TRUTHS, HALF TRUTHS AND FAKE NEWS

"The newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly, and its first duty is to shun the temptations of a monopoly. Its primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply 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."
Manchester Guardian, 6th May, 1926
C.P. Scott 1846 - 1932


I have put the above quote at the beginning of this post because I am fed up with all three of our daily newspapers who like to pretend that they are unbiased and present the facts fairly. They are all biased and they do NOT present the facts on almost any political issue fairly. Read the above quote again.  Probably the worst offender is the country's oldest newspaper, the Trinidad Guardian. There are a whole host of reports that can be high lighted ranging from the sea bridge to Petrotrin, but for the sake of brevity this post will concentrate on only one by way of example.
 The "venerable" newspaper that is the Guardian had two articles on the Grenville housing project this morning. In the first article headed "CAMILLE: PNM DIDN'T BUILD  GRENVILLE" it reports that the Planning Minister in response to criticisms about the flooding at that Government housing site has sought to put the blame on the Opposition UNC for building the project. But the article reports no fact checking that the Minister's statements are inaccurate to say the least. The fact is that the PNM when the present Prime Minister was Housing Minister approved and built the project DESPITE warnings from the experts that it could flood. The UNC Government under then Prime Minister Persad Bissessar completed the project and distributed the houses. Now, THAT IS the truth. But I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the Guardian will defend the article on the ground that it was reporting accurately what the Minister said! To which the answer is in the above quote "...nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong." But the "unclouded face of truth" in the Guardian article does suffer wrong precisely because it does not report the WHOLE truth. And it is a truism that a half truth is often more dangerous than a lie.


But  it isn't as if the Guardian doesn't know the truth, for in an editorial this morning headlined "KEEP POLITICS OUT OF GRENVILLE" this bastion of the "free press" (and, yes, those words are deliberately put in quotation marks ... I am being sarcastic) says "... As we understand it, there were warnings about proceeding with the development in the first place since the area had the risk of flooding."


To which the logical questions are : really? And when were those warnings given? By whom and to whom were they given? Who was the Housing Minister at the time? Who made the decision to go ahead? When was that decision to go ahead made? And why have you not put this in the report on Camille's rather disingenuous statements?


I'm sure you get the point. Look: I genuinely don't mind if the Guardian (or any of the other newspapers for that matter) has a bias in favour of the present Government. Heck! That is their constitutional right! What I am against is the PRETENSE that they are not biased when all of the evidence suggests that they are. This pretense is as dangerous as it is dishonest. It is dangerous because many unsuspecting persons will be persuaded that something is right when it is so obviously wrong. It is dangerous because this is how a dictatorship begins ... slowly creeping and controlling the media so that only reports favourable to those in power (whoever "they" might be) are published.


I have deliberately not discussed the other two newspapers in this post ... it would make it too long. But a casual examination of their reporting will show up similar problems and discrepancies in the reporting of the news and the lack of transparency. And the sooner that we call out these newspapers the better!

THE DAILY BIAS IN TRINIDAD'S NEWSPAPERS

It is practically impossible to see anything that is bipartisan or in the best interests of the country in any of the daily newspapers in Trinidad & Tobago. Over the weekend and in the face of devastating floods in the country affecting thousands of people the Guardian had a lead story on its front page about a family who believed that evil spirits had entered their home and had caused a member of the family to commit suicide. Honestly! You can't make this up! That was the lead story in this country's old newspaper with the flooding taking second place to this "news". Why the editors thought that this was real news has not been explained. One might be forgiven for thinking that the editors did not want to highlight any news which might (however remotely) make the Government look bad. And nobody could blame the Government for evil spirits!


Then, not to be outdone, the Express in an editorial this morning has criticized the Opposition for walking out of the Senate on Monday. What apparently happened was that the Opposition had suggested that the debate on the country's budget be postponed so that the Senators could go out and assist those persons affected by the devastating floods. It seems that Minister Franklin Khan  the Leader of Government Business in the Senate initially agreed ((according to news reports) and then for no reported reason changed his mind and said that the debate had to go on. The Opposition Senators took umbrage at this and said that the people were more important than the debate and then walked out.


The Express editorial accuses the Opposition Senators of grandstanding and says " ... to stage a walk-out in the Senate, where none of its members has direct responsibility to persons in any specific constituency was simply an exercise in despoliation. Nothing could have been gained from it. There was no point to be made in this fashion, except to further entrench in the minds of more citizens the emptiness behind many a political maneuver by those elected or selected to represent the people's interest."


To which, I say "what?" Read that quote again. What exactly is the editorial saying? In plain language I understand it to mean that politicians do not need to go out to physically help people in distress and in any event, especially where they do not represent a specific area of the country. There are persons whose jobs are to do just that. The politicians serve better by staying in Parliament or their air conditioned and comfortable offices and "direct" relief efforts.


A friend reminded me of the old story of the old man and his grandson walking along a beach. The old man picked up a starfish that had been washed ashore by the waves, and threw it back into the sea. The young boy asked him why he did that saying that it wouldn't make a difference to anything. 'That's true,' the old man replied, 'but it makes a big difference to the starfish!'


Maybe the politicians who have donned tall boots, gone into boats and helped to collect and distribute food, blankets and other much needed supplies haven't made a big difference in the overall scheme of things. But I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that they made a huge difference to those people that they did help.


No, Mr. Khan and no, Mr. anonymous Express editor who is very happy to write this drivel and not own up to it preferring the comfortable anonymity of the editorial, there is such a thing called 'empathy'. Even if assuming though not accepting that there was grandstanding by the Opposition Senators, my question is: were they right to ask for an adjournment so that everybody (Government as well as Opposition) could go out and help the stricken? And if they were right to ask, what is the problem? Why not go out to help people? Unless, of course, there was an underlying fear that acceding to such a request might have made the Opposition look good. In other words, the Government's interests come before the people's. By no means should the Opposition ever be acknowledged to be right on anything!

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

What's wrong with this picture? UWI students, concerned for their safety and security mounted a protest demonstration late yesterday (Thursday) afternoon on the St. Augustine campus. They were clamouring for greater security. So somebody (probably the very university administration responsible for the students' safety and security) called the police who obligingly came and broke up the demonstration!


Now, if you think that there is nothing wrong with this picture then I really have nothing to say to you, for I think that it is so obviously wrong that it ought not to take a lot of words to prove it; and the old saying, 'a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still' would apply to you. You see nothing wrong with calling police to break up a demonstration where the students are demanding that the university authorities provide them with greater security?!? If that's what you think then I can only shake my head in deep sadness and say that now I understand what is really wrong with this country of ours.


There is a most unfortunate attitude that is often on display by persons in authority in this country. I call it a neo-colonialist attitude. In the "good old days" before 1956 there were two rules:
Rule 1 was that Massa was always right.
Rule 2 was that when Massa was wrong refer back to Rule 1.
Now that Massa has gone our present rulers slavishly ape all the things that he used to do and they insist on making sure that Rules 1 and 2 still apply. All that has changed is the colour of Massa's skin. They are in charge and therefore no damned dog has a right to bark! And guess who is the dog? That's right: us!! (Please remember Rule 2)


No. Even if the students went a little overboard yesterday (and I don't know whether they did or did not) the police action was extreme and uncalled for and should be condemned. We should also criticize the university authorities. It is not good enough for them to wash their hands like Pontius Pilate and say 'well, there's crime all over the country'. No. This is their balliwick ... their turf ... their students ... and they should do more to protect them. They should take responsibility.

WHY?

It is very difficult ... if not impossible ... to understand why things keep going wrong in Trinidad & Tobago. It is difficult to understand, of course, if you are looking for logical answers which do not point to some sort of corrupt practice of one kind or another.


Take for example, the free school holiday today for all public school children. The reason given in the newspapers is because the Trinidad & Tobago Union of Teachers (TTUTA) is having an all day conference today and it is important that all their members attend. Okay. But what is more important? A TTUTA inspired teachers' conference or the education of the children? And if both are equally important why couldn't this conference be held on a Saturday? Why should the children not be taught when it is time to teach? Is this a good reason to cancel school? If you think that it is, then why do you think that the conference should not heave been held on a Saturday when the children have no school.


Let's turn to the political theatre that is unfolding now between Dr. Rowley and Dr. Moonilal. Dr. Rowley held a press conference yesterday (Thursday) in which he slammed Dr. Moonilal's allegations as false and political mischief. His lawyer, who was by his side, is reported as saying that everything that Dr. Moonilal said or alleged was false.


The problem here is that everything is not false ... or at least, does not appear to be false. The facts (as reported) are:
              (1) the email is real;
              (2) the email was sent to the Prime Minister's cousin;
              (3) the email begins with the words "Good morning Honourable Prime Minister ..."


Now, there are some who say that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck that there is a fair  degree of certainty that it is a duck. So? Where are we with this? If Dr. Rowley was innocent of the charges then one would expect that he would protest his innocence all around the mulberry bush. But what if he was guilty? He wouldn't say "all yuh ketch me" and go quietly. He would more than likely also protest that he was innocent. The point here is that his protestations are natural and unfortunately take us nowhere nearer to the truth.


So, we now turn to the investigation by the relevant authorities that has been (quite properly) called for. The problem here is that when the emailgate saga exploded the same authorities launched an investigation which eventually ended some two years later with a whimper that seemed to suggest that the emails that (the same) Dr. Rowley had brandished in Parliament were faked. But nobody has been punished or called out for this. Why?


And now the very same authorities are being called on to investigate this A&V payment scandal. What confidence can the public have that these authorities will do their job fairly and impartially? And if you believe that they will, then why do you believe that? Do you believe that they did their job fairly in emailgate? If you do, then why do you believe that?


There are a few truisms here that hold firm when answering these questions: the first is that if you need more than one sentence to make your point then you cannot make it at all; you may need a paragraph, a chapter or even a whole book to explain your point, but you must be able to make your point in one sentence. The second thing to note is that when somebody is telling you something that you don't understand, ninety-nine percent of the time it is because he does NOT WANT you to understand; one percent of the time it is because HE doesn't understand what he is saying.


There are a whole host of other things that don't make sense; the issues with the Galleons Passage for example. There are too many questions surrounding the whole Petrotrin saga that haven't been properly answered ... and the list goes on.


So? What is it that they don't want us to understand? And, more importantly, WHY don't they want us to understand?