The media: a soft target

MEDIA IN this country are seen as a monolithic entity that embodies all the worst characteristics of humanity: corruption, moral malleability, political prostitutes, vacuous content, cyar talk properly etc. In short, people love to hate on the media. Our media houses are merely, to a considerable extent, a reflection of the wider society.

Lookit, an outright defence of the industry is hardly supportable. So too, though, is broad-brush condemnation. With no horse in this fight, I prefer a dispassionate grumble about media coverage and programming.

My media career began long before the advent of the internet. In those gas lamp days journalists and on-air personalities drew guidance from a pantheon of giants.

Brenda De Silva, Brian Carter, Dale Kolasingh, Gideon Hanoomansingh, Allison Hennessy, Hazel Ward-Redman, Sharon Pitt, Jones P Madeira, Pat Mathura, Barbara Assoon, Anthony Harford, George John, Dominic Kalipersad; the list is exhaustive.

While few media houses today have the benefit of such touchstone personalities, there are many journalists committed to the principles practised by the above-mentioned.

Still, local media houses are being pummelled on several fronts lately. Chief among the criticisms is the accusation that journalists are conspicuously silent on the buffoonery and incompetence of the current administration.

"Whey de media?" is the cry from those who believe journalists were hyperactive during the PP's term in office. Now, the digital lynch mob says the ever-vigilant pen seems to have run out of ink.

Odd thing is there are probably quite a few people in this government with an entirely different view. The likes of Stuart Young, “minister of foreign travel companionship,” and Colm Imbert, “minister of haughty derision,” to name a few, routinely rubbish news coverage as inaccurate (see fake news), sensationalist and, hell, even conspiratorial!

On scandals like Ferrygate, not-my-gun-toting childrengate, Petrotrin, Sandals, the proposed Toco port project and others, journalists have been relentless in their scrutiny and perceived nuisance value.

Have there been shortcomings?

Absolutely. Filling a column all its own with the missteps and omissions of local media would be easy.

This is true, though, of any other profession. It’s just that media houses face greater scrutiny because of the influence they wield over the population.

There has also been recent moaning online about the quality of broadcast programming, radio in particular. The airwaves, the complaint goes, are crowded with vacuous personnel who are little more than suppositories for the real content: advertisements.

The inexorable rise of blabber (as opposed to talk) radio, however, is a reflection of businesses merely evolving to meet public demand and satiate dominant tastes.

The other day I stumbled onto an unfamiliar station. It’s young, urban, and cacophonous. One particular programme throbbed with the vibe of a hawk-and-spit filled to bursting with just-paid all fours players, cigarette smoke and a screaming baby.

In what was an unintelligible, devolved form of English, the young men all vocalised over each other and laughed uproariously at inside jokes. That segment was proudly book-ended by bmobile adverts.

Nothing is wrong with these radio personalities and their alphabet spaghetti. There’s a flower for every bee. The trouble in our media market is the monoculture of dumbed-down drivel. There’s more mindless gum-flapping than useful or informative discussion. Again, this content seems to echo public tastes and advertiser tolerances.

There is, however, an important demographic of educated and curious citizens eager for more substantial fare. This market segment is, for the most part, routinely ignored by advertisers.

No one wants to invest in creating a knowledge-based society. Yet we reserve the right to bellyache on Facebook about having to live in a nation of ignoramuses. Somehow, though, it’s the fault of journalists and media houses that merely reflect society’s contempt for anything remotely brain-taxing.

Simply put, when it comes to radio, television and print, you get what is paid for. Where we invest is inextricably linked to what’s important to us. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that consumers, and by extension businesses, funnel vast sums of money into conspicuous consumption and entertainment. Cars, clothes, Carnival, and foreign franchises; that’s where the money goes without question. Media houses merely take their cues from society and play back what we feed into them.

It is easy to pin the blame on the media for how they sound or the content they provide. The truth is they carry the same DNA as the rest of us. There are times when you look in the mirror and don’t like what you see.