Ben Brodie’s column published in this newspaper last Sunday is ill informed. His criticism of my response to Jamaica’s fall in the annual World Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders, RSF, plus the other points he lumps atop that main argument, reads like the tirade of a senior journalist raging against the dying of the light.

It’s necessary for me to declare early that I have tremendous respect for Ben Brodie. The battles fought by figures like him built a platform for later generation journalists like myself to stand on. I regard him among the outstanding ‘advocacy-journalists’ this country has produced. Journalistically, I am indebted to fore-runners like him. But someone needs to remind Ben that the attention to detail and agitation to always report the facts, which underpinned his brand of journalism in his pomp, remain as relevant today as back then.

In his piece Ben begins by describing my reaction to our press freedom ranking of 12, as reported by Nationwide News, as strange. I will take the word strange at its literal definition to ask Ben two questions. Firstly, what is unusual or surprising about what I’ve said? Secondly, what is difficult to understand or explain about my assessment that the change in methodology used to prepare the rankings could be largely responsible for our movement down to 12 from seven? I ask these questions because nothing in Ben’s analysis exposes even a whiff of strangeness about my own assessment and reaction to Jamaica’s latest rank.

In response to my assertion that, “they have changed the way the matrix is set up to measure press freedom in a particular country”, Ben counters with what I am sure he believes to be his nuclear point that, “how come seven of last year’s top-10 countries have retained their place in the top 10 with this same new matrix?” Well, I don’t know Ben, but you would have had your ‘gotcha’ moment if Jamaica was the only one of last year’s top 10 to fall outside that group in the 2022 report. In fact, six of the top 10 in 2021; Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Costa Rica and Portugal retained their top 10 status. It’s to be noted that Norway and Sweden maintained their rank. Denmark was the only top-10 country to improve its rank while Costa Rica fell from fifth to eighth.

Jamaica, along with the Netherlands, Switzerland and New Zealand have fallen outside the top 10. Jamaica fell from seven to 12, Switzerland from 10 to 14, New Zealand from eight to 11 and the Netherlands tumbled like a stone, dropping from six to 28! RSF itself makes the point in this year’s report that, “in light of the new methodology, care must be taken when comparing the 2022 rankings and scores with those from 2021.” This makes a mockery of Ben’s attempt to dramatise the situation and make it appear as if things have deteriorated in the Jamaican environment between this year and last. I fear that Ben’s powers of analysis appear to be failing him. I can accept that. I cannot, however, accept what appears to be a case of him failing to read carefully the rankings for the two years in question.

The plinth of Ben’s argument has the appearance of being built with marble. A reasonable reader will agree with me that it has been exposed as being built out of styrofoam with a faux marble finish. Ben’s examples of a frightening environment for press freedom amount to the police abuse of our colleague Rudolph Brown in 2018, the expiration of the contract of that first-class woman, Donna-Marie Rowe as head of the JIS, the inordinate delays to amendments to the Access to Information Act and the increased use of freelancing arrangements in the hiring of journalists by cost-cutting media bosses. As Ben noted, the Rudolph Brown issue is something the Press Association of Jamaica (PAJ) has made strong representation on. We remain appalled that he has yet to be compensated for the abuse he suffered. That issue emerged four years ago and could not have factored into the latest assessment of the environment for press freedom in Jamaica. The same goes for the ATI issue which the PAJ has made sustained representation on over the years in collaboration with our colleagues in civil society. To put it bluntly, the fact of Rowe’s decision to move on from the JIS is not a matter of press freedom. The increasing use of freelance contracts during the pandemic is a real issue. That’s why I highlighted it in my message to mark World Press Freedom Day. The PAJ must remain vigilant in its advocacy on this issue. The hope of the PAJ must be that with commercial activity nearing normalcy, media bosses will now revert to the kind of settled agreements that journalists enjoyed pre-pandemic.

The constitutional status of the PAJ is foremost in the mind of this executive. That’s why we have prepared proposed amendments to the constitution which will be shared with our membership ahead of the next Annual General Meeting at the end of August. On the point of AGMs, I am flummoxed by Ben’s statement in his commentary that he’s “recommending that every effort be made to hold the long-overdue AGM of the PAJ.” Where is Ben getting his information from? Why is he so badly misinformed? The minutes exist to prove that there has been an AGM in each of the four years I’ve served the PAJ as president. The AGMs were delayed during the worst of the pandemic. But they were held. For the most recent AGM, held on December 5, 2021, Ben was not among those members present. Perhaps that explains the gap in his memory.

I agree with Ben that the PAJ needs a robust and truly representative body. I would add that persons like myself, who take on the challenge of leading the PAJ, need the support of those who paved the way for us. That’s why it would benefit us if people like Ben spoke to us directly about issues rather than rant and rage from a distance. There’s a group of PAJ stalwarts who have never spoken to me directly about any issue affecting journalists or the association. Never. But these same stalwarts often deliver withering criticism about our actions. They give the appearance of being overly keen to deliver a slap down to people they somehow believe aren’t good enough to lead this organisation.

In my four years leading the executive, the only past president who has ever called me to discuss any issue concerning the association is that gentleman from the north, Franklyn McKnight. The venerable Byron Buckley has also been in touch. Of course, the peerless Dionne Jackson Miller, my immediate predecessor, has remained to offer skilful guidance to the executive. Other past presidents appear splenetic, opting for chastisement from a distance. Only they would know why fulminating from afar in the face of every issue or challenge is better for the PAJ than providing guidance and counsel to those running this leg of the relay. Selah.

George Davis is president of the Press Association of Jamaica.