By the time Samuel Obour, a student of communication studies at the Ghana Institute of Journalism, ended his discussion on “Pathetic journalistic practices in Ghana”, a feature that recently appeared on the websites of Joy FM, ModernGhana and Ghanaweb, he had succeeded in turning what is merely pathetic into a crisis. Obour had joined the old cliché-ridden debate on how our journalism is not meeting the accepted standards, yet he failed to say what those standards should be. In any case, is Ghanaian journalism really pathetic? If it is, then we are not alone. By Obour’s standards, if a newspaper plants the story of a minister of state who has embezzled state funds on its front page, and shelves stories on education, road construction, rural electrification etc, then our journalism is getting bad. He writes: “There are villages in Ghana that still lack basic social amenities like electricity, pipe-borne water, tarred roads, schools, hospitals and many more, even after fifty years of independence. Who is talking about the Northern Region, a perfect epitome of poverty and infrastructural backwardness? These are some of the issues that should be discussed on television and radio shows. Our newspapers, more so the state owned ones, should carry headlines that provide avenues for development. We should see headlines like `construct Anyaa-Ablekuma road, `Develop Northern Region` instead of the usual political headlines like `Minister embezzles money. Then, he adds, rather pathetically, “Even if a minister embezzled government money, does that really affect the man on the streets who cannot afford three square meals a day?”

The same week that Obour launched his crusade against pathetic journalism in Ghana, two more articles appeared on some Ghanaian news websites, seeking to drag Ghanaian journalism into the gutter. Indeed, on of the articles, posted by a certain Ekua Kwansema, which questioned the editorial integrity of Ransford Tetteh, had been appropriately titled: “Daily Graphic descends into gutter journalism.” Kwasmema found the story on former NPP Information Minister, Asabee, in the July 7 edition of Daily Graphic, misplaced. The story had been headlined: “Supporters of Asabee pledge solidarity.” Kwamsema writes: “If some friends of Asabee had gone to his house to express solidarity with him [,] should Daily Graphic waste its resources to send a reporter and a cameraman to cover this nonsense? Where is the priority of Ransford Tetteh and the Daily Graphic? Where is their sense of journalism? This is indeed gutter journalism at its best and even some of the mushroom newspapers being funded by the NPP would take a pass to this cheap propaganda.” However, Kwansema believes that if the Graphic editor had sent reporters to the residence of Asabee, to quiz him on how he managed to erect a provocative mansion by the roadside on his earnings as a public officer, then Ghanaian journalism would be serving the citizenry a good purpose.

Kwansema also believes that it was inappropriate for the Daily Graphic to have “trumpeted on the 10,000 policemen and women who would be deployed to keep law and order during US President Obama’s visit. Deploying police personnel to keep law and order during the visit of a head of state is no news that should be the lead story of the day.” Instead, she believes that the story on eleven oil companies that owe the Tema Oil Refinery large sums of money should have front page prominence. Finally, she cautions: “Indeed Daily Graphic needs to put its house in order. The paper is in serious disarray, lacking editorial and organisational focus.”

Is the Graphic really in disarray? Kwansema gives us a clue: That, news vendors who sell by the roadside hide the Graphic and other newspapers under the Daily Guide. But he immediately adds that the “Daily Guide is equally a trash paper with no credibility.” What are Kwansema’s credentials for making these judgments? I have never met her (She is probably a he), telling by her diction and the general tone of her writings. Her gender does not matter to us; what matters are the points he is making, which are not all-together irrelevant. What is a front page story? What factors should determine a front page news item? At the journalism school, we almost made a song out of the things we need to consider when doing a story. Generally, we worked around these four questions: Is what we are publishing the truth? Would it bring about development? Would it be beneficial to all concerned? Would it build goodwill and better friendships? Some journalists, including my brother Gideon Sackitey, prefer to add a fifth criterion: Is it fair to all? And who determines whether a story is fair, or whether it will bring about development? Is it when development economists okay our report on the state of the economy or it is when politicians concur or disagree to what we put out?

Need we bother to define news at this stage? We have gone past the definition stage; ours is serious practice policed by our own sense of what is right and what is wrong. There are still a lot of problem areas, but our journalism is adequate for our purposes. We only need to straighten the rough areas that let us down. If something important happens in the east, and a tragedy occurs in the west, who determines what the people of the north and south would be interested in reading? Again, Kwansema makes an interesting observation: If we are used to a certain routine, or expect something to happen, then it is no news. She thinks that highlighting our preparation for Obama’s security is no news, because it is expected that we would send police personnel to guard important and sensitive areas in Accra. Yet, he believes, methinks, that the visit of the first African American president is news. Kwansema and Obour know a thing or two about gutter journalism, but they fail to tell us what constitutes good journalism. Would they, for instance, find it ‘guttery’ that British newspapers decided to make front page news out of a pornography-addicted husband of a government minister, when innocent British forces were dying in Afghanistan? Obour is likely to ask: if a minister’s husband pleasures away in front of a computer screen, learning a few tricks from porn stars to please his wife in the comfort of their bedroom, how does that affect homeless people walking the streets of Britain?

Let’s be clear on the role of sensationalism: It is not particularly unprofessional or unethical if it would satisfy the public’s curiosity and their right to know. And here, journalists must insist that no other professional has the right to determine what is sensational or what is just fair, in much the same way that no journalist tells the surgeon what instrument to use when operating on a pregnant woman. What right has a minister of state, even if he holds the communications portfolio, to tell journalists what to report and what to shelve, when he knows nothing about the inverted pyramid or when to kick in a kicker to lighten the day? Journalists would tell politicians what to do, and sometimes how to do it. Politicians do not write the news; they make the news.

When I started writing, I engaged the services of a lawyer who offered to proofread my articles for free. We went on for a while, often arguing about the timeliness of the subject I was discussing and a few issues on grammar. At a point, I realised that she was particularly instructive when I used basic legal terms or tried to show my understanding of court rulings, a field I am not very alien to. Usually, she would say: ‘You are not a lawyer, leave this for the lawyers.” The editing she did confirmed my suspicions that good writers do not necessarily make good journalists. It wasn’t until I sent my scripts to a Columbian-trained journalist in the USA that I realised how I had been short-changing myself and my readers. Moses Yayaya would cut short my usually long headlines and advise where I had to use a quote. Often, he would rewrite my lead, insisting that I change the general organisation of some ideas. That is journalism. Nothing pathetic.

Like Obour, I am quite new to the trade; I can’t pretend to profess anything he does not already know, but I can identify with a few things he may not know. Most accomplished journalism teachers present journalism as a discipline that investigates problems. They do this so that students would develop the native nosiness and the itchy curiosity that are necessary for effective newsgathering. They do well to present the pleasant side of the trade as well. In my first journalism class, our lecturer tasked us to think of problems that were bothering us. You must know about a few of the many problems in the world to be a journalist. From, Nigeria’s Delta, where folks are dying, to America, where people are still losing their jobs, there are too many problems to tire in repetition. Pregnant women in labour do not have places to rest in Ghanaian hospitals. Some of them die, needlessly. Many villagers have not eaten bread in their entire lives, and sugar is a luxury for them. The problems are never-ending. Each of us could have about ten. So, we all listed a few problems for the noble academic. He went round picking our pieces of paper, which he read aloud to the class. Then, he got to the desk of a lady who had not written anything. He asked: You can’t think of any problem bothering you?” The lady replied: “Did you mean personal or national problems?” “A problem is a problem; it doesn’t matter where it is coming from,” he yelled. After what seemed like waiting for eternity, the student said something: “Education.” “Yes, what about education?”, the lecturer quizzed. “Errr, it is a problem in this country”, she submitted. “How is it a problem?,” he asked. “Everything”, the student added. “Everything?” The laughter in the class was cacophonous.

Samuel Obour reminds me of this student. Can everything about journalism in Ghana be so pathetic? If I were Obour, I would hesitate in using the word “pathetic.’ He would soon learn that there is a way to critique a practice or a profession without criticising it. I would recommend Dr Nii Moi Thompson’s ‘Whither Ghanaian Journalism?’ for him. It is perhaps one of the most sincere accounts of the state of the practice of journalism in Ghana. At least, today I know the difference between a graduate and a graduand, and that the general secretary of a political party is not always a scribe.

Thompson did not say our journalism is pathetic. It becomes pathetic when those who think a headline must always be about road construction, descend into the gutter to call ours gutter journalism. Our gutter journalism has produced Mr Anas Aremeyaw Anas, probably the first black African to merit a space in the speech of an American president. Komla Dumor is the toast of the BBC’s flagship major news bulletin. How pathetic!

Benjamin Tawiah

Email: btawiah@hotmail.com