Deciding what to publish: The Editor`s dilemma

ON THURSDAY, November 12, 2009, the DAILY GRAPHIC published on its front page the dead bodies of 'galamsey' miners, killed at Dompoase in the Western Region, when a landslide buried an estimated number of about 30 of them.

The National Media Commission (NMC) and the Ghana Journalists Association (GJA) did not take kindly at all to the publication of the pictures. (See THE DAILY GRAPHIC of Friday, November 13, 2009).

According to the GRAPHIC, the two bodies used such words as “gory” and “gruesome” to describe the publication. To the NMC and the GJA, the publication was “unethical and unprofessional.”

The irony is that the Editor of the DAILY GRAPHIC is Mr. Ransford Tetteh, who is also currently the President of the Ghana Journalists Association.

It has to be put on record that at the time of the publication, Mr. Tetteh was on leave. The Acting Editor is Breda Atta-Qyayson.

The GRAPHIC must have been surprised, possibly pained, by the reaction of the NMC and the GJA. Was the publication “a product of bad judgment and unprofessional conduct”, as charged by the NMC? Why did the paper publish the picture?

The editorial states, among others, “While we wish to respect the views and opinions of all in respect of this matter, we nevertheless wish to set the record straight regarding the charges of unprofessionalism and unethical conduct leveled against us by the NMC and the GJA.”

The editorial states further, “In using the picture, care was taken to select one that did not openly show the faces of the victims so that they could be easily identified.”

Again, “Furthermore, in using the picture, we never sought, even remotely, to offend the sensibilities of the general public, let alone those of the families, relatives and well-wishers of the victims, far from that.”

Though the paper did not accept the charge of bad judgment and unprofessionalism, it had the decency to apologise, thus, “If, in the course of our well-intentioned action, we have offended the sensibilities of bereaved families or some of our readers, we are sorry.”

Kudos to the GRAPHIC! It takes courage and largeness of heart to apologise even when you are honestly convinced that you did not set out to deliberately cause offence.

Incidentally, this is not the first time that the GRAPHIC has inadvertently incurred displeasure.

When Mr. Sam Clegg was Editor, the paper published on its front page the picture of a military helicopter that had crashed, while carrying a patient and an accompanying nurse from the Kwahu area to Accra. The top brass of the Ghana Armed Forces were not happy.

There has been another instance when THE CHRONICLE published the story of a military air crash. What caused offence was the paper stating that the body of the burnt officer “was like corned beef.”

When Vice President John Evans Atta Mills (as he then was) was described by a paper as “a poodle”, all hell broke loose, because the description was described by the GJA as offensive.

Quite recently, the DAILY GUIDE also caused offence when it published on its front page the picture of little children sucking the penis of a foreigner.

To some media gurus, as well as the NMC, the paper was not only guilty of unprofessional conduct, but also of racism.

Now mark this interesting bit. On Monday, November 16, 2009, the DAILY GRAPHIC, THE GHANAIAN TIMES, THE PIONEER, THE DAILY GUIDE and THE CHRONICLE published the gory and gruesome picture of the blood-bespattered bodies of four suspected armed robbers killed in a shoot-out with the police.

Only THE CHRONICLE chose to bury the picture on page 8. The rest of the papers I read put the picture on the front page, with the GRAPHIC and the DAILY GUIDE using colour to etch out the details.

As far as I can tell, there has been no reaction of revulsion from the NMC, the GJA or other media commentators. Why? Is it because, here, the pictures were about suspected criminals who would have killed the police, if the latter had not reacted swiftly?

I am not condemning or applauding. I am underscoring the dilemma which editors face when they have to give a practical answer to the question, “What is fit to print?”

On a daily basis, tonnes of news items and millions of words pour into media houses. In relatively big media houses like the “GRAPHIC” and GHANAIAN TIMES”, it is usually not the editor who autocratically arrogates to himself the power to decide what is fit to print.

In such houses, there are editorial conferences to take crucial decisions. What should be the lead news for the day? Which part of the front page should the lead news be put? What kind of headline should be given to it?

What type of font (or fount) should be used? In presenting the story, should the pyramid or inverted pyramid style be used? What should be the make-up so that the story can catch the eye of the reader?

Remember that media work is business that exists to make money by carrying out the traditionally-recognised three-fold function of informing, educating and entertaining.

As far as these functions are concerned, what is true of the newspaper is true of radio and television. However, the approaches can be different. In Ghana today, there has been a mushrooming of the media, especially of newspaper and Frequency Modulation (FM) radio stations. Even with television, the GHANA BROADCASTING CORPORATION (GBC) no longer rules the airwaves. At least it has competition from METRO TV, TV 3 and TV AFRICA.

Some of the newspapers have openly aligned themselves with one political party or another. Some can be said to be truly 'unaligned,' and present the news without too much political bias.

Some are no more than contemptible scandal sheets that try to survive by serving a diet of sensational or sensationalised news. The laws of the country and media ethics are simply ignored. The hard-earned good reputation of individuals means nothing to these scandal-mongers.

These days, 'factories' calling themselves journalism schools, churn out half-baked 'journalists' without any proper grasp of professionalism, without sound basic education, without any intellectual depth. As long as they have some support, they are in the business.

Journalism is not, and can never be the last resort of those who have failed in other fields. There must be a way of restraining quacks from invading the field. Of course, ultimately, only media houses can decide what is fit to print. But, they must contend with the approval or disapproval of the public they presume to serve.