatic staffers in Jamaica. He noted also the commissioners’ failure to address the issue of Harold Brady’s non-compliance with the COE.

More biting criticisms were evident in the opinions expressed by the writer of the ‘Unmuzzled Voices’ column. While stating that the report provided no surprises, due to the strong public perception of bias, he concluded that the commissioners would be the principal casualties. In support of those who argued that the findings were not supported by the evidence, he reiterated that the report was a “waste of money” and that it “is being criticised by just about everyone excepting those close to the prime minister”.

Contrary to some criticisms I have received that the media coverage showed bias against the commissioners and especially government representatives, my perspective is somewhat different. Based on my analysis, the newspapers, for the most part, made some effort to be fair.

Most professional journalists know that the journalistic ethics of objectivity and fairness are strong influences on the profession. But objectivity is not necessarily the ideal philosophy of journalists; fairness is. When we all begin to examine media coverage from this perspective, then we may all experience greater benefits in the marketplace of information.