I have always enjoyed being a journalist. I have never wanted to do anything else (except be a cop in my pre-teen years). I have also thoroughly enjoyed being a manager of the “news gathering and delivery process” for almost two decades. There are also days when I get immense satisfaction from being Editor-in-Chief at the Nation.
But I am also very glad that I do not have nearly as many years left (knock on wood) in journalism as I have already spent. It is becoming an increasingly tough environment within which to work, not because of journalism per se, but as a result of a growing intolerance generally, born out of an apparent hardening of positions in critical segments of the society.
Maybe it is because today’s journalists, including myself, are not taken as seriously as those who preceded us – and perhaps, as some of the retired veterans are so swift to declare, we have to take the bulk of the blame for this state of affairs.
In many ways we have been complicit in the whittling away of the regard with which we are held by the society by not being as firm on the principles of journalistic (editorial) independence and integrity as we should be. In many ways we have ceded ground to the advertisers and other power brokers in our midst – even to those who have no more power than the loud voices with which they seek to bully others.
In last Wednesday’s MIDWEEK NATION we published a photograph of Rihanna in the dress she wore to receive her 2014 Fashion Icon Award in New York. It was a doctored version of a photograph that was seen around the world by millions, perhaps billions of people. It was shared by every major reputable news service from the Associated Press in North America to Al Jazeera in the Middle East.
Recognising the conservatism of some segments of our society we, I believe skilfully, blocked out her clearly visible crotch area, and placed a star over her exposed nipple.
It was not enough, however, to satisfy one of our major advertisers, who was highly critical of our decision to publish the photo, in the process threatening to withdraw all advertising for one month. Responding publicly to this presents a paradox of sorts for me, since that advertiser is a close personal friend – one of the few persons on whom I would turn my back with absolutely no fear of being harmed, someone who has stood by me in tough times.
At the same time that individual is a major advertiser, head of a company that is part of a local, regional and international business empire that has not just economic influence but strong political influence as well. On all accounts this is not an entity you easily ignore.
Professional independence
But I think it is incumbent on me as Editor-in-Chief and a journalist who holds his profession dear, to make it clear that my professional independence, the Editorial Department’s independence while I am at its helm, will not be compromised.
Anyone, everyone, is free to agree or disagree with our decision to publish or not publish a specific item, but they do not have a right to use strong arm tactics to seek to determine what we should print. Publishing Rihanna’s picture is not a matter of right or wrong; it is simply a judgement. Some felt the dress was too risqué; some love it. It’s a matter of taste.
There was no nudity in the picture we printed.
Interestingly, while we were being judged and found wanting by the advertiser for publishing the picture, there was what I call a “boycott the Nation” campaign on Facebook led by another businessman, who felt we irresponsibly defiled Rihanna’s dress by hiding certain parts – particularly covering up her clearly visible left nipple. Heads you lose, tails you lose!
But this issue is bigger than Rihanna and her dress. It is bigger than personal taste. It is about whether any one group, including journalists, have the right to dictate to a community what its members should read.
While at Barbados Today a few years ago, another major business player kept good his promise never to advertise with the online publication again because columnist Adrian Clarke said he did not like the design of houses in a project being built by the developer. The businessman could not fathom why we would allow a columnist to say anything negative about the project when he was spending money with us.
Earlier this year, a top official of the Central Bank of Barbados took us to task for allowing columnist like Patrick Hoyos and Clyde Mascoll to offer their opinions each week. He was adamant that on matters of the economy the only reputable voice was that of the Central Bank. He had no room for the idea that there was value in offering divergent views on the subject as part of the process of educating the country.
Gay rights
Columnist Peter Wickham writes an article defending the rights of gays to practise their lifestyle and some advertisers and some figures in the church threaten to bring down the wrath of God on us.
I sincerely believe that we are constructing a much weaker and more dangerous society when our only reason for denying a voice to someone else is that we do not share their view. Anyone who wants a publication (or an editor) that will only publish opinions that conform to those of the editor is begging for trouble. The society will not be properly served.
I take the principle of editorial independence very seriously. That has always been my experience at The Nation. In fact, it is taken so seriously that not even the board of the Nation Publishing Company Ltd, to my knowledge, has tried over the 30 years I have been here to influence the content of the newspaper. I have never known of an instance where a chairman or member of the board has said a particular story must be published or another can’t be published.
That’s because they recognise that even with their power to influence or determine my future and that of any individual editor or journalist in the organisation, the moment they start determining which story should or should not appear, which picture should or should not be published, which political party or politician should or should not have a voice, which headline is or is not appropriate, they will trigger an avalanche that will eventually bury us all.
I certainly have no desire to work for a newspaper with such leadership. I do not agree with a lot of what Prime Minister Freundel Stuart does (or does not do), but I dare anyone to tell me he should not have access to the pages of the Nation. I do not support homosexuality, but I dare anyone to tell me that the voice of the gay community should be excluded from our pages.
For many years I felt like I was Enemy Number One of veteran St Andrew MP George Payne, but he could never suggest that he has received anything but fair treatment from any newsroom I have led or from me personally.
By the same token I consider St James South MP Donville Inniss a personal friend and yet he could never reasonably claim it has brought him any favour or advantage with my newsroom.
Earlier this year I?attempted to do a telephone interview with Barbados Workers’ Union (BWU) boss Sir Roy Trotman, who declared loudly in the background, no doubt deliberately loud enough that I would hear: “Roy who? He is no friend of mine. . . . I?know my friends and he is not one of them.” He never took the phone. I?dispatched another reporter to Solidarity House and he spoke to her – and his comments made the front page the next day. His treatment of me did not influence my judgement of the importance to the country of what he had said.
Professional independence can’t be built on anything but a foundation of journalistic integrity.
So Barbados, feel free to disagree with us. We have not always got it right, and we never will. We have done things and even without outside prompting looked back and wondered how we could have taken such a course. Tell us when you don’t agree with us and dare us to publish your criticism of our actions – we know we are duty bound to be open to such scrutiny.
But be fair when what you are offering is just your opinion, just a reflection of your taste. Don’t set out to make your taste right and everyone else’s position wrong.
I trust I have not lost a friend!
• Roy Morris is Editor-in-Chief of THE NATION.
