Something increasingly curious is happening in the campaign to discredit effective government communication in The Bahamas. At the centre of the latest controversy is Latrae Rahming, a communications professional who has developed a reputation for doing something governments have historically struggled to do: explaining public policy in language ordinary Bahamians can understand.
People do not have to agree with everything Rahming says. That is democracy. But disagreement should not obscure competence.
The latest criticism appears to arise, in part, because Rahming refused to provide the kind of “gotcha” moment that makes for an easy headline. Apparently, successfully navigating an aggressive line of questioning is now evidence that the government spokesman- not the questioning is the problem.
That is an extraordinary standard.
The Fourth Estate’s role is indispensable. A strong, independent press must interrogate governments, challenge inconsistencies and demand accountability. But scrutiny should never become indistinguishable from an effort to manufacture controversy. Journalism is strongest when it illuminates facts, not when an interview’s success seems to depend on trapping the person being interviewed.
The wider atmosphere is equally troubling. Nassau Guardian Executive Editor, Candia Dames, are perfectly entitled to criticise the Davis administration. But when commentary consistently portrays government communication through the darkest possible lens, the public is equally entitled to question whether it is receiving dispassionate analysis or political advocacy dressed in journalistic clothing.
Rahming’s effectiveness is precisely why the attacks are unlikely to achieve their apparent objective.
Government communication is not supposed to impress journalists. It is supposed to help citizens understand what their government is doing, why it is doing it and how those decisions affect their lives. On that score, Rahming has demonstrated an ability to translate complicated policies into straightforward explanations—sometimes simple enough, figuratively speaking, for a three-year-old to follow.
Perhaps that is the real problem for his detractors.
The traditional gatekeeping model of political communication has changed. Governments can now communicate directly with citizens, while journalists remain free to question, investigate and challenge what governments say. Neither function needs to destroy the other.
Trying to turn Rahming into the “bad guy” because he would not stumble into a reporter’s trap is unlikely to work. Bahamians can watch, listen and judge for themselves.
And therein lies the difficulty with the apparent game plan: the messenger remains effective, the message continues to reach the public, and the hoped-for “gotcha” simply isn’t bearing fruit.
More from LOCAL
WE SHOULD NEVER LET FOREIGN INTEREST KEEP US OFF OUR BEACHES
The shoreline is our birthright, yet once again Bahamians find themselves begging for permission to walk on their own sand. …
The Phantom Gavel: How Hubert Ingraham Still Controls the FNM’s Strings
The Phantom Gavel: How Hubert Ingraham Still Controls the FNM’s Strings Political conventions are billed as festivals of internal democracy, where …
Teachers Are Asking, “Where Is Our Pension Money?”
At times, government and organised labour must set aside confrontation and remember who ultimately pays the price when negotiations fail: …
