Political debates and the Fourth Estate: another perspective

Published in the Jamaica Gleaner: Wednesday | August 15, 2007

Clare Forrester, Contributor

One position most people seem to agree on regarding the recently concluded series of political debates, is that they were entertaining although to varying degrees.

What amazed me was the subsequent coverage provided by mainstream media. Fortunately, I was able to view all three debates, especially the second and most entertaining of the three, as the degree of subjectivity in the opinions presented by supposed scribes stretched journalistic credibility.

Most people canvassed seem to agree that Dr. Peter Phillips got the better of Dr. Kenneth Baugh. While Portia Simpson Miller acquitted herself creditably, she too finished on the debit side of the judges scorecard in her clash with Opposition Leader Bruce Golding.

'Fixation'

It was especially interesting to note the apparent 'fixation' of some members of the Fourth Estate on their own pet issues to the exclusion of all else. Having made that point, however, I believe it worthy of note that the young financial analyst on the CVM Friday night panel was a revelation in terms of the quality of his analysis. He will be a treasure in the fraternity.

However, it is the second encounter on which I will focus my observations.

Personally, I feel that Dr. Baugh started off more smoothly but somehow contrived to lose his way, and truly stumbled on the question of how his party proposed financing the massive JLP election promises. Dr. Phillips, as expected was the more analytical of the two, but 'Mr. Excitement' he certainly was not.

Davies vs Shaw match-up

The Davies vs Shaw match-up, however, was another matter. Both displayed much more colour and combativeness. Shaw, short on facts and analysis, used the 'Bustamante-Seaga-like folksy style in bobbing and weaving and in scoring points with respectable fluency.

It was in the vein of a classic middleweight boxing encounter, the slugger versus the showman. Showman Shaw Ali-shuffled his way around questions, especially the one of where his party, if elected, would find the funds for the copious projects it has promised. In the closing minutes, Dr. Davies seemed to deliver a blow below the belt with a question on personal financial management. This appeared to stagger Mr. Shaw, if momentarily, and as the bout closed, he seemed a bit groggy and maybe even hanging on. To his credit he remained on his feet leaving the decision regarding outcome to the judges' scorecard. In so doing Mr. Shaw was able to benefit from the always unpredictable ruling of 'ringside judges', some of whom are known to come to an event with a preconceived notion of who will win.

Straw polls

For these debates, I consider that the panelists at both television stations and the daily newspapers, as the primary ringside judges. The so-called straw polls were another matter to be addressed at another time. For now, suffice it to say it would be interesting to know where those text-message responses to the television stations came from.

As a long-time boxing enthusiast, I have almost always been amazed by the scorecards of judges when both combatants end their encounter on their feet, neither having been floored by a knockout punch. For me, Friday night was no exception.

My vote went to Dr. Davies, but like all boxing fans, I admit to carrying a bias, which may or may not have affected my perspective. As an experienced journalist, I would like to think that it did not. I would have lived with a draw or perhaps a split decision, and was prepared for either given the subjectivity of such assessment exercises.

INCONSISTENT REPORTS

I couldn't have called it more incorrectly based on the scorecard of those judges. In delivering their verdict, I read and heard terms and words used like 'wiped-up the floor', 'commanding', 'masterful' (wouldn't be surprised if 'one-sided' was also thrown in) to describe Shaw's performance over Davies. But none was more complexing than the report in a lead story of one of the two dailies published the following morning that scored points against Davies, which had not even been delivered in the ring. Clearly, the headline and lead paragraph in that 'news story' were not consistent with the body of the report published.

Interestingly, the report published in the other of the two, which came a full day later, was written as a true 'news report', as distinct from an opinion piece. Also a day later, The Gleaner published an assessment by guest columnist and noted sociologist Professor Don Robotham, which provided some rational analysis not entirely in sync with mine.

Those of us who viewed the encounter together and 99 per cent of the folks with whom I held a post-mortem, were left wondering whether we had watched the same event as those members of the Fourth Estate whose verdict we read and heard immediately after that particular debate.

In the real boxing world, nearly every time this type of result is foisted on the public, the sport suffers a black eye. Hopefully, in this case, journalistic credibility does not suffer a similar fate. Suffice it to say that once again I give thanks that technology has produced television so that the public everywhere no longer has to depend on the raw subjectivity of reports on real-time events.