Peter Espeut I EDITED the Catholic youth newspaper "Leaven" in the 1970s, and I once wrote an editorial entitled "On being Negative" which the Gleaner reprinted as a "Guest Editorial". It was my first time in print in this newspaper. The editorial was sparked by a comment from the then Archbishop (of blessed memory) that we youth leaders were being "too negative" during our criticisms of how our Church was being run. In that editorial I wrote that criticisms made for the purpose of pointing out flaws and inefficiencies rather than being negative were profoundly positive, since they were geared towards improvements, progress and a drive for perfection.
TURNING A DEAF EAR
Real negativism, I wrote almost thirty years ago, was carrying on as if everything was fine, and turning a deaf ear to constructive criticism. We never discussed the editorial, but in later life I treasured my friendship with that Archbishop, and he joined my wife and I in Holy Matrimony more than a decade later. Not everyone reacts badly to criticism and their critics.
People in authority should relish constructive criticism, seeing in it an opportunity to refine their policies and programmes, and for advancement; but insecure people are everywhere even in authority and many see any criticism as personal attack. Followership in Jamaica quickly learns that the (insecure) leader is to be toasted and constantly complimented, and that flattery and sycophancy will get you everywhere. Loyalty is defined as blind support, and criticism is a sure sign of disloyalty.
One of the functions of modern journalism is to examine public policy and practice, to expose inconsistencies, inefficiencies and corruption. That has not much been our recent tradition in Jamaica; too much of our media offerings fall into the category of 'public relations for the Government' and too little into 'investigative journalism'. Regularly 'Motty' Perkins gets callers who refer both to him and his message as 'negative'.
'NATTERING NABOB'
He was once, I believe, called a 'nattering nabob of negativism', and all because he does what journalists are supposed to do. "Why don't you speak on your programme about good news, about positive things?" ask the party hacks. The best answer to that question, I think, would be: "That is the job of public relations consultants; I am a journalist".
The stations and programmes dedicated to government public relations are quite naked about it. "We give positive news" they say, or "Don't come here with your criticism", or "Aren't you tired of hearing bad things about Jamaica? Well, here". Or they masquerade as 'independent' while carrying a solid party line. Listen to them and you might well feel that everything is right about Jamaica (which would be a false sense), and therefore we are not in crisis no crisis in education, no crisis in the justice system, no crisis in human rights, no crisis in the economy, no crisis in the environment and therefore we don't have to take the government to task about anything.
In my view, this false positivism coming from some media houses is the real negativism that Jamaicans who hunger for progress should be worried about. I have no fear of a heavy-handed government ordering 'Perkins on Line' off the air; Jamaica's reputation for press freedom would go down the drain in a flash, and they don't want that to happen. And if falsely being called "negative" was the only thing to worry out, we could give thanks; but Motty's programme by all accounts is the subject of an advertising boycott, showing that there are negative elements in Jamaica's private sector which support this drive for 'false positivism'. Should his programme be forced off the air for this reason, what would we be able to say about press freedom then?
MEDIA
Is the charge that the media is hostage to special interests more palatable than the charge that it is not free? My own small efforts to conserve Jamaica's environmental heritage while promoting human development have been the subject of official sabotage because of some of the things I regularly write about in this column. People full of too much criticism and who do not toe the line are destined to be crushed. The spirit of the late Archbishop is sadly quite uncommon. I am sometimes told by persons that they do not like what I write. I ask in return whether what I have written is true or false. I do not usually get an answer.
In all this talk of being "positive", the truth is an early casualty. Why would someone prefer to hear something 'positive' if it is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Mutty's fault is that he is too methodical, too rigorous, too careful in his assertions and conclusions. A less talented person would have already been sued within an inch of his life. He is not always correct, but he is always logical. Personally I do not agree with some of his premises, but I respect his approach. And I share his love for Jamaica and her people. History will expose the false "positivists" for what they are. History will also treat Mutty kindly. There will come a time when his contribution to building a Jamaican nation of which we all can be proud, will be recognised. In the meantime he will have to suffer and live with the label of 'nattering nabob of negativism', although the perceptive know differently.
Peter Espeut is a sociologist and is executive director of an environment and development NGO.
