Traditionally, the discussion of human rights in
In that regard, if you are not considered part of the inner-circle of the 'privileged voice(s)' then your position is largely seen as hostile, if not counter productive in terms of how this conversation on (human) rights is constructed and performed here. A case in point is a recent exchange between myself and some members of human rights groups in
Obviously, my lack of direct involvement in the human rights community in
This position is, of course, largely inaccurate and definitely insiderist. Its sole aim is to politicise poverty to the extent that it is set up as in explicitly dichotomous relationship with the state vis-a-vis human rights (organisations). Here, 'Government' is perceived as almost always complicit in strangling the personal and other freedoms of a particular kind of 'poor people' and as result, is directly implicated in the high rates of murder exhibited each year in Jamaica, especially those committed by the Jamaican Constabulary Force (JCF). Thus, perceived the JCF is, by and large, construed as the enemy of 'poor people'.
Consequently, those sent to save us all from this unfortunate cocktail of oppression, murder and despair are a select group of people with credentials which largely mark them as 'uptown', if not 'upper middle class' Jamaicans. Indeed, there is nothing, necessarily wrong with this reality in and of itself. This is in the sense in which the police are often implicated in some especially heinous crimes which the news media does not hesitate to bombard us with each evening. Thus, it is important that a dedicated group of volunteers and non-Governmental Organisations, with both the resources and time, are devoted to addressing this cause.
Still, the references/ registers in which human rights are encoded in
Human rights continues to be a devalued conversation/ topic of interests in Jamaica, in part, because it is largely seen as only advocating the views of otherwise intolerable values and attitudes, such as claiming rights for known murderers and other anarchists in the state, including homosexuals. This is not to say that I agree with this position, however. On the contrary, it is argue that, in Jamaica any unofficial poll of the so-called 'man in the streets' would confirm that this is not only the common perception there is also a great deal of concern and anxiety over how to treat with these matters, especially where people seem to have less and less faith in the 'Government' to provide meaningful answers to their plights, currently.
In that regard, claims made by some members of the referenced Face Book conversation that, a Don Anderson poll found that 43% of Jamaicans do not care about whether someone was murdered, presumably, in cold blood are to be rigourously questioned. This is because it implies that, Jamaicans do not care about (each other) which also, presumably, explains the reasons why murders occur with such impunity in the society and, perhaps also why human rights groups face such a hard time winning support for their cause. Hence, there is no end in sight for the meoteric murder rate, in terms of the needless loss of seemingly expendable, black lives, especially those in Downtown,
Significantly, these figures do not define how 'care' is operationalised, as well as the implications which follow from such a conclusion. Indeed, they do not even make a connection between why people would not be concerned about as obviously as distressing a matter such as crime and violence here, whether that presumably sanctioned by the state or for that matter random or even calculated acts of violence conducted by person outside of that group. Consequently, there is need for greater awareness building, in terms of working with institutions like the media, church groups, community based organisations and others to celebrate successful human rights cases as a way of raising the profile of the disussion.
Further, any suggestion that we are somehow unable to initiate a 'culture of peace' with the now, obviously, unacceptable 'culture of violence' which suppousedly characterises all of Jamaican society through negotiation and partnership is flawed. Certainly, no one is suggesting that this be the only approach, nor that we meet and engage in discussions with known criminals. However, there is much value in the way of real engagement between traditionally warring factions, especially in cases where there are areas of common interests.
A more gentle approach which does not seek to demonise all with whom it does not agree must also be considered. This requires real commitment and not half hearted attempts which go no further than merely expressing alarm over vioent incidents. After all, so long as they do not touch us then all is well. It is important to note therefore that, human rights are rights not just limited to violent murders 'Downtown', but also involves the systemic and entrenched economic and class systems which orchestrate the untimely destruction of innocent Jamaican lives and also life chances.
With respect, therefore, making a great noise about crime in Jamaica and engaging in long, impassioned discussions about just how 'unacceptable' it all is, as representative of our frustrations with the current state of affairs does not truly help. If there are no reasons to be hopeful then we are all in trouble. What is then, is the track record of our successes in this area? How many human rights issues have been successfully resolved in its history in
And, why have we not, in addition to campaigning for the rights of others, show how these strategies have worked in the past? At what point do we recongise that, while we discuss the proverbial
As a result, the question of the successful examples is a valid one because, whether we are still caught in the trap of the colonial militia set up to immobilise poor, disenfranchised black people, historically, we still need to have hope! How do we get 'buy-in' and build consensus through actual empowerment? Where are the solutions from the people who are also directly affected by these harsh realities? And, why is it that, to suggest that there is need for this kind of broad based partnership, at the levels at which civil society plays a greater role, if even facilitated by the state, are not usually seen as legitimate options? Could it be that we do not want solutions? Or, is that, we have also given up hope? Lost sight of our commitment to service? Service, after all, encompasses even the difficult and trying times and the perseverance that comes with the hope of success.
Who wants to fight if there is no end is sight? Who wishes to make time for causes that have no heroes; no faces to celebrate in order to galvanise further support, if even at grassroots levels? What of the views of the mothers, sisters, brothers, fathers and communities in pain? Where are the job training and esteem empowerment workshops that will equip disadvantaged and at risk people with new skills to tackle the problems in their communities?
Unless there are actual solutions then this is a pointless exercise. Unless we are actually doing more than demonising Government, though they are very much deserving of that, then we are doing extremely very little. Unless we are widening out our frames of reference to see human rights as the rights of all Jamaicans, even those with other issues beyond a murdered son, or daughter then we have not yet started this especially important discussion.
Human rights include more than just a fight against homophobia; though it must have this as an important pillar of its make up. Human rights must also get to the root of the problems which give rise to these issues in the first place - the colonial patriarchal misogynistic attitudes enshrined by the state and practised as class politics in
There must be more than just talk; there has also got to be action; and real action to boot!
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
Critiquing Human Rights in Jamaica: Who Gets to Speak and What is Its Actual Value?
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
Media Politics in the ‘West’: CNN and President Obama
I have found myself completely engrossed in a discussion I was drawn into, recently, on Face Book about the politics of media bias in America vis-à-vis the US Government and its recent labour report statistics. This is not unlike a conversation I have also, routinely, heard mentioned on the BBC, in particular on its World Have Your Say programme, on which I have also been a guest on-air a few times.
The main thesis of that argument centres on what is claimed to be the mainstream (‘liberal’) media's support of Government, in particular, the Obama administration, in the specific context of America. CNN comes up for greatest mentioning in this regard, though the same may also be said of the BBC, etc. Here, ‘liberal’ refers to the sense in which such media are, presumably, renowned for pandering to the views of the largely, white, in this case American, educated, set of mostly undeclared elites. As such, the ‘liberal media’ are largely perceived as pro-Government and, in particular, pro-Obama partly because Obama is regarded, especially by his critics, as (more) 'acceptable' to ' liberal', whites.
Read as upper-class, educated and especially metropolitan in its outlook, CNN, BBC and others, suppousedly, fall over themselves to represent President Obama and his administration, to a lesser extent, in progressive terms, presumably ignoring the grim realities of the 'real' America and the wider world. But is this characterization accurtate? And, how do such claims about the responses of the media towards President Obama aid or limit his ability to govern/ function? Are their attitudes, necessarily, different from the coverage of former President Bush?
To appropriately answer any of these questions, I feel it is incumbent on me to state that I am neither American, nor necessarily vested in seeking a complete resolution of this discussion; that is, beyond opening up for consideration some initial observations about, in particular, CNN’s coverage of President Obama which though largely favourable in my view, nonetheless challenges some of these assumptions. To begin with, agreeing with these assertions would, by necessity, mean that President Obama’s key messages of ‘hope’ and ‘change’, however questionable for some, are at best a fluke and at worst a complete lie. It would also suggest that the President’s platform has not had a positive impact, even outside of America.
Of course, it is important to note that, President Obama is still less than four months into his Presidency, as well as that he has achieved a number of the plans he had said he would implement upon taking office. He seems to have laid the foundation for doing what he said he would do, specifically his proposal to go after tax cheats, as a way to boost income for the economy, by passing laws to ensure that American businesses that hide money in tax havens like the Cayman Islands would be found out.
Further, lifting the ban on stem cell research, closing Guantanamo as well as opening up relations with Cuba and parts of the ‘Arab world’, also mark the US President as committed to achieving the platform on which he campaigned. While, the jury is certainly still out on the economy, despite signs of life on Wall Street, there are clearly reasons to understand what might well be considered (favourable) ‘media support’ of President Obama, currently. After all, the seeming speed with which he is going literally takes your breath away.
Still, it does not change the fact that the media seem explicitly biased in their treatment of the current President than say President Bush, or do they? Is there merit to the claim that this new President is getting a bligh – an easy pass, as it were, on the way to achieving his mandate, without rigourous opposition by the American media? Indeed, even if we accept President Obama's media savvy helps to explain what appears to be a complicity on the part of the range of the 'liberal' (mostly American) media to represent Government in a positive light in order to achieve some other unspoken interests, whether for like of Obama or because of monetary interests, these claims do not tell the whole story.
Indeed, remarks like these are to be rigourously interrogated. This is, especially where the notable bastions of 'liberalism' CNN were amongst the first to start questioning whether the new President was 'doing too much'; that is, not focusing completely on the economy. They were also amongst the first to counterpoint those questions with the, presumably, ‘never-before-seen’ images of white Americans living off food stamps. The obvious reading being that the American economy was in such a state of shambles that even the sacrosanct images of 'whiteness' were, themselves, under threat.
Admittedly, I found the narrative surrounding these stories very disconcerting, every time I watched the reports, if not altogether disingenuous. I was never under the impression that there was a real commitment to explaining, in clear and unequivocal language, that the conditions of living on food stamps, insofar as they allow one that privilege, is common to the realities of many white Americans. More to the point, the fact that the narrative sets up tensions between the then depth of the ‘Global Financial Crisis’ and America's own efforts to dig itself out of the quagmire, with these suppousedly depressing images of wholesale economic malaise and presumed despair, heavily undercut the claims that the new President was getting a 'free pass'.
In fact, I recalled in one story on the same CNN, about pirates in Somalia taking an American captain hostage being reported, directly ahead of questions about President Obama's ability to 'keep America safe'. Beyond the obvious ‘fact’ that, the media are ‘only’ answering the questions which the ‘public’ wishes to have responses to, there was no mistaking the clear parallels, however questionable, between the activities of Somali pirates and American security issues in this context. This, especially as President Obama also has direct roots in Africa.
The subtly of the parallels, however, were made all the more apparent thanks to the BBC which reminded, recently, in one of its features that piracy in Somalia is an especially sore point in modern American history. The near defeat of its army in 1993, chronicled in the movie Black Hawk Down profoundly underlined the point. While, obviously, important to Americans in terms of their security, the pirate incident, however innocuous, also raised questions about whether the President could (really) keep America safe, specifically regarding threats immediately outside its borders.
The obvious connection, therefore, between an African-American President and Africans (Somalis) who were creating havoc for Americans, presumably in the interests of economic activities, was unmistakable - at least in my view. Then, there was also the matter of whether President Obama was not, himself, weak when it came to military capacity as the Commander in Chief. In that regard, there is a clear and evident need to reconsider the claims that he has been given an easy time by the likes of CNN and other such media.
After all, I have not yet heard or seen where CNN has afforded, in the same way, the Obama administration an opportunity to respond substantively to the charge by former Republican Presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani that the President did not make (enough of) a fuss over North Korea’s rocket launch, recently. According to them, this was evidence of his weakness on security issues. Indeed, just today former Vice President Dick Cheney’s remarks about America being less safe with President Obama in office continue this discussion, all the time without a visible and meaningful reply from the administration in terms of defending the President’s credibility.
It seems reasonable in my view, then, that the question of media bias has less to do with a pro-Obama favouritism and somehow seems to relate more to the changing attitudes towards blackness in American popular culture, specifically at the levels at which media such as CNN and others operate; and how that affects their vision of the Government. Notably, I conceded in a Face Book response that, all media are biased. The question, then, seems to be less about the biases of media, per se, and more with how such biases affect how the ‘facts’ are covered as well as, whether there were any ‘facts’ to begin with.
Media bias is a function of media practise, generally. Facts and figures help to extend those biases; though, they are not necessarily in and of themselves biased in the same way that one's agenda is or can be. To critique media bias without a simultaneous admission of this kind, therefore, makes such a criticism almost redundant; that is, where it does not present alternate facts and figures to dispute the claims made by those reported as 'official' in the (mainstream/ liberal) media.
Indeed, one colleague in rebutting these assertions reminded that, ‘facts’ (and figures) are not autonomous pieces of information which' fall from the sky'. In her characteristically acerbic critique, my colleague/ friend highlighted the very point I was attempting to make that, unless there are new ‘facts’ that have been marshaled to challenge the claims in the original discussion about the labour statistics put out by the Government (read President Obama) last week and reported by the 'liberal media', then there is hardly a credible premise on which to say the Government is lying.
As a matter of fact, subsequent to my interventions the original commentator reported that his intentions were not to say the Government or the media were lying. Rather, it was to suggest that numbers are being revised upwards to achieve a more favourable view of the American economy. This then translates to increased consumer confidence; more sales and, ultimately, more ad revenue for the media. A fairly simple and straightforward equation.
However, missing from the explanation is the means by which we achieve the awareness that the numbers have been tampered with. Which is not to say that they have not been. On the contrary, the commentator's admission underlines my earlier claim - arguments about media bias, or half truths reported as 'facts' must be dissected in appropriate context, especially where they lead to flawed conclusions. In that regard, the charges of media bias, whether in America or elsewhere do not help much in forwarding a meaningful understanding of how the media work, for whom and why.
Indeed, such an analysis says nothing of whether the stories reported are accurate, production values are adhered to, or even whether professionalism is deployed in the coverage of said stories, or follow-ups done on whichever issue. To which end, there is need to look again at what is being said by such remarks and how they may be used to serve multiple agendas, some of which are often hostile towards certain groups and communities, in this case the Obama Administration.
It is worth recalling too that, perspectives are learned and, obviously, shift to suit the contours of the realities in which we live. Nowhere is this more the case than in the media where the establishment, which controls them usually get to influence what is produced. The ultra Conservative views of Fox News, which is owned by the Conservative Rupert Murdoch, make this point only too well. Hence, ’facts’ are marshaled to support various positions despite that the ‘facts’, themselves, may not necessarily be flawed in terms of verification and testing.
And, that is also not to suggest that, ‘facts’ cannot be made up, or reports altogether doctored to achieve a more favourable image of an organization, in this case the American Government. After all, the example of the disgraced New York Times journalist who was found to have lied in some of his reports in the mid-90’s make the point all to obvious.
Consequently, and as noted above, the complexities in the coverage of America’s first African-American President and the ambivalence expressed in the attitudes of some Americans towards both him and his policies, specifically African-Americans like those with whom I interacted on Face Book are also tied up in these power relations between the state and the media. Thus, the ‘liberal media’s presumed anxieties towards black leadership may well be said to be echoed in the complicated responses of their audiences towards the Government.
Further, it may be argued that this attitude towards how to cover the first African-American President also gives cues to the audiences which they, in turn, read into subliminally and thus, find it hard to make important distinctions between in the attitudes expressed towards Government. This is not to suggest, however, that all of President Obama’s decisions have been appropriate or even good/ effective. Far from it! The failed candidate selections for some of his Cabinet positions would be one such example. Rather, it is to say that, wrapped up in the claims of bias towards President Obama in how he is covered by the ‘liberal media’ are also many unresolved concerns about race relations and the state, in America.
The BBC recently reported that, notwithstanding that Americans work in ‘diverse’ environments, many still live in segregated communities. The refusal in that regard to engage with each other is telling, in terms of what it says about how much work remains to be done about these very troubling issues in America, especially considering that they also set the tone for many in other parts of the world.
Consequently, questions of media bias, whether regarding CNN, the BBC, or any other media in the ‘West’ seen as ‘liberal’ must also examine the history of such media and how they have evolved in/ alongside the societies they presume to serve. How different are they from the rest of the society in which they operate and is such a difference, if noticed, sufficient to suggest that the treatment of all political figures are the same (read favourable)?
If yes, then we have not begun to have this very important discussion as of yet. And, if no, we are still hemmed in by conventional thinking which makes us also, largely, unable to have this conversation in a meaningful way. I would venture, accordingly, that the answer is somewhere in the middle; though, exactly where remains a matter for further discussion.
The main thesis of that argument centres on what is claimed to be the mainstream (‘liberal’) media's support of Government, in particular, the Obama administration, in the specific context of America. CNN comes up for greatest mentioning in this regard, though the same may also be said of the BBC, etc. Here, ‘liberal’ refers to the sense in which such media are, presumably, renowned for pandering to the views of the largely, white, in this case American, educated, set of mostly undeclared elites. As such, the ‘liberal media’ are largely perceived as pro-Government and, in particular, pro-Obama partly because Obama is regarded, especially by his critics, as (more) 'acceptable' to ' liberal', whites.
Read as upper-class, educated and especially metropolitan in its outlook, CNN, BBC and others, suppousedly, fall over themselves to represent President Obama and his administration, to a lesser extent, in progressive terms, presumably ignoring the grim realities of the 'real' America and the wider world. But is this characterization accurtate? And, how do such claims about the responses of the media towards President Obama aid or limit his ability to govern/ function? Are their attitudes, necessarily, different from the coverage of former President Bush?
To appropriately answer any of these questions, I feel it is incumbent on me to state that I am neither American, nor necessarily vested in seeking a complete resolution of this discussion; that is, beyond opening up for consideration some initial observations about, in particular, CNN’s coverage of President Obama which though largely favourable in my view, nonetheless challenges some of these assumptions. To begin with, agreeing with these assertions would, by necessity, mean that President Obama’s key messages of ‘hope’ and ‘change’, however questionable for some, are at best a fluke and at worst a complete lie. It would also suggest that the President’s platform has not had a positive impact, even outside of America.
Of course, it is important to note that, President Obama is still less than four months into his Presidency, as well as that he has achieved a number of the plans he had said he would implement upon taking office. He seems to have laid the foundation for doing what he said he would do, specifically his proposal to go after tax cheats, as a way to boost income for the economy, by passing laws to ensure that American businesses that hide money in tax havens like the Cayman Islands would be found out.
Further, lifting the ban on stem cell research, closing Guantanamo as well as opening up relations with Cuba and parts of the ‘Arab world’, also mark the US President as committed to achieving the platform on which he campaigned. While, the jury is certainly still out on the economy, despite signs of life on Wall Street, there are clearly reasons to understand what might well be considered (favourable) ‘media support’ of President Obama, currently. After all, the seeming speed with which he is going literally takes your breath away.
Still, it does not change the fact that the media seem explicitly biased in their treatment of the current President than say President Bush, or do they? Is there merit to the claim that this new President is getting a bligh – an easy pass, as it were, on the way to achieving his mandate, without rigourous opposition by the American media? Indeed, even if we accept President Obama's media savvy helps to explain what appears to be a complicity on the part of the range of the 'liberal' (mostly American) media to represent Government in a positive light in order to achieve some other unspoken interests, whether for like of Obama or because of monetary interests, these claims do not tell the whole story.
Indeed, remarks like these are to be rigourously interrogated. This is, especially where the notable bastions of 'liberalism' CNN were amongst the first to start questioning whether the new President was 'doing too much'; that is, not focusing completely on the economy. They were also amongst the first to counterpoint those questions with the, presumably, ‘never-before-seen’ images of white Americans living off food stamps. The obvious reading being that the American economy was in such a state of shambles that even the sacrosanct images of 'whiteness' were, themselves, under threat.
Admittedly, I found the narrative surrounding these stories very disconcerting, every time I watched the reports, if not altogether disingenuous. I was never under the impression that there was a real commitment to explaining, in clear and unequivocal language, that the conditions of living on food stamps, insofar as they allow one that privilege, is common to the realities of many white Americans. More to the point, the fact that the narrative sets up tensions between the then depth of the ‘Global Financial Crisis’ and America's own efforts to dig itself out of the quagmire, with these suppousedly depressing images of wholesale economic malaise and presumed despair, heavily undercut the claims that the new President was getting a 'free pass'.
In fact, I recalled in one story on the same CNN, about pirates in Somalia taking an American captain hostage being reported, directly ahead of questions about President Obama's ability to 'keep America safe'. Beyond the obvious ‘fact’ that, the media are ‘only’ answering the questions which the ‘public’ wishes to have responses to, there was no mistaking the clear parallels, however questionable, between the activities of Somali pirates and American security issues in this context. This, especially as President Obama also has direct roots in Africa.
The subtly of the parallels, however, were made all the more apparent thanks to the BBC which reminded, recently, in one of its features that piracy in Somalia is an especially sore point in modern American history. The near defeat of its army in 1993, chronicled in the movie Black Hawk Down profoundly underlined the point. While, obviously, important to Americans in terms of their security, the pirate incident, however innocuous, also raised questions about whether the President could (really) keep America safe, specifically regarding threats immediately outside its borders.
The obvious connection, therefore, between an African-American President and Africans (Somalis) who were creating havoc for Americans, presumably in the interests of economic activities, was unmistakable - at least in my view. Then, there was also the matter of whether President Obama was not, himself, weak when it came to military capacity as the Commander in Chief. In that regard, there is a clear and evident need to reconsider the claims that he has been given an easy time by the likes of CNN and other such media.
After all, I have not yet heard or seen where CNN has afforded, in the same way, the Obama administration an opportunity to respond substantively to the charge by former Republican Presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani that the President did not make (enough of) a fuss over North Korea’s rocket launch, recently. According to them, this was evidence of his weakness on security issues. Indeed, just today former Vice President Dick Cheney’s remarks about America being less safe with President Obama in office continue this discussion, all the time without a visible and meaningful reply from the administration in terms of defending the President’s credibility.
It seems reasonable in my view, then, that the question of media bias has less to do with a pro-Obama favouritism and somehow seems to relate more to the changing attitudes towards blackness in American popular culture, specifically at the levels at which media such as CNN and others operate; and how that affects their vision of the Government. Notably, I conceded in a Face Book response that, all media are biased. The question, then, seems to be less about the biases of media, per se, and more with how such biases affect how the ‘facts’ are covered as well as, whether there were any ‘facts’ to begin with.
Media bias is a function of media practise, generally. Facts and figures help to extend those biases; though, they are not necessarily in and of themselves biased in the same way that one's agenda is or can be. To critique media bias without a simultaneous admission of this kind, therefore, makes such a criticism almost redundant; that is, where it does not present alternate facts and figures to dispute the claims made by those reported as 'official' in the (mainstream/ liberal) media.
Indeed, one colleague in rebutting these assertions reminded that, ‘facts’ (and figures) are not autonomous pieces of information which' fall from the sky'. In her characteristically acerbic critique, my colleague/ friend highlighted the very point I was attempting to make that, unless there are new ‘facts’ that have been marshaled to challenge the claims in the original discussion about the labour statistics put out by the Government (read President Obama) last week and reported by the 'liberal media', then there is hardly a credible premise on which to say the Government is lying.
As a matter of fact, subsequent to my interventions the original commentator reported that his intentions were not to say the Government or the media were lying. Rather, it was to suggest that numbers are being revised upwards to achieve a more favourable view of the American economy. This then translates to increased consumer confidence; more sales and, ultimately, more ad revenue for the media. A fairly simple and straightforward equation.
However, missing from the explanation is the means by which we achieve the awareness that the numbers have been tampered with. Which is not to say that they have not been. On the contrary, the commentator's admission underlines my earlier claim - arguments about media bias, or half truths reported as 'facts' must be dissected in appropriate context, especially where they lead to flawed conclusions. In that regard, the charges of media bias, whether in America or elsewhere do not help much in forwarding a meaningful understanding of how the media work, for whom and why.
Indeed, such an analysis says nothing of whether the stories reported are accurate, production values are adhered to, or even whether professionalism is deployed in the coverage of said stories, or follow-ups done on whichever issue. To which end, there is need to look again at what is being said by such remarks and how they may be used to serve multiple agendas, some of which are often hostile towards certain groups and communities, in this case the Obama Administration.
It is worth recalling too that, perspectives are learned and, obviously, shift to suit the contours of the realities in which we live. Nowhere is this more the case than in the media where the establishment, which controls them usually get to influence what is produced. The ultra Conservative views of Fox News, which is owned by the Conservative Rupert Murdoch, make this point only too well. Hence, ’facts’ are marshaled to support various positions despite that the ‘facts’, themselves, may not necessarily be flawed in terms of verification and testing.
And, that is also not to suggest that, ‘facts’ cannot be made up, or reports altogether doctored to achieve a more favourable image of an organization, in this case the American Government. After all, the example of the disgraced New York Times journalist who was found to have lied in some of his reports in the mid-90’s make the point all to obvious.
Consequently, and as noted above, the complexities in the coverage of America’s first African-American President and the ambivalence expressed in the attitudes of some Americans towards both him and his policies, specifically African-Americans like those with whom I interacted on Face Book are also tied up in these power relations between the state and the media. Thus, the ‘liberal media’s presumed anxieties towards black leadership may well be said to be echoed in the complicated responses of their audiences towards the Government.
Further, it may be argued that this attitude towards how to cover the first African-American President also gives cues to the audiences which they, in turn, read into subliminally and thus, find it hard to make important distinctions between in the attitudes expressed towards Government. This is not to suggest, however, that all of President Obama’s decisions have been appropriate or even good/ effective. Far from it! The failed candidate selections for some of his Cabinet positions would be one such example. Rather, it is to say that, wrapped up in the claims of bias towards President Obama in how he is covered by the ‘liberal media’ are also many unresolved concerns about race relations and the state, in America.
The BBC recently reported that, notwithstanding that Americans work in ‘diverse’ environments, many still live in segregated communities. The refusal in that regard to engage with each other is telling, in terms of what it says about how much work remains to be done about these very troubling issues in America, especially considering that they also set the tone for many in other parts of the world.
Consequently, questions of media bias, whether regarding CNN, the BBC, or any other media in the ‘West’ seen as ‘liberal’ must also examine the history of such media and how they have evolved in/ alongside the societies they presume to serve. How different are they from the rest of the society in which they operate and is such a difference, if noticed, sufficient to suggest that the treatment of all political figures are the same (read favourable)?
If yes, then we have not begun to have this very important discussion as of yet. And, if no, we are still hemmed in by conventional thinking which makes us also, largely, unable to have this conversation in a meaningful way. I would venture, accordingly, that the answer is somewhere in the middle; though, exactly where remains a matter for further discussion.
Sunday, 3 May 2009
Jamaica's Mandatory Wage Freeze and the Global Recession: Was this the Best Government Could Offer?
Below is a post I made on my Face Book page which has generated alot of buzz in that forum. I thought that it would be useful to publish it here, as well in an effort to get the views of an alternate audience. It’s sole intent is to widen the extent of the dialogue about Jamaica’s economic outlook, arising from changes in the world economy which has been on a consistent trend downwards for some time now.
How will Jamaica deal with the fallouts from the ‘Global Financial Crisis/ Meltdown’? These initial views hope to start that conversation, at the very least add another position for consideration.
Jamaica, like several other countries across the world, is feeling the dire effects of the contraction of the world economy and the collapse of the international credit industry, otherwise referred to as the ‘Banking Crisis’. Clearly, global in its scope and destructive in its reach, there is no denying that everyone across the world has come in for some sort of recessionary impact, as a result.
In its own efforts to respond to the crisis, the Jamaican Government has recommended a mandatory wage freeze for the Jamaican Public Sector, after the Prime Minister announced that he was also undertaking to give himself and, presumably, his other ministers of government, a fifteen percent cut in their wages. It is worth noting that, the Prime Minister's salary comes up to well over half a million Jamaican dollars per month which, therefore, means that a fifteen percent salary cut does not go quite as far as those who have had to endure the erosion of the value of their wages over time, due to inflation, as well as the forced wage freeze.
In further justifying his position, one which was not discussed with either the Service or the unions who represent them, the Prime Minister claimed that to give the now due seven percent increase in wages, under the most recent Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed in 2008, that he would have to let go in excess of twenty thousand members of the Service. Government is the biggest employer in Jamaica, with just under ninety thousand employees at various levels in the system. The planned letting go of nearly a fifth of the Service population became the benchmark against which the Prime Minister made his decision.
While, not decrying the PM's right to make hard choices, nor necessarily diminishing the basis on which he must do so, especially those concerning Jamaica's economic future, there is need nonetheless to interrogate the current tone of Jamaica's political leadership. Notwithstanding what many have routinely claimed is 'too large' a Public Sector, it behooves us to also ask whether this is the likely, or even best solution?
Indeed, the questioning of the decision made by the PM, which also directly impacts me, has more to do with the style of governance as well as the spirit than with the decision, itself. Hardly a useful distinction, it nonetheless points to the fact that, if we can employ better decision-making processes then it is more likely that, we can arrive at better outcomes, presumably in the interests of all.
Election Promises
Before coming to power in 2007, the then Leader of the Opposition Bruce Golding and his Party made various promises; among them, an assurance that the economy would grow by as much as seven percent, not unlike that of Singapore and other countries on the fast track to development. Other claims made included the very emotive charge that, while we may not all get rich we certainly did not have to be as poor as were, under the previous administration, in particular under then Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller.
We could not, in effect, afford to take a chance with Mrs. Simpson Miller, the virago, who cares little, if anything for the members of her own constituency. That is, given its then extreme state of disarray. With the upsurge of emotions evoked by that experience, that we must now concede to a mandatory wage freeze is especially curious, if not altogether very distressing.
In addition to a tax on books, salt and other sundry items, the vast majority of which were previously not taxed and which also form a regular part of peoples' daily existence here, does the make point of an apparently unconcerned and uncaring administration. What of the claims about empowerment? Is there any truth to any of them, especially in a context where there is no discussion and no seeming regard for the fact that people are obviously not coping well with the fallouts from the contracting world economy?
Economic Recession
At the risk also of dwelling too much on the bad, it was also this same administration who, when the rest of the Developed World were assembling their various economic crisis response teams claimed that Jamaica is fine and would not be seriously affected (presumably, if at all!). That attitude we now know was also wrong, as much as the apparent lack of regard for the electorate, insofar as refusing to address the nation directly to update us on the status of the economic plans in the current crisis.
To say that we are starved of information, however, would not altogether reflect an accurate position. This is especially in a context where there are enough alternate information sources coming from various points which paint just how serious a crisis we are in, globally. Still, the refusal to engage with Jamaicans on a direct, face-to-face manner is telling insofar as it not only gives the impression that 'nutten naw gwaan', it also reinforces this deep-seated pessimism. Needless to remind that, that and a recession are a deadly concoction when combined together.
Lack of Proper Planning/ Gas Tax
The lack of a visible or even meaningful plan, with of course the exception of the budget whose reading over a week ago seemed to have coincided with flashbacks from a couple years before when the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), the Party currently in power effectively capitalised on the widespread disenchantment of Jamaicans at the time, at the news of a gas tax. Several days of rioting and media campaigns against the then Government - the People’s National Party (PNP), now members of Opposition, forced what appeared to be an about face. The tax was eventually rolled back.
Ironically, gas is now being taxed and despite concerns or even voiced opposition to this move, there does not appear to be the space for that kind of concession by the new administration. This after assuring rather glibly, as noted above, early on in the Recession last year, that Jamaica would not likely be adversely impacted by the crisis.
There was, as expected, a torrent of criticisms with which the Minister of Finance and the Public Service Audley Shaw's remarks were addressed. However, that storm soon passed. And we were back to 'business as usual'. After all, the popular position in some media here is that, there could at least be tolerance, on some level, given how badly the economy was felt to be mismanaged by the previous administration.
Alternate Strategy: Mass Lay-offs?
I am no economic whiz and I can clearly see the value of having a job. However, if mass firings and layoffs are the appropriate course of action, as is suggested by one of the comments on my mood status (on Face Book, shortly after posting), then it seems to me that there is a real need for more brain power to be added to the Government's economic advisory team than is currently available. It is hardly a viable option, which is not to say it could not happen. Still, it does not justify non-communication and or the evident lack of regard so clearly and contemptuously demonstrated by the apparent lack of any type of coherent or even meaningful plan to drive the economy and limit our dependency on Government to provide employment for the majority of Jamaicans.
Taxation of Basic and Educational Supplies
The seeming lack of concern for a trained and or educated work force, across the length and breadth of the country is also exemplified in the move to tax certain books and other basic supplies, as per the new budget tabled by Mr. Shaw. We can be certain that, by these actions this administration sees little or no value in even attempting to communicate confidence in their abilities and their preparedness to do the job at hand - that is, governing in difficult times. This is especially sad, considering just how much we stand to loose in an increasingly worsening world economy.
The drying up of assistance programmes and funds, as well as competitive loans, will mean further erosion in the value of life here. Those at the base of the structure will obviously feel the effects most readily, but you can rest assured that others will too and none of this augurs well for the crime and violence that we continue to grapple with daily, with little or no success. What too of work to rule and industrial action? How will people respond to freeze on their income with no, apparent, end in sight?
These are interesting and timely questions which require urgent responses.
How will Jamaica deal with the fallouts from the ‘Global Financial Crisis/ Meltdown’? These initial views hope to start that conversation, at the very least add another position for consideration.
Jamaica, like several other countries across the world, is feeling the dire effects of the contraction of the world economy and the collapse of the international credit industry, otherwise referred to as the ‘Banking Crisis’. Clearly, global in its scope and destructive in its reach, there is no denying that everyone across the world has come in for some sort of recessionary impact, as a result.
In its own efforts to respond to the crisis, the Jamaican Government has recommended a mandatory wage freeze for the Jamaican Public Sector, after the Prime Minister announced that he was also undertaking to give himself and, presumably, his other ministers of government, a fifteen percent cut in their wages. It is worth noting that, the Prime Minister's salary comes up to well over half a million Jamaican dollars per month which, therefore, means that a fifteen percent salary cut does not go quite as far as those who have had to endure the erosion of the value of their wages over time, due to inflation, as well as the forced wage freeze.
In further justifying his position, one which was not discussed with either the Service or the unions who represent them, the Prime Minister claimed that to give the now due seven percent increase in wages, under the most recent Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed in 2008, that he would have to let go in excess of twenty thousand members of the Service. Government is the biggest employer in Jamaica, with just under ninety thousand employees at various levels in the system. The planned letting go of nearly a fifth of the Service population became the benchmark against which the Prime Minister made his decision.
While, not decrying the PM's right to make hard choices, nor necessarily diminishing the basis on which he must do so, especially those concerning Jamaica's economic future, there is need nonetheless to interrogate the current tone of Jamaica's political leadership. Notwithstanding what many have routinely claimed is 'too large' a Public Sector, it behooves us to also ask whether this is the likely, or even best solution?
Indeed, the questioning of the decision made by the PM, which also directly impacts me, has more to do with the style of governance as well as the spirit than with the decision, itself. Hardly a useful distinction, it nonetheless points to the fact that, if we can employ better decision-making processes then it is more likely that, we can arrive at better outcomes, presumably in the interests of all.
Election Promises
Before coming to power in 2007, the then Leader of the Opposition Bruce Golding and his Party made various promises; among them, an assurance that the economy would grow by as much as seven percent, not unlike that of Singapore and other countries on the fast track to development. Other claims made included the very emotive charge that, while we may not all get rich we certainly did not have to be as poor as were, under the previous administration, in particular under then Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller.
We could not, in effect, afford to take a chance with Mrs. Simpson Miller, the virago, who cares little, if anything for the members of her own constituency. That is, given its then extreme state of disarray. With the upsurge of emotions evoked by that experience, that we must now concede to a mandatory wage freeze is especially curious, if not altogether very distressing.
In addition to a tax on books, salt and other sundry items, the vast majority of which were previously not taxed and which also form a regular part of peoples' daily existence here, does the make point of an apparently unconcerned and uncaring administration. What of the claims about empowerment? Is there any truth to any of them, especially in a context where there is no discussion and no seeming regard for the fact that people are obviously not coping well with the fallouts from the contracting world economy?
Economic Recession
At the risk also of dwelling too much on the bad, it was also this same administration who, when the rest of the Developed World were assembling their various economic crisis response teams claimed that Jamaica is fine and would not be seriously affected (presumably, if at all!). That attitude we now know was also wrong, as much as the apparent lack of regard for the electorate, insofar as refusing to address the nation directly to update us on the status of the economic plans in the current crisis.
To say that we are starved of information, however, would not altogether reflect an accurate position. This is especially in a context where there are enough alternate information sources coming from various points which paint just how serious a crisis we are in, globally. Still, the refusal to engage with Jamaicans on a direct, face-to-face manner is telling insofar as it not only gives the impression that 'nutten naw gwaan', it also reinforces this deep-seated pessimism. Needless to remind that, that and a recession are a deadly concoction when combined together.
Lack of Proper Planning/ Gas Tax
The lack of a visible or even meaningful plan, with of course the exception of the budget whose reading over a week ago seemed to have coincided with flashbacks from a couple years before when the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), the Party currently in power effectively capitalised on the widespread disenchantment of Jamaicans at the time, at the news of a gas tax. Several days of rioting and media campaigns against the then Government - the People’s National Party (PNP), now members of Opposition, forced what appeared to be an about face. The tax was eventually rolled back.
Ironically, gas is now being taxed and despite concerns or even voiced opposition to this move, there does not appear to be the space for that kind of concession by the new administration. This after assuring rather glibly, as noted above, early on in the Recession last year, that Jamaica would not likely be adversely impacted by the crisis.
There was, as expected, a torrent of criticisms with which the Minister of Finance and the Public Service Audley Shaw's remarks were addressed. However, that storm soon passed. And we were back to 'business as usual'. After all, the popular position in some media here is that, there could at least be tolerance, on some level, given how badly the economy was felt to be mismanaged by the previous administration.
Alternate Strategy: Mass Lay-offs?
I am no economic whiz and I can clearly see the value of having a job. However, if mass firings and layoffs are the appropriate course of action, as is suggested by one of the comments on my mood status (on Face Book, shortly after posting), then it seems to me that there is a real need for more brain power to be added to the Government's economic advisory team than is currently available. It is hardly a viable option, which is not to say it could not happen. Still, it does not justify non-communication and or the evident lack of regard so clearly and contemptuously demonstrated by the apparent lack of any type of coherent or even meaningful plan to drive the economy and limit our dependency on Government to provide employment for the majority of Jamaicans.
Taxation of Basic and Educational Supplies
The seeming lack of concern for a trained and or educated work force, across the length and breadth of the country is also exemplified in the move to tax certain books and other basic supplies, as per the new budget tabled by Mr. Shaw. We can be certain that, by these actions this administration sees little or no value in even attempting to communicate confidence in their abilities and their preparedness to do the job at hand - that is, governing in difficult times. This is especially sad, considering just how much we stand to loose in an increasingly worsening world economy.
The drying up of assistance programmes and funds, as well as competitive loans, will mean further erosion in the value of life here. Those at the base of the structure will obviously feel the effects most readily, but you can rest assured that others will too and none of this augurs well for the crime and violence that we continue to grapple with daily, with little or no success. What too of work to rule and industrial action? How will people respond to freeze on their income with no, apparent, end in sight?
These are interesting and timely questions which require urgent responses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
