SO it’s that time of the year when we assume the aspect of Janus, the two-faced Roman god after whom the first month of our calendar is named. According to Roman mythology, this god had the ability to look to the future and at the past. After all, the future is not simply independent of the past and present; it is often shaped by them.

As we look forward to 2010, it is fitting therefore that we contemplate what was good for 2009. Internationally, Jamaican sporting icons shone brilliantly following on their sterling performances in Beijing last year. Tyson Gay summed it up nicely when he pointed out that he couldn’t recall a time in the history of athletics when the three fastest all-time performers in an event were all competing against each other. He pointed out that this was a great time for athletics, as if he needed to emphasise the point.

Of course, the marital woes of the legendary Tiger Woods grabbed the headlines in the closing weeks of the year and seems certain to feature in the media for a while to come.

As far as I am concerned, Tiger needs to get back on the course and on track in his quest to surpass Jack Nicklaus’ record of 18 grand slams. As I pointed out in an interview, I strongly believe that the media is far more intrusive today in the personal lives of public figures than it used to be. Franklyn Delano Roosevelt died in the arms of his mistress.

John F Kennedy reputedly ran the White House like a harem. Albert Einstein was a philanderer yet the media concerned themselves with the feats of his remarkable intellect rather than his overactive libido. What is the difference between then and now, some might ask? Well, dramatic changes in the structure of the media have resulted in the availability of more air time. We now have 24-hr hour radio and television operations. John F Kennedy and FDR did not have to contend with this phenomenon.

Abraham Lincoln was able to make decisions during the American Civil War without being constantly questioned on his every move by an insatiable media. Diplomacy, which is often best conducted in an atmosphere of secrecy, is now under the constant glare of media attention. The fact is that the media houses have space to fill and when there is not genuine news, then gossip and the indiscretions of celebrities must fill the gap.

The other problem is that emergent media (online) is making it extremely difficult to suppress titillating stories involving celebrities. Mainstream media houses are now afraid that if they do not carry certain types of information they will be seen as not serving the interests of their audience. TMZ was the first media outlet to announce Michael Jackson’s death. They did this long before CNN was able to do so. Mainstream media now often picks up on what is happening online. In this new paradigm, mainstream media outlets are constantly forced to respond as quickly to the salacious stories in order to not be totally left behind. Intense competition also means that the aim is now to be entertaining rather than informative. A titillating story is usually much cheaper to carry and has far more entertainment value than an investigative piece.

Media houses which now have to concern themselves with quarterly earnings, usually ensure that they attend to the bottom line, which means doing that which draws the most public attention. Tiger’s indiscretion for instance will attract more viewers, listeners and readers than the proceedings at the Climate Change Conference. Some will argue that the media should lead. Yes, there might be an element of truth in this, however the media cannot force people to accept what they don’t want. Thirty years ago if we did not like what was on JBC we would have to simply grin and bear it. Today it is no longer so.

You can now find a television channel to satisfy the strangest of viewing requirements. If you are into the business of studying booby birds, for example, you can perhaps find a channel catering to your needs.

In our local media competition has lowered standards rather than raising them, as some had expected. Woe betide the media outlet that takes the moral high ground. A media house will attract far more attention talking about Kartel and Mavado than it will discussing the conditionalities of a new IMF agreement. With this human tendency to be titillated rather than educated, the media houses have little alternative but to cater to our baser instincts, if they are to survive. The sad part about all of this is that every five years we have to depend on those same people who spurn information to choose who will make the decisions which will affect our lives.

The question we now face is whether we can have a viable democracy with such glaring information deficits.

clyde.mckenzie@gmail.com