THE week between the announcement of a general election and Nomination Day should normally be a good one for a prime minister with the constitutional prerogative to make the call. After all, he/she has the right to unilaterally select a date that gives his/her party the political advantage.

However, for Prime Minister and Minister of Defence Andrew Holness, last week was anything but good: He had to apologise for making false statements on the platform in Mandeville when he announced December 29 as the election date; he had to retreat from an ill-advised attack on the media; and he had to contradict his minister of national security about United States support for last year’s military operations in Tivoli Gardens.

Now, as he prepares his governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) for Nomination Day tomorrow, the prime minister must be wondering whether he has done sufficient damage control to make the case for re-election.

Underlying the three missteps by the administration is an apparent failure to appreciate the fundamental reality of political communication in the information age: Every statement is subject to immediate fact-checking; a dynamic and competitive media is not easily intimidated as it speaks truth to power; and official secrets are harder to keep, hence it behoves politicians to come clean at the first opportunity.

At the Mandeville meeting last Sunday, Mr Holness erroneously stated that the exchange rate was US$1.00 to J$90.00 in 2007 when his party wrested control of Government from the Portia Simpson Miller-led People’s National Party (PNP).

It was actually US$1.00 to J$70.00 — a fact for which the prime minister subsequently apologised at a JLP meeting in Portland. The claim that the economy did not grow during the 18 years of PNP Government is also belied by the facts.

Mr Holness and other party officials have been arguing that these so-called ‘small mistakes’ are not really important because they do not change the essential basis of their critique of the PNP; and in any event, the mistakes are subsequently corrected.

But that response misses the important point, which is one of credibility: All of us will get it wrong from time to time, but those (in politics or the press) who develop a reputation for misstatements or mischaracterisations run the risk of not being believed even when we are right. That is a lesson that Mr Holness should take seriously.

Attacking the messenger

Regarding the attacks on the media, the prime minister reportedly told party supporters at a meeting in Manchester last week that the local media could not be trusted to present the party’s message.

In particular he took a swipe at a news report carried by Television Jamaica (TVJ). The specific news report that offended the prime minister and his Government was not clearly identified, but my understanding is that they were concerned about a ‘fact-check’ feature on TVJ which pointed out some of the specific errors made by Mr Holness. Incredible!

The JLP leadership also chided TVJ for pulling a JLP advertisement, which the station said was being reviewed by its lawyers to avoid legal challenges.

Following a meeting between the leader of the JLP and other senior officials and the senior management of RJR Group it appeared that some amity was reached and happily, the prime minister publicly pulled back from his original position and declared his commitment to press freedom.

Of course, last week’s skirmish between the Government and the press was not unique. There are historical precedents on both sides of the political divide and, in all probability, there will be more before the people vote on December 29.

From my experience over several decades, I know that at election time political parties and candidates will always seek to influence editorial decisions to their advantage. That is normal, because positive media coverage can help a candidate/party convince the electorate that they represent the best choice. And the reverse is true.

The effort to secure favourable media coverage for oneself and negative coverage for the other side tends to intensify when the race is tight and the contest appears to be close, as in the present circumstances.

What is not accepted is to expect editors to hand over editorial decision-making to political parties and candidates or for the politician to determine what constitutes ‘fair and balanced’ coverage — an expression which, too often, means ‘favourable’ coverage.

No one in the media can, or should claim immunity from criticism by people in the news or the public at large. But politicians cannot expect the media to carry the party message without regard to the truth or the public interest.

As a BBC election guide on “achieving fairness during elections” puts it, “while editors must consider complaints [from politicians] seriously they must not be intimidated by them”.

Senator Nelson’s credibility gap

Meanwhile, Senator Dwight Nelson, the minister of national security who famously could not recall much when he appeared before the Commission of Enquiry into the Bruce Golding administration’s handling of the United States request for the extradition of Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke, found himself in another credibility gap last week.

Mr Nelson on Wednesday flatly dismissed claims made by The New Yorker, an American magazine, which detailed in an investigative report the role of a P-3 Orion aircraft which assisted the Jamaican Government during the Tivoli operations. The story was based on factual accounts provided by several agencies of the US Government.

But at Wednesday’s post-Cabinet briefing, the minister said: “In discussions with the Jamaica Defence Force and the Jamaica Constabulary Force, no images and no photographs were supplied to the Jamaica Defence Force or to the Jamaica Constabulary Force during this operation. I have made absolutely sure (about this) prior to and since this report has been published.”

The national security minister had also said the US Government “did not, at any time, participate in the operations in Tivoli Gardens” and on radio, he suggested that the aircraft in question did not have permission to be in Jamaican air space.

By Thursday, however, the prime minister confirmed that the American Government provided surveillance and technical equipment to the Jamaican Government and that diplomatic notes were exchanged between the two governments to formalise the agreement.

The prime minister sought to parse the agreement and to explain why the minister may not have had “details” about it and to stretch credulity as to what ‘operations’ means.

But the Government cannot explain away facts that have been confirmed by the US Government, namely that a US military aircraft — visible to thousands of Jamaicans and photographed by several media houses — participated in the operation by providing photographs that assisted the ground operations of the Jamaican security forces.

Why did the Government, for so long, not tell the truth about the operation? To close the truth gap, Mr Holness should accede to the proposal by the PNP to obtain the video of the operations from the US and allow the public defender to view it to assist him in coming to a determination of how 73 persons died in the operations.

That could go a long way to settling the question as to whether there was a massacre. That is a bigger issue than damage control.

kcr@cwjamaica.com