BIAS IN THE NEWSPAPERS

I have complained about this before. But, quite frankly it is now on the verge of becoming a little offensive. Look, I honestly and truly don't mind what political party you support or even what religion you follow, so long as you are honest and straight forward in your beliefs. I really don't care if a newspaper ... any newspaper ... wants to support a particular political party. Heck! Newspapers have rights just as ordinary citizens do. But a man called C.P. Scott published the following letter in the Manchester Guardian on 6th May, 1926 and it is important that we read it and understand exactly what it says:
             
"The newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly, and its first duty is to shun the temptations of monopoly. Its primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply of news is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation, must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free but facts are sacred."

Our own Trinidad Guardian clearly wants the PNM to win the August general election and is hell bent on trying as subtly (and not so subtly) to do everything in its power to achieve that result. Now, there is nothing wrong with that! Indeed, as a (corporate) citizen of this country the Guardian has every right to prefer one side over the other.

My quarrel with 'the old lady of St. Vincent Street' is that it pretends to be neutral when it so clearly is not. Don't believe me? Then can you explain why the erstwhile newspaper chose as its front page headline on Saturday the very silly argument about whether the Leader of the Opposition said 'black' instead of 'blank' when the nation's highest court, the Privy Council, had delivered a judgement concerning the Malcolm Jones matter where the present Government had discontinued a case designed to show that the deceased Mr. Jones together with his other colleagues on the board of Petrotrin had made some disastrous decisions that cost the company (and the country) several billion US dollars? There has been an absolute silence on this Privy Council (PC) decision and it is almost as if it simply either doesn't exist or is most unimportant. But, today's editorial in the Guardian is happy to repeat an old story about allegations of serious fraud in the EMBD involving (now) opposition politicians.

"...Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give ..." And so, is it not a reasonable question to ask: why is that newspaper not giving this PC judgement the prominence that it ought? Or is the newspaper right, this ain't very important.

I'm sorry.  But for me, at least, the evidence is clear: the Guardian wants the PNM to win and it is not neutral. Again, let me stress that there is nothing wrong with that! What is wrong is the PRETENSE that it is neutral. And that is my objection.