Media researcher and manager Marcia Forbes’ contention that the emergence of social media networks had effectively buried any perception of traditional media houses being in total control of the public information sphere, with far-reaching implications for press and personal freedoms, was the centrepiece of her presentation at the breakfast/forum held in observation of World Press Freedom Day on May 3. The forum was hosted by the Press Association of Jamaica (PAJ) in collaboration with the Media Association Jamaica, UNESCO and the Women’s Media Watch. Her topic was “Media Freedom and New and Social Media”.

Dr Forbes’ presentation drew attention to the explosion of social media networks when everyone with internet access and certain online tools could become a virtual media house, a publisher or a broadcaster. She endorsed the view that the idea of new media as opposed to traditional or “old media” had become redundant as all media have taken to the internet with The Gleaner and the Jamaica Observer now posting videos, not just pictures and text.

Forbes’ presentation focused on the implications of unregulated media content posted on the internet in this scenario, especially given such key features as the permanence, scalability, replicability and searchability of the material, as also the potential for intruding in personal lives. Given those potentials, she expressed the view that social media networks “can be the bane of our lives or they can be a new form of enlightened engagement. It is up to us to choose which it will be”.

Last week’s discussion was timely for many reasons, but primarily because it comes at a time when many concerns have been expressed here in Jamaica, regionally and globally about media standards and accountability. Accepting that professional journalists now share the public information space with tweeters, bloggers, YouTube posters and other social media users, things could become quite chaotic if this reality means that anything goes in terms of standards and where such long-held principles as reliance on credible sources and respect for the embargo principle are no longer deemed crucial for quality reporting. The question is whether traditional media ethics are suitable or even realistic in this emerging scenario. Maybe that is why there seems no urgency to launch the PAJ/MAJ proposed media code of practice developed much more than a year ago and which may now already need fundamental revisions.

Then, too, with increasing emphasis on audience ratings, mainstream media entities are more and more resembling tabloids driven by the objective of generating provocative stories rather than merely provoking an informed response. In this regard, I was not sure how to interpret a comment made by the PAJ president in her address at last week’s forum that there are some “brazen enough to accuse us of being sensational… because the media dare to expose the society’s collective failure to protect our children”.

Contrary to that statement, most of the comments I have seen or heard expressed in terms of media coverage of children’s issues have dealt with ethical concerns and the sensitivity factor. Indeed, there have been questions about whether sufficient care was taken to protect or minimise potential harm to children exposed in certain stories as recommended in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In addition, press freedom could not possibly mean that intruding on the privacy of private individuals is always justified by the perceived public desire for “sexy” stories. Surely freedom of the press does not mean that such concerns are no longer relevant and important. The contention that others in the social media network are getting there first with the information cannot be the sole determining factor in what and when to publish or broadcast, as former Gleaner editor-in-chief Wyvolyn Gager, who chaired one of the panel discussions at the forum, pointed out in giving a personal experience she had while serving in that position.

The disclosure by the minister with responsibility for information in the Office of the Prime Minister, Sandrea Falconer, that the government was looking to implement an appropriate social media policy should have got everyone’s attention, given the considerations about press freedom. Noticeably, the minister gave as the rationale for this proposal, the need to more “effectively engage ordinary Jamaicans in decision-making”. While the intent, as explained, is commendable, I rather suspect any such move would be much more than that, as the present media environment has already empowered citizens with the potential for influencing the public information agenda while other key commitments, such as updating the libel/defamation legislation, remain outstanding. One thing remains clear: the media revolution requires that we collectively rethink some of our definitions such as who is a “journalist” or what is “journalism”. Most likely we may also be forced to reconsider questions of ethics for a profession that is required to generate instant news and analysis in an age when everyone with the relevant tools and internet access is a potential “journalist” and when newspapers are in real danger of becoming extinct.

Hall of Fame

Kudos to the Press Association for launching a Journalism Hall of Fame last week as part of its observation of World Press Freedom Day. Although not said at the launch, it seems that one criterion is that this award be given posthumously, which may be another good idea. In any event, the induction of Theodore Sealy, former editor-in-chief of The Gleaner, and the PAJ’s first president, lead trustee and subsequently honorary president at the time of his passing, was a nice start. The citations also supported the decision to induct Hugh Crosskill and Len Nembhard. I certainly look forward to the tributes to these icons being appropriately mounted at the PAJ headquarters.

antoye@gmail.com