What agenda for the press?

A performance appraisal of the press will reveal that both state-owned and private media have on several occasions performed painfully below expectation. In this respect, there are no exceptions, because at one time or another, you cannot tell whether our pressmen, state-employed or private, have no sense of mission. It is either that they are just earning a living or, may be, they simply want to exhibit their new, unexpected power and influence that was brought them by the new democratic order.

The current state of the press has been reduced to a fight between the state-owned and private media houses on one hand, and the private media and the NDC on another. While the state-owned media believes that any opinion against the government - even if it is a correction - is a betrayal, the private media feels that a single word of praise for the government - even if deserved - is either a sign of weakness or sheer sycophancy. In fact, none of them seems to know where to draw the line.

The whole media game is now about how much damage the private opposition press can do to the government, and how well the state-owned media can control such damage. To the extent that news, to the private press, is simply how much damage it is able to do Rawlings, his family and ministers, whereas to the state-owned media it is how much work they could do to protect ministers from public scrutiny.

Clearly, you cannot expect the state-owned media to be against the government, since it was for the purpose of explaining and justifying government actions that they were set up. Which is why I find the bitter complaints of their bias in favour of the government quite amusing. Is anyone expecting a government of either the PNC, the PCP or the NPP to actively encourage the state-owned media to scream against it the way the private media does? Is that possible?

The whole media game is now about how much damage the private opposition press can do to the government, and how well the state-owned media can control such damage. To the extent that news, to the private press, is simply how much damage it is able to do Rawlings, his family and ministers. . . .

On the other hand overplaying that card jeopardises the credibility of the state-owned media in the eyes of the people. For example, a screaming headline like the one which sought to tell us that inflation had dropped to 20 per cent only serves to invite public scorn towards both the paper itself and the government. So will the front page photograph of the President clearing silt from drains - back onto the shoulders of the drain!

If the state-owned media is accused of not being fair, the private newspapers should be lambasted for their one-sided presentations. Some people have argued that private media can "say what they like" because public does not contribute (in the form of taxes) towards their sustenance. It must be understood, however, that for the simple reason that Ghanaian society is driving steadily towards private initiative, which includes the anticipated privatisation of the state-owned media, it is expected that we have a private media which will use their influence objectively, and not just as a tool of revenge or display of power.

The real issues, which must be analysed to get this country out of the current socio-political quagmire, are completely ignored by the media. For example, while it is admitted that corruption in high places is the bane of our economic progress, our media is not looking critically at the roots of corruption so that it can be stemmed from that point.

Opposition newspapers are always as quick to expose corrupt NDC officials and ministers as are state-owned newspaper to shield them, yet none has even cared to find out why corruption persists in spite of pledges and efforts. It is as if you only have to remove the NDC and replace it with the PCP or NPP or PNC and, hey presto, you have an end to corruption - forever and ever!

The root cause of corruption is neither the NDC nor the PCP nor the NPP. It is a combination of socio-economic factors that cannot be wished away with a mere replacement of one government with another. Take our own values, for example. We often advise relatives in high positions to "do something at home" knowing very well that Ghanaian salaries alone will not be able to do those "things". We are often full of praise when a colleague or friend suddenly acquires up a building or some other valuable asset when, by all logic, they are beyond his or her means.

And you have a media, especially a private media which is only interested in proving how much discomfort it can cause for the ruling government. Just after the 1996 elections, a Ghanaian Chronicle lead story told of how President Rawlings has allocated what the paper estimates to be "more lucrative" ministerial portfolios to certain Cabinet favourites. Now the question to ask is, are there differences in the salaries of ministers? If not, by what other means does the position become "lucrative"?

Fact is, the paper was so immersed in harping on the angle of favouritism on the part of the President, that it did not realise it was encouraging the same official corruption that it preaches against. By alluding to the idea that certain ministerial positions are "better" than others, the paper forgot that all ministers have one duty - whichever portfolio they may be holding - TO SERVE! Is the Ghanaian Chronicle not "reminding" certain ministers that they may take undue advantage of their position. So who's bad?

The question again is how do we reconcile our desire to eradicate corruption with our lofty material expectations of relatives and friends in high office? Are we not the ones who provide the impetus and justification for officials to indulge in corrupt practices, when we make such social and material demands on them?

Another example is the legendary filth in our cities, which the media always gleefully blame on inefficient waste management. While it is admitted that the Metropolitan Assemblies are ill equipped and often lack commitment and a sense of duty to carry out their waste disposal tasks effectively, it is equally appropriate to ask how such volumes of filth ends up on our streets each day.

It is common to hear a passenger or pedestrian complain about the filth and stench in Accra and how ineffective the AMA is, only to see the same person throw rubbish or pass water a few yards on. The problem is that the masses are not educated to understand that the little drops of rubbish they throw on the streets make the mighty mountains of refuse in our cities; that for as long as the throw the rubbish or other waste onto the street, the cities will be filthy and smelly - as if they need to be told!

Nobody is denying our media the right to complain and criticise, but they must also contribute positively to the prevention of those things that do not make the country progress. The media must not confine their duties to "keeping the government on its toes", as the parrot's phrase for the main duty of the function taught us in school.

It must look at the vast arena of issues which remain untreated, simply because they do not generate wild sensation.

It is sickening to note that at a time when we need to change our attitude to work, our perception of official corruption, our mediocrity and consumer characteristics in order to fit into a competitive world which waits for no one, our journalists and editors have turned their profession into cockfights. More often than not, valuable columns are devoted to verbal battlegrounds for waging personalised wars against dissenting individuals. What significant impact does this position of our journalists have on our quest for an economically and socially vibrant society?

Like indisciplined soldiers with loaded guns, most of our editors have become so self-conceited that they are passing themselves off as the know-all in our society. You dare not challenge them on any topic, if you do not want to be turned into a verbal punch bag in columns and editorials on end. Some are so witty that they would mutilate rejoinders, if they think it would minimise any intended initial damage. Others are more blunt, refusing outright to publish rejoinders altogether. Did we run away from military dictatorship into the arms of a refined - but equally painful - press dictatorship?

There seems to be no single purpose for our media, as all factions continue to snuggle in their corner. Ladies and gentlemen, we have too difficult a job on our hands to engage in personal squabbles. The vast majority of Ghanaians live in total ignorance, a situation which engenders poverty, poor health and lack of progress and development. The masses must be the main target of the media and the media in turn must understand that nobody stands to gain from simply embarrassing the government of the day if the fundamental problems of society remain firmly with us and unattended.

The media must help change our perception of life, if it is to make a positive impact on our everyday lives. Anything beyond that will only help us to continue to wallow in our ignorance and mediocrity; always pointing fingers to symptoms of our problems but never being able to place a finger on their causes. True, the time has come for the media to rethink its agenda. Graphic