Submitted by David Alleyne
I have read the rubbish published in the Daily Nation by a journalist who boasts the same name, appropriately, as a certain brand of decaffeinated coffee. Appropriately, because it promotes the idea that one is drinking real coffee, but denies the buzz or bite or essence. So, let us take Mr Fake Coffee’s dissertation to pieces.
The thrust of Mr Fake Coffee’s rambling is that the blogs (or social media) are not held to the same high standards of journalistic integrity as he, he claims, is. So, “journalistic integrity” is Mr Fake Coffee’s new buzz word for sloth and failure to report anything and for hiding behind his other favourite buzz phrase, “sub judice”, even when the matter is NOT sub judice, but “fair comment”?
THERE ARE TWO things that I have learnt from my job as a journalist – one is that the truth is not as simple and straightforward as it is sometimes presented to be, and secondly, that you don’t know who is connected to whom, so you’re never quite sure that what you’re being told is the truth.
He fails to add that, in Barbados at any rate, any sort of investigative journalism is the province of the blogs and must never be permitted to tarnish the face of the “fourth estate”.
Because of this, something that sounds plausible – especially if it involves a conspiracy theory and certain high-profile individuals – could turn out to be a total untruth.
True to form and to local “journalistic” practice, Mr Fake Coffee has taken 82 words to say absolutely nothing.
That’s why as journalists we like to get hold of documents to back up whatever information we hear. That evidence not only helps us to separate fact from fiction but ensures that we can prove what we have stated if we’re called on do so in a court of law.
So, let me get this right. BU posts masses of documents about a trumped up case in Canada that cost Barbados and certain high-profile Bajans millions of dollars to defend and which called the integrity of the sovereignty of Barbados into question, seeking to make it a vassal of some Ontario court and Mr Fake Coffee publishes NOTHING in his Valhalla of journalism.
Mr Fake Coffee continues:
But even with those documents we still seek comment from the party(ies) involved to ensure that what we publish is fair comment and balanced.
The use of the word “party(ies)” is interesting. Presumably Mr Fake Coffee has heard of a case where there is only one side and therefore he is suggesting this. Or maybe it is far more ominous and that Mr Fake Coffee only ever listens to the side on which his agenda and that of his employers lies. Journalistic impartiality at its best.
There then follows the usual nonsense about the irresponsibility of the blogs, in order to distract attention from the almost treasonous irresponsibility of Mr Fake Coffee and his colleagues for reporting NOTHING.
Mr Fake Coffee then comes to the real crux of his matter. Although he doesn’t say so, he and his “outlet” that publishes his rubbish are totally pissed off because the blogs, specifically BU, raised the Ishmael/Sparman issue and allowed the public, untrammelled by party-political-journalistic propaganda, to discuss the issue, inform themselves and receive expert opinions from people like Doc GP who are intimate with and have worked within the system. The blogs published Dr Ishmael’s letter and with it allowed Bajans of all walks of life to verify its claims via official sites, the source and provenance of which is undisputed. No wonder Mr Fake Coffee is so pissed off. It goes against the very tenant of Bajan journalism, which is, “Thou shalt keep the public in ignorance.”
Mr Fake Coffee then provides his own expert legal opinion on the tort of defamation. He states:
Some of you may argue that Barbados’ defamation laws are archaic……
Well, our former CJ, David Simmons, in about 1994 when he was Attorney General, changed the libel laws of this country; but then again maybe Mr Fake Coffee is saying that Simmons himself was archaic, resulting in archaic new laws.
He labours on, without benefit of caffeine, thus:
……and the media should have licence to expose more things even though they may not have all the documental evidence to support claims. But as I indicated earlier, the truth in an issue is not always as straightforward as presented.
What the hell is “documental”? Is this a caffeine-free coffee-ism for “documentary” or “documented”? Only the caffeine-free can answer that one. But, don’t. None of us care.
He then makes a stab at an exercise that he is really not at all practiced in. That of journalistic impartiality. Forget the window dressing and let us go directly to this sorry attempt:
The doctor is now seeking an apology from the board for how they handled this matter and is going to court to get it.
followed by
If what Ishmael wrote defamed Sparman and Inniss as the last two claim, then these gentlemen have a right to defend their good name.
No shit, Sherlock! And what about the deeper issues? Alleged fraud, threats to the health of the people of Barbados, a cabinet minister who is alleged to have interfered to remove a patient covered by insurance from a public hospital and into private care from a recognised professional into the hands of one whom it is alleged has falsified his qualifications, all in defiance of the express wishes of the patient’s wife?
And after saying, “these gentlemen have a right to defend their good name,” referring to Sparman and Inniss, he clearly thinks that they are indivisible with only ONE name to defend. Interesting. VERY!!
The best part of Mr Fake Coffee’s entire essay is:
We may never learn the real facts on why this matter was handled in the way it was.
He is guilty of omission here and I propose that he tell the Bajan public the truth by putting in the words he clearly edited out, so that the sentence reads:
We may never learn the real facts on why this matter was handled in the way it was, if you rely on the Nation or on my reportage, but you will be able to learn the real facts if you read them on the blogs.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.