Dear Editor,

In the ongoing conflict between the media and politicians, two unfulfilled needs remain.

(1) The Press Association, or another professional authority, needs to establish a Press Council, or similar entity, to which aggrieved persons may appeal for objective arbitration and/or redress, for perceived injury or offence by the media.

(2) Like politicians et al, media practitioners need to be accountable to, understand and consistently conform to the highest standards in the communication process.

With the standards bar for integrity, truth and accuracy now being set by media and civil society at unprecedented high levels — following the lead of former Prime Minister Bruce Golding and the Andrew Holness-led JLP Government — the ‘righteous judges’ must also now step up to the plate.

Media, politicians, civil society and the church must understand and use the process to minimise misunderstanding, deception and destructive manipulation of individuals and society.

We must understand that what is often referred to as semantics is not irrelevant, but essential in all communication.

Semantics concerns meaning/interpretation. It is the heart of the communication process. Every word has a ‘semantic range’ — a range or selection of different meanings or interpretations.

Those who seek to be factually accurate and truthful, therefore, should not be careless with the facts, nor with the communication process.

Before jumping to conclusions or making accusations we should listen/read carefully, noting what is said (specific words/phrases). More importantly, we should also note which part of the ‘semantic range’ the speaker/writer intends to be applicable.

Failure to do this means that we have no coherent basis upon which to agree or disagree. We are then confined to hopeless ‘dialogue of the deaf’ arguments and unending confusion. No wonder there is so much ‘contradictory’ and confusing ‘noise’ in media.

(Not to mention the further complexity that, in any case, ‘nothing that appears, is as it appears’.)

To insist that our limited understanding/interpretation is the only possible or relevant meaning, without reference to the speaker’s particular application, is to expose ourselves and others to serious misunderstandings and much injustice.

We must stop disregarding and misquoting what is said, in deference only to our interpretation, and regardless of what anyone else — especially the speaker — thinks or says.

Whether offenders desist or not, however, objective persons must acknowledge that it is wrong and/or dishonest to insist that others are lying, just because we choose not to believe or accept their words or their interpretation. Nor should we respond to those who challenge the offenders, by assuming the prideful, ignorant attitude that the challengers (or victims) are guilty of obfuscation or are merely engaging in semantics.

Carlton A Gordon

carltongor@gmail.com