Part 1
The Express's headline on Nov 11, "Sat blocked black children," was a rare open display of one of the more distasteful principles of media logic. The headline accurately represented PNM MP Patricia McIntosh's statement in Parliament two days before. Accurate, but stupid; the headline is designed for maximum animus with minimum, uhm, journalism. The Express (more than other media) does this periodically: uses various pretexts to inject toxic ideas into the national discourse at crucial moments. Examples: the Crime Watch thing recently on TV6; the Akon incident with the minor child a few years ago; "Felicity Fury" in 2006; the kidnapping coverage post-2002; the 1998 "Racism at Piarco," and so on.
It's not just a racial thing; as the dude in The Matrix said, it's an anomalous term in an equation seeking to balance itself-in this case, the unaccounted-for amalgam of ineptitude, dishonesty, and hypocrisy that hides behind the label "journalism" that accumulates and has to be expelled periodically. In this instance, we're in a SoE which has been interpreted as "racially targeting" young black men. Recently the Opposition Leader's statements concerning the stymied extradition of two UNC financiers inevitably found a racial meaning. And then Patricia McIntosh spoke. And the Express, though giving the obvious and inevitable refutation front-page the following day, knows what it did. (Sat's been in this game too long to make a rookie mistake like that.)
But of interest here are: how such statements are interpreted; how such messages become ubiquitous; why these messages continue to be articulated; and finally, the consequences. First, the messages are intended for the urban, Creole sphere; the PNM "base." Here, interpretive syllogisms are provided by talk radio, calypso, churches and even social media. The logic is created by what can be called an "epistemic technology," specific to groups who share beliefs, histories, and experiences. It's not a new idea (unless you're a UWI academic). In Beyond a Boundary, CLR James revealed that when colonial West Indians watched cricket, they knew it was a symbolic contest of power and ethnicity. In the 1950s and 60s, observers (like Ivar Oxaal and George Lamming) look-ing at Eric Williams's meetings also discerned that the masses understood primarily ethnic vindication, and less about "nationalism" and "independence."
(Hindus have a distinct epistemic technology informed by religion, which few non-Hindus appreciate. This is sometimes quite insane, as in some arguments you're hearing about child marriage. And it doesn't mean a Hindu thief isn't just a thief.) So when statements like "Sat blocked..." are made, the PNM, and the Express, know how they will be interpreted by the PNM base. And if there's doubt, talk radio, YouTube and Facebook clarify. "Granny Quila's" video cussing the Prime Minister was extreme but not anomalous, nor has the phenomenon, or logic, stopped.
Messages like McIntosh's, Rowley's and various others continue to be articulated because politically and intellectually the PNM has nothing else. The racial stuff is all they have, and the PNM here is a prisoner of its own Frankenstein-feed it or be consumed by it. Their constituency is unable to see the world in any other way. If the PNM were to not speak in the familiar language-like not saying, during the SoE debate, that "our people suffering" while "doubles men in Debe" thriving-its base would implode. It's the same for the once formidable PNM clerisy, who are now hollow men and women, lodged in the media, civil service, and the UWI, who ensure the statements are transmitted and correctly interpreted.
So it's an expression of a deeper media/social logic, but I can see the Express defensively lining up its Indian ducks: its ostensibly "Indian" editor in chief, CCN's Indian CEO. What I don't see is evidence. It's easy to test this hypothesis-the ethnic/political structural media bias-with a simple content analysis for 2003-2004 (when the PNM would have been in power about as long as the PP is now). Any one interested could count how many articles pointed out UNC corruption, and referenced the UNC negatively. Now, go back over this last year, and count how many articles point to PNM corruption, and reference the PNM negatively for its decade of decadence. Look at how accusations of racial targeting are handled in the instances of Felicity in 2006, the kidnapping epidemic of 2002-2006, and the responses to the accusations of the racial dimension of SoE arrests.
Here's a catch: anyone who actually does this kind of research knows it's not clear-cut. Newspapers are not consistent day to day, but there are clear trends over time. For example, the Express's editorial on July 24, 2008, acknowledges the "reality that gangs are made up almost entirely of youths of African ancestry." And its eminently reasonable editorial on Sept 6, this year, took a "balanced" approach to the SoE. But then, on Nov 11, it abandoned that entirely. And it wasn't isolated or a mistake. Which leads to the final point: what consequences? The answer is simple and unpleasant: increased violence among the urban underclass. Statistically, the urban communities are more violent, suffer more poverty, achieve less educationally, and are most reliant on the State (which they do not distinguish from the PNM party) for survival.
Injecting paranoia into their consciousness has severe consequences, which we all experience via its being intensely foregrounded by the media. These statements having such destructive power is a result of the Government's blindly accepting the PNM's cultural axioms, rituals, and policy, and hoping to fix the society: One hand is spraying water on a fire, while the other sprays gas. And the media provide the match. But I suspect that even if they wanted to, the Government could not propose a viable alternative to the PNM eidos. Hollowness, apparently, is an equal opportunity condition, but that's TS Eliot, not me.