I want, today, to follow up on my letter to the editor published last Wednesday, "A balanced story".

On Saturday, January 3, Member of Parliament (MP) for West St Thomas and Minister of State in the Office of the Prime Minister, James Robertson, responding, he said, to a call of distress, transported in his own vehicle, a man wounded, allegedly by the police at Norris in the parish to the Kingston Public Hospital. There the man was treated and later released into the custody of senior police personnel in Kingston despite the efforts of the St Thomas police to get him into their custody.

excellent, balanced story

As I said in the letter commending reporter Daraine Luton and The Gleaner for an excellent and balanced story, last Monday, some of the earliest news reports on the triangular incident involving members of the St Thomas police, a 'wanted' man and a politician almost gleefully gave the impression that a big-fish politician, a minister of Government no less, was caught red-handed in breach of the law, interfering with the police, and consorting with an alleged criminal.

The gaping holes in the initial pronouncements of the police were glossed over and ignored in the rush to create a certain view. How did the politician manage to confront and abuse the police, collect a wanted man wounded by the police and drive him 25 miles to hospital without any action to prevent or to apprehend him? If Robertson had taken such a course of action, why is the only charge against him for the relatively minor misdemeanor of abusing the police with 40-shilling words? Why is he not charged with the serious crimes of aiding and abetting a criminal and obstructing the police in the lawful execution of their duties?

Daraine's story, backed by police testimony at the level of ACP Les Green and an interview with the 'villain' politician, established as a material fact of the case that MP Robertson acted with the knowledge of the Police High Command to rescue a man whom members of the police force in the parish allegedly wanted dead for their own reasons. The man, it turns out, had been assisting Kingston-based senior police officers with an investigation into allegations of professional misconduct by elements of the St Thomas police.

A former student of mine responded to my letter to say [with a bit of editing by me here]: "I want to comment on your letter and this whole matter, which is of very great concern, whatever the facts are.

"From the outside looking in, as persons in the international Jamaican community, the view and perception, as you put it, 'the media riding-horse point that politicians are inherently corrupt and are likely to consort with criminal elements' is fuelling the stereotype and it is not helpful with a minister from the Office of the PM.

"Finally, if this was to happen in the UK, and we have to have a standard, that minister would have to resign and no questions should be asked as it brings the Office of the Prime Minister and governing party into disrepute."

'hurried' transfer

A couple of days after the incident, there was what a news story called the "hurried" transfer of the acting crime chief for St Thomas. Now, there is a world of difference in inferential meaning between a 'hurried' transfer and a transfer 'with immediate effect'.

By the time the transfer had been ordered by the Police High Command, the 'villain' politician had told his story repeatedly in the media and with great consistency. But media very strongly, though not uniformly, despite the available new facts, rapidly switched to another faithful old frame: political interference with the police. The commissioner's denial was placed at the back end of several stories and, therefore, reported with weakened credibility.

I wrote back to my former student:

"You have swallowed the media frame, hook, line and sinker, which is exactly what I was warning against.

"The media frame I have identified and criticised has worked remarkably well to convince you, and perhaps the majority of the public, that once again, 'corrupt' politicians are interfering with the police and with justice.

"The St Thomas commander has been subsequently transferred with immediate effect. The dominant early media frame for this story is political interference. If indeed the commander was derelict in his duty or worse, complicit with the corruption under investigation, why should he not be transferred as further investigation proceeds? Is police leadership here acting with professional integrity in the transfer [something the media have clamoured for] or is it bowing to political interference? The media have virtually led the country into accepting the latter as THE CORRECT ANSWER with no supporting facts whatsoever. I have no reason at this point to agree."

serious allegations

The human-rights group, Jamaicans For Justice, has come out in support of the transfer of the officer and has confirmed that it has on file serious allegations against police personnel in St Thomas, including an allegation of their involvement in an extra-judicial killing early in December 2008. The group, no great friend of the police, has vouchsafed the integrity of Commissioner Lewin and his imperviousness to pressure, political or otherwise.

A column I wrote recently dealt with how media frame news stories, privileging some angles while suppressing others and thereby powerfully influencing public perception. While framing is an inevitable element of the business of journalism, and indeed of all communication, great care, and great pains, should be taken for the highest level of fairness and balance possible in reporting the news.

So, my now converted and curious former student wanted to know more about framing. So I wrote back: "The concept of framing is elegantly simple. Think of windows. You get different views of the outside depending on which window frame you are looking through. All media stories, indeed, all human communication, has frames reflecting the mindset of the communicator, the cultural consensus, and so on. What is to be avoided though in 'objective' media is unnecessarily unfair, imbalanced or unduly narrow frames created by leaving out or downplaying other important angles of a story and overpushing one angle and pushing inferences without evidence.

"Critical media consumers of which there are not many keep asking: What is the angle of the story not told that should be told for a fair and balanced story?"

Martin Henry is a communications consultant who may be reached at medhen@gmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.