Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Lowdown Hoad Attacks Barbados Media

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

Middle Media

Censorship has reduced the Barbadian media to a spineless, wishy-washy affair where adverse comment about certain untouchables is banned from print and talk outlets. Ezra Alleyne has written (and I hope he doesn’t mind being quoted): “Speaking as an attorney-at-law who . . . advises on the law of defamation on a daily basis . . . I say that the ‘black letter’ Law on Defamation in Barbados is among the most modern to be found anywhere.”

Snip

Ezra feels that the Defamation Act 1996 “places Barbados almost on par with the USA” in certain aspects of public comment. If all this is so, it would appear that much of the cutting in newspapers and radio talk shows has more to do with the personal whims of faceless censors than with breaching the law. But as Jesus pointed out in Acts 9:5, it is hard to kick against the . . . authorities.

The above two quotes are taken from the enormously popular Lowdown column.

It is no secret that the BU household is addicted to the weekly column penned by the venerable and highly intelligent Lowdown Hoad. His masterly articulation on social and other issues that affect Barbados society are often cleverly delivered when he resorts to his uniquely satirical style. Again, we have to make the point that his column is a must read for all Barbadians who want to read an untarnished view.

This week we have detected a ‘cold biting’ to his writing which is a departure from his norm. The confidence which he has to attack the media, obviously his criticism is pointed at the Nation Newspaper as well is interesting and refreshing. It tells us volumes about the man. He is very secure in who he is and is willing to defend a position he believes in. It also speaks to the point that the Nation Newspaper editors do not dare to apply their editorial license in the same way they have done to Peter Wickham and others when reviewing Hoad’s column.

We agree with Lowdown of course; we do not have the same eloquence of delivery and this is clearly visible when our several articles are read which deal with the issue of our passive media houses — The degree to which media houses and media practitioners have been and continue to be manipulated. One would have thought that the enormous criticism which has been leveled at the media we would see a new direction being taken in a post election period i.e. call-ins challenging the issues in a new way. Now is the time to do it before this new government is sucked into the inevitable morass of the system of government which Barbadians have now come to be VERY comfortable.

Maybe social commentators like Lowdown Hoad can help to start the social revolution required. Maybe if President Obama can win in the USA it can serve to show what one individual who ‘believes’ can accomplish against seemingly insurmountable odds.

 

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

22 responses to “Lowdown Hoad Attacks Barbados Media”

  1. Member of BU Family Avatar
    Member of BU Family

    Maybe Lowdown should mention BU and BFP in his next article 🙂

  2. Avatar
    Anonymous

    I disagree that his article is directed at only the Nation.

    Lowdown explicitly references the radio talk shows and their cutting – a direct reference I think to their producer (s) ,currently Mike Brown and previous others – who really have gone too far in their censorship.

    One day perhaps we will get a real radio and T.V. station and a newspaper rather than fish wrap.

  3. Adrian Hinds Avatar
    Adrian Hinds

    Hoad use to read the long defunct rumshoplime.com, and had even mentioned in one of his columns a comment i made about Owen Arthur visiting Boston with Rodney Wilkinson.

    oh btw Obama is a fake, just like the other celebrated elected black leader in the Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick. They both use the same words, same empty statements, penned and orchestrated by the same strategist name Axelrod. If Deval’s win and subsequent disappointment in the governor’s office is a harbinger of things come I can predict that Obama’s current cult following will fizzle to nothing. What we are seeing with him is electioneering politics. Case in point his campaign rhetoric about doing away or cutting back NAFTA caused concern in Canada’s government, who was reassured by Obama’s campaign staff that nothing will be done about it, that the statements where just campaign rhetoric. Yes we can! What?????

  4. Rohan Avatar
    Rohan

    Find me another writer at the nation who is as no-nonsense and entertaing as Hoad. This man has been consistently doing it for years. He’ one of the only reasons read the fish-wrap that is the Nation newspaper

  5. ROBOT Avatar
    ROBOT

    oh you people are very caustic

    i would be afraid of you if i had reason to be afraid–like if i were doing something questionable —
    this approach is good and one hopes that it plays out to the benefit of the nation and that we have more transparency and accountablity from all sectors

  6. Bajan Avatar
    Bajan

    Would it not be the biggest coup if Hoad and one or too others resigned from writing for the Nation and resorted to the blogs 🙂

  7. anonlegal Avatar
    anonlegal

    “Ezra feels that the Defamation Act 1996 “places Barbados almost on par with the USA” in certain aspects of public comment. If all this is so, it would appear that much of the cutting in newspapers and radio talk shows has more to do with the personal whims of faceless censors than with breaching the law. But as Jesus pointed out in Acts 9:5, it is hard to kick against the . . . authorities.”
    ———————————–

    I have spoken about this before. But here it goes again.

    It is true that Barbados has very modern Defamation laws (I don’t know about being on par with the US who have gone over board in my opinion).

    But as modern as the legislation is, the local newspapers would be foolhardy to print any and every defamatory story hoping that WHEN they are sued they will be able to hide behind a defence provided by the Defamation act or by Common law.

    The fact is that it does not matter whether or not a newspaper successfully defends a defmation suit, it will still cost them. Liability Insurance premiums will increase with the increased frequency of lawsuits, regardless of whether the paper wins or loses (and if they are depending on the defence of truth and can’t prove it in court they will most likely lose).

    Mr Hoad writes:

    “Acccording to him, the courts will apparently allow the constitutional right to freedom of expression to “trump” the right to reputation so that even when a public figure “was actually defamed (some allegations of the journalist having been shown to be untrue)”, the Privy Council held that the journalist had practised responsible journalism and so the injured party could not recover any damages.”

    This is actually correct, but the privy council also gave a guide as to what constitutes responsible journalism. It stated 10 considerations which a court would have to bear in mind in determining whether journalism was responsible. Some of the considerations mentioned are as follows:
    whether the source was reliable,

    whether comment from the injured partycwas sought

    whether adequate steps were taken to verify the information

    whether the defamed person had an opportunity to respond

    whether the allegation is a serious one (this would determine the adequacy of efforts to verify; a serious allegation would required greater effort to verify)

    Therefore if a newspaper gets a tip from someone who says that “Minister X” is stealing tax payer’s money and the newspaper is subsequently sued for publishing the story, a court may very well decide that the source was not reliable (and sources don’t usually want to be identified anyway ), or that the newspaper didn’t do enough to verify the information and should be held liable for defamation. And bear in mind that one defamation award can be devastating to a newspaper (in Jamaiaca the gleaner was once ordered to pay the equivalent of about 1 million barbadian dollars in damages, for one defamation suit).

    My point here is that, Mr. Hoad is not entirely correct when he says that “it would appear that much of the cutting in newspapers and radio talk shows has more to do with the personal whims of faceless censors than with breaching the law”. Newspapers probably do censor themselves but they probably do so out of an abundance of caution rather than a mere personal whim. If the newspaper didn’t exercise self censorship they may very well be out of business before you know it. I am suggesting that before we call them spineless we should get a better understanding of all the factors that may play a part when they are deciding what to publish.

  8. David Avatar
    David

    Anonlegal ~ you continue to bring us back to what the laws are but our position at BU and from what we gather from society, the PEOPLE continue to challenge those laws.

    The current laws as constituted according to you and others who argue from a legal bias disregard the feelings of the people. The people are not happy; we want the laws changed to allow for the majority to speak. In the present scenario, the majority continue to be muzzled so that the few maybe protected. Should it not be in the reverse?

  9. anonlegal Avatar
    anonlegal

    David,

    I am not saying that the feelings of the people should be disregarded. However I do believe that the feelings of the people are not so different from the feelings of the media practitioners. Many Journalists are interested in reporting the ground breaking stories that everyone wants to hear. However they have to do so in a way that doesn’t plunge the business into insolvency.

    David stated:
    “The people are not happy, we want the laws changed to allow for the majority to speak”

    I can see that people want the laws changed. But remember when I asked the question: What change are these people proposing?

    I am of the view that there needs to be balance between a person’s right to free speech and a person’s right to a reputation (and if you read the constitution you will see that the drafters had the same concern). The defamation act as it stands now attempts to bring balance by offering defences such as “fair and accurate report” which allows a newspaper to publish a fair and accurate report of a public meeting (on a metter of public concern) without fear of being sued. This defence is the main reason why the nation could publish what David Thompson said during his speech at Haggat Hall where he insinuated wrongdoing on the part of the owen Arthur. If the defamation act did not provide for this defence, the nation would have been facing a law suit. If you notice, a few days after the story was published the nation published an apology to the prime minister. I suspect that the reason they published the apology was because they expected a lawsuit (a prompt apology reduces any damages that a newspaper would have to pay if held liable for defamation)

    I Stated already that I think that the best amendment that can be made right now is to codify the privy council decision that I referred to earlier allowing a newspaper to enjoy the privilege of publishing defamatory articles (which may turn out not to be entirely accurate) as long as they exercise “responsible journalism” which should be defined by the act.

    We are not in total disagreement David, I am just saying that For many years now law makers (in Barbados especially) have been making efforts to find a balance between the right to a reputation and the right to free speech. I believe that their efforts are taken for granted by many of us posting on the blogs.

  10. David Avatar
    David

    Anonlegal~we hear you but we stick to our original point. The constitution should not be used as the be all and end all. The constitution was framed at a time when those times were miles apart from what exist now.

    Should the media continue to operate out of cohesion with the people/. Remember that the media and the people represent two key players in the Estates of the Realm.

  11. anonlegal Avatar
    anonlegal

    well let me ask you David, what change would you propose?

    I don’t get the impression that you want to abolish a persons right to sue for defamation. I am sure that you would agree that such an action would be extreme.

  12. David Avatar
    David

    anonlegal here is a dissertation which we found to be somewhat relevant to the changing landscape which the media is faced with factoring the affect of technology, blogs etc which is said to be giving more importance to the individual. How does traditional media react?

    This article does not seek to answer these specific questions, but will address two preliminary issues. First, whether the normative approach to dealing with media freedom should be modified in the light of these changes and place greater emphasis on the individual speaker. The second issue is whether these changes lead to a new paradigm in which regulations to promote the public service element of media activity are inappropriate. In addressing these issues, this article will consider arguments that online expression requires a different approach from that accorded to the traditional mass media. The main grounds for a new approach are premised upon the low cost of communications; the relative ease of participation; the greater emphasis on user control and consequent demise of mediators and controlling elites. While accepting the many beneficial changes brought about through online communications, this article will argue that rather than generating a level playing field, online expression can not only perpetuate existing media elites, but also create new ones. Consequently, online expression operates at different tiers, as found in the offline world. The regulatory approach may therefore require different methods depending on the tier of expression.

    Here is the link to the full document.

  13. The People's Democratic Congress Avatar
    The People’s Democratic Congress

    $ 1/2 M CUT
    Govt axes consultants; reduces payroll bill

    Above, are the head caption and sub caption, respectively, in the Sunday Sun of March 2, 2008.

    Today, if we the People’s Democratic Congress (PDC) were at the helm of the Government of Barbados certainly what the Thompson Administration has done in terms of the AXING of particular consultants from the Government service, we would have gone further and handled much differently through making sure that there would have been the OVERALL rationalization and restructuring of the government/public service in Barbados. Therefore, we would have made sure that among such plans for the rationalization and restructuring of this service, there will have been the bringing about of a drastic reduction in the size and structure of the Barbados state.

    Really and truly, for us in PDC any such plans to drastically reduce the size and structure of the state must have long entailed very serious reductions in those unnecessarily and scandalously high expenditures that have been constantly allocated by BLP and DLP governments over the years to a bigger and bigger but more and more unmanagable and unwieldy public service in Barbados!! What is even more important than that is that such a A PDC Government must have committed itself to a program of action for reducing total state expenditure to about one half of what it is at current prices today, then; for reducing the number of persons ( workers/managers etc. ) that are now receiving incomes as a result of their working in our state management apparatus, from the almost 30 000 they are, to about 12- 15 000; and for, at the same, securing the evolution of these remaining persons from being workers to being Partners in the new state management apparatus. With regard to those persons who would have been made redundant, it is our position that they would have had to be psychologically, physically, financially, and politically prepared and conditioned by A PDC Government to meet their “transferrals” – as supposed partners – to other private sector partnership establishments in Barbados, real or to come into existence, before actually being made redundant by such a government, in order to make it eminently possible for them to continue carrying on their own lives, and for them to continue helping build a better and Barbados.

    Moreover, we are certain that in the Thompson Administration’s AXING of these particular consultants there will NOT be a reduction in Government’s payroll bill, as is being suggested by the sub-caption and the news story itself. The main reason for that position is because we are too certain that the new DLP administration will continue to swell the ranks of the public service with many more new and not so new people, mainly for political reasons, until very difficult economic and financial times start to really hit us. Therefore, we are really certain that there WILL CONTINUE TO BE A BIG NET INCREASE IN THE PAYROLL BILL OF THE GOVERNMENT ANY TIME SOON, and, again, that will be contrary to the impression the said head caption and sub caption are giving.

    However, where the PDC is concerned, and with regard to our plans for the rationalization and restructuring of the Barbados state apparatus, our goal is to make sure that the total state expenditure on income that will be going to the Partners of the Barbados state, is WAY BELOW the present total state expenditure on the relevant incomes. This does NOT mean that there will be reductions in the incomes of those persons who would have been retained, then, as Partners of the new state management entity, when contrasted to what incomes they would otherwise now be getting as workers, today. What must clearly be seen here and now by fellow bloggers is that there is a serious correlationship between our very fundamental plans for the Abolition of Taxation in Barbados and our plans for drastic reduction in the size and structure of the Barbados State.

    PDC

  14. Undertaker Avatar
    Undertaker

    PDC,

    You are actually making some sense in the above on some points, (not the ones about you being in power or abolishing taxes though) the ones about the consultants etc, it will just be a case of clearing the field to make room for his own people which he will ease in, at work we have some bets on Colin Spencer to replace Gabby. (some say he could even win the crown this year once he competes)

    Time will soon tell.

    Rest In Peace!

  15. Tell me Why Avatar
    Tell me Why

    Moreover, we are certain that in the Thompson Administration’s AXING of these particular consultants there will NOT be a reduction in Government’s payroll bill, as is being suggested by the sub-caption and the news story itself.
    ……………………………………………………………………..
    I am appalled by the language of “Pork Barrel” politics regarding the immediate firing of consultants in the previous administration. Yes, we know with the start of a new government, things like these would occur, but the way it was done is quite embarrassing.

    Do tell me, Trevor Marshall is a competent historian who never use open partisan politics within his profession. Why then was he embarrassed in that way.

    Philip Goddard was special envoy, which can be expressed as a Minister of State. So what’s the different. Again, he could have been more candid in his behaviour.

    Anthony Carter, yes he might be a political shifter, but we should look at the bigger picture of his talent and the the way he promoted Barbados on the International scene. Again, this was quite embarrassing since his ability could have been utilised in a cultural capacity.

    The others are merely political appointees whose position would have been revoked anyhow.

    Now, I have been listening to Brass Tacks and a Mr. King stated that he is Personal Assistant to the Minister of Social Services. Please let the public know where his salary coming from? If he is a consultant and who appointed him?

  16. justice Avatar
    justice

    How did Gabby promote Barbados on the “international scene?

  17. Tell me Why Avatar
    Tell me Why

    Anytime an entertainer performs overseas, that person is promoting Barbados. Your question is an injustice based on the quality of being just or fair. You, like I, know that Gabby have been promoting Barbados from the Barrow era.

  18. Floyd Avatar
    Floyd

    The former prime Minister, Mr. Owen Arthur, has made a number of comments, printed in the Nation newspaper of March 3 2008, related to the recent termination of the contracts of a number of consultants hired during his administration. In light of those comments I would like to pose a number of questions and make a few comments of my own.
    Is the former Prime Minister suggesting that a new Prime Minister has some moral or other obligation to continue to work with speech writers and research officers hand picked and appointed by him, or find a way to keep such persons on the payroll while bringing in his own people? I would find such a position incredulous, if not ridiculous, especially in light of the fact that the persons involved were not civil servants, but appointees of the former Prime Minister himself.
    The former Prime Minister claimed that in appointing persons such as Trevor Marshall and Dr. George Belle he went for “the best.” In appointing these consultants was there a process whereby competing proposals were submitted and vetted? Were there interviews or some structured selection process? Who decided these persons were the best and by what process? If this were purely Prime Ministerial appointments, then surely a new Prime Minister can decide if he needs these consultants or if these persons are the best for him? It does appear that being adjudged “best’ by the Prime Minister was the only criterion.
    I was blissfully unaware that being in a tough financial position was a criterion for being awarded a consultancy by the Prime Minister, or that a consultancy in the Prime Minister’s office was the government mechanism for assisting persons in difficult financial circumstances. Is that an official government position? If so it raises serious questions about governance in Barbados. Maybe the new Prime Minister thinks that public welfare should be handled by other means, or he thinks it there are others more deserving of this state welfare. I can think of at least fifty persons in need of help whom I can recommend to the new Prime Minister.
    Finally, Mr. Arthur was curiously, or some might say studiously, silent on the most highly paid consultant, who came with a support staff paid for by the former government. The new government was rather transparent in the termination of these contracts, I hope unlike the former government, they are equally transparent in the appointment of new consultants. We will hold you to a higher standard, we expect you to engage in a “reign of terror” against questionable use of public funds, and to be on the “war path” in promoting greater transparency and accountability in public life.

  19. David Avatar
    David

    To be frank we are at a loss to understand Owen Arthur’s questioning of the dismissal of the consultants employed in his former administration. We just can’t understand it. The only one in the bunch we would argue for is Gabby. His contribution as an artist should give him a better leg to stand on in this issue. Certainly a speech writer or researcher it must come down to a relationship thing.

  20. Floyd Avatar
    Floyd

    Owen’s comments are just amazing. It continues the string of irrational comments during the election season.

  21. Donnella Avatar
    Donnella

    Wow, can you imagine? Sagicor is laying off staff and no tremors have been heard around Barbados and the only thing people commenting about is Lowdown’s article( I always read it and love it)An entire call in program has passed and no mention of it? Yet Clico who has been hammered daily for six weeks has not laid off one single person from none of their associated companies. . . unbelievable. We should now check to see if Sagicor has a Statutary Fund deficit.

  22. vancet Avatar
    vancet

    https://sites.google.com/a/caribusiness.com/angela-cole/Home/about–angela-cole/the-paris-airshow/overpaid-bajans/Home/hot-topics/whiteracisminbarbados

    This woman think that White Barbadians ALL were Slave Drivers .. What about The RED Legs that come from the original White Slaves of 1625 and abouts …History is really entertaining and so are writers !

The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading