From time to time I am amazed by the shameless refusal of Barbados’ two oldest media houses – The Advocate newspaper and the Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation’s (CBC) radio and television stations – to carry certain news stories which reflect adversely on some aspect of Government’s performance.
The latest example came last Monday. A Supreme Court judge ruled that the former director of the Urban Development Corporation, Mr George Edghill, was wrongfully dismissed from his post by the Democratic Labour Party Prime Minister on February 7, 2008, right after its first Cabinet meeting.
The judge ruled the dismissal “reprehensible in the extreme” and awarded him $809 744.43. It was a victory in the words of part of The Advocate’s ancient mantra “’gainst the wrongs that need resistance”. To his credit he had the courage to fight the state power in the law court. The decision reinforced the fact that Barbadian courts will fearlessly dispense justice against all comers.
The court report was the Front Page lead story in Tuesday’s DAILY?NATION and top story on Voice Of Barbados’ major newscast at 5.30 p.m. Both The Advocate and CBC normally carry news stories from the courts. Yet in this landmark case they both suppressed the news in a style more befitting a totalitarian regime than a robust democratic state.
The logic seems self evidently political when a story considered so eminently newsworthy that it leads two media houses, is completely ignored by the other two. We must give thanks that we live in a multimedia society.
The enabling fodder of all news media is news. Responsible media houses publish, in the words of one journal of international repute, “all the news that’s fit to print”. News is the oxygen of journalism. In democratic societies, the population is the beneficiary of reading, hearing and seeing the news.
So why would these two media houses which ride side by side when they consider it helpful to hide news rather than report it, deliberately suppress important news which sets a useful example for the average citizen and reinforces the fact that one vital arm of our democratic system is functioning?
It was a terrible wrong that needed resistance and Mr Edghill had the good sense and fortitude to mount his case against the fledgling Government – palpably wet behind the ears, which in a display of triumphalism used its considerable power against a senior public officer perceived to be well thought of by the out-going Government
This experience sent me back to George Orwell’s novel 1984. We must give thanks that the private sector media houses VOB and THE NATION are professionally staffed and prepared to stand in the way of Orwell’s Big Brother Ministry of Truth and Newspeak, the official language.
People wonder why The Advocate, the “old lady of Fontabelle”, in publication for over a century and private sector funded and CBC, a consistently heavy loss maker Government-funded, considered it necessary to suppress news reflecting negatively on the Democratic Labour Party and its Government?
Was back-scratching mutuality at work? There is a major contradiction in media houses in democratic societies keeping a normally well informed, highly literate population factually ignorant by deliberately suppressing a major news story compromising the raison d’être of journalism.
Through time media houses have provided easily accessible, tangible records of social movement, change and a broad spectrum of other happenings. They also exercise checks and balances on excesses and abuses of power.
At a very significant level, media houses across the globe are courted and feared because of the considerable political muscle they exercise.
Barbados is no different. With a general election around the corner, it is obvious that The Advocate and CBC will spare no effort to be politically partisan throwing their full weight behind the DLP. But that should not be at any price.
The one-hour prime-time broadcast by CBCTV of the speech by the party president, Prime Minister Freundel Stuart, at its annual convention was an unmistakable signal on the political radar that this state corporation will pull out all of the stops to ensure that the ruling party is not short of TV exposure.
There is a rule well known internationally of equal broadcast time for major political parties. In the current environment it makes no sense wondering whether in the spirit of balance and equity the president of the Barbados Labour Party will be given similar exposure at its upcoming annual conference.
The unbridled political partisanship of CBC calls into question the role of the management, board and senior staff. Is there no one in the boardroom or among the professional staff who can argue persuasively for a less partisan, more professional approach?
Following this latest suppression, the court reporters there and at The Advocate will understand that the public will judge them as pliable putty people in the hands of ruthless political manipulators.
• Peter Simmons, a social scientist, is a former diplomat.
