By Kwesi Wrekon Obeng
News Editor, Public Agenda and Weekend Agenda
Accra, Ghana

Despite its pitfalls, and there are many, American media is fiercely tough, vocal and the journalists ruggedly independent. I expected nothing less, but the manner in which this toughness and independence are exhibited is exemplary.

What about the adept manner words are played with, even in serious stories? It’s admirable how the mainstream U.S. media are always reaching for common words that are rarely used in news reports while avoiding repeating emphatic words within a given space.

I was equally thrilled by the high sense of community ownership of the media–even though they may have no shares in the company. Local people may disagree with the views of a particular media in a community but they see them as theirs and will go to every length to ensure they thrive. I learned this pretty early when I arrived in St. Petersburg.

Nelson Poynter often said the interests of readers “must always come ahead of advertisers, staff and owners. Without readers we are useless to advertisers; without readers we have no need of staff.” This, I’ve observed, is the catalyst of the American media.

The past five months have shown me just how seriously the media here take their readers/audience. It surely doesn’t mean by this deep sense of commitment to the readers they get everything right all the time–no, not at all. I have read a couple of terrible and disgraceful reports butchering the journalism profession. But I followed closely the coverage of the midterm elections in my host newspaper, the St. Petersburg Times and its closest rival in the Tampa Bay area—the Tampa Tribune and followed a few others in Central and South Florida online.

It was interesting and instructive to note that in spite of the two giant Bay newspapers endorsing one candidate or the other for the various positions, these newspapers were objective and fair in their reportage of all the candidates.

In my interactions with colleagues at the St. Petersburg Times, it became clear that the paper knew pretty well that the Democrat candidate for governor of Florida in the November 5 poll, Bill McBride was going to lose, yet he was endorsed for the job. The question then is why was McBride endorsed? He was endorsed largely because he articulated issues the paper believes can spring Florida ahead of the rest of the country. In the other endorsements, the Times and the Tribune endorsed both Republicans and Democrats and in some cases independents and this has not affected the papers’ credibility.

Back home in Ghana, newspapers that cherish their independence would not endorse candidates. The fact is that any endorsement of political candidates would quickly erode the little credibility the paper may have in the eyes of the public. This is largely because the Ghanaian public expects the media to simply provide the correct information in an objective and fair manner for readers to make their own informed judgments about whom to vote for or cast a ballot against.

I think this model of endorsing candidates purely for the issues they stand for, and not necessarily the party they belong, is something that I will take home to share with my colleagues. I think it can work in Ghana also.

A unique trait I noticed in the U.S. media is the crafting of stories around individuals to give a human touch and also to reflect the prevalence or otherwise of an issue(s) under discussion in the wider society.

This appears to be an effective tool to get readers to talk about issues published by the media. This is because in many cases ordinary people are able to identify with the central figure(s) or theme running through the stories.

And here I recall that for nearly each of my stories published in the Times I received feedback in the form of telephone calls and some e-mails from readers expressing their delight. I got some story ideas by talking to these people who called.

It’s equally refreshing how even very tough and complicated subjects are reduced to simple, easy-to-understand language. Many explain back home that they do not read the newspapers because the stories are often couched in language pretty difficult to grasp without a dictionary.

But by far one of the standards of the media here I have come to admire is the consistent push to widen the frontiers of journalism—trying uncharted waters. This clearly is instrumental in the breaking of new ground in the profession in the U.S. and presumably it’s this energy that sustains the ink in the pen said to be mightier than the sword.

With a background in covering politics, education and minorities in Ghana, I was out here to see and participate in how the voiceless are fairly captured. Much of the media here strive hard enough to situate each story within context by providing historical and other relevant information. But this cardinal journalistic principle seems to apply more to local news and less to international news.

An outstanding standard I also found very instructive is the immense effort made by the U.S. media to embrace the complexity involved in many touchy subjects such as racism and terrorism by providing a multi-dimensional approach needed to help readers/viewers to understand. Nevertheless the media has still got a pretty long way to go in this way.

But the standards are clear: stories are made to explain issues, answer questions, and raise others and they also are delivered with such authority! Again, stories are not burdened with unnecessary quotes thus facilitating explanation.

Much of the media in Ghana today, 10 years after the country returned to constitutional democracy is still engrossed in crusading journalism with little effort at explaining the issues. Interestingly, the media here so finely and effectively combine explanatory journalism with crusading journalism.

The authoritative ring of authenticity that surrounds stories churned by the media here is sometimes astonishing. Reportage of local issues in particular is often deep and broad, the details fine. Opinions are so clear and they provide not only details but also refreshing insight into the issues under discussion. And I am going to do this by digging more intensely for concrete and specifics in every story I work on upon my return.

However, this ring of authenticity cannot be said of international news covered by the U.S. media, especially those stories on Africa. Many of the stories I read about Africa are often incomplete—lacking the depth and context. Some are misleading, pure and simple!

The experience gathered over the fellowship is awesome. This awesomeness is given such a fine perspective by the two different seminars I attended at the Poynter Institute. The first of the two seminars was themed: Writing and Editing. The second was titled: Writing and Coaching. During both seminars, the issue of ethics featured prominently.

A widespread criticism against the Ghanaian media is that too many poor ethical decisions are made. Some newspapers lost a chunk of their readers or were forced to shut down for poor ethical decisions. The knowledge and experience I have gathered in evolving a good ethical decision will enable me to contribute more efficiently to the ongoing ethical discussion back in Ghana. I can’t wait to get back!