MOST media houses would have benefited enormously from the election campaigns mounted by both political parties and supplemented by related organisations such as the Electoral Commission. Hence, generally, the campaign season was commercially healthy for media houses.

Media coverage throughout has been fairly balanced, and I expect that this will continue as we approach the closing stages of the countdown. While there has been much criticism of the debates, it is good that we are continuing with this tradition started in the mid-1990s. Former Press Association of Jamaica President Patrick Harley is to be commended for providing the background on the debates in an article published in the Observer on December 20.

During the past two to three weeks I have attempted to analyse the editorial coverage given mainly in our three Sunday newspapers published on December 25 and our main television discussion programmes — All Angles and Impact on TVJ and Direct on CVM. As both All Angles and Direct overlap between 8:30 and 9:00 pm, switching between both is always a challenge.

However, I was happy to be able to catch up by accessing the videos subsequently posted on TVJ’s website. Imagine my disappointment in finding out that CVM no longer posts their videos. However, fortunately, TVJ still maintains this service and I managed to catch the panel discussion on CVM that followed the debate by the two leaders, as well as the follow-up discussions.

The last two especially, were well worth watching; although as I recall, the panellists on All Angles had more sharply contrasting positions which made for a more spirited discussion.

CVM’s subsequent programme, which involved an interview with Don Anderson was as interesting as it was useful in helping to clarify many grey areas regarding polling in general and explaining how and why the results of different polls can vary as much as they have in recent weeks.

I also found that the interview of Prime Minister Holness, conducted first by Cliff Hughes on Impact and subsequently by Dionne Jackson-Miller on All Angles, contrasted in terms of the quality of the questions posed. There is little doubt that Jackson-Miller keeps in mind, as she should, that she is representing her audience by the questions she asks her interviewees. Also commendable is that she manages to remain affable throughout; even when her guest persists in avoiding her question.

One particular question that was a sticking point in two interviews featuring the prime minister (one with Cliff Hughes) was the issue of his appointment of Shahine Robinson, given the wide-ranging criticisms against her credibility, as minister of transport and works. In both interviews, the prime minister appeared to waffle while searching for an appropriate response.

In the Cliff Hughes interview he was given a line when the interviewer suggested that he “gave her a second chance”. No such assistance was provided by Jackson-Miller, who chose to insist on a response which never came, although the PM stuck to the “giving her a second chance” line.

There are some who may feel that Jackson-Miller may not have been kind to the PM by her insistence on a clear response, but it should be recognised that it is not the role of the journalist/interviewer to ‘help out’ an interviewee who appears to be avoiding a question to which there is good reason to believe that the media audience wants answers.

While I have not been able to follow radio news and commentaries as much, I have received complaints from some readers that at least one radio channel does mostly editorialising during their presentation of news stories. And these are usually favour one political perspective.

I also did a snapshot analysis of the editorial content of all three Sunday papers on Christmas Day in assessing their adherence to the ‘balance’ principle in journalism. For this exercise, I looked at all the political campaign-related stories, including news and editorial columns. The variables examined were direction of content, whether in favour of or against either political party (positive or negative); or neutral.

The Gleaner published a total of 27 campaign-related stories, the Observer 21 and the Sunday Herald 15. It was encouraging to see that most of the news stories published in all three papers were void of editorialising. The Observer’s Conrad Hamilton was especially good in this regard.

The issue that drew the most comments in both The Gleaner and the Sunday Herald was the Buggery Law on which the leader of the opposition promised to seek a vote of conscience by parliamentarians if her party wins the election. Interestingly, while crediting Mrs Simpson Miller for her courage in taking a clear position on the issue, the two columns which dealt with the issue were described as unfavourable to the PNP’s position.

By my assessment, while some columns did provide points in favour or against either party, the articles still presented their argument in a way that favoured one side or the other. Case in point is Ian Boyne’s article in the ‘In Focus’ section of The Gleaner titled ‘The Great Debate’.

While the column was respectful of certain aspects of the PNP’s manifesto, this paled in comparison to his endorsement of the JLP’s when comparing both. He seemed to be even chiding the PNP in stating: “Where I believe, though, the JLP manifesto stamps its absolute superiority and distinction is in the area of governance reforms, the JLP’s ideas for deepening democratic governance, the devolution of authority, transparency, accountability and anti-corruption are exceedingly impressive.”

I found this assertion especially amazing, given that the issue of transparency is the number one challenge that the Government faces, as cited by several commentators elsewhere, in its relationship with the International Monetary Fund. So far, this is a relationship that is still being negotiated in absolute secrecy.

Then too, what about the management of the Jamaica Development Infrastructure Programme and the corrective proposals? Guest columnist Robert Wynter was also critical of some aspects of the JLP’s manifesto, especially for its failure to provide economic targets. In a previous column he also criticised some perceived deficiency in the PNP’s manifesto, but was more circumspect in making comparisons.

Overall, The Gleaner had three stories in favour of each party and 14 others counted as neutral, including two cartoons. Seven of these stories were news items.

The Observer had three stories that were favourable to the JLP. Tamara Scott’s article, ‘The Great Debate’, tended to lean in the PNP’s favour, in commending Mrs Simpson Miller (in her wrap-up paragraph) for her stand against homophobia.

The Sunday Herald published 18 campaign-related stories, eight deemed unfavourable to the JLP. In addition an election message by the prime minister was listed as a favourable news story for the JLP while there were nine stories counted as neutral