Such news is bad news

The term "information society" is different from that of "media pluralism" yet should they not be related? Should not the media first and foremost inform, wherever a radio/tv/newspaper stands on the pluralistic stage? I am not aware that it no longer holds that comment is free, facts are sacred, but tell that to the political media. The arrival of pluralism in local broadcasting continues to be hailed as a great breakthrough in the practice of free speech. And so it was and remains. But like everything else, it has an inbuilt cost.

Pluralism did give an opportunity for new initiative, swiftly exploited by the Church and a number of private investors. Above all, it permitted the political parties to set up their own radio and television stations. The result dished out did not reflect the best of menus. Those stations have added value to locally originated programmes. But when it came to current affairs they rapidly developed a very basic formula based more on spin and manipulation, than journalism. That includes rubbishing the party's opponents and lauding the party's actions to the high heavens, especially if it happens to be in government.

If that were restricted to phone-ins, and participation in discussion programmes by party persons, it would be understandable, though not necessarily acceptable to the extent that comment targets individuals personally, rather than their views and policies. But the stations of the two main parties all too often have felt no compunction in butchering the principle relating to reporting facts, of informing factually and leaving comment to the discussion programmes.

One frequently worked trick works as follows. A party newspaper runs a speculative story putting the other side in a queasy light, to some extent, if at all that, based on actual or alleged leaks. The party's broadcasting media then report the story as if it were news, something related to facts, and not speculation.

Another perhaps more blunt approach is to carry an item in the news bulletin that is so peppered with comment that it burns the ears of those who wish to follow news bulletins from different sources.

Is the Broadcasting Authority to be found anywhere at all in this travesty of pluralism and journalism? Indeed it is: it lies supine, letting it all roll over its regulatory head. The authority decreed long ago that balance in the party media could not relate to balance within each sector. Balance is defined as all the parties having media from which to spout their line.

Again, insofar as that applies to discussion programmes, phone-ins and the like, provided the rules of common decency are followed the definition is not outrageous. It is quite remarkable, however, that the BA keeps out of it also when it comes to news bulletins.

These are also subjected to the tactic of manipulation by simple omission. I came across an example on Friday night. First I followed the news on Super One television, whose reporting is tending towards the factual. Among other things I was able to follow an item detailing the latest government revenue and expenditure figures and the latest information on the size of the public debt.

Later I moved on to the news bulletin on Net TV. Therein the parlous state of the public finances, the galloping structural deficit, the ballooning public debt were not ranked as worth reporting whilst fresh out of the oven of the National Statistics Office. On the other hand, through Net TV I learned that two Labour officials had been fined a total of Lm1,900 for libelling two cabinet ministers, an item of news not included in the Super One bulletin.

I do not know whether Net TV some days earlier had carried the news that Jimmy Magro, the MLP secretary general, had been awarded damages for being sidelined at the MDC when the Nationalists took office in 1987.

My point is not whether tit-for-tat is right or acceptable. It is that, in this stage of democratic evolution the party media would do society as a whole as well as their own side a lot of good if they put to fuller use the talents of the skilled journalists on both sides.

A party that informs objectively would be able to make its analysis, comment and criticism more credible and effective. A society that is properly informed can take better choices in the democratic process.