Dear Editor,

Members of the media were kicking up a great deal of fuss about Milton Samuda “requesting” or “seizing” tapes of an interview conducted with Olympians Asafa Powell and Sherone Simpson by some local journalists. The Press Association of Jamaica (PAJ) and editorial writers are concerned that Mr Samuda is caught in a conflict of interest as the attorney-at-law for the athletes and chairman of Television Jamaica (TVJ) and a director of the RJR Group.

The focus on Mr Samuda, however, is entirely misplaced. This is a moment that invites self-critique by media, rather than illusions or allusions of threats to press freedom.

From all the information available in the public domain, it appears that journalists agreed to do an interview with the athletes on the basis that there would be a restriction on what could be asked about their recent positive drug tests. That was a compact formed in hell. The media houses should never have agreed to this because even before the first question was asked and answer given, the editorial function was already compromised. By that flawed act, they had surrendered their independence which is at the cornerstone of the relationship between the public and the press.

But it does not stop there. Having agreed to that foolish arrangement, the journalists were bound by good ethics to carry it out. News gathering is based on journalists giving their word to sources (whether anonymous or on the record) and it is dangerous for them to recant out of opportunism. When journalists break their word, their sources dry up.

A statement issued by the PAJ said: “The commitment of journalists is to the public and we must use every opportunity to ask important questions without fear or favour. The information relayed must stand up to professional scrutiny.”

That seems fair enough, but the principle should not be interpreted to mean that journalists have a right to ambush sources or back out of agreements when they find them inconvenient. The PAJ seems to think that, despite the deal they made, the journalists were still at large to ask whatever they wanted “in the public interest” and it was up to the athletes whether they wanted to answer. This is very Machiavellian and plainly unsatisfactory.

I am aware of cases where guests have agreed to go onto radio and television programmes to talk about one issue, and not the next, only to have the interviewer later firing questions about the very thing it was agreed they would not talk about. In those circumstances, if the guest refuses to answer, it seems he has something to hide and if he answers the journalist scores. That’s not tough journalism, it’s just bad ethics.

Vernon Daley

Attorney-at-Law

vernon.daley@gmail.com