By Isaac Massaquoi
It was in 2007 that the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair gave the media an unbelievable kicking in a speech at the Reuters Institute. He probably timed his extraordinary attack to coincide with his last days in office. But in the speech he explained that he was neither complaining nor using his departure as safe ground on which to attack the media. I believe him.
I however note the timing of that speech and the frankness with which he spoke knowing very well that the media would have the last laugh.
Blair said that everything the media did was driven by "impact", because impact gave them the "competitive edge" over their rivals. He said, "...the fear of missing out means today's media, more than ever before, hunts in a pack. In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits. But no-one dares miss out".
You probably now understand why I described this attack as extraordinary given Blair's much publicised romance with the media.
In the following lines Blair also gives us an idea of the state of play between politicians and the media.
"I am going to say something that few people in public life will say, but most know is absolutely true: a vast aspect of our jobs today - outside of the really major decisions, as big as anything else - is coping with the media, its sheer scale, weight and constant hyperactivity... At points, it literally overwhelms. Talk to senior people in virtually any walk of life today - business, military, public services, sport, even charities and voluntary organisations and they will tell you the same. People don't speak about it because, in the main, they are afraid to".
About three years ago I discussed this speech with some final year journalism students at Fourah Bay College. I asked them to try and apply Blair's statement to the media in Sierra Leone and then tell me why politicians and all the other groups he mentioned would be "afraid" to say what Blair did. Without exception, all the students said that taking the media on in this way would have disastrous consequences for careers in politics and other forms of public service. I think so too.
When President Nelson Mandela's daughter Makaziwe recently slammed the foreign media's tactics in trying to cover the illness of her father, she used uncharacteristically strong language. I remember having an hour-long slanging match with three media colleagues over Makaziwe's statement. For them she was out of order on all counts and must be told to go home, pray for forgiveness and promise never to sin again against the media and generally behave herself henceforth.
Here's a bit of what she said about the hundreds of journalists who poured into South Africa to cover what definitely now looks like the final moments of one of the greatest men to walk the face of this planet.
“It is like, truly, vultures waiting when the lion has devoured the buffalo, waiting there, you know, for the last carcasses. That is the image that we have as a family...It is very crass. The fact that my dad is a global icon, one of the 25 most influential people of the 20th century, does not mean that people cannot respect the privacy and dignity of my dad...And, I don't want to say this, but I am going to say it: there is sort of a racist element with many of the foreign media where they just cross boundaries."
Makaziwe used colourful language and powerful imagery to capture the behaviour of the journalists who had located and are now camped outside the hospital where President Mandela is now being treated. As I told my colleagues, I do not necessarily agree with her attack but I have some sympathy with her.
In the first place, I am absolutely convinced there is nothing "racist" about the behaviour of the media and it is precisely because her father is "a global icon, one of the 25 most influential people of the 20th century..." that the media have come flocking into South Africa. I however agree with her that even people like President Mandela have "the right to be left alone" as argued by American lawyers, Samuel D. Warren and Louis Brandies more than a century ago. This argument was made in an article inspired by snooping reporters who had infuriated Warren by their coverage of a party held at his home. This then became the first time the issue of privacy was addressed as a legal issue. So Makaziwe and Tony Blair are in good company.
Makaziwe's attack should focus our minds once again on this big and powerful monster. I am talking about the media beast. It is permanently hungry. It must have food 24 hours a day or it will swallow up even its master. In such a situation, tactics have changed, becoming ruthless and unforgiving. With the aid of ever-improving technology there is no hiding place.
As I write this piece, I have just seen a report on Sky News showing hundreds of journalists setting up equipment outside a London hospital where it is expected Kate Middleton will soon deliver the latest member of the British Royal family. Their number will increase as the date for an announcement draws near.
In Sierra Leone, we are not used to seeing journalists behave in line with Tony Blair's idea of hunting in pack like "feral beasts". Indeed from time to time they get called to set piece occasions, like news conferences but nothing like the situation that got Makaziwe so angry.
I remember arriving in London for the first time on a cold Saturday Morning in September 2000. It was my first time in Europe and as the gentle and soft-spoken middle-aged lady who had picked me up from Heathrow that morning drove into the city, my eyes kept moving from left to right as I tried to catch a glimpse of the city. We arrived at a place where I suddenly saw hundreds of journalists who to me looked like they were waiting to enter a stadium to watch a World Cup final.
When I watched the news that night, the story came through that those journalists were actually waiting outside the Old Bailey, to get the verdict of a case in which judges were deciding whether it was legal for Siamese twins, Mary and Jodie, to be separated.
It was an amazing story with powerful arguments on all sides of a religious, moral and legal question. But my point is, was even a story like that worth all that rumpus. It was strange to me because satellite TV was not as popular in this country as it is today and I had to try and get used to this kind of aggressive newsgathering method. It wasn't uncommon to see freelance photographers chasing prison vehicles to try and get the perfect picture of high value targets like serial killer Harold Shipman or Jeffery Archer who spectacularly fell from grace, in a prison vehicle being driven away. In other countries like Sierra Leone, it will be seen as too "crass".
Journalists must admit that sometimes they go to unnecessary lengths to get comments or even a "no comment" reply that adds nothing life-changing to a story? What's the point of spending endless hours outside the hospital where President Mandela is being treated waiting to chuck a microphone under the chin of any family member emerging from the hospital after visiting the old man?
This is the angle from which I completely understand Makaziwe's anger. These are extremely serious times for their family and the nation of South Africa. Signs are already appearing in the sky that the great ANC without Madiba could unravel with disastrous consequences for thousands of South Africans. It makes no sense then to turn the last days of his life into some media circus with journalists planting even rogue microphones to pick up every word that drops from the lips of the Mandela family. It's outrageous!
In the UK, the Hutton Inquiry exposed the depths to which tabloids have sunk in their ceaseless search for the best quote to scoop the competition. Journalists from the former NEWS OF THE WORLD hacked even the phone of a 13-year-old girl who had been abducted and killed. Hacking the phones of celebrities and politicians was so widespread that its true extent will never be known even as trials are now taking place of those journalists who had a responsibility to respect basic ethical values. Lord Justice Leveson who led the inquiry into the phone hacking affair, acknowledges the importance of the media to society saying:
"Some of its most important functions are to inform, educate and entertain and, when doing so, to be irreverent, unruly and opinionated. It adds a diversity of perspective. It explains complex concepts that matter in today’s world in language that can be understood by everyone... but that does not mean that is it beyond Challenge. Neither does it mean that the price of press freedom should be paid by those who suffer, unfairly and egregiously, at the hands of the press and have no sufficient mechanism for obtaining redress. There is no organised profession, trade or industry in which the serious failings of the few are overlooked because of the good done by the many".
The point is, the media always bristle when, particularly people outside the trade take issues with their method of practice. They are very sensitive to that but unless they are prepared to subject themselves to a credible peer review mechanism, it will be difficult not to have outsiders like Tony Blair and politicians in general or people caught in the headlamps of national publicity like Makaziwe taking issues with the way media operates.
(C) Politico 16/07/13
