Paul Adom Otchere got it all wrong
I was not able to watch ‘Good Evening Ghana’ last Tuesday but thanks to social media I did on YouTube on Wednesday.
Advertisement
Paul is a fine journalist I admire so much but he lost it in me with his personal attack on Manasseh Azure Awuni. To use 30 minutes of precious airtime that could be used to advance national development to attack an individual was simply incredulous!
When I read Manasseh’s post on Facebook about Paul in relation to the infamous GJA press statement, the understanding I got was why he (Paul) was distributing the GJA press statement.
I was intrigued by the post because I thought the GJA did not need volunteers to distribute its press statement; otherwise, I would have availed myself to do that patriotic job for my beloved Association.
Be that as it may, it was absolutely within the right of Paul to explain himself or clarify matters, especially when Manasseh’s post had sparked a wave of criticism against him.
I think he did that beautifully up to the point of explaining his conviction in a press statement issued by an association of which he is a member.
And so it was well within his service to canvass for the publication of the press statement.
Everything else beyond that point was needless. Membership of the GJA is NOT proved by a GJA award won in 2001/2002! Winning GJA awards is not an entitlement to lifetime membership of the GJA.
Indeed, Article 12 of the GJA Constitution provides that one could cease to be a member of the Association by reason of resignation or non-payment of dues or sanction or death.
Paul is not dead so the fourth reason is out. But if, for instance, Paul has not paid membership dues since winning the GJA award in 2001/2002 or even thereafter, he ceases to be a member, and that status cannot be obliterated by an award-winning feat! So if you want to prove your membership of the GJA, you don’t flaunt your award plaque as evidence.
Paul makes elaborate reference to ace investigative journalist William Nyarko, formerly of the Ghanaian Chronicle, as the standard of investigative journalism worthy of emulation.
Indeed, William Nyarko (Wakiki) is one of the finest investigative journalists I’ve known in Ghana. And I’m happy Paul has such high regard for my classmate and course prefect at the Ghana Institute of Journalism.
But while taking the anti-corruption civil society organisations to the cleaners for their joint statement rebuking the GJA, Paul may not have taken notice of the signatories to the joint press statement.
William Nyarko, the person Paul lifts so high as the standard bearer in investigative journalism, is one of the signatories! He signed on behalf of his organisation – Africa Centre for International Law and Accountability (ACILA).
{loadmodule mod_banners,Nativead1}
Read also: Paul Adom Otchere attacks Manasseh's works
So how do you celebrate a man for what he does and condemn his views about same? The Bible says in 1 John 4:20 that “Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar….” (NIV). And I say in this matter that whoever claims to love William Nyarko for his prowess in investigative journalism yet condemns his views on investigative journalism is not truthful!
The silence of the GJA National Executive over the public backlash on its press statement is very loud. Perhaps, the national executive has no defence to put up. That is why I find Paul’s resolute defence of the GJA press statement very intriguing. With all due respect to the authors and defenders of that press statement, I humbly submit that the motivation for the cautionary note appears terminally ill. And to the extent of that terminal illness, it must be consigned to the morgue. I point to a few examples hereunder to buttress my submission:
First, last year, the GJA came under intense criticism for conferring the Journalist of the Year Award on the iconic investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas. I defended the GJA (and I still do) on that matter because, in my view, Anas’ investigative piece on the alleged corruption within the Judiciary was the best story in the year of the awards. I even hold the view that Anas deserves the highest national award and a national monument in his honour for the great things he has done for Ghana.
But per the logic or motivation of the GJA in that press statement, Anas should not have been given the Journalist of the Year award last year. The GJA press statement cautions journalists against doing stories that may land them in court. If that concern is genuine, not ill-motivated, why did the GJA crown Anas as Journalist of the Year at a time he had already been taken to court for the story so celebrated? Worse of all, two judges sued the GJA for conferring that award. Must the physician not heal himself first before seeking to heal others? There cannot be a better definition of double standard than this!
Second, while the GJA press statement advised journalists to always uphold the ethical values of fairness, objectivity and balance in their reportage, the examiner failed his own test! The press statement was virtually in defence of local businesses and condemnation of investigative journalists without pointing to specific issues of concern. That is not the meaning of fairness, objectivity and balance!
Thirdly, Paul strongly defends the GJA’s caution to journalists to avoid ‘trial by the media’ or pronouncing the guilt of characters in their stories. They (GJA and Paul) argue that it is only a court of competence jurisdiction, not journalists, that is vested with authority to pronounce the guilt of a person accused of wrongdoing. I totally agree with that submission. So why are they committing the same ‘crime’ they are condemning by usurping the authority of the court to pronounce the guilt of unnamed investigative journalists for indulging in ‘trial by the media’? It does not lie in the mouth of the GJA or
Paul to pronounce the guilt of journalists for ‘trial by the media’; that responsibility belongs to the courts.
Instead of addressing the substantive issues raised in Manasseh’s investigative story about the questionable contracts involving the Jospong Group, Paul conveniently takes refuge in tangential matters like Jospong is an asset to the nation, not a liability. That defensive foray is only a skilful display of what I call the ‘Pretender Theory’, and since he waxes biblical in the latter part of his submission, may I take him to Matthew 26:6-13 where my ‘Pretender Theory’ is rooted:
A few days before Jesus’ arrest for crucifixion, he visited the home of Simon the leper in Bethany. A woman came to anoint him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume. When the disciples of Jesus saw it, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they questioned, pointing out that the perfume could have been sold at a high price and the proceeds given to the poor. But we are made to understand that the interest of the disciples in selling the perfume was absolutely selfish; they only feigned care for the poor to achieve their aim.
So it is within the adrenalin of man to sometimes create the impression that he is doing something in the interest of the poor or society when in actual fact the interest may be selfish. Whether Jospong is an asset or liability can only be determined by fact, not word. Let’s allow things to take their natural course, and as we say in local parlance, at the end of ‘cine’ we shall see ‘Charlie’.
I find it interesting that Paul canvasses support for local businesses. But on academics, he prefers Indian scholars to local scholars, and quotes the former profusely in his defence of the GJA. As to why he does that, your guess may be as good as mine. But I prefer local scholars to foreign scholar because the former are not inferior to latter. In this regard, I’ve heard the condemnation of the GJA press statement by renowned communication professor Audrey Gadzekpo. I respect her person and her views!
Ghana is still emerging from the woods of under development. There are many development challenges that need to be addressed. The government needs to be held accountable to the people of Ghana at all times. These are the charges we need to keep as journalists. Our charge is never to aim the gun at ourselves. We must not fail the nation.
For me, no matter the fallibility of the media, I will always stand firm with Thomas Jefferson in conviction thus: “I am… for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.”