by Bert Meinders

Created on: January 31, 2009

Freedom of the press is a very good principle, but it presupposes a degree of integrity by reporters. It is right and proper that political candidates express themselves, so that prospective voters know for whom and for what they are voting.

I cannot speak (or more correctly, write) for American candidates or American reporters, so if political discourse and dialogue in the United States is at a higher level of maturity and debate of a higher standard than in my country I apologise for what may seem defamatory of either politicians or journalists.

One of the problems inherent in a free press (inhibited a little by the law regarding libel) is that not all reporters are out to give fair or honest coverage. We had a Green Party leader in Parliament who has now, reluctantly, retired from politics because of his media image. He is a superb debater, a conscientious representative, a very clear thinker - and a Rastafarian. When he was reported by the media, it was almost invariable about either his dreadlocks or his sacramental use of cannabis. I have heard him speak with authority about biosecurity, transport infrastructure, justice, law and order, and sustainable agriculture, but he was hopelessly typecast by the Fourth Estate as a one-dimensional pothead. He has always been courteous and helpful towards journalists, and has suffered not so much from misrepresentation as from diminished representation.

In a culture in which people are persistently advertised at, and in which they are given an image of the world which is fast-moving, very noisy and in which no moment is allowed to pass without noise, movement or consumption, journalists can be at a loss when faced with interviewing a candidate seeking re-election when the candidate's principal distinction is a capacity for unobtrusive and conscientious work in the service of the electorate. This is not exciting, or loud, or fast-moving or "sexy" - a term which should be kept in or near the bedroom in my opinion - and the candidate might even be considered "boring". This is a pity, as such are the backbone of democracy.

I'm not trying to put journalists into disreput here; some of the people I admire most are, or have been, journalists. What I am saying is that candidates should have the right to decline interviews in which they are likely to be misrepresented or made to look foolish, dishonest or inadequate. Candidates should be chosen on election day, without their chances being either enhanced or impaired by biased reporting. Reporters should also have a corresponding right to refuse to interview candidates known to be hostile, rude or manipulative towards them (a former prime minister comes to mind).

Learn more about this author, Bert Meinders.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.