The following comment was posted by BU family member ROK. We invite the family to share feedback before and during the show if they can to represent the views of the BU family. Hopefully ROK will be given some latitude to represent the Bajan blogosphere. Here is the link to VOB to the 12PM EST show for those who are off-island.
@David
Sorry to be off topic here but I just got a call from VOB inviting me to be on the phone during their call-in program after the news (11:40 am) tomorrow morning. The discussion is on the media and this time includes the blog.
Apparently Denis Jones will be in the studio along with Julius Gittens and Amanda. If you are game, maybe we can set up a thread that will feedback as the program is in progress. Any BU Bloggers could make comments which I would refer to while on the phone. Not a problem with me.
140 responses so far ↓
David // November 7, 2009 at 6:05 PM
@ROK
Any reason why you are out of the studio?
Did you refuse to go to the studio?
Why is a Bajan with your understanding of things Barbadianna on the outside looking in when foreigners are on the inside?
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 7, 2009 at 6:31 PM
I understand from VOB that they were seeking some who moderated blogs who could appear in the studio. That would seem to pose a problem to some bloggers who currently prefer anonymity. I imagine that seeking the input of an identified contributor to a blog was a 2nd best. But the VOB producer could be asked to give his view.
One knows that it is not just Bajans who have active blogs running in Barbados and who can speak about blogging in Barbados. Looked at from the perspective of major media houses, foreign correspondents are often included in discussions of national topics, as can readily be seen or heard or read daily across the world.
I certainly will not be claiming to speak for the whole Bajan blogosphere in anyway, but just as one practioner.
David // November 7, 2009 at 7:18 PM
@ROK
Our first question should be right up your ally.
Why no decent analysis of the FTC Hearings? There is a difference between coverage and analysis.
David // November 7, 2009 at 7:29 PM
@ROK
A question for the reconstituted BAJ. Why has it not attracted the support of the veteran journalists/media workers as reflected by the new BAJ Executive.
Does the BAJ have the support of the veterans?
To what extent has the media houses in Barbados incorporated the BAJ as a partner in building strategy to make the Fourth Estate stronger?
Sargeant // November 7, 2009 at 7:46 PM
I don’t mind LIB appearing at least he is independent and speaks his own mind. What’s Amanda’s role? Will she be there representing BAJ or toeing the company line for the Nation? I would have also liked to see Jeff Cumberbatch, he has commented on the blogs and can provide some legal input.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 7, 2009 at 9:10 PM
@Sargeant, I understand that Mr. Cumberbatch was not available to be in the studio, but may be on the phone. (He can correct that, if it is wrong.)
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 7, 2009 at 9:19 PM
@David,
Thinking about the potential to do things differently and how media have changed. I do not know if you/BU have an extensive Twitter following, but the fact that blogging will be a major topic it could be an opportunity to see if tweets can offer a good way to interact with some of your audience. There are few issues now that do not have extensive Twitter coverage.
I will be trying to see what real time interaction there is tomorrow using Twitter (livinginbarbado) and Facebook while in the studio.
Bonny Peppa // November 7, 2009 at 10:17 PM
I would like to take de opportunity to propose to ROK ‘on air’.
Ayeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
ROK // November 7, 2009 at 10:29 PM
@David
I really don’t mind being on the phone. Furthermore, they could not call me today to ask me to be in the studio tomorrow morning.
I suspect they thought of me late so they asked me to be on the phone.
Sarge, they producer did say that Jeff Cumberbatch will be on by phone as well and also a blogger from UK. They have us in time slots it seems. So for example, myself and Jeff will probably not be on at the same time; although that would be good.
sad very sad // November 7, 2009 at 10:56 PM
one query
y rok ?
BAFBFP // November 7, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Stetson Babble, the man who spent twenty minutes on Friday trying to justify his approach to “dead man walking” in an effort to puff his public image up (impressive, if you’re an idiot) and appeal to the very simple showed very scant regard for the event on Sunday and obviously thinks very little of the Julius Gittens. Gittens might be a show man, but at the very least he is interesting and FLUENT..!
ROK // November 7, 2009 at 11:16 PM
@very sad
Identify yourself and I can let them call you instead. Telephone number please????
BAFBFP // November 7, 2009 at 11:17 PM
sad very sad
Bonny gotta lotta pull at Starcom…!
BAFBFP // November 7, 2009 at 11:25 PM
ROK
Starcom sen’ home all of dey sports journalists and de nation sen’ home a lotta dey features writers as well…. Clearly the writing is on the wall for that profession. Please inquire as to Why it is that Peter Wickham’s grand father had to seek work outside ah B’ba’dos.
Is it not true that media houses only hold on to a few journalists to give the establishments (which are only conduits for advertisers) validity? (Warehouses in B’bados that sell pharmaceuticals employ a pharmacist only to validate their activity in the medical field, but they are still just warehouses…!
David // November 8, 2009 at 1:01 AM
@ROK
It is important the conversation about some blogs using anonymity doesn’t consume the conversation. It is an approach used by many bloggers overseas as well. The pertinent matter is blogging in the developed markets has been accepted as a legit channel by traditional media. What we in Barbdos need to do is to find a way to bridge blogging and the traditional media. On behalf of BU we are prepared to work with the BAJ to pursue issues of national or even regional import.
Adrian Hinds // November 8, 2009 at 3:23 AM
Can’t shut them down, could as well join them, or to have them become like the mainstream Media? “Mainstream Blogs” uummm
I will be listening with beer in hand. Two of my least favourite people will be on Air.
zion1971 // November 8, 2009 at 4:24 AM
Guys I know this is off topic but does anyone knows the compensation package of the Governor Bank of Barbados. I came across a news in the Jamaica paper that says the Governor of the Bank of jamaica was earning(US 400,000) more than the US federal reserve chairman. Well he was eventually fired.
kiki // November 8, 2009 at 4:34 AM
Although some blogs aspire to follow the format of a news media, the removal of moderation and censorship gives the public freedom of speech to voice their opinions.
kiki // November 8, 2009 at 4:37 AM
Untold Stories
Anonymous // November 8, 2009 at 8:58 AM
LMAO at Adrian Hinds. If I read you right, it should be a very interesting proposition to see who’s the more arrogant and full of em selves of the two – Julius or Denis. Can both those egos fit in such a small studio? Well, maybe if the two egos are doing some mutual massaging, lol. Anyone wanna take bets? Hmmm, there might actually be someone on earth more pompous and bloated that Juluis Gittens. Time will tell.
BAFBFP // November 8, 2009 at 8:58 AM
@ zion1971 // November 8, 2009 at 4:24 AM
Well GoCB is a creature of the PM so one would think that his salary would be less than his master’s..!
David // November 8, 2009 at 9:25 AM
The question raised earlier is valid regarding the lack of a sports thrust by our journalists. This is especially stark given Barbados’ recent elevation in world status by Ambassador Ryan Brathwaite. What is the BAJ doing to sensitize media houses that sports occupy an important component in the social and economic development of a country, see Jamaica and Cuba as an example.
BAFBFP // November 8, 2009 at 9:55 AM
Well David again Starcom sen’ home de whole set. The barn door shut,,!
Bonny Peppa // November 8, 2009 at 11:03 AM
BAFBFP
Ya spreadin propaganda. I in got na clout at Starcom. I doan even listen to dem. De only ting we gun got in common taday is dat we gun be sharing de same man but whilst dem gun got he fa ’bout a hour or so , I gun got he fa a lifetime. So tell dem fa me,’sweet life doan las’ too long, so da betta mek de most a um.’
ROK,
Hope you well equipped fa de task ahead. But dat is elementary fa you my darling sweets.
Da chan ruffle you feathas.
smoochhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, fa good luck.
BAFBFP,
How come you in incurge me ta propose ‘pun-air’?
Ya instigata.
murdaaaaaaaaaaaa
David // November 8, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Is anyone listening to the predicted new age Vs old age media bashing? BU prides itself in promoting opinions which are not always shared in the old media. The definition needs to be expanded to embrace the current reality.
Bonny Peppa // November 8, 2009 at 11:32 AM
David
A wonda why dem din invite you to pa-ticipate too? Wah you is the magician of de blogosphere. Da scared a you or wah?
Adrian Hinds // November 8, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Why bother with the mainstream media? why bother to emulate them? Let them have their say if it is indeed theirs to say. I prefer to see their opinions as nothing more than the gasp of a dying profession; It was/is a profession right? Their so called outreach to blog operators is disengenuous at best; a mere opportunity to beat up on the blogs, as if such will change the lack of growth in their field or stymie the expansion of the blogs.
Todays’ episode of the show is shaping up to be very boring.
David // November 8, 2009 at 11:35 AM
BU never received an invitation. Our email is visibly located on our blog. On receipt of any invitation we are free to have BU represented.
sad very sad // November 8, 2009 at 11:38 AM
query
can rok swim in those waters ?
can rok survive ?
if necessary,will rok be saved by the belle ?
Willie // November 8, 2009 at 11:40 AM
I just sent a note to the Nation online about the headline of a column dealing with Barbadians’ reaction to Owen Arthur’s recent comments against his colleague the Leader of the Opposition. The headline gives the impression that 60% of Barbadians disagree with Arthur. In fact, on reading the article, it is 69% (almost 70%). Living abroad, I depend on such reports to keep informed. As noted in my feedback to the Nation, if I did not have time to read the article, I could have missed the fact that they were reporting about a 69% factor and not closer to 60%. I would hope that there will be some improvement in such reporting.
David // November 8, 2009 at 11:42 AM
@Adrian
You are correct the show has not even touched on the underpinning issues which currently influence the level of journalism in Barbados. The lack of professionalism by journalists, the long hand of the politicos, the lack of a strong association of journalists, the concentration of ownership, the fact many of our journalists are equipped to respond on demand or have access to a level of analyses which can demystify difficult issues for the public etc.
Adrian Hinds // November 8, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Willie did you also miss the fact that the poll was unscientific and done via text messaging? Whether 60 or 69% seems you are a “willing” believer.
I took issue with the caption picture. The same pic was use in other articles with positive Mia storylines. Why the need to engineer the news?
David // November 8, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Question Adrian, did Carol Martindale make the decision to publish that unscitific poll?
lol
mash up & buy back // November 8, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Hubris – that dangerous quality which doggedly snaps at the heel of julius gittens is sadly in evidence today as seen by his astonishly rude response to senator marville.
Imagine asking the gentleman to respond on the Freedom of Information bill,and when Marville asks if he can respond to some earlier comments before he discusses freedom of information – he was rudely told by Julius – yes but briefly.
Senator marville rightly responded – this is why journalists never learn anything because they are not prepared to listen.
Well done senator.
Dennis jones is as usual talking a lot and saying very little.
Why is he even there,I ask you?
Isn’t Ian Bourne a blogger and not anonymous – and also a former broadcaster?
Willie // November 8, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Adrian, I did read the entire piece. I take your point, but since the Nation thought the information worthy of reporting I believe that it should be accurate. Nothing here speaks to whether I believe or disbelieve the poll, scientific or non-scientific.
Adrian Hinds // November 8, 2009 at 11:59 AM
ha ha ha Does Carol makes decision or merely carry out orders? I guess she could “decide” to carry out orders.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 8, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Have asked media house participants on panel to address matter of professionalism of jourmalists
David // November 8, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Couple of points, those invited are usually those who find favour with producer Michael Browne.
So far the most poignant point is Senator Marville’s feedback regarding the decision by the largest media house in Barbados STARCOM Network to cover the discussion on the FOI Act.
General Lee // November 8, 2009 at 12:02 PM
The intent behind the article is transparent and clearly demonstrates that the powers that be at the Nation, continue to underestimate the intelligence of its readers.
General Lee // November 8, 2009 at 12:08 PM
It should be accepted by now that the quality of Journalism in Barbados is negatively impacted by Journalist’s securing their ability to take home a paycheck at the end each month.
Adrian Hinds // November 8, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Mash up. The “I” that is Dennis Jones is a voluminous and experience entity. It must be spoken about and at length, at all times. So far we have learned that he worked for the IMF, Bank of England, is a Jamaican, blogs, blah blah blah.
@Willie: How do you know the 69% is correct and not the 60%? Why hold on to the higher number as possibly accurate and suggest that the headline is inaccurate? Whats in it for you?
Anonymous // November 8, 2009 at 12:25 PM
12:24. Have they actually taken a single call yet from any member of the public, rather than invited guests? I am missing something here or wuh?
Adrian Hinds // November 8, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Anon have you not heard that the public does not understand complex issues? lol!
David // November 8, 2009 at 12:32 PM
After listening to the show up to 12.30 PM we can call it now:
This show is a PR job for traditional media what Dr. GP would refer to as bovine excrement.
After the hype we have to say we are most disappointed. To speak to such a serious topic and given the high-level callers brought to the program we should have had senior journalists on the panel. The inability of the BAJ to recruit veteran journalists is insightful in itself.
Willie // November 8, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Adrian, I fail to understand why you appear to be suspicious of my motives for making comments on this issue. I have no loyalty to either political party or individual, nor a vested interest. My comments are purely in the interest of accurate reporting. I have no reason to believe that the headline is accurate when the body of the article starts:
“MORE THAN 60 PER CENT of Barbadians disagree with the manner in which former Prime Minister Owen Arthur called out Barbados Labour Party colleague and Leader of the Opposition Mia Mottley”, and continues;
“The poll showed that 69 per cent of respondents disagreed with Arthur’s comments, and was in favour of Mottley, the Member of Parliament for St Michael North East, being a leader”.
You doth protest too much.
Bonny Peppa // November 8, 2009 at 12:41 PM
sad very sad,
query:
What de f*** ROK got fa you? He owe you a phoop or wah?
stuupseeeeeeeeeeeeeee, you on pun he like white pun rice.
Go n wash de brine from round ya mout, ya khunt.
Left he fa ma man.
He in call VOB, dem do de calling.
You barking up de wronggggggggggggg tree, Skippa.
Bonny Peppa // November 8, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Mash Up
How’s tings? Ain’t hearing you a ‘tall.
But look, I know Julius personally and have found him to be a really nice young gentleman but as you said, I don’t like how he handled that goodly gentleman Mr.Marville at all. He was very rude n crude. Didn’t appreciate that at all.
General Lee // November 8, 2009 at 12:46 PM
The print media in Barbados publish little that cannot be accessed elsewhere. They seldom break stories and apart from letters and the contributions of guest columnists and classified ads, there is little original content.
Selling stale news in Barbados should no longer be profitable for newspapers in these times.
Bonny Peppa // November 8, 2009 at 1:02 PM
ROK
I heard your voice for the first time and all I can say for now is:
wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
That voice, oh my God,so assertive, audible,melodic,harmonic,alluring,seductiveeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
‘Heaven is definitely missing an angel’.
I’m in tearssssssssss.
Bonny Peppa // November 8, 2009 at 1:08 PM
General Lee
Dat is all a newspaper is really, stale news.
Listen to the hourly News-breaks, including CBC- TV,BBC news and you won’t miss a beat.
Newspapers what?
Crap, crap n mo crap.
To quote a good man like Ace.
Wah become a he/she doe?
David // November 8, 2009 at 1:11 PM
@Chris
You were cut at approximately 1.10PM, please clue us in on what you would have said to raise the blood pressure of the producer.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 8, 2009 at 1:14 PM
@David, I’m in the studio and listened to Chris speak to the completion of his comments up to the designated time for an ad, which is now running. Why do you say he was cut?
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 8, 2009 at 1:18 PM
When Chris began speaking, 16 callers were in line waiting, and only about 25 minutes remaining. Chris’ comments and the follow up questions to him were fullsome. Once a caller starts talking then time is hard to manage.
General Lee // November 8, 2009 at 1:19 PM
When you mention the name of certain Bajan blogs on the radio you will be cut.
It was just an automated response, no big thing.
ROK // November 8, 2009 at 1:22 PM
@ David,
Wow, I was interrupted by the news. Got cut off. I thought we were going to deal with some more issues. Very disappointed.
I got back to listening and heard Chris on an he was cut on the internet only but the radio was still going.
Christopher Halsall // November 8, 2009 at 1:22 PM
@You were cut at approximately 1.10PM, please clue us in on what you would have said to raise the blood pressure of the producer.
I was cut, although I don’t think they knew — I asked to make a follow-up statement, but they had just dropped me.
My follow up was ask why the traditional Forth Estate treat the Blogs such as yours as illegitimate news sources, rather than build a synthesis between the old and new.
Adrian Hinds // November 8, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Indeed, there was silence, seconds after Chris H mentioned “Barbados underground”. The context dealt with corrections to something reporters erroneously published. Immediately after the silence the Nation lady in studio was heard apologizing to Chris for his experience with the reporter.
ROK // November 8, 2009 at 1:26 PM
@Denis
Your question I was addressing when I heard Julius telling me thanks for coming in.
The greatest problem we have in the NGO sector is that of packaging information for public consumption.
David // November 8, 2009 at 1:27 PM
@Chris & ROK
Given the alleged number of callers on hold we just had the ridiculous situation of a non-bajan blogger explaining the role of Chris and ROK.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 8, 2009 at 1:29 PM
@Chris and ROK, I suggest that you approach VOB to get into the studio on another topic. You will see that there is a lot less control of callers. As the ads pay for the programs, they are scheduled and will play (callers know this).
David // November 8, 2009 at 1:31 PM
On this program how many callers were there who were not predetermined?
ROK // November 8, 2009 at 1:35 PM
@David
“On this program how many callers were there who were not predetermined?”
One e-mail asking about caller changed all that. LOL!
Christopher Halsall // November 8, 2009 at 1:54 PM
@All…
Very interesting…
I just listened to a recording of the broadcast (transport: Radio), and they silenced me twice.
Once at the very beginning when I said made a polite but unkind statement about the quality of the local reporting, and then a second time right after I started talking about the correction I posted here on Barbados Underground to the erroneous Advocate article.
The more paranoid amongst us (raises hand) might conclude that while VOB wanted to talk about the Blogs in the abstract, they didn’t actually want any of them named, but they were late on the “Red Button”….
David // November 8, 2009 at 1:59 PM
@Chris
Agree with your last comment. Even the non-Bajan blogger on the panel had his blog named on several occasions while he never mentioned any of the major blogs which comprised the Bajan Blogosphere :-)
Another instance where Vic Fenandes and Mike Brown issued an edit.
Hurrah for the Fourth Estate and free press.
Christopher Halsall // November 8, 2009 at 2:30 PM
@AH: “The context dealt with corrections to something reporters erroneously published. Immediately after the silence the Nation lady in studio was heard apologizing to Chris for his experience with the reporter.
@All… Just for the record…
The article which / reporter whom I corrected here on BU was from the Advocate, not the Nation.
I mentioned that at the beginning of my call, and again during the period I was “silenced”.
Livinginbarbados // November 8, 2009 at 2:44 PM
@ROK, “The greatest problem we have in the NGO sector is that of packaging information for public consumption”. I took issue with Antonette Collins saying that readers tune out of complex issues and suggested that this demonstrated that the right way to get public understanding had not been found. What I asked her was whether she should not/does not get organisations like BANGO to help make issues more understandable. The media house journalists are crying lack of resources so that maybe puts you on clear ground to take these issues and try to find ways to do the packaging. Not easy I’m sure but I cannot see the regular press getting it done.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 8, 2009 at 2:53 PM
@Chris/David, Julius Gittens named a my blog in his introduction of me; I cannot tell him not to put me into context. I heard BU mentioned at least twice by Chris and ROK (we do not hear cuts in the studio, but I will listen tonight to the recording) as that related to what was done for the rate hearing.
Any explaning I tried to do regarding Chris and ROK was in reflection of what I was reading here. Maybe I should not have bothered.
I saw no need to mention other blogs, given what I had heard. Name one, name two, name all?
For the record, David, did you place a call?
Christopher Halsall // November 8, 2009 at 2:56 PM
@LIB: “The media house journalists are crying lack of resources so that maybe puts you on clear ground to take these issues and try to find ways to do the packaging.
I don’t buy it!
Both ROK and I have tried to get greater coverage in the local media. We’re blocked. This is one of the reasons I (and I assume ROK) have become so involved with Blogging.
As in known by many, I had a bi-weekly column in the Barbados Advocate Business Monday for several months. Right up until I annoyed a certain monopoly. I was dropped like a hot potato.
I then approached the Nation, and asked if they would print my latest article. I was told no, but instead a reported would be assigned to the subject.
Said reporter didn’t understand the subject at all, and no coverage of the subject (Two Stage Dialing / Interconnection) has been covered by the Fourth Estate since.
@LIB: “Not easy I’m sure but I cannot see the regular press getting it done.
Agree with this statement. Although I think it is more because of lack of risk taking / standing up, then lack of reporting resources….
Christopher Halsall // November 8, 2009 at 2:57 PM
@LIB: “Any explaning I tried to do regarding Chris and ROK was in reflection of what I was reading here. Maybe I should not have bothered.
I personally appreciated what you said, and felt it was appropriate and useful.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 8, 2009 at 3:01 PM
@Chris, I was trying to post on Twitter (Livinginbarbado, if you wish to check). Here is what I wrote of your exchanges; I focused on your answers not the questions that led to them (I have you on from 13.06 to 13.11):
Chris Halsall: Intervenor at BL&P rate hearing. Lack of preparedness on complex cases. Erroneous reporting. CBC no camera crew on site.
Halsall: Interacted with reporters trying to educate them and pointed out errors.
Halsall: Errors in Advocate were not corrected. Posted correction on Barbados Underground.
Connell: Apologized for errors
You also had an exchange with Julius Gittens asking if journalists found it difficult to approach you because you had a known position. Your reply was along the lines that you did have an agenda: the public interest. Did I hear that correctly?
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 8, 2009 at 3:08 PM
@ROK, Chris Halsall,
I did not raise this point with Saleha Williams as she had to leave immediately after the program. But you may want to see if she is amenable to some collaboration invovling new media (her area) to get information better packaged and even anticipate providing coverage for events similar to the BL&P hearings. She was quick to say that she has done a lot with no additional resources, so I think is keen to show that productivity gains are not hard to come by. There’s obviously a bottom line she has to consider but you could explore possibilities, if that interests you each/both.
David // November 8, 2009 at 3:12 PM
For the record, BU was born at a time when we perceived The Fourth Estate was showing extreme cowardice in the build up to the last election. Several issues were not being covered and if so cursorily, at the top of the list the immigration issue. The situation has not changed perceptibly in our view. As the saying goes when there is a void it will be filled, a simple reality which the traditional media to their disadvantage continue to ignore. As Jeff pointed out and Connell acquiesce the traditional media in Barbados will avoid the courts because of the cost, what this means is that it is open season on the media because of its known position.
BU will continue to operate based on our agenda and not VOB’s and others, i.e an agenda driven by the PEOPLE. The wonderful thing about the Internet is that it can be accessed by anybody. We don’t have sponsors/advertisers to appease. We will continue to do our own thing until the HYPOCRISY is exposed.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 8, 2009 at 3:15 PM
@Chris, our comments crossed. I would still try approaching Saleha Williams. We can take this up via e-mail if you wish.
There was a general discussion off air about how known expertise is not being used to help fill out the lack of knowledge journalists were showing. I’ve offered to do it on economic/financial issues and know that the take up has been virtually nil. My take is that the fear of being exposed as ignorant is greater than the desire to improve the flow of information. I’ve seen the same in bureaucracies so it’s not just a media problem.
Glad you felt the comments useful and appropriate.
Going to focus on other things now.
Christopher Halsall // November 8, 2009 at 3:19 PM
@LIB: “CBC no camera crew on site
More accurate: “No camera crew on several days
@LIB: “Your reply was along the lines that you did have an agenda: the public interest.
Exact quote: “Yes, I have a particular agenda. I’m the Technical Advisor to [BANGO]. Our agenda is the public’s best interest.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 8, 2009 at 3:35 PM
@Chris, Noted. I was working within the 140 character limits of Twitter. Thanks. If you need/want contact details for Ms. Williams, contact me by e-mail.
Christopher Halsall // November 8, 2009 at 4:14 PM
@LIB: “My take is that the fear of being exposed as ignorant is greater than the desire to improve the flow of information.
I agree with this impression.
However, ignorance can be corrected with education.
Cowardice is harder to fix….
Georgie Porgie // November 8, 2009 at 9:58 PM
I do not understand why we are surprised at what ever happened today.
It seems that bloggers who were invited were invited as “tokens”, and that no serious debate or discussion, or declaration of views or truth was planned or expected.
Many of us who post on BU are far better qualified in the areas to which we speak, and can give accurate and detailed presentations, of substance and with clarity.
Whether it is Bible, Medicine, Law, Bajan History, Comedy, Political Commentary, or what ever, the BU writers have brought to this forum good information of a fairly high quality, that is never seen in local papers.
The Advocate seems to regurgitate news from here there and everywhere, and add that to poor reporting of local events.
The Nation continues to be a rag of very poor quality.
The local blogs have been presenting issues and subjects of interest to Bajans, both at home and abroad. They must be commended for providing the opportunity.
We might as well forget the local press, and carry on with what we have been doing in the last two years or so, and trying to raise the standard higher.
Each one who participates in this project has hos own niche, and an opportunity denied us for years in the local press.
Why bother with them?
To the work to the work ……….
David // November 8, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Good point GP, did you conveniently forget the engineers in the BU family?
lol…only pulling your leg man!
For those who missed the call in this morning the show is usually repeated at 12.00AM EST.
Georgie Porgie // November 9, 2009 at 12:31 AM
Sorry MME et al, and any of other vocations and professions whom I inadvertently left out, or dont know about what you do.
Sargeant // November 9, 2009 at 12:41 AM
A couple of observations about the program:
1) There were too many panelists on the program; it is supposed to be a radio program where people an call and express their views but you had four guests and a number of other “experts” including a Minister and a lawyer who were all expected to provide feedback on the issue under discussion. Add those elements to a moderator who was as verbose as any I’ve ever heard I am not surprised that many people didn’t get to express their views.
2) The moderator was also very rude when he tried to prevent Senator Marville from addressing a point that was made by one of the guests, however Senator Marville was equally rude when he used an acronym to refer to a proposed piece of legislation (I may have the details wrong on the reference) but I heard the Senator ask “You don’t know what that means?” First of all acronyms are used by insiders to converse about a subject that they are all familiar with; when one is addressing an issue where the general public is part of the audience one should never use an acronym unless the acronym is well established e.g. if I use CSME I’m confident that most people know what it stands for or have a general idea but if I say FOI act not many people would know unless I provided an explanation.
As to the rest of the program I’m not sure if we are any further ahead than we were yesterday.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 9, 2009 at 5:54 AM
@Sargeant, I would agree with (1), but this is often the case with panel discussions during the call-in as far as I have noticed. The format, even with one panellist, tends to be quite different than when no panellist is there.
On (2), your recollection of the sequence of events squares with what I recall and posted on Twitter. I also noted that Senator Marville was ‘talking over listeners’ heads’.
I do not think it is realistic to think that we would be further ahead; that would put a lot on the shoulder of a 2 hour radio program.
I took away some key points that I think were not clear before:
-Media house journalists feel that a major constraint on good reporting is limited personnel resources, and job cuts have not helped. We heard that CMC is working with a ’skeleton staff’
-New media formats are being developed by the Nation Group/One Caribbean Media, and this has boosted revenues with little need for additional resources.
-News houses are not sending reporters to cover stories (Chris Halsall and ROK, corroborated this in the BL&P hearings case).
-News media houses believe that they have rigorous standards of fact checking and accuracy and that blogs are not held to the same standard. I tried to counter that and argued that some blogs/bloggers do exercise similar standards. They should not be swept away with a generalisation that is incorrect.
-Politicians manipulate the press and the media houses were criticised (by Stephen Lashley) for poor news room management, notably relying too much on press conferences and releases.
-Media houses clearly employ self censorship, fearing and being made fearful of defamation cases.
-Mr. Lashley said he would support Freedom of Information legislation measures and removal of defamation constraints on journalists.
-Senator Marville could not understand why it was taking so long to move forward on FOI legislation.
-Citizens do not help investigative journalism, often pulling back from getting full stories reported.
-The question was posed whether ‘activism’ should be the role of the press or the role of citizens. The on-air discussion was not conclusive (no surprise). [This may be an interesting topic on which to get views.]
-Media house follow-up on stories is weak, but they claim lack of resources and pressures to report new stories.
-Jeff Cumberbatch argued that there is a need for reform of how defamation cases are handled so that they can be speeded up. He felt that existing legislation, esp. in Barbados is very good. The ‘public interest’ defence and the ‘Reynolds’ case does not apply only to the UK and at least two cases have been filed in the Caribbean (Jamaica).
-Media houses need to make information more digestible and ROK spoke to how ‘packaging’ of complex issues needs to be improved.
-Media houses were criticised for lack of preparedness and unwillingness to be better informed by those who understood issues, getting facts wrong as a result (Chris Halsall made this point referring to recent BL&P hearings and received an on-air apology for errors not corrected).
-Malcolm Gibbs-Taitt criticised the media houses for how they treat consumers.
We can argue till the cows come home about the quality of the program but I would never think that such an airing can be transformative on major issues. One only has to think about the many hours of broadcasts that go on world wide with no apparent changes in any aspect of life.
ROK // November 9, 2009 at 6:10 AM
Sarge
I think it is the Chief Parliamentary Counsel who draft the laws that go to Parliament. This is in the AGs Office. I was equally surprised that Mr. Marville could not remember at the time but I am sure he knows. Probably got his feathers ruffled early and lost it a bit.
I laughed when he told Julius to look it up. Maybe he was being equally rude as you say… but then he would not have been wrong to leave it out and say Attorney General’s Office.
David // November 9, 2009 at 6:47 AM
Despite all the takeaways listed at the top of the list should have been a clearly articulated roadmap on how the Barbados Association of Journalists (BAJ) plans to remove some of the challenges. What we heard on the program yesterday were excuses.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 9, 2009 at 7:15 AM
@David, a valid approach to tackling what you see as excuses is to give the journalists what you would like to see in the ‘clearly articulated roadmap on how the Barbados Association of Journalists (BAJ) plans to remove some of the challenges’.
Sargeant // November 9, 2009 at 9:19 AM
LIB
I wasn’t aware of what was posted on Twitter, I am not a Luddite but I have some concerns over privacy when it comes to the new technology thus I am not on Facebook or Twitter.
More observations: The Nation’s representative Ms Connell said that one of the challenges they face in presenting news is due to the fact that Press conferences are called with little advance notice. This is a poor excuse for an issue portrayed to be a common occurrence as any news organization should have developed a strategy to deal with this difficulty, how much advance notice would one need if e.g. the Minister of Tourism calls a news conference? One would think that the newspapers are familiar with all the issues.
The elephant in the room that the guests and VOB were reluctant to acknowledge was the Bajan blogs that have sprung up over the past few years. The blogs were like the weird relative who is not at the family party but the mere mention of his name would send everyone into a panic because they know he has some impact on their lives. Your blog was mentioned and I heard BU (though someone in the control room tried to censor it) but I didn’t hear BFP. I think that because of the free and open discussion on the blogs about controversial subjects and the fact that some commentators step over the line from time to time those in the news gathering business think it is infra dig to refer to the blogs on any level, although the blogs have influenced their work and politicians tailor their actions to escape criticism on the blogs.
mash up & buy back // November 9, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Who appointed living in barbados as the mediator,interpreter etc for the media and barbados underground?
Can’t you see that David and others are ignoring you?
I paid attention to the fact that david pointed out yesterday that michael browne decides who he is going to call on to be guests on these shows,no wonder most of these sunday call-ins are so wishy-washy.
I also noticed that living in barbados is always careful to straddle the fence,he seeks to offends no one so he does not take a position one way or the other but talks a lot of gobbley-gook restating the obvious and pointing out the merits of both sides of the argument and saying nothing in the process.
In this way people like those dodos at starcom will always think he is worth inviting back again and again,while persons who can actually think for themselves just tune out and turn off.
So he turns up here on this blog to explain and clarify yesterday’s show,note not on his blog ‘Living in Barbados’ which has no or very,very,few visitors.
Here on BU he can be guaranteed of high readership so after making all sort of idle threats to us on the blog, he is back here on BU.
Interestingly I thought he was to take up a position in Boston and we would have been spared his wealth of ‘knowledge’ and wisdom.
Sadly not the case.
ROK // November 9, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Why was I surprised to hear an English accent and not a Jamaican one? Smart!
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 9, 2009 at 9:44 AM
@Sargeant, you can check out Twitter. It is less invasive in that you merely need an account ID and e-mail address (which you can create for the purpose, if desired–the ID merely helps you track activity).
Ms. Connell’s point struck me as valid, and I tried to deal with it from the other side of ‘news creators’ my experience in large news making institutions. She commented that less than one hour’s notice was often the case. That is unacceptable. Ms. Williams noted that with breaking stories one could be tolerant but not for something that was pre-planned by government. I would agree. I added that news makers like to control news flow so will put the media in a bind and get win-win by having just enough coverage to get over the point and not enough coverage to press on issues, knowing that it will take more resources to engage in follow up. It’s cynical but it’s common.
Some of the local blogs have a problem and each has to get around it–and it’s not a criticism but a fact. From what I have noticed blogs that have become significant world wide have not done so by being or remaining anonymous. The case of countries that have heavy sanctions on dissidents is different. But if Barbados is truly the democracy that people claim one cannot hold onto a fear of visibility as the way to be more open. It’s hard to be present and engage fully if you do not want to be known. Surrogates can help but they tend to dilute the substance in the public mind. I’ve raised this before and I cannot solve the conundrum for others. But my view is that it’s something that weakens the ability to engage. People cannot go far dealing with bodies or persons who do not want to be exposed. Even ‘Deep Throat’ was known, if only to a limited number, and really was effective because the facts were incontrovertible. I’ve said before that I personally take the ‘reprisals’ argument as an excuse but I cannot push others to walk away from that fear. I do not perceive it but I am not in situations that local face.
One thought that struck me is that with FOI those who want to seek and use information will have to be accountable, ie information will not be given to anonymous entities or persons. The accountability must flow thoroughly. That’s my understanding of how it works in US, UK, Jamaica. You can advise on Canada. Perhaps someone can cross check my logic and facts.
Adrian Hinds // November 9, 2009 at 9:46 AM
In Boston???? please dear God, in the past I have aske for little, but this is BIG. LOL!
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 9, 2009 at 10:05 AM
@ROK, I’m always fascinated by people’s concerns about accents. Does it affect content? Rarely. Is it part of good packaging? Sometimes. I hope that no one minded Chris’ Canadian accent and those Bajans who call in with their English accents.
Sargeant // November 9, 2009 at 10:11 AM
LIB
With regard to blogs what works in other countries would not necessarily work in Barbados. As soon as a blogger’s identity becomes public and they comment on political affairs he /she will hear comments about their antecedents; their education or lack thereof; their social habits; their political affiliation (doesn’t have to be real); their spouse; their children and depending on what they do for a living their jobs may be in jeopardy. None of these comments will be positive so most bloggers prefer to remain anonymous.
Christopher Halsall // November 9, 2009 at 10:27 AM
@Sargeant: “As soon as a blogger’s identity becomes public and they comment on political affairs he /she will hear comments about…
If this is true, then it is a very sad comment on the state of the so-called Democracy of Barbados.
On the other hand, perhaps instead too many people here simply don’t have the backbone to stand behind what they believe and say.
I tend to subscribe to the latter explanation as being more likely, with the former simply being used as an excuse for those without testicular fortitude.
Annony // November 9, 2009 at 10:59 AM
@ Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados)
Of course accents do not affect content. ……but why do you expect Rok to understand that?
If you lived and grew up in England might you not have an English accent, like the many Bajans who spent years over there have acquired an English accent? Don’t we Bajans have a distinctive accent?
There is even a white Bajan accent that is quite different to that of the colored Bajan.
Your accent is in question, only because you are deemed a foreigner, and you have apparently offended some on BU. As we say, “Who the dog like he lick, and who he don’t like ……..”
Keep posting on BU. You make a greater contribution than most, and you demonstrate some intelligence and logic. Certainly your prose is of good quality with proper spelling and syntax.
On of the things you will find that on BU folk love to attack certain persons who have excelled or achieved in some way, but that do not let that deter you. Sir
.For example, mash up & buy back has contributed absolutely nothing of substance to this discussion, except to stupidly ask “Who appointed living in barbados as the mediator, interpreter etc for the media and barbados underground?” And to suggest that you are being ignored, and assert that your blog Living in Barbados has no or very, very, few visitors.
The local guru Bush Tea also started a blog too called Bush Tea sat large. What has become of it? How many visitors does that have.
He pointed out that you are “always careful to straddle the fence,” seek to offends no one an do not take a position one way or the other but talks a lot of gobbley-gook restating the obvious and pointing out the merits of both sides of the argument and saying nothing in the process.
The illiterate jack ass thus contradicts himself. How can you “point out the merits of both sides of an argument and saying nothing in the process?”
You have informed those of us who were unable or unwilling to listen to the diatribe that transpired on the radio show. Thanks!
.
The illiterate jack ass contradicts himself again when he states “So he turns up here on this blog to explain and clarify yesterday’s show” So if you clarified what was said, have you not said something? Blasted fool.
Your ability to clarify what occurred definitely indicates that you can indeed think for yourself.
And why should you not turn up on BU to discuss the issue? Is this not a topic put ob BU to be aired? Where else should you turn up?
Thanks for your wealth of ‘knowledge’ and wisdom, but understand that such is despised in contemporary Barbados.
We love and adore the mediocre!
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 9, 2009 at 11:11 AM
@Sargeant, I don’t buy “As soon as a blogger’s identity becomes public and they comment on political affairs he /she will hear comments about their antecedents…” If you do then the touted ‘Barbados experience’ that the PM touted for Team Barbados, or the notion of ‘brand’ Barbados as positive characteristics needs heavy revision. If the country is a contradiction of what it is stated to be, then so be it. So let the world know that truth.
Even in African countries where the military will enter radio studios or beat up on journalists or anyone who speaks out against government you do not have people skulking around saying they are afraid to speak out. And if the fear is for name calling, then what can I say? That unwillingness to be activistic that your argument shows is a domestic issue so let the nation address and solve it.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 9, 2009 at 11:43 AM
@Sargeant, I know that you can handle some French. Take a look at Le Lynx, a Guinean publication. Here is one commentary about it. ‘Le Lynx is one of Guinea Conakry’s two main independent media, together with its sister publication La Lance. Both weeklies are published by the same editor, Diallo Souleymane, who also heads the regional editors forum of Western Africa. Le Lynx specialises on a satirical coverage of main events in Guinea and is never afraid of provoking the government and the opposition.
Based in the capital, Le Lynx during the last decade has grown into one of the most popular media in Guinea due to its professionality, wit and political incorrectness.’
It has never pulled its punches and though I have not read it for a while now, it was famous for attacking ceasily Guinea’s former president, Lansana Conte, and all his cronies. He’s now dead. They carry on.
For those who think that fighting for a voice is tough in Barbados, take a quick tour of news about Guinea: 157 was the number of civilians massacred in late September for demonstrating, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8280603.stm
Georgie Porgie // November 9, 2009 at 11:55 AM
With all due respect Dennis Jones, I dont think you understand the Bajan society as well as Sargeant.
Why do you think that so many morons and imbeciles run the place? Why do you think that we can not excel at anything, including things in which we were formerly excellent (e.g cricket) ?
Do you know how mnany Bajans have had to flee or wont return home for speaking out? And no I dont think Bajans are ready to be killed for thier beliefs. We prefer to suffer in silence in our mediocrity, man.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM
@Georgie Porgie, I am not saying I understand Bajan society better. But things have a certain conclusion. I do know of the stories of Bajans who reportedly left. They are a dot compared to the similar flight from other countries, absolutely and proportionately. Barbados is far from unique in this regard. But I do not see the airport full of people with bags packed heading off to other lands to ‘escape’. All I am saying is if the society is really so repressive then what is it that nationals are trying to preserve if there is no willingness to challenge that?
Christopher Halsall // November 9, 2009 at 12:08 PM
@Mr. Porgie: “We prefer to suffer in silence in our mediocrity, man.
Quite possibly the most pathetic, and sad, admission I’ve ever heard…
Why don’t you just admit that most Bajans have acquiesced to becoming serfs to the new financial reality?
Don’t say anything, and maybe you’ll be allowed to continue producing, reproducing, and consuming….
Adrian Hinds // November 9, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Don’t say anything, and maybe you’ll be allowed to continue producing, reproducing, and consuming….
….It seems Owen Arthur went against behaviour.
Georgie Porgie // November 9, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Mr Halsall,
You are of course correct…..this time!
But I have spoken the truth, as I always do. I have suffered dearly for so doing, both in jest and in earnest.
I have personally suffered for speaking out and was not “allowed to continue producing, reproducing, and consuming….” I had to seek other places to engage i these pursuits.
So I can “resonate” with Sargeant’s statements and attest to thier veracity.
Georgie Porgie // November 9, 2009 at 12:34 PM
@ Dennis Jones
Your observations are certainly most correct, but I can not furnish a suitable answer to your poignant question.
Jack Bowman // November 9, 2009 at 12:48 PM
The matter of how much notice is given before government press conferences is certainly pertinent (as D. Jones aka LIB) notes, but it’s an issue that should not be overstated. In a small sovereign state that has a vote at the United Nations, but one that is the size of a very small town in the US, the UK, Canada and so on, it really shouldn’t matter how much notice reporters are given before press conferences.
In a small country whose economy and politics revolve around a vanishingly tiny number of issues, reporters should be fully conversant with every issue before any press conference has been called.
What matters is what happens at the press conference. What matters is the questions the reporters ask at the press conference. What matters is the answers given to the reporters’ questions at the press conference. What matters is whether the reporters ask the questions and then report the answers.
In a truly democratic society, a government press conference is a negotiating chamber in which the odds are heavily loaded against the government. In a democratic society, a press conference is a closed arena in which individuals with government titles and unfortunate suits are held accountable to the “demos” … to the people, the public. That is the entire point of journalists’ attending press conferences. If you’re a “reporter” at a government press conference and you don’t ask hard questions, then you are not a reporter. You are a typist and you might as well sit in the office, collect the salary, and reprint the relevant press release when it is issued by the government.
Several people on the show yesterday kept talking about the “journalistic accuracy” of the traditional media sources as if it were some kind of sacrament, as if it somehow distinguished them from the blogs. In Barbados, that is an utterly disingenuous rhetorical tactic.
Frankly, if your job as a “reporter” consists of writing mind-bendingly tedious stories about which school pupils won which scholarship, or what some unbearably dull cleric said in his sermon on Sunday, or what the owner of some pizza chain is going to do to make your nutritional experience more pleasant, then your job is already sad beyond belief. It really doesn’t matter how “accurate” your facts are on those issues, because your accuracy is heart-breakingly irrelevant.
Where are the “factually accurate” stories about how many illegal immigrants there are in Barbados? Where is the analysis of that issue? Will the Bajan media forever be stuck in adolescence, unable to distinguish between opinion and analysis? Will the blogs forever be hormonal 14-year olds, unable to distinguish between analysis and brainless venting?
Main point missing from the entire discussion on the programme yesterday … the utter atrociousness of the quality of the writing in much of the Bajan media. If you can’t write properly, you can’t think properly. If you can’t think properly, you shouldn’t be writing news—not even “news” about which guy sold the most Toyotas this year. That’s not news, at least not news in anything that could reasonably call itself a national newspaper. That’s an item in the newsletter of the local Toyota dealership. Why should I care who was employee of the year at the Hilton in 2009? Why should I care which department of the Crane (marketing? human resources? sales?) won a plaque this year?
I want the Minister of Finance to answer hard questions about what exactly he plans to do to get us out of this hole. I want to see his answers on the front page of the newspapers. If he says “we have put the mechanisms in place to ensure the facilitation of an optimal outcome in partnership with relevant stakeholders”, I want someone to ask him what the f**k that means. And I want to see the answer to the latter question on the front page of my newspapers.
And I want to know who exactly has been called to account for that utterly bizarre episode with the flight from Ghana and Nigeria almost a couple of years ago. And I want to know why the laughably supine Bajan press wasn’t asking any hard questions at the time.
Adrian Hinds // November 9, 2009 at 12:50 PM
May I suggest to GP and others who are incline to speak out; do so with a foreign accent. However I warned against adopting a Jamaican one, as this may lead to heighten scrutiny from the Barbados police and more recently the Coast guard. lol!
Christopher Halsall // November 9, 2009 at 12:51 PM
@Mr. Porgie: “I have personally suffered for speaking out and was not “allowed to continue producing, reproducing, and consuming….” I had to seek other places to engage i these pursuits.
Did you have to? Or did you choose to, because it was easier?
One of my fundamental positions is *if* this culture of reprisals actually exists, and *if* enough people stand up and say “no more”, then (and *only* then) might things change.
This is one of the reasons I post using my real identity. I think (hope) that perhaps this why others do as well.
And I haven’t been sued yet. And while ROK was defamed on another Blog, he turned that around quite skilfully and successfully.
My personal opinion (as a Bajan Citizen although born and raised away) is Bajans are more fearful than they should be….
(For context, if I may… My father and his twin brother (born in Barbados) ended up in Canada because they lied about their age in order to enter the RAF to be trained as fighter pilots; life expectancy something like 10 missions. My step father was on the ground during D-Day. To quote Spock: “The needs of the Many outweigh the needs of the Few; or the One.”)
Adrian Hinds // November 9, 2009 at 1:43 PM
“If you can’t write properly, you can’t think properly. ”
factual statement? or opinion? can the former be proven?
Requirements for informal spoken English are much more relaxed than the rigid rules for “standard written English”. While Slang, colloquialism, and other informal expressions are acceptable and sometimes very appropriate in casual speech, they are inappropiate in academic and business writing.
Two means by which to communicate your thoughts. Some are good at one and not the other. Some are not good at either.
Yet, is it any truer to say “If you cannot communicate properly, you cannot think properly?????
Jack Bowman // November 9, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Quoting Mr. Hinds: “… is it any truer to say, “If you cannot communicate properly, you cannot think properly?”
No. It is not truer to say that.
If you can’t write the word “platitudinous” because you don’t know what it means, if you don’t know (without looking it up) what “platitude” means, then you will always have a highly attenuated appreciation of triteness—something that your response, with the greatest respect, demonstrates perfectly.
Sargeant // November 9, 2009 at 2:44 PM
@LIB
Of course in a perfect world we would be able to speak freely without fear of recrimination but we live in the real world, and that world is inhabited by men with egos, fears and biases.
The following is hypothetical: A UN agency is about to undertake an agricultural project in a foreign country and knows that an expert in that field is a Barbadian citizen who is approached and offered the position. The expert is eager to take the appointment but the Agency requires his Gov’t’s authorisation. The request goes to the minister for approval and the minister declines the request and tells the individual “you’ll go over my dead body”.
The expert was known to be a supporter of the Opposition party and he knows that is the reason why the request was denied. This story is hypothetical because the field is not agriculture and some details about the approach may not be accurate but the gist of the story is true. No one fears for their lives but when people reach a certain comfort level they tend not to upset the apple cart.
Dennis Johnson // November 9, 2009 at 2:59 PM
@ Jack Bowman:
In total agreement with your sentiments. Sadly, however, many of those who attend press conferences are not journalists in the true sense of the word. They are sometimes not even reporters [in the true sense of that word too!]. They have no interest in public affairs; are not widely read; have no active interest in politics or political affairs; and cannot frame a follow-up question based on the answer given to the first question asked. So, you may ask, what are they doing in newsrooms across our nation? Earning a living; nothing more, nothing less. Can training help? To a point; but only if a passion exists for extracting truth and bringing it to the people ["demos" you say?]. How many passionate people have you seen or hear in the media recently?
Dennis Johnson
Christopher Halsall // November 9, 2009 at 3:00 PM
@Sargeant… Not speaking for LIB (as I would never presume to do)…
But is this “hypothetical” situation not more along the lines of “the names and situations have been changed to protect the innocent”?
And, if I may… Three points:
1. In the “Developed World” all it would take in a situation like this is for a few calls to have been made to the Forth Estate to have such a situation being investigated *deeply* by *many* parties.
2. Is this not exactly the kind of situation that we (little) Bajans would like to see changed?
3. Why, exactly, is this being brought forward on an anonymous Blog, rather than in the traditional (Barbados) Forth Estate?
Lastly, two observations:
1. Does Barbados not aspire to (and claim to be close to) Developed Status?
2. Please note that it was only because of *investigative* journalism by the UK.Forth Estate that the current MP expense scandal is known and currently being debated.
So, from all of the above… I must ask…
What, exactly, is missing?
Dennis Johnson // November 9, 2009 at 3:02 PM
hear, should be heard.
DJ
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 9, 2009 at 3:15 PM
@Sargeant, as I’ve said before, the type of instances are not unknown. Some would say that in a place like Barbados, the scope for such ‘denial’ is limited.
What is of interest and hard for me to understand is the ‘national’ reaction, which seems to be (near total) resignation, and the apparent national acceptance. What is also hard to understand is how people continue to describe the place where this exists as a thriving democracy. Where such things exist, such countries are normally described otherwise.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 9, 2009 at 3:25 PM
@Sargeant, I should have prefaced my comment by saying that the world does not need to be perfect for the freedom of speech we are discussing to occur.
Christopher Halsall // November 9, 2009 at 3:34 PM
@Jack Bowman… I respectfully disagree with your immediate above…
If I may please share what a very insightful friend enlightened me with…
She said: “Be responsible for the listening into which you are speaking.
mash up & buy back // November 9, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Ha,ha,ha.
I thought Jack bowman was not going to ‘out’ himself ,however knowing how much he loves drawing attention to himself I knew that he could not continue for too long posting as anony.
Mr bourne yuh too sad though.
Ha,ha,ha.Utterly hilarious,Bu draws them like a moth to a flame.Lol.
These people who curse this site and can’t keep away can’t know what ‘doing the principled thing means.’
Surely not.wuhloss,wuhloss.
mash up & buy back // November 9, 2009 at 3:47 PM
A perfect example of a media employee and not a news journalist covering hard news: see Ricky jordan etertainment journalist from the Nation being part of the press conference interviewing owen arthur 2 weeks ago.
Cockroach ain’t got no right in fowl business.
David ellis was the only one who sounded like a journalist.
mash up & buy back // November 9, 2009 at 3:54 PM
david
A post before the last one is missing.
Sargeant // November 9, 2009 at 4:11 PM
• @CH What, exactly, is missing?
*************************************
It is not my story… just happened to be in a location where the individual was relating the account. He dealt with it as he saw fit.
As to the role of the Fourth Estate in reporting on such occurrences isn’t that part of the reason for this thread?
Of course I should not have said “hypothetical” but “names and situations….”etc.
Christopher Halsall // November 9, 2009 at 4:21 PM
@Sargeant: “As to the role of the Fourth Estate in reporting on such occurrences isn’t that part of the reason for this thread?
I agree: this is *exactly* the reason for this thread.
So, I ask:
Was this situation brought to the attention of the BB.Forth Estate?
If so, what were the results?
If not, why not?
Please advise.
Adrian Hinds // November 9, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Chris H, what is your disagreement with Jack Bowman?
His typical Fallacies are ad hominem, ad populum, and oversimplification. Ergo “if you can’t write, you can’t think. lol!
His original article would lose points for lack of conciseness. Spent to much time presenting an insignificant statement as if it were original or important. ha ha ha ha lol!
Jack Bowman // November 9, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Quoting Mr Halsall: “She said: “Be responsible for the listening into which you are speaking.”
That makes no sense at all. Zero. Absolutely no sense.
With gifts in prose clarity like that, Mr. Halsall, I wish you all the best in anything you try to do, notwithstanding the limitations you have made public.
All best wishes to you, Mr. Halsall
Adrian Hinds // November 9, 2009 at 5:16 PM
The statement makes sense. A good English writing text book would admonish you to “know your audience and define your purpose”. You wrote your response properly; were you thinking properly?
Christopher Halsall // November 9, 2009 at 5:55 PM
@Jack Bowman: “That makes no sense at all. Zero. Absolutely no sense.
With all due respect…
The statement makes absolute sense… To those who can actually read and understand. Although it is, admittedly, *intentionally* difficult to parse.
That’s *part* of the message….
David // November 9, 2009 at 7:36 PM
Repeatedly on that program we heard the the representatives of traditional media stating the need to check and recheck fact before publish. This they cited was the difference between traditional media and blogs. The more we think about it there is some confusion by them between what blog owners write and what commenters post.
Adrian Hinds // November 9, 2009 at 10:22 PM
David David, why are being so defensive?
Keep in mind that a “statement of fact” must be proved or provable by objective means. If a statement cannot be verified or disproved by “looking it up,” then it must be a statement of opinion.
You may be correct in what was the intent of the statement, but what it implied is that the traditional media does not err in it’s presentation of “the facts” or very rarely does. This is a logical inference, but is it factual? can it be looked up? Yes it can be looked up however it is likely to be disproved.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html
BAFBFP // November 9, 2009 at 10:26 PM
The program was shit. The comments on this blog ain gun mek nah difference to nottin’ nider. The onliest question that I would like answered is “Where the f#ck was Stetson Babble (Ellis being on leave) or some otha representative from Starcom.. (other than the idiot producer)?
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 10, 2009 at 4:48 AM
@David: “Repeatedly on that program we heard the the representatives of traditional media stating the need to check and recheck fact before publish. This they cited was the difference between traditional media and blogs. The more we think about it there is some confusion by them between what blog owners write and what commenters post.” [I do not think there is confusion; I think they look at the whole package of contents, and the overall balance that exists. A newspaper editor is as responsible for the content created by (supposedly thorough) in-house staff as he/she is for letters and columns/article provided by outside writers. If the editoral policy is weak/careless that reflects on the overall quality of the publication. One usually sees a high degree of care over letters published and columns written in those papers held up as having best practices.
Likewise, editing or moderating a blog needs to have some standards if one is to have claims about its quality being high/good. That works against instant publication but is a safety valve. Of course, a single blog moderator may have a very hard time to do such checking and relies on contributors to help with substantiation of facts or ensure that expressions of opinion fall within some stated norms.
That said, I would argue that the main Bajan papers do not exercise a good and consistent editorial policy and one can see letters or columns from outside writers that contain more than a few incorrect statements which should not be given credence by being published. We, the readers/citizens, then have to try to play our role and get the papers straightened out by providing corrections or flagging errors. While we cannot force public acceptance of those corrections blogs/online publications have freedom to expose those errors. I have exposed errors/mistatements by writing to the press and they have published my letters, but I have also used my own blog to try to correct what had been published, advising the press of my intention. I'm not sure if they feel pressured by the stated professional need to be correct or the concern for embarrassment.]
Adrian Hinds // November 10, 2009 at 9:25 AM
Everyday there are corrections to something publish the previous day. So much for the empty statement of checking and rechecking the facts.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html
Sapidillo // November 10, 2009 at 10:56 AM
I am somewhat disappointed that Ian Bourne (Bajan Reporter) was not part of the radio discussion on this media topic.
I think that he may have been able to contribute invaluable input — from his experience in the media, although there is some difference between print and tv media, and being a blog owner.
I wonder how much thought the producer at the station put into getting the discussion together in terms of selecting participants and setting an agenda.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 10, 2009 at 10:59 AM
@Sapidillo, why not do a bit of investigation and check with Messrs. Bourne and Browne? It may be a good story.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 10, 2009 at 11:01 AM
As people discuss ‘filling a void’ does anyone have experience with Blogtalkradio (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blogtalkradio)?
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 10, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Example broadcast of blogtalkradio, Dale Pilgrim – Wade show by Jamaican Diaspora on #BlogTalkRadio – http://tobtr.com/s/774495
David // November 10, 2009 at 11:34 AM
The Bajan Blogosphere is always branded as too negative by traditional media and bloggers co-opted by traditional media. Wonder if the caller on the VOB program who stated a few minutes ago that she was a young person teaching at UWI Cave Hill and students could be seen daily smoking (legal and illegal) and gambling all day. She confirmed that the practice is known to the authorities. There, it was stated on traditional media so it is believable.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 10, 2009 at 11:47 AM
@David, being “branded as too negative” is not a crime. If you aim to fill a void, then that may be the space to fill.
With due respect for accuracy, “She confirmed that the practice is known to the authorities.” means that she offered evidence to that effect or merely stated it to be the case?
Adrian Hinds // November 10, 2009 at 12:48 PM
What is the thesis of this young lady’s commemts? Is she stating a personal objection to smoking? What if the subject of the activity/practice were older, accomplish, in an office and smoking (legal and illegal)? Would she still raise it?
Where I the moderator I would have ask for her views on any politician who smokes.
David you seem overly concern with the views of few employees in the mainstream media.
David // November 10, 2009 at 1:24 PM
@Adrian H
The call referred to was made today by a female who claimed to be a lecturer at Cave Hill. Not to be confused with the discussion on Sunday. Sorry for any confusion in the earlier comment.
Regarding BU’s preoccupation with some media workers and by extension the Fourth Estate, as you know the BU family comment on every thing, including an unprofessional, ineffective and inefficient media.
Adrian Hinds // November 10, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Fully aware it was a current (today) call. My comments still stand. I am curious and would have been willing to test this caller’s sincerity or reveal her hypocrisy.
David // November 10, 2009 at 2:02 PM
The station did ask the caller to give some details to the producer offline, unfortunately we can only guess…
Adrian Hinds // November 10, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Two accepted scientific polls with results unfavourable to Mia Mottley, followed by two questionable polls that are favourable to her. The latter enabled by the Nation newspaper; coincident, or a deliberate attempt to create news rather than report it?
We should remember the 2007-8 Cadres poll that suggested 20-10 victory for the DLP in the 2008 Jan 15 national election. We should remember the counter poll by Boxill that sought to counter Cadres projections and results.
Another Cadres poll with statistics that Mia Mottley does not like so the Nationnews decided to counter or is it contained the results of that poll with a text message unscientific poll and has sought to highlight and publicize the results as if they were or could ever be provable “statements of Facts”.
During all of this traditional media employees are reminding us that they check and recheck facts.
Sargeant // November 10, 2009 at 6:12 PM
AH
They may check and recheck facts but they publish selectively. Didn’t they choose not to publish the relationship between Liz and the contractor that the Gov’t is trying to recover money from? Perhaps Hartley was right about the bias from the newspaper. Do you think that if the BLP won an election and Mia became PM that you would see an article by Albert Brandford with the following “portray a smugness that reflects her inbred sense of entitlement”
David // November 10, 2009 at 6:16 PM
@Sargeant
A blog has been started on this subject, if you don’t mind you could add your comment above to it.