Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

DemocracyRarely do we reproduced articles from other media sources to make our points. We have made an exception in this case because the article supports one of our cornerstone arguments promoted from the inception of BU. The other reason which weighed heavily is the fact a member of the BU family felt strongly enough about the subject to request the article be given prominence.

A functioning Fourth Estate is critical to empowering our PEOPLE to be properly equipped to participate in our democratic system of government. Barbadians have come to take our practicing democracy for granted but history and current events have shown it is a very fragile system and the PEOPLE should be weary of not holding key stakeholders in our democratic system of government accountable .

The current debate triggered by the alleged threat by Hartley Henry to Sunday Sun Editor Carol Martindale has become shrouded in partisan prattle. Even if subsequent events show Henry to be guilty Barbadians must not lose sight of the big picture. How does ownership in our local media houses affect how decisions are influenced and which may conflict with the interest of Barbadians? How do we exact standards from our Fourth Estate which would mitigate known political affiliations in the profession?

It should concern Barbadians that a large slice of the media ownership in Barbados is foreign controlled. It is a matter which should be debated. While the media is suppose to report news there is little doubt that a large section of our population are led by what they read or hear from our media houses and practitioners. It therefore is important that news is reported in as unfiltered and unbiased a manner as possible. What guaranty does Barbadians have the editorial policy of our media houses are aligned with Barbadian interest? What guaranty does Barbadians have that our media is being hijacked by the carrot of largess being waved by politicians to a Fourth Estate hungry for revenues at the expense of disseminating unfiltered news?

For those of you who believe that media houses are above the influence of political skulduggery from the media side, the following article has been reproduced to debunk that position. Interesting is the fact that it points to a scenario in Trinidad.

Submitted on 2009/09/11 at 6:41pm

Are The Media Saints Or Sinners?

11/13/2008.

This Speech Was Made By The Chairman Of Citadel Limited.On The Following Date 11/11/08.

I have invited you here this morning to place on record my concerns as a leader of a media house, as a concerned National, and above all, as one who believes very strongly in the freedom of the media.

With responsibility, the expectation has been that media practitioners will exercise sound judgment in the conduct of their affairs, and in the process, the wider society benefits from the work of responsible media.

Bear in mind, with responsibility comes accountability – the big question this morning is – to whom do the media account?

We now find ourselves between a ‘rock and a hard place,’ as the profession of journalism is under scrutiny as never before. This intense scrutiny has come about owing to the individual behavior of some media practitioners.

There are some Journalists who do not see their roles as having to report the facts, but rather see themselves in opposition to the Prime Minister and the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.

There are some Journalists who consistently string together two points knowing there is no story, in the hope that they would get a reaction; that is the real story.

Journalists, who are also talk show hosts, spend much time criticizing the Prime Minster, and two minutes later put on a ‘news hat’ to read the news. Such people must decide if they wish to be ‘talk show hosts’ or journalists – particularly when so many of their utterances are anti-government and Anti-the Prime Minister.

The grim reality is that officials, both in the Private and Public sectors, are afraid to speak to the media – out of the single fear there will be no balance, no objectivity – no fairness!

Too many journalists write what they wish, and who, five days later would call for a comment after half the truth, sometimes lies, and indeed, innuendos, have solidified to become facts. This has not been a singular experience on my part.

The media cannot pretend it is a “saint” when it is very often a “sinner.”

I will not waste time in discussing the recent radio controversy except to say that it has brought us here and this is a good thing. I have listened to the arguments of “appropriateness” on this matter, and I am forced to laugh out loudly. I have sought to go deeper than the commentators and writers; I have read and listened to all on the subject. The question must be asked, “Had Prime Minister Manning done what you wished i.e. the appropriate thing; would we be here, this morning?”

I submit we would not have been here – simply because it would not be an issue (Think about the process).

I believe Prime Minister Manning believes he has been wronged consistently by some sectors of the media and has sought to address the matter in a unique way.

I commend him for finally bringing his concerns to our attention, in a manner that must force all of us to stop and think i.e. if you can think about your roles as media practitioners in a plural society.

There are too many media employees who are not sure whether they are “Journalists” or “Politicians in opposition to the Government,” and I don’t know you can be both.

I f you are a journalist, the expectation is balance, fairness, honesty, integrity, and above all, professionalism. On the other hand, if you are an opposition journalist/politician, and then continue doing what some of you do, and I am sure you will reap the rewards of your lack of professionalism.

It cannot be that the expectation of appropriateness must only be for the office of the Prime Minister, public officials, and none for the media.

My own “investigations” and I believe in these times investigations is not a known or common word in some areas of the media, suggests to me that politicians and public officials ‘shun’ the media, as they fear being mis-quoted, maligned and beaten up upon.

This is a sorry state of affairs.

How do the media see their role in treating with the private sector? Bear in mind that the private sector is crucial and impacts life in Trinidad and Tobago as much, if not as much as the Government. Do media workers exercise the same degree of tenacity, aggression, and disrespect to the private sector? I fear not! Trinidad and Tobago has seen two major financial institutions go through troubling times, and my concern is that there was an absence of sustained enquiry on the part of the media in both instances.

Fortunately, one pulled itself out the hole it found itself in, while the other, a Credit Union, collapsed – and with it, hundreds of poor ordinary folks lost their life savings.

I make this point to underscore that there is visibly inequity in application in the treatment the Government receives in comparison to the treatment the Private Sector receives, and both are fundamental to our democracy.

I believe a call has to be made to the sober minds remaining in the media, that ours, is a responsibility bigger and greater than the Government’s, and with this responsibility comes accountability.

Our accountability is to our readers, viewers, and listeners across the globe. We cannot continue business as usual as this could lead to anything.

In my view, in a democratic society, all citizens would not share the same views, beliefs, nor belong to the same political party, and this is understandable in a democratic society.

It is my belief in the action of polite disagreement that allows the growth of democracy.

Conversely, when we lose respect for each other because of disagreement over the views and beliefs and actions of another, we begin the downward slide away from democracy.

And in such circumstances, anarchy follows!

The grim reality is there are media practitioners who disagree with the Prime Minister and his Government, and who in their disagreement, show disrespect both to the ‘gentleman’ and the ‘office’ he holds.

You hear media practitioners of all ages refer to the Prime Minister as ‘Manning’ as if the Prime Minister is their schoolmate.

I believe we have got to go back to the ‘basics’ in this country or we may lose our society all together!

It must be ‘Prime Minister’ and ‘Archbishop.’ It must be ‘Father’ Harvey and ‘Magistrate’ X, it must be ‘School Principal’ X and ‘Matron’ Y. it surely cannot be Manning, and media managers have got to demand such professional standards.

On the other hand, I never hear Tony Sabga – it is always Mr. Sabga or Mr. Lok Jack or indeed Mr. Daly!

But all of this disrespect has been a long time coming – and if this recent event achieves one things, it is that we must all know the Prime Minister is concerned about standards in the media!

I am aghast that the Media Association has seen this purely as an opportunity to fight in the media with the Prime Minister! A serious professional association, I believe, would have sought to meet with the Prime Minister to hear his views and have its views heard. Instead, it is fighting within the media where it has all the ‘trumps!’

We cannot go on this way if we hope to grow as a country – where our children unborn world feel a sense of pride, a sense of nation!

If we wish to write and speak freely, it is incumbent upon all of us to act fairly, honestly, impartially, to give balance – balance and nothing else but balance. When we do this – neither Prime Minster nor other office holder will feel aggrieved to the extent that he is prepared to visit a broadcasting house unannounced to be heard.

As we debate appropriateness we might well be in a scenario of ‘pot calling kettle black.’ And while we have spent much time on appropriateness my fear is we have lost sight of the concern of the Honorable Prime Minster, which gave rise to his actions. This single action by the Prime Minster has been in my view most fortuitous as it has brought center stage the burning issues of professionalism within the media.

Some suggest that the Prime Minster ought to have taken his concerns to the Media Complaints Council (MCC), but I ask you to put yourself in his position. Do you take your complaints to Mr. Michael Williams, the Chairman of the Council and a known critic of the Prime Minister?

I will not go back to Mr. Panday who this week said he is supporting the media.

This company, like the short-lived Independent Newspaper, was born out of the harassment that came from Mr. Panday’s Government.

I hear Lawyers speaking, I suspect if I were today to demand of the Law Association a work program that will guarantee a more effective judicial system, I would probably be lynched. If libel matters were guaranteed to be completed form start to finish within three (3) months the media would be much more professional and responsible, and there would be no need for Mr. Manning to visit any media house to lodge his concerns.

I am certain of this as I am featured weekly in the column of a ‘has been’ media worker who hopes to resurrect his ‘dead’ career and dying newspaper, writing wild, misleading and libelous pieces week after week about my good self. And I am not the Prime Minister who by his large portfolio is the subject of a much wider platform of assault.

People aggrieved by the media have no cause to redress. In these circumstances, you have to appeal to the media house, who if they do not respect you, it is ‘you to catch!’

By comparison, in Parliament you have a system of privileges where Parliamentarians have been known to say anything with no redress for the person offended. This however, has been recently changed to allow members of the public who are aggrieved to write the Speaker to have corrections read and entered into the record of Hansard.

In the context of the media, if you are aggrieved, you must find huge resources to go to Court for a lengthy matter; sometimes ten (10) years or more. In the case of radio stations, you are at their mercy in getting a tape for your evidence.

It is against this background that I make the point that under the democratic system, failed politicians are held accountable at elections -the people speak at the ballot box. Under the same system, failed Journalists are free to do, say, and print whatever they wish unless strong management of the media take appropriate action for wrong doing, This however, is not common in the Trinidad and Tobago media.

When last did you hear of a Journalist or talk show host being disciplined for a lack of professionalism?

I wish to state that Citadel Ltd. has not been spared the ‘cancer’ of a lack of professionalism.

In this regard, we have been forced to not only discipline errant broadcasters, but we have been forced to make structural changes within our organization to ensure that no one is in a position to question our objectivity, integrity, and above all, balance in the conduct of news coverage and national debate.

Friends, I believe we need to appreciate there is a negative fallout from an absence of professionalism within the media. These professional practices must have a negative impact on the spirit, operations, and behavior of the National community. It is in this context, we must move with dispatch to bring the highest standards possible to our organizations.

I recommend, and call upon the Trinidad and Tobago Publishers and Broadcasters Association (TTPBA) meet at an early date to discuss urgently the matter of standards within the media. The reality is we now have an absence of professionalism, and if we do not fix ourselves, others will always attempt to do so!

On the other hand, the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago must become more aggressive and professional in the dissemination of information. Much of its good work remains an untold story, hence the very aggressive and negative reporting on its affairs.

When office holders like Minister Colm Imbert openly boasts that he will not speak to a media house, the fallout is mistrust and disrespect, not only of Minister Imbert, but of the Government!

People of the media, I thank you for being here, and it is my hope that you will find my concerns a ‘hook’ for ongoing discussion on the subject of “Professionalism within the Media of Trinidad and Tobago!”


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

81 responses to “Is There Sound Judgement Being Exercised By Local Media Houses?”


  1. Interesting thoughts. I also found the Prime Minister’s comments to his party conference, which the Nation did not publish in full, to be quite relevant to this debate.

    In essence the Nation is privately owned. I also found his comments about the sanctimonious nature of the Nation’s stance to be quite funny if it were not all so true!

    “Perhaps I should pause a minute to respond to what I understand has been reported in today’s Sunday Sun – I have not read it yet myself – since our members should get a better picture of our travails with one section of the media since 2008.
    I have a very straight-forward view of the privately-owned media. They are simply that – privately owned. They have prejudices and viewpoints, agendas and financial pursuits. I do not own any shares in any media in Barbados or elsewhere.
    I ask for nothing but fairness.
    Shortly after we were elected, the Nation pulled the plug on Hartley Henry’s column. Their reason: that he was a Consultant to the Prime Minister and they are not in the habit of utilising “such senior persons that close to the Prime Minister” to write columns.
    Since that was the case, and after the Nation’s refusal in the face of evidence to the contrary that would cause the most reasonable man to relent, we pulled the plug on our party column. No column has appeared since then and I remind you that Comrade DaSilva’s column is his column and does not purport to represent the views of the Party.
    Consequent on this action by us, senior officials of the Nation visited me at Ilaro Court to discuss “our relationship.” I pointed out that over 14 years, the Nation had used three Consultants to the previous Government, including one to Prime Minister Arthur, as columnists.
    The meeting ended with us agreeing that the Nation is a privately-owned entity and is free to determine who should and should not enjoy the status of columnists. Since that meeting two BLP members – one a former Minister of Government and one a former Consultant – have been added to the list of columnists. I say no more on that.
    The Managing Editor of the Nation wrote to me and I received the letter late last night. She set out the facts as she knew them, including that the matter has been referred to the Police, the Inter-American Press Association and the World Press Freedom Committee and concluded, “I look forward to your urgent attention to this matter.”
    I am giving it my urgent attention now:
    1. Once a matter has been referred to the Police, I will not as Prime Minister of this country use any power I may have to interfere in a police investigation.
    2. I understand that Mr. Henry’s alleged conversation took place in the presence of three persons: Honourable Christopher Sinckler, Mrs. Natasha King (my Press Secretary) and a Reporter of the Nation newspaper. I hope that these persons will be interviewed by the Police and IAPA and WPFC as well.
    3. I find it ironic that the Nation was not as indignant when Ruedon Eversley, as Editor of the Advocate was abused, threatened, hounded-down and eventually terminated during the 14 years of BLP rule. He too wrote to many of these agencies and received not one word of support from any quarter.
    4. Likewise when Harold Hoyte was called a “negrocrat.”
    5. Likewise when journalists were directly called by Prime Minister Arthur and abused in a most offensive way.
    6. My school-colleague Terry Ally was called a “sick, half-illiterate indentured servant.”
    There is always a creative tension between politicians and political operatives and the media.
    Two wrongs do not make a right. But I am not sanctimonious and do not believe that sanctimony by any privately-owned newspaper with a political history is the best defence on which to ask for support.
    He who comes to equity must come with clean hands.”


  2. Dear David:

    I have very carefully read every word which you have written.

    I’ve also carefully read every word written by the owner of I95.5 fm radio station in Trinidad who is also a supporter of the PNM.

    And my opinion is that the owner of I95.5 fm radio who is a supporter of the PNM is belly aching because the media call his buddy Manning and because the media do not love his buddy Manning as he does.

    Well isn’t Manning Manning’s name?

    Stupseee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I can’t believe that a group of intelligent well educated journalists sat down and listened to the whining of the owner of I95.5 fm radio.

    I wouldda get up and walk our eva since. And I wouldda do that even if Manning was present.


  3. We could have added to this blog by highlighting the sympathetic slant of the Barbados Advocate stories towards the government.

    @Veritas

    Was the Managing Editor of the Nation aware that a Nation Reporter was a witness to the conversation at the HH end before they went to press?


  4. And Barbados’ Thompson has said

    “I find it ironic that the Nation was not as indignant when Ruedon Eversley, as Editor of the Advocate was abused, threatened, hounded-down and eventually terminated during the 14 years of BLP rule. He too wrote to many of these agencies and received not one word of support from any quarter.”

    Surely Thompson jests.

    Thompson may not understand why the Nation did not support Eversley, but we do.

    We understand that the Nation and the Advocate are business competitors.

    Just as the DLP and the BLP are political competitors.

    Do we ever see any senior party officials publicly supporting those who belong to the other party?

    Surely Sir and Sir (both Davids) you jest.


  5. David, we could also add when it wasn’t sympathetic to the DLP! I never thought I would see the day when the Advocate was sympathetic to the DLP. It certainly wasn’t during the elections.

    Regarding the Reporter who was present, it is clear the Nation didn’t care! I read that the Prime Minister also said that they published the story and front page editorial without even calling anyone, least of all him, for a comment. They didn’t care. Simple.

    That appears to be unusual for the Nation and certainly gives csome credence to Henry’s position. It has dented the Nation’s reputation in my view. But, worse than that, is that the above statement by Thompson about Hartley Henry’s column also remains unchallenged.

    Now is that balance? Is that fair? Is that professional?


  6. J, why should David be jesting? The BAJ comprises reporters from both Advocate and the Nation. Isn’t it the principle that counts?


  7. “ Ruedon Eversley …too wrote to many of these agencies (the Police and IAPA and WPFC as well.) and received not one word of support from any quarter.”

    If Reudon wrote to the 3 agencies mentioned above and received not one word of support for any quarter, maybe it is because the 3 agencies in their excellent judgment realized that Eversley had no case.


  8. Thanks Veritas for responding to that fuzzy logic. By the way has the the Police and IAPA and WPFC responded to the Nation’s call?


  9. Exactly! And Carol Martindale?


  10. David, we are on the same track…

  11. Mash up & Buy back Avatar
    Mash up & Buy back

    Not surprising that J as in Journalist, which is the profession of kim young , does not see the salient points being raised in that article,that is the role of media practioners in a democracy,and whether or not journalists operating as political operatives should not be exposed and denounced.

    I suppose that article may be hitting to close to home given what is taking place at the Nation.


  12. My recollection is that the BAJ was dormant when Eversley was experiencing his difficulties.

    Surely no reasonable person can expect the Nation to support the Advocate, just as no reasonable person expects the BLP to support the DLP or the DLP to support the BLP.

    And David and David, both blog master and Prime Minister are reasonable people not so???


  13. Unlike you “J” if I was such an exalted personage, I wouldn’t deny it!

  14. Mash up & Buy back Avatar
    Mash up & Buy back

    So reudon Eversley was a worker at the advocate first before he was a journalist?

    The reason the nation and people like J and the others at the Nation did not support Eversley seems more to do with the fact that he is seen to be sympathetic to the DLP.

    Did the Nation denounce Owen Arthur for calling Terry Ally an indentured servant?

    Did the journalistic fraternity upbraid owen arthur when he went on the floor and sought to publicly humiliate a fellow journalist and then columnist Irene Sandiford-Garner?

    Look this is double standards through and through and pure crocodile tears by carol martindale and the Nation hierachy.


  15. mash up and buy back wrote “Not surprising that J as in Journalist, which is the profession of kim young”

    Dear mash etc.

    I am not a journalist.

    I am not a member of BAJ, and I’ve never been a member of BAJ

    I am not a member of the BLP.

    I am not a member of the DLP.

    I’ve never worked for the Advocate, nor for the Nation.

    And you know what’s coming next…

    I am NOT Kim J. Young.

    I am just a very, very ordinary observer of Barbadian life.


  16. The person protesteth too much! should I say lady?


  17. Dear Veritas:

    If you’ll send me your address I’ll send you my birth certificate.

    And I can assure you that Kim J. Young nor none such ain’t written on it?


  18. I am just a very, very ordinary observer of Barbadian life.


  19. And protests again!


  20. What would be written on it? “J”?


  21. J

    Hee!!!, hee!!!, hee!!!


  22. But I’ll go now and let the political heavy weights weigh in.

  23. Mash up & Buy back Avatar
    Mash up & Buy back

    Thanks for reminding us of that truth Carson Cadogan.

  24. Carson C. Cadogan Avatar

    People seem to forget that the Nation newspaper was started by Barbados Labour Party investors back in 1973.

    The Nation newspaper has never been nor will it ever be in the DLP’s corner.

    So all who is hoping that the Nation newspaper will ever be fair to the DLP need their head examining. The Nation newspaper was set up to propel the Barbados Labour Party back into office, I think it was in 1976 and it worked like a charm.

    From then on it was always a battle between the Democratic Labour Party and the Nation newsper and it continues to this day. It is not going to change.

    The Nation newspaper’s mandate is not to be of service to the DLP only the BLP. Do not expect the Nation newspaper to do anything or say anything when any high ranking member of the BLP refer to their staff as “Negrocrat” or Indentured servant” or any derogatory term.

    Also take a look at starcom. The first thing they did after the last general election was to get rid of “Lil Rick” using the flimsiest of excuses. We all know that “Lil Rick” campaigned hard for the DLP.

  25. Right on, Veritas Avatar

    Veritas is dead right about Allard’s connection to BFP. As far back as July 29, 2009, someone with the handle of “10 to 1” wrote the following on the DLP Blog:

    “I agree, tricia. And a bit “off topic”, but still with Graeme Hall in mind, I watched the P.M.’s Press Conference last night (Tuesday, July 28) and I say, well done, Thompy.
    What made me think of Graeme Hall (he only vaguely mentioned it) was the thought that even as Mr. Thompson was greeting his media guests at Ilaro Court, the (M)allard duck (akaBFP) must have been jumping up and down, squawking “Liar! Liar! Despotic liar!” Watch for the next episode of BFP, folks.”

    [(M)allard duck – rather clever, that!
    Again, on August 27, 2009, 10 to 1 makes reference to BFP as follows:]

    “10 to 1
    August 27, 2009 at 9:26 pm
    Barbados Free Press, in its infinite wisdom(???!) informed everyone on its blog that nothing had been written on the DLP blog since January, 2008, but someone corrected them, and still they claimed they were right!
    Now, up comes Mr. Hants (you don’t know who he is? Think of a pipe, a red rose and filthy pornographic books), the A-licking wimp, with the following statement on BFP:

    “Hants
    August 28, 2009 at 12:56 am
    Why do we need a blog when we have the best blog in Barbados. BFP is the best forum for us DLP supporters.”
    Don’t laugh!! (That is, if anyone is reading this). Now I suppose I shall have to wait a week before this is published!”

    [Well, actually yes, if you submit a comment to the DLP blog you have to be prepared to wait days before it is published. This is BAD.

    As to Desmond Bourne, I’m not in the least bit surprised at the revelation by Veritas. That D.B. is one NASTY piece of work, bar none. I glad BFP beak get brek – they’re definitely out to destroy certain people in Barbados, and the island itself.]


  26. What is not adding up is the fact a Nation Reporter was on the Henry end of the call and based on our sources has not corroborated the Martindale story. Why is this matter being allowed to stretch out? The reporter (we will not call her name) should be named as corroborating Martindale’s story or not, the public deserves to know because it has become a divisive issue at a time the country can ill afford.


  27. @ David// September 12, 2009 at 11:22 PM

    You stated……*What is not adding up is the fact a Nation Reporter was on the Henry end of the call and based on our sources has not corroborated the Martindale story.*

    I suggest…….Could this “Nation Reporter” supposedly being present not be a case of throwing “red herring” on the path? Another case of “smoke & mirrors”?


  28. what was the excuse to get rid of lil rick

    I was off island, did not hear a reason


  29. I have waded through every word of this. It was very heavy going and I agree with J, I would have been out of there in a very short time. Looks as if this man thought he was speaking to kindergarten.

    I don’t understand why someone in the position similar to that of an editor would make these remarks. Surely it is the job of such a person to not only dictate editorial policy, but also to decided what is published. Seems to me that this man is simply complaining because he has to (or more likely has failed to) read everything (or hear everything) and political positions contrary to his own have been expressed because he wasn’t doing his job and he is getting it in the neck from his political masters.

    All he is saying is “Let’s be nice to the PM and the Government”. Kind of like the song at the end of WWII “Don’t be beastly to the Germans”.

    I am also concerned by the evident bias in favour of the government. Governments and their members surely by now accept it as part of their jobs to be attacked in the press. That is the function of a fourth estate.

    I’m afraid I just don’t understand and this speech looks to me like a party political broadcast.

    The self-serving comments of the Nation about why it would not allow Hartley Henry to write and have his articles published in the Nation after the DLP got into office are unreal. Most countries are happy to publish articles by prominent public-office holders. While he was PM of the UK, Tony Blair published many such in the press and in Canada the same is true of the Canadian PM and other prominent officers of the state. The reasons by the Nation to cancel Mr Henry’s access as a writer to its pages is transparent, biased and silly -like its editor.

    The melancholy truth is that Barbados needs an unbiased press – all small countries do (and rarely manage to get one). And the only such that we have is BU. BFP (aka the Mallard, Heaslet, Loveridge, Jane the Insane and their cronies) are as biased as hell and Mr Ian Bourne (also, in my view, one of BFP’s directing minds) well, I believe someone said that he calls himself Airbourne because all he has between his ears is air.

    These days, I simply scan the Advocate – I refuse to waste the money to buy the Nation – and then I read about the real issues that confront Barbados here on BU. I suspect that Thompy does the same.

  30. mash up & buy back Avatar
    mash up & buy back

    Anon@4:30 a.m.

    After reading your post I went back and checked the article and you are not correct.

    The person giving the speech is the chairman of the media house,something quite different from an editor wouldn’t you say?


  31. David

    HH essentially corroborated the story by virtue of his next article in BU outing the the two Nation staffers so the balance of “evidence” suggests that the conversation essentially went the way the Nation bosses said.

    I don’t know anything from the inside of the story but a number of things don’t compute;

    Why was a Nation staffer at the calling end of the story and in a position to corroborate HH’s side?

    Was the Nation staffer taking notes or recording the HH side of the conversation?

    Why would a Nation staffer take a position diametricaaly opposite to his/her bosses?

    What reasonable scenario would you suggest is likely to explain how a Nation staffer was with HH and CHRIS SINCKLER when HH made the call?

    Was he/she there on behalf of the Nation or on behalf of the DLP?

    Was he/she understudying HH?

    Was he/she at odds, for whatever reason, with the Nation head honchos?

    I read the article above with great interest as it puts a more reasonable side to the PM’s reported reaction to the issue. I was not aware of some of the facts that suggest that the Nation was definitely against the DLP. But if that bias was known to all at the Nation and the DLP it again seems to suggest that a Nation staffer at the calling end of the famous conversation is somewhat of an anomaly that should be explained.


  32. @mash up & buy back // September 13, 2009 at 6:18 AM. You are correct. My apologies. Tired and overworked is my excuse. However, is the message any less biased and do my comments lose their validity because of it? Other, of course, than the comment that he can exercise editorial control – which clearly he cannot and I vacate that, thanks to your having pointed it out, but stand by the rest of it. Thanks for pointing out my error.


  33. Quoting Prime Minister Thompson “I remind you that Comrade DaSilva’s column is his column and does not purport to represent the views of the Party.”

    Someone should tell the Prime Minister that all of us stopped believing in Santa Claus long, long ago. And that some of us never ever believed in Santa Claus (certainly I was never a believer) and that we do not believe in fairy stories.

    In spite of what the PM writes we KNOW that when Frank Da Sliva writes he is PURE DLP.


  34. Quoting the Chairman of Citidel LImited “In the case of radio stations, you are at their mercy in getting a tape for your evidence.”

    I don’t know the Chairman, but I expect that he is a big boy long past the age of 18.

    Surely he must understand that it is HIS RESPONSIBILITY to make and keep his own tapes. Why should any media house do his work for him?

    And surely any politician or political operative over the age of 18 understands the same thing.


  35. j u r a bow wow


  36. Quoting Prime Minister David Thompson

    “I understand that Mr. Henry’s alleged conversation took place in the presence of three people: The Honourable Christopher Sinckler, Mrs. Natasha King (my Press Secretary) and a reporter of the Nation newspaper.”

    If the Nation reporter was present at Mr. Henry’s end of the conversation surely the Nation would be aware of this. Any sensible person knows that reporters are supervised by editors and in order to ensure proper supervision the Nation editorial team would have to be aware that the reporter was with Mr. Henry. If the Nation was not so aware, if for example the reporter was off duty, then why was the reporter with Mr. Henry? Is the reporter perhaps Mr. Henry’s friend? Is the reporter perhaps a DLP operative? If the reporter is Mr. Henry’s friend/DLP operative then is it not clear that Mr. Henry is a biased as he accuses the Nation of being?

    And surely it is clear even to a blind person that such a reporter would have compromised his journalistic integrity.

    Do we really want a free, vigorous and unbiased press? Or do we want to have reporters in our corners and newspapers in our pockets?

    Because in truth we cannot have it both ways.

    Immediately after the election the Advocate switched sides.

    Immediately after the election Barbados Underground became a rabid supporter of the DLP.

    I would not say that the Advocate is pro-DLP. I wold not say that Barbados Underground is pro-DLP.

    I would certainly say that both the Advocate and Barbados Underground are pro-PIP

    PIP=Party In Power.

    Now there is nothing wrong with supporting the PIP but you can’t support the PIP and at the same time pretend to be unbiased.

    Wunna got my head hot this morning. I should have gone to church instead.


  37. Anonymous wrote on September 13, 2009 at 9:25 AM…”j u r a bow wow”

    Thanks.

    If you don’t like the message, curse the messenger.


  38. I hate it when big men get on as though they are in labor or as though they are having a bad period or something.

    I hate the belly aching.

    Big men should be able to take criticism and still stand erect.

    Otherwise in my books they ain’t real men at all.


  39. Silly billies. No media is independent. The owners and writers all have their own agendas, including those on this blog. Your say you do not? Remember the calypso ‘lie’? Dat is lie!


  40. @J

    What it is you defending?

    I have had occasion to be interviewed by journalist who send me a copy of their article to ensure they got the facts correct. The problem is that when I see the story published, having made corrections of facts (not editorial) the stories were in worse condition than when it was first sent to me by the journalists in question.

    What happened? The Editor, in their quest to limit the size of certain stories, cut up and chopped up the story to fit into a pre-determined space. So even though the journalist got the story right, it all came out wrong.

    Hence, I too am wary about speaking to the press and it is not about the competence of the journalist, but the savagery of its editor.

    Having been a journalist myself, I know how the integrity and professionalism of the individual journalist is compromised by unscrupulous editors and the poor journalist has to swallow and take it at the expense of their reputation or possibly lose their pick.

    Once upon a time you could have challenged a journalist directly for his/her mistakes but not now; that is the sole domain of the editor. I could just imagine that a journalist turned up and finds CS and HH and they are telling the journalist that they would like to see the poll on the front page of the Nation and the journalist telling them that they would have to speak to the editor. Hence the phone call in the presence of the Nation reporter.

    Only my take.


  41. @Doffie

    If everybody did not have agendas we would hardly be able to compromise.

    Take a ridiculous example. There is a pint and a half of whisky to drink. I want all and you want all but I have to drive so I let you have all. Compromise achieved; you die and I stay alive; the possible alternative is that we all die.

    Agendas!


  42. In spite of what the PM writes we KNOW that when Frank Da Sliva writes he is PURE DLP.
    ___________

    J, why are you tring to prove you are an idiot. The point of the entire post is that no newspaper/journalist is entirely objective far less a columnist.

    Of course we all know frank DaSilva is a Dem – but his column, according to what you just quoted from the Prime Minister, does not represent the views of the DLP.

    It is possible for a Dem or a Bee to have views that are different from their party. Have you ever heard of that? Or to perform a role that is not representative of their party.

    When Mia Mottley goes to court, does she go as a BLP? Come on.

    Do you intend to prove that you are sillier than we all know you are?


  43. Journalists, who are also talk show hosts spend much time criticizing the Prime Minster, and two minutes later put on a ‘news hat’ to read the news. Such people must decide if they wish to be ‘talk show hosts’ or journalists – particularly when so many of their utterances are anti-government and Anti-the Prime Minister.

    There is some merit in the Chairman of Citadel’s position that journalists and media workers should not be talk show hosts e.g. David Ellis, Stetson Babb, Dennis Johnson et al. It’s not to say that they are not capable but it compromises their professional integrity. The reason why VOB does it is to save money because the employees are salaried and Vic does not have to pay extra compared to the Tony Marshalls, Monroe-Knights et al. The irony is Vic continues to drive his luxury vehicles while people go home.

    Now to the Nation. We remember Harold Hoyte on TV and radio shows sharing opinions on the issues in his capacity as Publisher. He wrote articles to support his reporters and was head of many regional media organizations. What do we have now?


  44. Quoting Veritas “It is possible for a Dem or a Bee to have views that are different from their party. ”

    Dear Veritas:

    Do you (and or the Prime Minister and or David the blog master) really want us to believe that Frank Da Silva’s WRITTEN and PUBLISHED political views are different from those of his DLP party?

    If wunna want us to believe this then wunna must provide EVIDENCE.

    And I am not half as silly as you want to believe.


  45. Dear Veritas et al:

    “Big men should be able to take criticism and still stand erect. Otherwise in my books they ain’t real men at all.”


  46. Quoting Prime Minister Thompson

    “Likewise when journalists were directly called by Prime Minister Arthur and abused in a most offensive way”

    I hate to think that any journalist anywhere would continue to listen when anybody starts to curse, Prime Minister or no Prime Minister. Any journalists worth his or her salt would hang up and unplug the phone at the first curse word. And it does not matter whether the curser is a D or B Prime Minister.

    If this is done consistently then PM’s would learn fast enough that if you curse you DO NOT GET A HEARING.

    I know that NOBODY can


  47. call and curse J.

    At the first curse word I hang up.


  48. @J
    “Any journalists worth his or her salt would hang up and unplug the phone at the first curse word.”

    I could see that you looking for a heated debate on this subject. Now hanging up the phone is very unprofessional and arrogant. If a customer walks into a store cussing in anger at faulty goods, that customer is merely venting and we know that the formula for that is to try to sympathise with the customer’s complaint or circumstances. It is a human thing.

    What makes the press any different… and what is this thing that if anybody cuss you hang up the phone and get on your high horse so that you can find an excuse to side step an issue?

    I read a comment from you which you repeated twice. Consider this, if a man stands “erect” after being criticised (or humiliated) it may very well be his intention to hurt rather than satisfy.

  49. mash up & buy back Avatar
    mash up & buy back

    Don’t bother with J,she just trying a ‘bonny peppa’,with that ‘erect’ remark.

    It ain’t cutting it though.

    Bonny is an original,any other is counterfeit.


  50. J

    Any journalists worth his or her salt would hang up and unplug the phone at the first curse word. And it does not matter whether the curser is a D or B Prime Minister
    *************************************

    I agree with J on the above, if you want to have a discussion with me I expect civility not ranting and raving and cussing because of an opinion expressed which may be contrary to the way you feels about the subject. A heated discussion is one thing but the moment you start cussing me the phone would be slammed down. The problem is that journalists in Barbados are too afraid of anyone in authority so they suffer in silence.

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

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

Continue reading