The press is not the enemy of the people

Attacks on the news media is not a new phenomenon, but something that we have witnessed over the course of history from dictators as well as from democratically elected leaders.

The current President of the United States was not the first nor will he be the last to criticize and label the press as the enemy of the people. However, it is important to take cognizant of the age we live in today, an age of citizen journalism where every Tom, Dick and Harry has the power to influence public opinion at the click of a button.

Calling the press the enemy of the people, because it disagrees with government policies or is too critical of a leadership can lead to dangerous consequences. 

It creates doubt and an atmosphere of confusion in an already fragile media environment in which the public are increasing receiving misleading and unverified news from social media such as Facebook.

Today, many people, especially the youth are unfamiliar with traditional news outlets and their primary source of news is social media. As a result, they consume information from just about anyone, without verifying the validity of the information or the credentials of the source. Some examples include the false and unconfirmed information that spread on the mobile messaging platform WhatsApp in India which led to the killing of innocent lives and in Myanmar (or Burma) where Facebook posts based on false information encouraged and led to the torture and murders of people of the Rohingya tribe who are mainly Muslims.

If a world leader is calling the mainstream media ‘fake’ and the ‘enemy’, then where are people to go to for accurate, factual and reliable information?

What is real news and what is fake news when the US President has been found to create his own truths by lying over and over again and still continues to perpetuate the untruths, even when the facts have been pointed out to him?

Surely the mainstream media is not perfect, but that is no reason to continuously denounce it, but to rather continue to call out the untruths and demand retractions or rectifications. In a world where false and unverified information is the order of the day, and where it is becoming increasingly difficult to identify false news, the media has an even more crucial role to play in helping us recognize false stories and provide us with the facts and the real stories.

The dangers of hyphenated national identities

South African comedian and host of the American TV programme, The Daily Show, Trevor Noah sparked a debate on race, culture and national identity after he made a joke about France’s 2018 soccer World Cup win when he referred to it as a victory for Africans, as most of the players are black.

The black French players insisted they were French and the French Ambassador to the US wrote to Noah to explain his country’s policy on race, ethnic and cultural relations stating that France does not define their citizens with a hyphenated identity as is the case in the US and other parts of the world.

Noah mocked the Ambassador’s letter and maintained the players were Africans. Although I do not fully agree with Noah, I agreed with his argument about the double standards towards non-white players (or on-white European citizens). When they do well, they belong to us, when they perform poorly or commit a crime, they must go back to where they came from.

What I disagree with is the continued reference of citizens with a hyphenation based on their ethnicity. Why can you not just be American, French, Spanish, German or African?

We live in a global village where simply being black does not make you African, nor does being white make you European. This is not to say that you don’t recognize where your ancestors came from.

These hyphenated identities are partly to blame for black Americans still fighting to be fully accepted as Americans, 400 years since the first Africans arrived on American soil.

I never understood why black Americans and other minority groups in the US were described based on their ethnic or cultural connection to a continent their ancestors came from, such as African-American, Asian-American and so forth, yet few white Americans are not referred to as European-Americans, even though their ancestral lineage is European, all of them. The United States of America is after all a stolen land. Australian whites are simply described as Australians, although they all came from Europe, but everyone else has a hyphenated identity. 

This type of labelling perpetuates the ethnic and cultural divide and racism in any country, especially in a terribly divided USA where everyone’s descendants, except of course the Native Americans, were originally from other continents. What is wrong with officially calling all citizens Americans? Racism and xenophobia are ugly realities in our societies and by making these types of jokes or statements perpetuates and normalizes these issues, thereby creating an environment where hateful speech is likely to happen. 

The French are on the right track and I believe other countries should follow suit.

Tackling the root causes of international migration

Europe has experienced one of the highest migration levels over the past three years with migrants coming from war-torn countries such as Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. There has also been a significant number of migrants from African countries such as Ivory Coast, Mali and so forth.

This huge influx has clearly put an economic strain on European countries, especially Germany which has taken in over a million migrants in such a short space of time. 

In the midst of this crisis are fears of ethnic and cultural extinction, job losses and crime, amongst others. But what can Europe do to tackle the root causes of immigration and to appease their citizens? 

Migration from Africa countries is largely driven by social and economic factors and less so by political issues, with a few exceptions.

These factors which include poverty, high unemployment rates and poor living standards are caused by a variety of factors, but a significant one is the issue of international trade agreements where African countries often get the short end of the stick. With African countries unable to compete against European countries, the continent ends up being flooded with cheap European goods, consequently killing local companies and causing thousands of job losses. Of course it is not only European goods, but also Chinse and Indian goods and others that has led to local business closing down and people losing their livelihoods.

We often hear African leaders urging entrepreneurs to venture into manufacturing and agriculture to create employment, but the call has largely fallen on deaf ears, because it is unsustainable for them to do so, leaving African countries in a perpetual state of ‘developing countries’ that imports goods that it would otherwise have been able to produce. A continent of consumers rather than producers.

For as long as we have unequal and unfair trade agreements, immigration from Africa to Europe and elsewhere will remain a problem, because let’s face it, who doesn’t want a better life that would enable them to provide for their family?

It is time that these causes are addressed, because it would ultimately be a positive for all parties and Africa would probably stop depending on foreign aid to provide for their citizens.

Are Namibian women holding themselves back?

It is one thing to strive towards achieving a 50/50 women representation, but it does not mean anything if women only hold positions of low stature where they are unable to influence the decision making process.

Often times, the statistics that are used to support the progress towards equal representation are taken at face value, but when examined in greater detail, one realizes that it is the men who are still in control.

This continuous trend of the dominant men is probably due to our social construct that has created or conditioned an unconscious bias, in both men and women, that men are better leaders than women. When we think of leaders, we think of men.  This explains why women who are in power and those aspiring to higher positions in society are treated with contempt and disrespect.  

Coming back to the statistics, take for example the data on parliamentary representation which seems to have become a benchmark for a country’s progress on gender equality and representation. When you take a closer look at some of these data, you discover that most women are just mere members of parliament (MP) or deputy ministers, positions that are considered insignificant. The same goes for the public and private sectors, where the term ‘management’ is overemphasized to make it look as if women representation is substantial, when in actual fact, the women hold low ranking management positions while the majority of senior level positions are occupied by men. Sometimes, some positions are deliberately reclassified into the management category to beef up the numbers, for the sake of compliance and public relations.

As a Namibia, I was disappointed that the women’s wing of the ruling party failed to back or put forward a female Presidential candidate for the 2017 Presidential elections, because they felt that no one was ready to challenge the nominated male nominee. So disappointing that women don’t have confidence in themselves and don’t support those who are willing to take up the challenge.

This happens everywhere in the world, with the best example of Hilary Clinton who was Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party in the 2016 Presidential elections. The harsh criticism she received from many, including those in her own party was based more on our social bias towards women leaders, because I am pretty sure that had she been a man, she would have made it into the oval office. We all saw how her opponent who despite his racist and misogynistic views, his divisive rhetoric and disrespect for anyone, but himself, not to mention his lack of experience, didn’t seem to matter to people. Again, it all comes down to our social bias, social conditioning, generational bias of what a leader is, especially in public office. Traditionally, when we think of leaders, we think of dominance, confidence, forcefulness and a no-nonsense attitude, characters that her opponent demonstrated and is known for.  Had he been a woman, he probably would not have made it to the Presidency.

Yes, there has been significant progress in gender equality, women’s rights and women representation in key decision roles, but it is a progress that is moving at a slow pace, because of women who are doubtful of their own capabilities and the capabilities of their female counterparts to lead at the upmost top.

It is possible to break the glass ceiling completely and have an even playing field, but it is up to the women to fight for what is theirs.

Balancing affirmative action and merit

It was recently reported that the Trump administration would conduct an investigation into the affirmative action (AA) policies of universities to establish if they were discriminating against white and Asian-American students.

This is in light of a myriad of complaints from the students concerned. 

Supporters of the AA policies argue that the policies are necessary to address past inequalities, while critics argue that the policies have achieved their goals and are now reversely discriminating against non-black races.

AA policies are defined and implemented differently in various parts of the world. This is because each country’s situation is unique.  

In Namibia, the government passed the Affirmative Action Act that provides for equal opportunities (in employment, training and promotion) to women, previously racially disadvantaged groups and people with disabilities. These groups are given special considerations in employment, but qualifications and experience are taken into high consideration. The law, which was passed 8 years after independence, was necessary, because although Namibia has a majority black population, the economic power is still in the hands of the minority whites who benefited from the apartheid system.

The AA policy in Namibia is still relevant today, because some organisations refuse to comply or are lagging behind in its implementation, especially in terms of the filling of positions at executive and senior management level.  The law provides for penalties against offenders, but the fines are too low to serve as a deterrent against breaking the law.

Implementation of the policy in tertiary education admission is not necessary as the majority of students are from previously disadvantaged groups. Most white students tend to go study at universities in neighbouring South Africa, which are perceived as providing better quality education. However, private schools (primary and secondary) that receive funding from government are usually required to reserve a specific number of seats for children from poor backgrounds (mostly black) who demonstrate high intellectual abilities.

I believe the situation is more or less the same in South Africa and racial transformation has also extended into the sports sector, where there have been decade-long demands for previously white dominated sports such as rugby and cricket to be more representative of the South African population.

The situation in the United States of America is however different when compared to Namibia and South Africa as whites make up the majority of the population. The racial grouping is also different, as in both Namibia and South Africa, all non-white groups are classified as blacks in terms of affirmative action, while the US classifies the different groups as they are, hence the complaints from Asian-American students who also experience racial prejudice. The US affirmative action policies were introduced in the 1960’s to create and improve opportunities in education and employment for women and racial groups that were historically disadvantaged and excluded from actively participating in American society. 

Various programmes have been implemented over the years to ensure that organisations, including tertiary institutions, are more representative of the US population.  However, there are those who argue that progress has been slow as blacks and latinos are still underrepresented in many sectors of society.  

To address the unequal representation in the education sector, some universities use a two tier selection criteria, where they automatically admit the top 10 percent performing students from all schools, regardless of race. Thereafter, the selection of students is based on socio-economic factors, with race as a significant determining factor. It is this second selection process that is considered as discriminatory towards whites and Asian-American students, because they claim that race takes priority over merit. 

The problem with affirmative action in education, especially when admission requirements are lowered for a specific group of people is that it creates an unfavourable or discriminatory atmosphere for the ‘affirmative action’ students who are likely to face stigmatization from academic staff and white students as not deserving or worthy to be at the university. The student himself will also naturally be guilt-ridden for having taken the spot of a student that was more deserving.

What the US government should have done all those years and should do is to invest in improving the education system at lower school level, especially in poor communities, rather than try to fix the problem at the top. Government can assist by not only investing in school infrastructure, but equipping the schools with advanced educational materials and providing incentives to attract quality teachers to schools in poor communities. 

Any former tertiary student would attest to the fact that most lecturers more worried about their research projects and attending seminars than helping struggle students. Unless there are bridging programmes at universities, students who are admitted with low grades and therefore not prepared for the pressures and challenges of tertiary education would not receive the compensatory support they need to move ahead. 

Lower admission requirements would negatively affect the education standards of the US tertiary education system and the quality output. Those who do not qualify for admission in prestigious universities can enroll elsewhere where they will graduate and go on to become productive US citizens.  In the end, it is not so much about the university that you attend, but about your dedication and commitment to succeed in life. Not all successful people attended Ivy League universities. 

While I believe that affirmative action is are necessary, excellence should be the ultimate determining factor, whether it is in employment, education, arts and sports. 

News leaks and the media

News leaks, especially of classified information, are challenging to deal with as governments have to be careful not to be seen as encroaching on media freedom and the public’s right to know what their leaders are doing in order to hold them to account.

Recently, the Trump administration announced a crackdown on the leaking of classified information by White House staff members to the media. It also announced that it would review US government guidelines on prosecuting media professionals who published leaked information.

There are different types of leaks: leaks that are classified, but rather more inconvenient to leaders if they were to be published; leaks that are highly classified and damaging to national security if they were to be published; and leaks that expose violations of the law, such as corruption and abuse of power. Obviously the Trump administration was not referring to the latter, as such persons are protected by law.

People who are given security clearance undertake an oath of confidentiality, restricting them from disclosing classified and sensitive information. The violation of that oath can lead to and prosecutions.

But why should legal proceedings stop there? Why should the media not be prosecuted for publishing information that was classified as confidential?

If a leaker is charged with mishandling classified information  thereby endangering national security, what is an even bigger crime is the publishing of that information on a mass media platform.

Is it fair that leakers have to spend time in jail or be fined thousands of dollars for their misconduct, while media practitioners get away with it? They are after all accessories to the crime in the eyes of the law.

Media practitioners will try by all means to defend their actions. A case in point is the defense and support of The Washington Post's decision to publish transcripts of President Trump’s phone calls with the Australian and Mexican leaders. The information was not only classified, but it was also not in the public’s interest to know. It could in the end have a damaging effect on US international relations.

While it is important to preserve freedom of the press as a guardianship of democracy and holding government officials accountable, it is important that media practitioners do not abuse that freedom, especially in the US with the present climate of a media bias against the Trump administration. Their anger towards the Trump administration can cloud their journalistic judgement on what constitutes information that is in the public interest rather than simply publishing information with the intend to embarrass a government administration that is despised by many.

 It is not easy to draw a balance between the need for an informed public and the right of the media to access to information and the need to protect national security. However, I hope that the decision by the Trump administration will sparks a debate that will assist in striking a balance that is beneficial for all parties involved – government, the media and the public.

The Scaramucci interview, media self-censorship and the PR profession

The meteoric rise and fall of Anthony Scaramucci not only demonstrated the power of the media, but the lack of self-censorship amongst journalists as well as the misunderstanding or possible the disrespect of public relations (PR) as a professional function that should be manned by professionally qualified individuals.

Media self-censorship

Regardless of the whether the interview was on-the-record or off-the-record, some of the embarrassing things (bad language and threat against others) that Scaramucci said during the interview should never have been published. I think any journalist with a high regard for media ethics and respect for continued good relations with PR professionals would understand that the information was humorous and not seriously intended.  It was also not in the interest of the public, but more in the interest of the journalist to embarrass Scaramucci and possibly to damage his reputation and the Trump administration.

The journalist should have simply referred to the rants in general terms rather than describing them in detail. If he felt that it was a non-story without the bad language and threats, then he should have abandoned the article all together. I know that off-the-record information is not legally binding, but built on trust and maintaining good relationships with your sources.  Off-the-record information helps a journalist get inside information that could give him or her a bigger picture or an understanding of what is happening in a specific organization.

Despite Scaramucci’s public persona as a loose cannon, the interview was clearly off-the-record or rather ‘unofficially’ off the record.  The publication of that interview and many others before it, only damages the trust in the media and the questioning of their ability to protect the anonymity of their sources, including whistle-blowers.  

Public Relations as an important organizational function

The fact that many companies all over the world continue to appoint unqualified people to strategic public relations positions, supports the claim by PR practitioners that organizations disregard the important strategic role of the profession. 

Many people view PR and communication as just about throwing parties, networking, and handing out flyers, while many organisations believe the best attribute of a PR professional is being a smart mouth. But PR and communication is more than that – it requires someone with a PR qualification and experience on how to influence strategic decisions; how to manage organizational reputation; how to manage relations with stakeholders, including the media; how to manage social media communication; and managing crises, to name just a few. 

There is a trend around the world where lawyers and business administration managers and practically everyone with a tertiary degree that is not a PR degree, are being appointed in PR positions. 

The White House made a mistake hiring a hedge fund manager to manage its communication division and the consequences were laid bare for all to see. The messy reputation of the Trump administration is a PR issue – a disregard for the White House PR professionals’ ability to control the message by deciding on the best way to convey the message to the public. Regardless of the hatred towards President Trump, he is the creator of this mess and it can only be fixed once he acknowledges the role of his PR advisers.

Even though I do not agree with the actions that led to the resignation of Scaramucci, I think it was the best that could have happened, because as an inexperienced communication director, I think he would have failed in the job.