<B>By Roukaya KASENALLY</B>

The past two weeks saw the columns of most British newspapers engage into a profound debate about the future of journalism. In fact, this debate was triggered by a series of events starting with the 2008 ?Cudlipp Lecture? delivered by Alastair Campbell (Tony Blair?s political spin doctor during the latter?s time as Prime Minister), followed by the launch of the much respected Nick Davies? book ? Flat Earth News and an article by the Financial Times? John Lloyd in the February 2008 issue of Prospect Magazine entitled ?Dropping the Pilot?. All the three pieces expose the wrongs and pit falls faced by contemporary journalism and the urgent need to reorient this once noble profession. According to them the fundamental question that every journalist should pose themselves is ? ?What are we here for??

There is no doubt that in the last decades our society has witnessed formidable transformations which to a certain extent has altered the relationship that existed between those who govern us, those who act as our guardians (the media and civil society) and those who represent society at large (the citizens). In fact, the culture of truth and trust that once typified the relationship between the above mentioned stakeholders is steadily giving way to a culture of mistrust and apathy.

The purpose of this opinion piece is to discuss some of the most salient features alluded to by the three authors and relate them to the Mauritian mediascape especially at a time when our small nation prepares itself to celebrate forty years of independence.

<I>?News is only news when it is bad for someone, and especially someone in power, then it narrows and distorts the view of the world.?

The first issue that seems to be docking the trade of journalism is the drastic drop in standards. This downward trend in journalistic standards seems to be directly related to the expanding media marketplace leading certain media experts to reflect on the fact that the journalistic trade is increasingly being defined and driven by ?growth in scale but not in stature?. In fact over the last couple of years many newspapers and broadcast stations have traded speed as opposed to accuracy, sameness / repetition instead of innovation, ignorance over truthfulness and superficial glossing in place of in depth treatment of news. Many observers believe that the state in which present day media finds itself is due to the advent of technology which has propelled us into the era of 24 hour news with its exigencies for immediate / instantaneous information and its propensity towards breaking news. This has in turn unleashed what Campbell refers to as the syndrome of ?expectation inflation? and that of ?near infinity in scale? in the production and distribution of news.

?Expectation inflation? has imposed on a fair number of journalists the urge to run behind news even if the latter is half baked or even worse not even baked. This ?quest? has unfortunately created an influx of factually incorrect stories / news items, unchecked sources and little or no research / investigative work on the part of the journalist. In fact, Nick Davies in his recently published book laments upon the fact that ?journalists were once active gatherers of news, now they have generally become mere passive processors of unchecked, second?hand material, much of it contrived by PR to serve some political or commercial interest ? not journalists but churnalists?.

As for the second phenomenon where the tyranny of newly created and expanding space demand that pages and airtime are filled in, puts enormous pressure on journalists to make a quantitative rather than a qualitative choice. Campbell in his ?Cudlipp Lecture? refers to the fact that ?while we have more media space than ever, complaint about the lack of healthy debate has never been louder, with fewer stories and issues being addressed in real depth in a way that engages large audiences?. For him such a situation leads to the syndrome of ?something has to fill it? where often the media has recourse to ?anything will do, whether political speculation, an airhead columnist, phone in or text in radio commentary or the latest guff from last night?s reality TV shows?.

<I>The MBC shamelessly serves the political interests of their politicial masters instead of the public it has been mandated to serve.</I>

Another feature that seems to be a matter of concern to both Campbell and Davies is the ?culture of negativity? that pervades today?s media. The reporting of bad or negative news has always been an inevitable component of news production. For decades, the African continent and certain regions / countries deemed to be roguish, unfriendly or non democratic (usually along the Western conceptual barometer) received bad, negative and biased ?publicity?. The point that needs to be stressed upon is not that one is contesting the relevance of negative news per se but emitting strong reservation ?that news is ONLY news when it is bad for someone, and especially someone in power, then it narrows and distorts the view of the world?. In fact, the ?culture of negativity? is inherently tied to the culture of sensationalism (another troubling trait of contemporary journalism) and very often media owners / producers adopt a very facile argument ? giving the audience what they want! However, evidence point to the contrary and that the public are keen on listening and reading about success / hope as well as failures / tragedies or about serious as well as sensationalist news.

The last element that I wish to explore is the relationship between journalism and politics. Across the world and more specifically in established democratic societies, politics and the media have undergone major transformations altering significantly the traditional lines of demarcation between these two disciplines. What is referred to by Bob Franklin as the ?packaging of politics? where emphasis is laid on the exterior and superficial aspects of political discourse. Academics point to the potentially damaging effects of such a trend when journalists turn from watchdogs to lapdogs and politicians become mere performers where rhetoric, sound bites and photo opportunities become their staple political diet. In fact, Campbell in his ?Cudlipp Lecture? comments on the fact that ?the media is not taken as seriously as it once was by the public who know politicians may spin them a line, but they have a sense they are being spun someone?s line every time they read a paper or listen to a pavement stander?.

The reporting of political news has often unleashed moments of passion, tension and conflict. Political stories have often been woven in what is increasingly viewed to be a language of extremes with very little or no scope for shades of grey. In fact, the treatment of political leaders and other major political events indicate the media?s ?obsession? with ?triumph or disaster, unalloyed success or total crisis, the most overused word in political reporting?.

The media in Mauritius is far from sheltered from the above mentioned features. However, it offers certain home grown and country specific characteristics which in turn create a whole panoply of tensions, limitations as well as opportunities for the practice of journalism. The first thing that significantly defines the Mauritian mediascape is that it is highly polarized with public broadcasting services existing at one end (at times at the extreme end) and private media at the other end of the spectrum. Secondly, Mauritian media (especially print) does not have a clear cut distinction between broadsheet and tabloid journalism (not to be confused with the tabloid format which many of the broadsheet newspapers in the UK and US have switched to). This has lead to a situation where Mauritian newspapers offer a very mix menu of news items ranging from the so said serious to the ultra sensationalist news. Many newspaper owners would argue that over the years their newspapers have got fatter / thicker and in the process are catering for a whole range of news. However, a quick visual and content analysis as to what actually fills in their columns and pages would indicate a high ratio of sensationalist, light, cut and paste news as well as advertisements.

Our public broadcasting service ? the MBC is for me an anachronism of modern public service broadcasting as it shamelessly serves the political interests of their political masters instead of the public it has been mandated to serve. This scenario has been repeated with all regimes over the past forty years. Political parties whilst in opposition have promised innovation and balance but once in power forget their commitment.

Private radio complements the lack of objectivity, informed and balance debate and innovative and creative thinking of public services. The phenomenon of instant information especially sensationalist and prejudicial to sensitivities of specific groups must be handled with due care and responsibility. The rush for exclusivity must be balanced with public security and interests.

As for our print media it has a long history of laudable service to the country. However, over the past decade a section of our press has substituted rigour and serious analysis for sensationalism, exclusivity and superficiality. Political gossips at private family dinner parties are transmuted into electoral strategy which is spun into headlines news for the gullible public to swallow at times with indigestion. The formats of the winning formulae of the two main opposition parties for the next election are subjected to endless permutations and combinations by editorialists and media commentators without realizing that these could be irrelevant or obsolete if an element of proportional representation is introduced to our current electoral system. Economic data churned by the authorities to justify ?early harvest? are reproduced without critique and in-depth analysis of facts and figures. Headlines are increasingly driven by stories about witchcraft, sexual abuse and other crime related matters and this is served with delectation to a small but ever demanding clientele. Our law and order authorities are mercilessly pilloried by a public opinion whipped up by the inherent failings of our security services. In fact, our media must show restraint and understanding for the Police who are no doubt working under difficult conditions.

There is no doubt that as we step into the fourth decade of our nationhood numerous challenges await us. In fact, the traditional media will have to respond to the growing exigencies of a modern and innovative society where information and knowledge will be available and accessible through alternative platforms. Citizens / media users not satisfied with a lax, docile and complacent media will switch very quickly to other more engaging and stimulating media platforms. In fact, the growing phenomenon of blogs and other social networks such as Facebook, My Space or U Tube attest to this. In the 2002 Reith Lecture delivered by Onora O?Neill entitled ?A question of trust? mention was made that no profession is less trusted in the UK than journalism. This is a notion that has confirmed itself across Europe as well as in the US.

Therefore it is imperative that journalists form a new relationship with the public by creating a market demand for quality journalism driven by trust, respect and moral guidance. As an endnote it is important to emphasise that the onus for change does not lie solely and squarely on the shoulders of journalists but requires a less cheerleader approach from a public who deliberately chooses at times to be gullible and spoon fed.