Ghana's Development And Irresponsible Journalism.

Ellen Goodman (an American journalist) once remarked that “in journalism, there has always been a tension between getting it first and getting it right”. It does appear that journalism in Ghana has been ( in contemporary times) one of getting it first and yesterday’s (05/10/2006) news on the “Al-Qaeda’s propaganda in Ghana” is no exception.

When clauses espousing press freedom were inserted in the 4th Republican Constitution, many were those who celebrated in pomp the dawn of an era when people can say it as it is without fear of persecution. For many it marked the end of an obnoxious era when journalists were carted away to the military barracks and subjected to torture for reporting on an issue that the powers-that-be would rather have swept under the carpet. And yet for some, press freedom meant going on a spree of personal vendetta. Whatever your perception about press freedom was, one thing is certain; it marked the beginning of an era when the masses have the opportunity to listen to, and judge the performance of the people they have entrusted with the stewardship role of steering the affairs of our beloved country.

There is no denying the fact that the liberalisation of the Ghanaian airwaves and the concomitant legislation on freedom of speech has tremendously helped to educate, inform and entertain the masses of the Ghanaian people. One can say without any stretch of hesitation that we owe our current democratic dispensation to the beautiful job done by the media (both print and electronic). A typical example is the role played by the media in helping to oust a minister whose indiscretions were ostensibly fatal to his office ( Dr Richard Anane). Infact gone are the days when the Information Services Department used to travel from community to community disseminating information of a vital nature. I remember somewhere in the 80s when there was cholera outbreak in the northern part of Ghana, this department was charged with the responsibility of going round educating the public about how to prevent this communicable diseases. Paradoxically, by the time the information services department had reached most of their destinations, hundreds of lives were lost to this pandemic. Looking back, we have to be proud as a nation about the successes we have chalked so far. But there is a lot of room for improvement.

Infact in some quarters, the press has been described as the Fourth Estate of the Realm. The import is that in the absence of the three main organs of government, the press becomes a viable alternative. Undoubtedly the press serves as a check on the excesses of these arms in the performance of their duties. This is especially true in the case of the Executive which deals with the day to day administration of the nation. Undeniably, the press, when well managed can play an indispensable role in entrenching the institution of democracy (a vital recipe for accelerated economic development). For example in the celebrated and widely publicised Watergate Scandal, it was the work of two reporters (Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein), that exposed the clandestine and nefarious of activities of the government of Richard Nixon culminating in calls for his impeachment.

On the other hand if the activities of the press are not conducted in a professional manner, it could deal fatal blows to the nation by bringing the wheels of development to a grounding halt. A typical example is what happened in Rwanda in one of the worse human catastrophes in African history ( the brutal massacre of Tutsis by Hutus). It will be recalled that it took only articles by some journalists including some by the Editor of “Kangura” (Hassan Ngeze), to inflame the passions of the Hutus to go killing Tutsis in a scale unprecedented in African history. It took the propaganda of a radio station (Radio Mille Collines) to inflame the already simmering passions of the Hutu majority. That is how powerful the media can be.

However the difference between the Watergate scandal and the Rwandan genocide is that in the case of the former there was a significant degree of responsible journalism ( in journalistic parlance “Investigative Journalism”). In the case of the latter, it was more of jingoism or yellow journalism. The truth is that both are forms of journalism. Given the fact that we are in the embryonic stages of our developmental efforts, what we really need is Investigative Journalism. It does come with its own constraints given our unique circumstances ( the desire of politicians to use all means possible “to kill the news”- Kwabena Agyapong). But the truth is that that is the best way out of our quagmire.

I first paid attention to our irresponsible journalism a couple of years ago when one reporter of Joy Fm reported on an incident that happened between the ex-president and the then District Chief Executive of Bongo. In that report which was posted on Ghana web , the reporter was obviously confused about the usage of the past participle “been” and the present participle “being”. He used them interchangeably and the context made the import of the sentences a little confusing. I read the report and understood it fine but at the end of it all, I concluded that this was a reporter who was consumed by “the tension between getting it first and getting it right”. He unfortunately chose the former. I thought to myself that if the reporter had been more careful, he could have corrected those errors. But in subsequent reports I read from joy fm, I gathered that perhaps the whole editorial team at joy fm have a genuine problem with those two words.

But English grammar is certainly not one of the areas I am interested in given the dicey nature of it. It is the element of sensationalism in the reportage that I am worried about. Dear reader, how did you feel when the headline “Al-Qaeda propaganda surface in Ghana” was flashed in your face? For me it sent my head reeling. Within the split of a second I asked myself several questions; has Al-Qaeda succeeded in building one of its cells in Ghana?; has a foreign mission in Ghana been blown up or something?. These and several other thoughts were the information I was processing in my head while pointing the cursor to the news link to read the full story. And it only took the first line of the first paragraph to realise that there was a wide gap between the heading and the content itself.

I do not for a second begrudge the reporter for bringing this issue to our attention. But I believe that in line with the requirements of good journalistic standards, he could have done it in another way. For example instead of indulging in that unnecessary sensationalism, he could have given a different headline to the story. For instance the heading could have been “Al-Qaeda Videos On Sale On Our Streets” OR better still he could have written; “Piracy Gone Too Far”. I believe that these and others that readers might suggest would be more in keeping with the reality on the ground. After all the said Malian who was selling these videos ( I believe) is one unemployed guy who is doing nothing but getting himself a means of “getting money to break his fast”. For all you know, this guy may not even know who the hell Osama Bin Laden is.

But let’s even assume that the said videos are authentic, wont it have been more appropriate and more professional for the said reporter to whistle-blow this issue by causing the arrest of this man? Or better still wont it have been more professional to buy a copy of the video, pass it on to the national security apparatus for their onward verification. I believe that would have been more appropriate than just rushing to pen down an unsubstantiated story, which, given the circumstances cannot be verified.

My concern is that given the global ramifications of the activities of this terrorist network, a lot of passion is inflamed whenever people see a story about it. And to associate it with a particular country makes it even worse. For example it is a known secret that Pakistan is one place where there is the potential to find an al-Qaeda cell. Even in the face of the obvious, the Pakistani government is vehemently refusing to be associated with Al-Qaeda. General Musharraf is always on air defending the name of his nation. Can someone tell me why? In Britain, until the 7/7 bombing of London, it was never accepted that Britain is home to home-grown terrorists. The reason is simple ! No nation wants to be associated with a network, the operations of which have dire repercussions on tourism and investor confidence.

In a time when the president is running around in frenzy trying to woo investors and tourists into Ghana, the worst blow that can be dealt to his efforts is irresponsible journalism like the one manifested in this report. I think a time is coming when we have to start censoring some of these stories. It might not be the best thing to do, but to safeguard the image of the already tainted image of Ghana, some drastic measures have to be taken. Ghana is a beautiful country and the best we can do is to promote the beauty of our land instead of feeding the world with an image that will further deprive us of our fair share of investors.

God Bless The Gold Coast!!!

Views expressed by the author(s) do not necessarily reflect those of GhanaHomePage.