What happens when columnists ‘clash’?
“THE Gleaner is a strange institution.” So said the late Wilmot ‘Motty’ Perkins some 26 years ago when the newspaper he once worked for as a columnist in the 1970s celebrated its 150th anniversary. He was, at the time, critiquing the institution’s approach to selecting columnists — an issue of burning significance to him and about which he had a mouthful to say.
I was forced to recall from memory Mr Perkins’ words as I observed recently in amazement the fashion in which the ‘old’ newspaper giant of North Street went about the business of selecting new columnists to fill column space on the editorial and op-ed pages.
I observed how George Mason, attorney-at-law formerly of Nationwide fame, was introduced to readers of the paper as a new columnist entering in the form of a ‘clash’ with other ‘star’ columnists, the arena of weekly opinion journalism, reminiscent of the deejay ‘border’ clashes in the native dancehall space that go on spectacular display annually at the Boxing Day Sting concerts.
Beyond Mr Mason, I have also noticed how every so often the views and opinions of columnists and those of contributing writers designated ‘Guest columnists’ of the paper, are pitched against each other by the opinion page editor and depicted graphically in the form of “Point” and “Counterpoint”, with arrows to boot pointing at each other so as to convey the idea and emotion of contentiousness, drama, hype, excitement and collision.
What, exactly, are we to make of this new trend of opinion ‘clash’? Should newspapers purporting to espouse family values seek to devalue our sensibilities as opposed to perfecting the art to inform as to what is happening around us? Indeed, are readers of these said newspapers in this beleaguered country of ours expected to endorse the notion that everything that happens is designed to create casualties?
I cannot help noticing of late, for instance, that journalists wanting to preside over the embarrassment of the country’s first black female prime minister are prepared to resort to tactics of ugly ambush, irrespective of place, time, and circumstance, as if she was a flight risk from justice.
Others, apparently acting in the interests of their benefactors who want to see the back of some Cabinet ministers without proper justification, proceed to portray them to the public and the world in the worst possible light. And stories of hate, empty controversy and violence are used to titillate readers and advertisers. In the end, the impression is given that without casualties there can be no news.
I will readily admit that a ‘clash’ of some kind is never far from the surface in Jamaica. Radio and television talk shows such as Straight up, On the Agenda, Hotline, Direct, Impact, Justice, and letters to the editors, commentaries (oral and scribal), conciliation procedures designed to keep disputing parties “talking”, negotiations over the bargaining table, parliamentary debates, seminars, workshops, and conferences are merely the more formal devices to catch much of what comes naturally to us.
But I am convinced that the wilful and deliberate promotion of a culture of ‘clash’ has produced something of a personality cult in the print media which is not necessarily a good thing. For as the Jamaican newspaper industry panics about its advertising revenue — like newspapers the world over that are having to compete with the ferocious and swift power of social media — “star” writers are encouraged, some by force of circumstance, to abandon nuance and say the most degradingly shocking, outrageous and hateful things — especially about politicians — in order to attract controversy.
Who knows, maybe this is linked to the sociological fact that Jamaicans are long given to rhetorical excess. Anancy stories and the lushness of gossip, su-su and kas-kas abound throughout the country. Whether we like it or not, people in Jamaica talk all the time and cross-talk most of the time.
There is no shortage of opinion. In fact, “opinion surveys” are now part of the opinion landscape, and one person’s opinions generate more opinions from others.
And maybe an argument can be made that the editors and managers of The Gleaner intend the ‘clash’ of columnists to move the hearts and minds of the Jamaican reading public in an environment of intense competition for the shrinking advertising dollar.
But such an argument obviously prompts more questions than answers: movement towards what? ‘Clash’ for what purpose? And are the column contents of those in the ‘clash’ always palatable?
We were offered clearer answers to these types of questions when Hector Wynter edited The Gleaner in the 1970s.
At the time, he made no bones about using the paper to lead the charge in challenging Michael Manley’s People’s National Party Government almost daily and ultimately helping considerably to put it out of office.
His strategy in achieving this involved assembling around him what Ian Boyne once referred to as “powerhouse columnists” of the likes of John Hearne, Morris Cargill, David D’Costa and Wilmot Perkins. As a group, their job was to put democratic socialism and Michael Manley in particular, and left-wing politics in general, under “heavy, heavy manners”, even if this meant clashing with the regime.
Back then, Dawn Ritch told us, Gleaner columnists were “dogs who bring in the bones and drop them at their (editors) feet”. Most bones, she reminisced in 2000, were “juicy”, but “often we look and smell like some of the bones we bring in because of where we have been digging up those particular bones.”
The point is not whether the newspaper establishment at North Street succeeded in its mission to help bring down a government whose ideology it disapproved of. It is that Wynter and his conservative centre-right team of columnists provided anti-government leadership for all to see that had influence beyond our shores. For their efforts, they expected to make a ‘positive’ difference.
Today, insofar as I can see, opinion writing in some quarters is reduced to the position of one individual versus another; and the more outrageously non-conformist and individualistic they are, the easier they are co-opted to make prejudice palatable. It is now easier to use the power of the pen in the service of lazy reaction than to change the world for the better.
It is the kind of endeavour that spreads suspicion in communities, provokes incoherence in thought, and slaughters compassion.
Thankfully, with the growth of other media outlets, the elitism and entitlement that have apparently poisoned the Jamaican commentariat are disappearing rapidly as more competent people get on with the business of capturing the public consciousness.