To Right Wrong or Write Wrong? The REAL question

Writing on the straight and narrow... between the lines

I had promised to stay quiet. I tried. I did. Until now.

As a media practitioner and journalist since 1998, I think I had the distinct privilege of being guided (even up to now) by some of the greatest minds and the most influential names to dominate the era. The first - and ever-continuing - lesson as a journalist is about being fair and objective. It's admittedly a dangerous game. Perception is relative, and if you are only perceived to any degree to be taking sides, your credibility - and your career - will be shot like a wayward manicou in a hunter's back yard.

At different stages in my career, I walked the tightrope... between big business and unions, government and opposition, police and thief. I even walked the plank a few times. I've been offered bribes by big business, monitored by the State, stalked by criminals, and even joshed by colleagues about my approach to the story. I remained resolute... I tried to be as fair as possible, reporting facts fearlessly and being equitable and educating in my editorials. It didn't pay off for me in terms of pennies, but I rather believe it has increased the value of my opinion and the worth of my expression.

Over the years, I have noticed, with increasing disappointment, the eagerness of fourth-estate practitioners to grasp the railing of any gravy train - least of all political - in order to bolster their perception of being minor celebrities, and to increase their net worth financially. So many feel the need to sit in front of the camera without having to walk the miles behind... fresh-faced graduates now impatiently tap out trite sentences to accomplish their first national byline. I remember the days when one worked as an anonymous scriptwriter for six months before you saw your name in print. The fault may be in our "stars", but today's editors and news managers also have to take their share of blame for the apparent degradation of the profession in recent times.

When I last practised for the local mass media, I was appalled by the behaviour of reporters and so-called journalists whose eyes were always twinkling with the promise of political favours following the election. One reporter in particular vowed to "never cover another party's campaign", adding that they would flood their newscast with stories about the party and politicians of their choice "whether the information right, or not so right". No surprise that following the 2010 polls, one leading station was left with a newsroom staff of three persons. I have seen mediocre photographers who can barely spell their names ascend to the lofty heights that allow them to stroll the corridors of power. Other reporters who chose to ride on the backs of gravy-train riders and now doing their own riding in an eight by ten.

Since 2007, whenever discussion came up on a news story, my first question was always about which reporter covered for which media. That information, sadly, would have - more often than not -provided a compass as to whether there was bias, and if so, in which direction it was aimed. It's sad that publications and media personalities are now being differentiated, persecuted and ridiculed by the perception of their political persuasion. There's that word again, perception.

This election year is once again a catalyst for a "them versus us" stand between and within political parties and newsrooms alike. What is different though, is the degree to which the acrid animosity and vapid vitriol has obscured the issues of governance and development that impact the nearly two million people (illegals included) that reside, work and try to realize their dreams in this country.

This is the time when amazingly pseudo-educated, quasi-experienced experts seek to hog the social agenda, systematically spewing specious syntax. It's stopped meaning anything to me, really. And it shouldn't for any other right-thinking voter. After a few election cycles of having such employees on radio, TV and print, it now seems that the ubiquity of the social media landscape is being used to promote poisonous political propaganda. Just when I thought I was rid of Pet Rescue invites and nightclub invitations, now there's a deluge of political memes, YouTube parodies, listserv wars, and general slander, hate speech and innuendo popping up as notifications on my social media accounts.

Don't get me wrong. I am a strong believer in freedom of expression, but I draw the line when someone pursues some imaginary privilege of persecution and general irritation with impunity. There's no glamour in being a politically-appointed pest, especially if I run from you by unfriending and filtering my friends list, and you nevertheless pursue my attention. What's going to happen after the polls close this year? Will these personalities crawl back into the woodwork for 57 months before returning, or will be seeing their signatures (or thumbprints) at the bottom of media releases? Will they get prime HDC homes in special areas or will they get diplomatic postings across the world? Sit in the Senate or on a State Board? It's sure to get worse before it gets better. Maybe the next "mother of all elections" (lol) in 2020 will tell.

All I can state, is my hopeful optimism that the craft of journalism and media reporting revert to the honourable profession that it has been for centuries. I have no wish to descend into any public battle of personalities with my friends or foes in the media, or call out persons based on perception. There's that word again... perception.