Barbados Underground vs Barbados Media

May 4, 2008 · 21 Comments

On January 18, 2008 the Barbados Media was charged in the Court of public opinion by BU (Plaintiff) and was found guilty by the Voices of the People in the Blogosphere. The battle by the PEOPLE against the Fourth Estate continues.

How can media practitioners in the twenty first century function in a world without an oversight body i.e. an association. Who said ‘united is strength’?
When David Ellis, Vic Fernandes, Albert Brandford, Ricky Sigh and a ‘very few’ others retire, who are the fresh young journalists waiting in the wings?
The Nation newspaper was a profitable entity, why was it sold?
The Advocate newspaper once attracted the title of venerable. Why shouldn’t the PEOPLE be allowed to access the archives of the Advocate to do research online?

A democracy cannot flourish if the Fourth Estate reneges on its role to society. Our media places heavy emphasis on reporting, some say regurgitating news from the international wires, but there is the advocacy role which is even more important.

Categories: Barbados Media · Barbados News · Barbados Press · Barbados Underground · Blogging · Journalism

21 responses so far ↓

David // May 5, 2008 at 5:59 AM

Relevant article was printed in the Advocate this morning. We commend them for doing so.

The media to blame
Web Posted – Mon May 05 2008
The media houses and organisations of Barbados ought to blame themselves for what they perceive as inadequate protection under the defamation laws of Barbados rather than accusing successive governments of skirting the issue. The Defamation Act has made some radical reforms to the defamation laws of Barbados and one of the beneficiaries has been the media. Its unfortunate that no parliamentarian on the Government or opposition benches in the present, or any past, Parliament, as far as I am aware, has publiclycommented on these changes.

A Press conference, for example, convened to discuss a matter of public concern is qualifiedly privileged. What this means is that once the matter under discussion is of undoubted public concern, the Press (including the broadcast media) is protected by qualified privilege if the information is accurately reported and without malice. If in those circumstances the information fed to the public turns out to be defamatory, the Press in the absence of malice is absolved from liability. Interestingly, the Act has retained the right to a jury for defamation despite its abolition in all other civil suits. This right to a jury trial in my opinion favours a defendant more so than a plaintiff. But thats not all.

In 2001 the House of Lords in the landmark decision of The Times Newspaper v Reynolds, (recognised in the Privy council decision of Bonnick v Margaret Morris et al) altered the common law principle of qualified privilege affording a defence of qualified privilege to media publications. The trend in this direction emanated in the speech of Chief Justice Lord Bingham in the same case at the state of the Court of Appeal. He said:

[W]e do not for an instant doubt that the common convenience and welfare of a modern plural democracy such as ours are best served by an ample flow of information to the public concerning, and by vigorous public discussion of, matters of public interest to the community. By that we mean matters relating to the public life of the community and those who take part in it, including within the expression public life activities such as the conduct of government and political life, elections ∧ public administration, but we use the expression more widely than that, to embrace matters which are personal and private& As it is the task of the news media to inform the public and engage in public discussion of matters of public interest, so is that to be recognised as its duty& We have no doubt that the public also have an interest to receive information on matters of public interest& published in a newspaper, so satisfying what we have called the interest test. In modern conditions the interest test should also, in our view, be rather more readily held to be satisfied.

Maintaining the common law position that there must be a duty to communicate the information disseminated and a corresponding interest in receiving it, the Court added a further test called the circumstantial test which poses the following question:

Were the nature, status and source of the material, and the circumstances of publication, such that the publication should in the public interest be protected in the absence of proof of express malice?

The plea of qualified privilege failed in the Reynolds case when the circumstantial test was applied, because the source from which the information accusing Mr. Reynolds of lying to Parliament originated was a member of Reynolds’ staff who had become his opponent. Moreover, the newspaper had not published Mr. Reynolds’ account to Parliament. The list of factors relevant to the issue of privilege in a media case was set out by Lord Nicholls in the House of Lords. There are:

1. The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.

2. The nature of the information, and the extent, and the extent to which the subject-matter is a matter of public concern.

3. The source of the information. Some informants have no direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their stories.

4. The steps taken to verify the information.

5. The status of the information. The allegation may have already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect.

6. The urgency of the matter. News is often a perishable commodity.

7. Whether comment was sought from the [person suing]. He may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the [person suing] will not always be necessary.

8. Whether the article contained the gist of the side of the story of [person suing].

9. The tone of the article. A newspaper can raise quires or call for an investigation. It need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.

10. The circumstances of the publication, including the timing.

It was test number 8 on which the defendant newspaper failed in Reynolds. In addition to the enshrined right to freedom of expression in the Constitution, the media in Barbados therefore have the same statutory protection under the Defamation Act of Barbados as that conferred on the media in the United Kingdom under the Defamation Act 1996 (UK), and more. Whereas a Press conference convened in Barbados to discuss a matter of public concern enjoys statutory qualified privilege, a Press conference convened in the United Kingdom for the same purpose isn’t afforded the same protection. Also, the common law rules applied by the courts in the United Kingdom are the same applied by Barbadian courts.

With all this protection, why, then, does the media feel that their hands are tied? The real problem is that the media have not played their part in the development of a Caribbean jurisprudence in the area of defamation law. Lord Nicholls has made it clear in his judgment in the House of Lords that the factors to be taken into account in determining whether privilege was available to a media publication were not exhaustive. He has envisioned that over time a valuable body of case law would develop to further clarify and extend the law.

However, whenever the media in Barbados have had the opportunity to add to that body of law of which Lord Nicholls speaks by seeking a resolution by our courts, they have showed cowardice.

The public has an interest in knowing how and by what means any prime minister, government minister or politician has accumulated any significant increase in wealth since entering office. As long as the media has concrete proof that in a short space of time on entering office any of these public figures are shown to be enjoying a lifestyle that is not commensurate with their salaries and allowances, the media could ask questions because. I submit, that the public has an interest in knowing, in the absence of integrity legislation, how they have come by their wealth. Was it by way of loan? A lottery? An inheritance? Or some other means? The question in itself is not defamatory.

Without event realizing it, the media are creating another source of easy money when they rush to settle matters such as the above and opening the floodgates for every Tom, Dick and Harry to take advantage.

Media managers must therefore give journalists the breathing space they rightly deserve by allowing the courts to decide matters in which there is clear doubt whether they are defamatory. Once the parameters are set by the courts, journalism as a profession will be a major beneficiary.
Carson C. Cadogan // May 5, 2008 at 7:33 AM

“Media managers must therefore give journalists the breathing space they rightly deserve by allowing the courts to decide matters in which there is clear doubt whether they are defamatory. Once the parameters are set by the courts, journalism as a profession will be a major beneficiary.”

This will never happen.
The Barbados media is in the hip pocket of the Barbados Labour Party. Especially the Nation Corporation. I recall when the Nation was first launch it was reported that the Nation was set up by Barbados Labour Party bigwigs. The Barbados Labour Party was being savaged by the Democratic Labour Party. A newspaper dedicated to the interests of the Barbados Labour Party was considered essential hence the Nation was born. People often wonder why the Nation and related companies constantly follow a Barbados Labour Party line. The answer is that they were set up by Barbados Labour Party operatives. They have little or no interest in seriously examinig Barbados Labour Party policies or programs. If by chance a “journalist” publishes something important and there is a threat to sue the corporation, it is quickly settled out of court. The reason being is to drive fear into the remaining “journalists” on staff. Case in point, DAVID ELLIS, after the Starcom paid muscle mary $70,000.00 or whatever the figure was, DAVID ELLIS became extremely self censoring and no other “journalist” at Starcom dared ask any more hard questions of any Barbados Labour Party Minister. The message was clearly sent to them. Hence the Barbados Labour Party was able to get away with all sorts of corruption.

It is my opinion that the “media” in Barbados is not relly interested in any revised defamation laws. They like things just the way there are. It offers them excuses.

They are the poorest bunch in the West Indies.
Pathetic // May 5, 2008 at 8:40 AM

Obviously this blog is run by a deranged idiot.

Check yourself in to the psychiatric hospital ASAP.
John // May 5, 2008 at 9:09 AM

Pathetic

Deranged idiots are rarely found in the Psychiatric Hospital. We meet them every day as we get on with our lives.

Even a madman is not necessarily found in the Psychiatric Hospital, … ask Malik.
Yardbroom // May 5, 2008 at 11:23 AM

If it is as Chief Justice Lord Bingham has said:

,,,”It is the task of the News Media to inform the public and engage in public discussion of matters of public interest”…

Then it can be advanced that the Barbados News Media have failed its readers and listeners.

The questions that naturally follow are, how have they failed, and why?

By way of example: During the recent case of illegal Chinese immigrants in Barbados – under the previous Administration – you would have thought that journalists would have sought an interview with a prominent minister, to get a detailed explanation as to the status of the immigrants, and who gave them permission to be in Barbados. A question of this nature is reasonable, and in the public interest, considering the prominence immigration and work permits have become in Barbados. (There is a difference between a “searching interview” and just answering simple questions.)

It would appear the press was afraid or unwilling to ask detailed questions, as a result rumour and half truths were given free rein, the result being an impression was given of no officer, department or Minister being in charge… or if they were, they were not answerable to the public.

I know not who the owner of the Nation newspaper is, and will not hazard a guess here, but on the face of it, it appears that the hard investigative journalism readers expect of a national daily is missing in Barbados.

If the previous statement seems harsh on journalists, I will temper it by admitting there is a certain constraint which Barbadian journalists operate under, and I am not so cavalier in my reasoning not to understand that. I am sure there are senior journalists who sit at their desks and ponder, if only I could write this or that but they cannot… and be employed further.

It is not unusual for newspaper proprietors to seek to influence events, through the purchase of media outlets, it happens all over the world. The difference in Barbados is, that what can be considered normal investigative journalism is stifled, as there is not a broad spread of different opinions.

Often the news is just a recording of events with different names and dates inserted as appropriate, breavity prevents a detailed examination of why this is the case, but we have a peculiar institution in Barbados which ever so often reinvents itself in the same form in.

We do not realize how constrained we are, but abnormality can become normal, if it is practiced long enough, and that is all you know.

With that in mind reinforced by Chief Justice Bingham’s words, it would be difficult not to conclude that the Barbados News Media has failed in their task to “inform the public and engage in public discussion of matters of public interest.”
Bajan // May 5, 2008 at 6:19 PM

The journalists need to put themselves in a position where there presence is expected. At they moment they are being tolerated.
Carson C. Cadogan // May 5, 2008 at 7:34 PM

All the people in Barbados want the fourth estate to do, is do your job without fear or favor. Nothing more nothing less.

Quit being public relations agents. Call to account all politicians whether B or D. We the people entrust them with our hard earn tax dollars, make sure that they are squeaky clean or make one hell of a fuss if they are not.

If this was done in the past we would not have had a situation where the BLP ran up cost over runs to the tune of one billion dollars.

It pains me to think what this one billion dollars could have done for this beautiful island of ours.

Moral turpitude within the BLP made decent people sick to their stomachs had the fourth estate been more forthright they would have been removed long time ago.
Chris Halsall // May 5, 2008 at 8:59 PM

If I May…

Let me please quote from the Barbados Daily Nation (AKA Nation News AKA NationNews.com) 2008.05.05, Page 9; Column header “The Public Editor”, by Joihn [I assume sic] Sealy — Entertainment Editor.

I would of course refer to an online version of this language, but as is all to common here in Bin, this particular missive is not worthy of prosperity…

Title: Role of the Public Editor

“THE PUBLIC EDITOR is an excellent medium for readers and those who produce the news to interact and share things of common interest

“Conversations between Editor and readers are not restricted, however, to corrections and to the occasional late paper.
…
“The public looks to the *Public Editor* [bold type the printed version] to address any issue in the paper. This underscores the task of the Public Editor that he, or she must be au fait with what goes on in all departments.

Dear Joihn [sic]: we are thrilled you and your publication take the responsibility of the traditional fourth estate so seriously. However, may I please point out that in your column you have failed to communicate how one might contact you.

Do you have a e-mail address? Does the abstracted roll of Public Editor have a e-mail address? [God forbid] is there an on-line submission form?

You have suggested that readers generally call you via telephone. However, I personally have found that phone calls have no record, and cannot be audited or referred. And for some of us, telephone calls are expensive, and untrustworthy…

We (read: your readers (well, at least one of them)) eagerly await a response to the above.

Kindest regards to all.
Pepperpot // May 5, 2008 at 11:30 PM

Chris Halsall,

You insufferable idiot.

Does any of these blogs have a front door you can open?

Do they have FACES or NAMES?

Do they have a telephone number?

Get lost, FOOL!
David // May 6, 2008 at 4:17 AM

Are we not seeing a case where the passive approach by media practitioners is directly related to the size of our country and the likehood of intimidation and victimization by influencial players of the profession?

The same fear being exhibited by the media does it not exist in the other areas of the society? Are we singling out media people and expecting them to be more fearless than other professions?

Or is it as a media practitioner when one becomes a member of the Fourth Estate it is for better or worse.
John // May 6, 2008 at 11:59 AM

There are not many places to run and hide and not many people who will stand up and be counted.

Perhaps we do have high expectations of our media practitioners but I think we should.

“Blessed is he who expects nothing for he shall not be disappointed”.

I think the expectations should also extend to politicians, business, the clergy, the union, lawyers, accountants etc. because left to their own devices, this place is doomed and so are we.
Chris Halsall // May 6, 2008 at 7:02 PM

Did anyone else here that? It was an annoyingly noisy (but very quiet) buzz… Like an insect might make. It might have been my imagination, however…

Anyway, I spoke to Joihn [sic] Sealy today. In fact, there is not an e-mail address for the Public Editor, although his e-mail address is johnsealy@nationnews.com.

Mr. Sealy thought the idea of a specific e-mail address for the abstracted role of Public Editor was “a great idea” — one he’s going to take to his superiors for consideration.

Mr. Sealy was not aware that his name had been misspent in the dead-tree version of his article, and suspected that it was typographical. He was motivated to “go read my article” as a result.

And, for the record, he had not received any comments with regards to the errors in Mr. Moore’s column. Have the readers been negligent in our responsibility for feedback?

The empirical. The truth. It’s so simple, when you really get down to it… I don’t understand why it’s so resisted… (Actually, that’s not true; I do understand… And it doesn’t, as we say in the computational sciences, scale….)

Eventually we’ll understand this. Probably about the time China is the dominant superpower, and we’re busy serving drinks to people who can, but chose not to, speak English. (My guess: 15 years, or less…)
David // May 6, 2008 at 9:38 PM

One of the biggest failures of our media has been its skirting of the issue regarding the Guyanese and open immigration issue in Barbados. The Fourth Estate has a responsibility to advocate the issues of concern to the society. If we don’t discuss this issue it well come back to bite us later. Why is the traditional media not putting the different sides of the issue which will help Barbadians to a point where there is understanding. Only then will a truce be called to arrest the undercurrent of emotions which ae rampaging through the veins of our people.
John // May 6, 2008 at 10:11 PM

Chris

I suspect Joihn [sic] Sealy will be doing some apologising to China tomorrow in the dead tree edition.

Maybe he might include a piece on Carl.
Yardbroom // May 7, 2008 at 2:44 AM

David
The media has failed to address the issue of “illegal immigration” satisfactorily; because of the mistaken belief that they will be accused of “Racism” by right thinking people. The media has a duty to discuss matters of public concern and not stifle public discourse.

I can think of very few issues, which are more likely to negatively impact on Barbadian society as this one can. If not satisfactorily addressed “now” it will be difficult, if not impossible at a later stage.

Common sense and experience not far from Barbados, indicates this to be the case.

“Illegal immigration”, be it of Chinese workers, African tourist- so called- or Guyanese is the same. In this rapidly changing world it is the responsibility of Government and media to be honest with, and protective of its citizens. That is their first priority, if there was doubt, the virulent behaviour exhibited by some commenters here, before they are fully within the gates, makes one fearful when the horse is completely in.
David // May 7, 2008 at 5:52 AM

Yardbrrom we find no fault in your argument. What would be interesting is to know if the editors in position are fighting for these causes and are being blunted by the powers or are they just going along for the ride. In other words do they have the backbone?
anotherview // May 7, 2008 at 6:57 AM

What is or will be the position of the Barbados Government and by extension their Immigration Legislation/Policies when it comes to giving safe haven to “refugees”.

I am sure given the state of affairs in Haiti, Guyana and the list could increase with time, it could cause many from neighbouring islands and elsewhere to come to Barbados or other Caribbean Nations seeking “refugee” status.

This is all part and parcel of a bigger “Immigration” dilemma that needs to be addressed sooner than later.

I will take Yardbrooms concern even further and which is, that what I read on this Blog about the disgust most bloggers show for Guyanese, Chinese and other immigrants being allowed into Barbados is “racism”. No ifs ands or buts! Most of the comments have little to do with the immigrants “legal” or “illegal” status and all to do with their ethnic, cultural and Nationality status.

As hard as I look I do not see any or few negative comments about the thousands of legal and illegal immigrants in Barbados that are primarily “White” and come from Canada, USA, UK, Europe and other such destinations. Why is that?
no name // May 7, 2008 at 9:27 AM

anotherview said,

“As hard as I look I do not see any or few negative comments about the thousands of legal and illegal immigrants in Barbados that are primarily “White” and come from Canada, USA, UK, Europe and other such destinations. Why is that?”

Every Bajan I know (black, white, pink or yellow) has family happily living or wanting to live/work in Canada, USA, UK, Europe.

The USA was the country of choice for many of our forefathers of colour who migrated through Ellis Island in search of a better life. The records are readily available. Many Bajans would jump at the opportunity to migrate to the countries you mention. Ask them.

More recent mass migrations from the Caribbean were from Jamaica and Cuba.

Perhaps what we really need be looking at is whether the people coming to Barbados from all over will make our country better or worse. Generally, our people make the places they migrate to better.
tstt // May 8, 2008 at 4:23 PM

while we are on the topic of the media and their responsibility to society, does anyone know what has become of the Roy Morris case? Has it been covered up in hush money or is it still being adjourned on a regular basis?
David // May 11, 2008 at 1:36 PM

Congratulations to David Ellis and VOB for introducing a program which focuses on Barbadians who have been using innovative ways to supplement traditional needs. The farmer highlighted gave credit to Lowdown Hoad for influencing him to use the biodigester to generate energy from animal manure.

It raises the big question why more of our farmers have not introduced this technology to their operations. It seems cost effective and obviously reduces their reliance on BL&P which in our layman view would act as a buffer to external shocks.

Maybe this is a tax incentive which the government can introduce with immediate effect!
Johnnie Too Bad // May 11, 2008 at 2:20 PM

I am quite happy to state that we will complain about our African cousins, our Jamaican or other neighbouring brothers and sisters from the immediate region, but never complain of those white folks that come without a visa and stay as long as they like.Until we are willing to talk about the white folks then we should leave well alone.The fact is that there is pure racism ’bout hey. This country full of the Marvin syndrome,
JTB.