Barbados Nation Newspaper Cartoon - 09 November 2009
Submitted as a comment by Adrian Hinds
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.
127 responses so far ↓
Sargeant // November 10, 2009 at 6:24 PM
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”
Adrian Hinds // November 10, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Distinguishing between fact and opinion.
Critical readers do not accept everything they read as true. They realize that many kinds of writing are mixtures of objective facts and the author’s opinions, and critical readers are able to tell which is which.
Statement of Facts must be proved or provable by objective means. If it cannot be verified or disproved then it is a statement of opinion.
English composition text book.
Next….. Detecting Bias.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 10, 2009 at 6:57 PM
“Two accepted scientific polls with results unfavourable to Mia Mottley, followed by two questionable polls that are favourable to her.” The latest poll may be unscientific and questionable but that does not make the scientific polls not questionable. Using a scientific method can lead to many results with exactly the same sets of data.
The latest poll’s responses by text message are facts. If they have been stored, then they can be reviewed and checked. How they are interpreted, given the questions posed can also be reviewed.
Is it good journalism? Newspapers mount their own polls all the time and report on them. CNN is famous for doing “quick vote” polls all the time (using a range of voting methods–phone, online, etc.) and reporting on them as “not scientific”.
David // November 10, 2009 at 7:05 PM
The gist of the problem as we see it, in a very short period after the scientific CADRES poll which showed Arthur with a greater national appeal we have this unscientific poll. Acceptable in this context or not?
Wishing In Vain // November 10, 2009 at 11:15 PM
David put this into context the original poll showed Mottley with 200 odd votes and Owing with 1300 odd when Ms Carol Martindale one of Mia’s clan saw the result she shut it down and delayed to result to please Mottley, there is nothing sensible worthy of discussion on this matter.
Adrian Hinds // November 10, 2009 at 11:19 PM
The results of the Cadres poll and the Text message poll are both statements of fact. The text message poll could be percieved to be measuring the same public opinion as Cadres, yet the result of both polls contradicts each other.
Was Mottley able to turn around the results she got in the Cadres poll conducted just a few months ago?
Are the polls really similar with regards to what they sought to measure?
Was the Text message poll done to measure Mottley national popularity against that of Owen, or was it done to measure public opinion on Owen’s press conference?
What message is implied by the cartoon? what do you infer from it?
Does it square with the article titled 60% not with Owen?
David // November 10, 2009 at 11:29 PM
There is another angle. Polling is a North American event, many in Barbados feel it is out of place with our culture. BU’s position is Barbados is too small to encourage an environment of polling, its influence is too obvious. In Barbados we have looked at polls mainly in the political arena and most times they have been scientific. Why do we have to follow the USA by using polls?
CNN and the networks rely on polls to feed their 24 hour fast food news frenzy. To benchmark against what CNN et al are doing does nothing for BU. In fairness to CNN they usually underpin their polls by finding the average of other polls done by other networks.
Adrian Hinds // November 10, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Yes WIV.
They were three polls, and this cartoon.
The Online poll (since deleted) and the text message poll dealt with public opinion on Owen’s press statement comments.
The Cartoon seems to be suggesting something closer to what the Cadres polls reveal, but in reverse.
A blogger’s comment on the 60% not with Owen article
Crying Shame : 11/8/2009
It is a crying shame that this great paper could be turning into what the paper it is now seen as. Only last week a new BAJ celebrated an excited week. If bothers me much that the nation should carry out a free online poll that showed 1048 persons agreeing with former Prime Minister Owen Authur and only 256 disagreeing. Then the poll disappeared off the radar and new poll that involved texting at a cost was introduced. This new poll showed according to the writer, a 60% in favour of the leader of the opposition. Not a word on how many persons voted but just a percentage. You can refuse to post this submission but it must and will be known. Journalism on fire in the Frank Collymore hall last week was excellent, to great men telling they stories, then I have to accept this poor piece of folly.
Truthful Mouth
Adrian Hinds // November 10, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Amanda Lynch-Foster as that Nationnews Digital editor responds
Re: Truthful Mouth : 11/8/2009
Just to respond to the reader Truthful Mouth’s concerns. The free online poll was removed after it came to our attention that the setting of the poll allowed individual readers to vote multiple times without limitation. Before the relaunch of the Nation site in March, the previous settings of our polls only allowed readers to vote once in a 24 hour period. When we changed our layout and upgraded our content management system, we did not realise that the poll settings had been changed. This is particularly so because previous polls had shown no indication or evidence of this. However, in this most recent poll, we realised that there seemed to be discrepancies in: a) the number of votes as they related to the number of comments. Usually when a poll is on such a ‘hot topic’ as to garner numerous votes on it (1000+), it also has a lot of comments. As you indicated, up to when the poll was removed, there were 1000+ votes on it but yet there were only four comments. b)the speed at which the vote was climbing. It has been unusual thus far for our online polls to surpass 1000 votes in less than 24 hours. However, this happened with this poll. c) The time of day at which the votes were coming in. According to our stats, the peak readership hours for NATIONnews.com are between 4 a.m. to 10 a.m. – usually peaking at 6 or 7 a.m. Accordingly, voting on our polls tends to increase during those hours and slow down during the rest of the day. In this instance, the voting on the poll speeded up considerably between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m – going from some 300+ to 1000+ in those hours. None of these things had happened before with previous online polls. Hence, it prompted us to check to see what could be causing these discrepancies. When we did check, we discovered that the settings had been such that any individual could vote multiple times. Based on the discrepancies I outline above, it seems that in the case of this particular poll, this may have been the case. Hence we changed the settings so that any individual can only vote once within a 24 hour period. It was due to those circumstances that we removed the online poll.
Digital Editor
Facts // November 11, 2009 at 12:15 AM
A.H,
Very good article.
I don’t know how any person with a pinch of credibility can seriously suggest that the results of this poll give a picture of reality.
THIS SAMPLE TAKEN IS TOO SMALL AND IS NOT A REFLECTION OF THE AVERAGE VIEWS.
It is filled with SAMPLE BIAS – and should never have been published as being representative.
It is cheap, political manoeuvering orchestrated by lurking shadow king/queen makers!
Wishing In Vain // November 11, 2009 at 1:40 AM
As I said before they are not worthy of comment but what I find extremly funny is having not heard or seen or a thing out of the I WANT A PLANTATION MAN VIC JOHNSON for years, he suddenly finds it necessary to try to give bouyancy to the 1,000 Lbs Of Blubber Mottley to float it, lost cause that.
The smoke screens and acting have been dismantled by Owing to the raw facts that Mottley is a lame dick standbyopposition leader or better Dale is the Leader in waiting to displace her, no more Mottley entitlement and Mottley rules around here.
We have gone past that from Grantley Adams days we have matured and no longer do we feel intimindated or bound to worship the power hungry Mottley clan of crooks.
Her father before her refused to pay for his photocopying machine and it was sent and picked up and returned to that office supply store on Bolton Lane.
There is a history of crookery in the Mottley clan so her accumulation of wealth from VECO and J. DANOS to name but two of her sources of wealth.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 11, 2009 at 2:53 AM
Peter Wickham can correct, but his August poll stated “polling divisions were selected in all 30 constituencies and face to face interviews were conducted with approximately twelve persons in each instance, totalling approximately 1,000 interviews”, which seems like fewer than 400 persons polled. The report does not say how the persons were chosen, so I will leave open any view on the methodology of selection.
Any polling can have bias, explicit or implicit.
The latest text poll by the Nation was of course in a very different setting to the August CADRES poll for several reasons, but not least political in-fighting was fresh in people’s minds and also the public knew of the earlier poll result. Those events could have created some change in the landscape of opinion, not least in terms of what people would now express. The CADRES poll noted prominently that the presence of major political events could have affected its results, arguing that “The only significant political event that could have impacted on this survey was the resignation of Opposition Senator Kerrie Symmonds”.
Polling may well have its recorded origins in the US (views differ on that) but it is certainly internationally accepted and practised, even in the Caribbean, where Rex Nettleford and others showed its worth in measuring and assessing a wide range of social and political opinions.
As for the notion of Barbados being too small for polling, that is a very odd reaction. Did many people argue that Barbados was too small to have an international airport capable of landing a supersonic jet or that locals should not get used to this sort of development? Perhaps going forward a suggestion could be made for other (better) ways of sounding out public opinion in between elections. Even without saying so, soundings are often taken by decision makers, whenever the opportunities present themselves, to help see where public opinions stand (even a show of hands at a meeting). But, polls have often given great impetus to change. As for their place in small societies, my observation is that they have now become part of Crop Over voting, and my recollection of the last series was that multiple text voting was allowed. I do not recall the results being rejected. I stand to be corrected.
X-MAN // November 11, 2009 at 4:22 AM
off message
@David and bu readers.
I’ve have just found this company on the internet advertising luxury houses in Barbados. Take a look.
http://www.beachlandsbarbados.com/#/home/
Sargeant // November 11, 2009 at 8:30 AM
Based on the response from the Nation’s representative it seems that the result of the Poll was generated by electronic ballot stiffing. This is not new many political groups in the USA engage in this activity to influence public opinion; e.g. if there was a discussion on where President Obama was born a group dedicated to the proposition that he was born in Africa can get its supporters to phone en masse and vote for Kenya. Someone in Barbados saw a loophole in the Nation’s poll and drove through it, I would advise anyone with a copy of the Nation with the story on the poll results to ensure that the newspaper is used to line their bird cages or wrap their fish. In times not so far off it would be used for another activity, discerning readers can guess at that action
Adrian Hinds // November 11, 2009 at 10:24 AM
David do you detect a willingness by some to question the Cadres poll under the pretence of what is applicable to any poll, while vaguely suggesting that things could have change between the times the Cadres and the Text message poll, were conducted, leading to the different results between the two?
I do not take poll results as the complete truth. Poll results by definition can only be a sample of any collective opinion.
If I have to look at contrasting results from two polls then I have to consider the method, the size of the sample, the locations of the samples relative to the whole of which it is suppose to be part.
Cadres have a record of accomplishment that lends to its credibility as far as opinion sampling goes. Text message polling has no such record in Barbados. Cadres publicize its methods, its sample size and the locations from whence they were drawn. I know very little about the text message methodology, what was the size of the sample group. Where were they located, etc?
The article titled “60% not with Owen” suggest that the Text message poll asked respondents for their opinion on Arthur’s press conference and whether Mottley was suited to be the BLP’s leader. Was it one sentence with two clauses structured as questions, to which one answer was required? If so, this is similar to what occurred in Australia concerning a referendum on Australia becoming a republic.
The Cartoon that followed the “60% not with Owen” article does not include anything regarding the first clause/question of the statement that they presumably asked in the Text message poll. The cartoon only deals with “who is best suited to lead the BLP”, which is the same or similar opinion that Cadres poll sought a response to.
David // November 11, 2009 at 10:46 AM
@Adrian
You have articulated the issue very well and as far as BU is concern it is a slam-dunk. To borrow a legal term the Fourth Estate, in this case the Nation newspaper has a duty of care when presenting reporting news. These text polls are highly suspect and can be easily manipulated, the NCF and Starcom realised this last crop over when running popular competitions. There is precedent in the market if the Nation wanted to be guided on the use of text polling. Our recollection is the results of previous text polls are posted on the back page or some less prominent page in pie-chart form.
On another note BU notes with interest that Nation Digital Editor who we believe is President of the BAJ has been very low profile. On the talk show last Sunday the verbose and loquacious Julius Gittens represented the BAJ. Where is the young and bright Amanda? Hopefully here wings have not been clipped.
Observing // November 11, 2009 at 11:32 AM
My two cents worth…
As David said, disagreeing with Owen’s opinion of Mottley does not infer “not being with Owen”
The heading for the article is misleading at best and clearly formatted to stand out on the page and grab attention.
Text votes incurred a cost, thus leaving out a very large percentage of persons who do not want to incur that cost.
The rationale for removing the online poll (manipulation) can also be applied to the text poll.
The article represented the first time that a text poll received inside front page placement. All others got a little graph on the back page.
Bajans aren’t stupid. Even if I didn’t know anything about the Nation’s “leanings” or bias they are doing a very good job of showing it. Credibility in journalism is critical, and the Nation and its agents continue to raise doubts about that credibility.
Adrian Hinds // November 11, 2009 at 11:38 AM
David I would not read much into the absence of Amanda on Sunday’s talk program.
Inspite of Jack Bowman’s insistence that “person who cannot write properly, cannot think properly” The truth is that person with equal or similar thinking capacity may have varying degrees of vocal and writing communicating skills.
It would not be surprising to me that a deliberate decision was made to have a more experience orator in Julius Gittens Moderate the talk program. Some people write better than they speak, and some people are just better at Extemporaneous Speaking, and radio is best suited to Extempt.
Carson C. Cadogan // November 11, 2009 at 12:33 PM
You guys continue to hurt your heads with the Nation newspaper.
The Nation newspaper was set up in 1973 by a number of Barbados Labour Party bigwigs. As a result the Nation newspaper is committed to the Barbados Labour Party. It is their duty to show the Barbados Labour Party and whoever is it’s leader in the best light possible.
As I said before the Nation newspaper will never be kind to the Democratic Labour Party.
Ask Harold Hoyte.
David // November 11, 2009 at 12:47 PM
@Adrian
Maybe you are correct and we don’t mean to knock Amanda who we have some respect.
If she expects to make a difference her role as president requires her to speak!
Here ability to rally her troops and be an agent for change makes her ability to speak mandatory
Adrian Hinds // November 11, 2009 at 12:51 PM
I am not hurting my head. Employees of the traditional media have setup an “Us vs. Blogs, debate and I am simply contributing.
We Richmond boys have a proud history of debating. lol!
Carson C. Cadogan // November 11, 2009 at 6:31 PM
Adrian
Nice to know that you are a Richmond boy.
Adrian Hinds // November 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Detecting Bias:
Bias is a predisposition in favor of or against someone or something: It is a liking for or a dislike of a person or thing.
On Nov 1, the Nation Newspaper published an article titled “60% not with Owen”. The Nation conducted a text message poll and this was the result from a question or series of questions, one of which they stated to have been base on Owen Arthur’s views learned from his press conference, and respondents opinion on the question “Is Mia Mottley suited to be the leader of the BLP”
I should add that since Tuesday, I could no longer access this article on Nationnews.com, and since Wednesday, I can no longer access it via Google.
Now that the article has done what it was suppose to do, Cartoons are now the order of the day.
NOV 8th
http://tinyurl.com/y8abupv
NOV 12th
http://tinyurl.com/y87huky
Nevertheless, are these cartoons changing perceptions? On the other hand, are they leading to more doubt about Mia’s standing in the BLP?
I note with great interest that both cartoons refer to Mia as the FUTURE PARTY LEADER. It is 2009 with three more years to the next election and Mia Mottley’s Future and Leadership of the BLP is still to not assure. How do you read these cartoons?
David // November 13, 2009 at 1:09 PM
@Adrian
You must have noticed the Nation is being persistent in its cell poll cartooning, if you check today’s online. It would be interesting to ask the cartoonist at the Nation if he is being asked by his editorial staff to mass produce these cartoons.
Maybe the time has come for concerned Barbadians to write to the Nation Head Office in Trinidad – One Caribbean Media.
Adrian Hinds // November 13, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Indeed I will make my concerns known.
————————————
The Nation Newspaper
“A valued and distinguished institution now stands like a colossus astride our information landscape.” Professor Hilary Beckles, Pro Vice Chancellor of the University of the West Indies. (Nation Newspaper, November 23, 1994)
I wonder if Doc Beckles still feel this way. I must ask him.
Adrian Hinds // November 13, 2009 at 2:47 PM
David: Could you secure a copy of the Nationnews paper with the 60% not with Owen Article? I need it to complete my argument. I think it was publish on Nov 1st
David // November 13, 2009 at 3:25 PM
@Adrian
Have you checked pressdisplay.com. It usually has all the newspapers by country in their archives. Let us know if it is helpful if not plan B.
Gearbox // November 13, 2009 at 3:31 PM
One thing about Adrian Hinds, he always think he’s in a position to educate persons on the definitions of words. I mean, don’t some of you think that his approach is condescending to say the lease?
Anyway, let me state my position early. I am a swing voter, I’m not eternally attached to any political party. However, I understand that this is primarily a DLP blog, and I’m quite perplexed as to why some of you seem so captivated by the polls regarding Mia’s popularity (or lack thereof).
I mean, whether Mia or Owen leads the BLP into the next election, should it make that much of a difference to the DLP? I believe that as long as the current administration handles the people’s business positvely and effectively during this first term, getting another term should not be a problem.
David // November 13, 2009 at 3:40 PM
You obviously missed the boat. This blog is more about integrity in the Fourth Estate (Nation newspaper) and less about political gerrymandering.
On the labelling of being a DLP blog note we have an unaccepted invitation outstanding to BLP persons to submit articles under names we can identify.
Instead they cower in the darkness.
Adrian Hinds // November 13, 2009 at 4:38 PM
David: Thanks, I just signed up for unlimited access to pressdisplay’s site. Unfortunately the November 8th edition (I stated Nov 1st in error) is not listed. I think it was last sunday that the article “60% not with Owen” was published. Look for a deadtree copy for me please.
It looks like a deliberate decision was taken to remove this article.
David // November 13, 2009 at 4:55 PM
@Adrian
Is this the article?
It is still online.
Adrian Hinds // November 13, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Anyone who has a copy of the november 8th 2009 Nationnews Article titled “60% not with Owen” and you can scan/photocopy it to digital format, please email it to me at
adrianhinds0@gmail.com
Thanks in advance
Adrian Hinds // November 13, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Well well David you made that look very easy. I did try really hard to find it but could not. Oh well more proof of the dunce that I am. :0
…..That i could enhance my search skills, would you mind emailing me the steps you took to find it?
Thanks!
Gearbox // November 13, 2009 at 6:19 PM
But tell me something David, what was so wrong with the Nation News doing their own cell phone poll and publishing the results even if the results were contrary to the scientific poll? I think it is up to the people of Barbados to decide for themselves which they believe to be more credible or accurate.
One could easily argue that the Advocate News has a bias slant in favour of the DLP, just as one could argue that the Nation News favours the BLP. That’s the nature of things…but come election time the people decide based on how their lives are being affected by the policies of the goverment. That’s why the DLP are in power today, and that’s why the DLP got my vote in the last election.
David // November 13, 2009 at 6:34 PM
@Gearbox
Reread above and if you still don’t get it no sweat.
Gearbox // November 13, 2009 at 7:07 PM
Whatever David, I still think that all this discusion about the polls and the Nation News is a lost cause.
Tell me something though, are you the site admin of this blog? I’m new in here and would just like to get idea of who is who. I’m familiar with only one name that I’ve seen here so far.
David // November 13, 2009 at 7:12 PM
@Gearbox
If you are new it will take some time but the BU family is more concerned with your message. Stay positive and you don’t need to worry about site admin…lol.
BTW we have a BU family member who uses the handle Gearbox, it would be decent of you if you rebrand :-)
Atman // November 13, 2009 at 9:47 PM
What do you mean by “concern with my message” and “stay positive”? Are you saying that I’m not entitled to have an opinion of my own that may be contrary to what I see here? I’m not worried about anything at all (don’t know what would give you that idea), I just prefer to have an idea of who is in charge wherever I go.
Since you already have a member with the handle Gearbox, I have switched to Atman. I’m a straight talker…not disrespectful…but a straight talker who calls it as he sees it. I hope that won’t be a problem for you guys to deal with.
David // November 14, 2009 at 12:20 AM
@Atman
Thanks for accommodating the request to change handles, sporting of you.
Look forward to bouncing ideas/views.
David // November 14, 2009 at 12:46 AM
Now that we are on the subject of integrity in the Fourth Estate we have a question for Roxanne Gibbs or any in the know.
Can we have an update on the Carol Martindale Hartley Henry brouhaha?
Seems after the hullahulu things have gone very quiet. Can Barbadians expect a follow-up story or is this another case of lack of resources?
Adrian Hinds // November 14, 2009 at 1:28 AM
Good point David. It was suppose to be a police matter, so a lack of resources can still be an issue. lol!
Atman // November 14, 2009 at 10:55 AM
@David
At the end of the day this whole issue of the Carol Martindale, the polls, and the “integrity of the Fourth Estate” still boils down to political gerrymandering.
You obviously see eye-to-eye with Hartley Henry on the issue, but I wonder if you believe his approach and conduct with regards to Carol Martindale was professional and befitting a man in his position.
Hartley Henry may complain about the lack of balanced publishing by the Nation News, and Mia Mottley may complain about balanced coverage or air time on CBC…maybe they both have valid arguments and greivances. This is why I’ll always remain a swing voter and never become fixated with any one political party…it tends to blind people to the whole picture and cloud their judgment…what I call the tunnel vision syndrome.
Adrian Hinds // November 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM
I have always been fascinated by this word.
(JER-i-man-duhr)
verb tr.
To repartition an area in order to create electoral districts that give an unfair advantage to a political party.
noun
1. An instance of gerrymandering.
2. One or more electoral districts, widely differing in size or population, created as a result of gerrymandering.
Etymology
A blend of Elbridge Gerry and salamander. Massachusetts Governor Gerry’s party rearranged the electoral district boundaries and someone fancied the newly redistricted Essex County resembled a salamander. Gerry later served as a Vice President of the United States (1813-1814).
Usage
“But the champion gerrymandering comes from Illinois. Chicago has two Hispanic areas. They are in different parts of the city, but that has not discouraged the good politicians of Illinois from creating a constituency consisting of these two areas only. They lie on either side of a black part of the city like the bread of a sandwich. Worst of all is the state’s extraordinary 17th District, which is a crab.” — United States: How to Rig an Election, The Economist (London), Apr 27, 2002.
“The same tendency to duck and weave has characterized the campaign. Because the parties mutually agree to gerrymander most of the country, a shamefully small number of congressional districts are in play, along with some key Senate seats.” — Fifty-Fifty, The Washington Post, Nov 3, 2002.
David // November 14, 2009 at 11:14 AM
@Atman
With respect it is why BU asked you to reread our comments.
We agree with your statement partially but it paints the symptom only. BU’s point and Adrian points to the root of the problem i.e. the integrity of the Fourth Estate. If we had integrity then both parties would have to toe the line. By now we would have had an oversight body rule and Henry and/or Martindale’s asses would have been booted out the door.
Atman // November 14, 2009 at 11:17 AM
@Adrian
Hey Pal, it’s good to see you again. Sorry if I showed up on Friday 13th like Jason Voorhees.
Now I’m no fan of Mia either, but I’ve known you in the past to develop an animosity towards her that goes beyond political differences…a type of animosity that isn’t healthy at all. Anyway, you’re a big boy and probably don’t need me to tell you what’s healthy from what’s not.
Hope we can get into some good healthy political debating once again.
Adrian Hinds // November 14, 2009 at 11:27 AM
How to detect bias in a passage or statement? Watch for a tell-tale sign like; The author assumes the truth of something that she or he does not try to argue or defend:
“It goes without saying…..”
“It is obvisous…..”
—————————
I believe that the Nationnews is Bias in favour of Mia Mottley, and bias against Owen Arthur.
The purpose of my contributions in this thread, was to provide data, Anecdotal evidence and anologies to substantiate my point of view.
Whenever I feel to opinionate on the Advocate’s relationships, I will seek to present the evidence, and anologies to backup my views on the matter.
Atman // November 14, 2009 at 11:44 AM
@David
Well I agree that we seem to be on the same page there…I didn’t have the time to read thru all the historical comments pertaining to this issue, but that part is settled.
I believe it is up to the ruling government to put the necessary measures in place to ensure integrity. Government after government also these things to go unaddressed.
There is only one TV station in Barbados and it is state owned, and successive goverments have simply refused to issue a TV license to a private entity (namely Starcom). It is obvious that each successive government has been taking full advantage of the single TV station for partisan political purposes when they get into power. Isn’t it time for that to stop and for the nation to enjoy having options when it comes to local TV?
Atman // November 14, 2009 at 11:59 AM
@Adrian
[Nation is bias on the side of Mia against Owen]
I could see why this may be of some importance to hardcore BLP supporters who would prefer to see Owen back at the helm…but that’s about the extent of the importance of that fact or opinion. Quite frankly, after 14 years of Owen as PM, I think Barbadians got rid of him for good reasons. Even though I would not like to see Mia as PM, I really couldn’t take anymore of Owen either.
Adrian Hinds // November 14, 2009 at 3:33 PM
I believe it is up to the ruling government to put the necessary measures in place to ensure integrity.
—————-
What are some of the reasons that would hinder integrity policies and legislation from becoming law?
————————————————–
IT IS OBVIOUS that each successive government has been taking full advantage of the single TV station for partisan political purposes when they get into power.
—————-
This statement requires evidence to substantiate it.
————————————————–
Who becomes the Leader of a political party in our system of government should be important to all citizens.
Our system of government does not allow for a popularly elected “leader of the country” this privilege since independence has been the sole right of the parliamentary members of either political party.
More recently the DLP as taken the bold step to deepen the democratic process of chosen a leader by allowing the general membership of the party to vote for their choice, with the parliamentary team then legitimizing that decision to satisfy the constitutional requirement for picking the PM or LOTO.
The BLP is yet to follow suite and this to my mind makes any leader of that party ineligible to be truly representative of the people as their Leader.
For all the thousands of members of the BLP, eight persons chose the current leader.
Atman // November 15, 2009 at 9:56 AM
@Adrian
Maybe I should have said it is obvious to persons who observe and have common sense. I don’t think that I need to explain what happens at CBC and most other government run entities whenever a new administration takes over. It should be quite clear to everybody (except you of course) that CBC TV and radio stations are dominated at the political level by the ruling party. The first thing that happens when the government changes is that the staff at CBC changes as well. Need I say more?
Adrian Hinds // November 15, 2009 at 11:25 AM
You were asked to provide supporting evidence to prove your point. A reasonable request.
I agree with many view points express on this blog, but only the ones that have supporting evidence are worth repeating.
There is little difference between saying “It goes without saying” and asking “Need I say more?”
…..Where is your proof that a change in Government brings a change in the STAFF at CBC?
I just “looked up” CBC and using photos from their recently concluded Open day I still saw several faces of STAFF that were there prior to Jan 15 th 2008.
Certainly a government run news media could be expected to favour the government, but this relationship does not dismiss the need for evidence.
So far
you have assumed the truth.
you have exaggerated.
you have stereotype.
you HAVE NOT provided any evidence
Adrian Hinds // November 15, 2009 at 1:39 PM
So what is the next step for Mia Mottley?
I think that she and or persons (queen makers) will attempt social engineering a palatable Mia Mottley to the Barbadian public.
The method is likely to be a sustain media campaign via radio, TV, newspaper, mail, etc. We have seen some of it already via the Nation newspaper.
The theme is likely to settle on her being a woman. Mottley previously asked if any of the concerns that Owen aired would be important were she a man. I am not sure what approach they will take, as I am not sure what negative image of a woman they will be trying to combat and reshape.
In the last election, we saw some feeble attempts at rebranding her. We had a remake of a popular song “Mia Royal”. We heard of “Nastiness” being said about her. We also saw attempts to present her as a desirable heterosexual person, as if to suggest that they were questions or concerns to the contrary.
If I am correct, I think that a campaign should be launch at the same time, to engage Barbadian thoughts on conservatism vs. Liberalism.
Are you politically conservative? What does this mean in the Barbadian context?
Are you religiously conservative? What does this mean in the Barbadian context?
Are you socially conservative? What does this mean in the Barbadian context?
Are you fiscally conservative? What does this mean in the Barbadian Context?
Then contrast the above with being Liberal.
Atman // November 16, 2009 at 12:36 PM
@Adrian
I’m not going to waste time catering to your request for evidence on issues that are commonly seen and known in Barbados. Maybe you are a bit too physically removed to be aware of everthing that goes on. Maybe some of your other friends here could confirm what I have said to be a fact for you.
As usual you type much and say very little. For the longest time you have been trying hard to establish yourself as an authority on Barbadian politics, and so far I have seen little or no progress in you achieving that goal. You spend much time on petty issues being critical and derogative, and practically zero time on new and uplifting ideas to advance the nationhood of Barbados.
Alex Fergusson // November 16, 2009 at 1:07 PM
many are saying that the Democratic Labour Party represents a plot; a setting and a cast of characters that logically constitute a great social and economic horror story.
The people are saying that the DLP is monstrous spectacle of a Government that does not know what it is doing.
Back in France when men were considered barbaric, someone came up with the name of a contraption, which they said would bring a less painful and quick death.
It was called the guillotine or the national razor.
I met a Dem in the supermarket over the weekend who told me that in Barbados today, Prime Minister David Thompson could be described at the “butcher.”
The man told me that many feel that like the leader of the revolution in France, Thompson too is preparing for a special type of cut.
That is – the amount his party will need to take from the poor in order to give increased comforts to the rich.
There is spooky air or dread as things continue to crumble under the weight of DLP rule.
The only possible happy ending to this fiasco is if Barbadians were to rescue this country from the clutches of the DLP and put its destiny in the hands of a team that have proven to be trusted stewards.
Contributing to the decline is the fact that the DLP is a truly dreadful steward of this country’s affairs.
It is now uglier than 1991-1994 and there is no reason to assume that things will get better under DLP rule.
The DLP’s incompetence cannot be disguised and the situation is extreme and fraught with the danger of chronic mismanagement.
There is, however, a potential saviour waiting in the wings. The solution is for the people to save Barbados by kicking the DLP out.
What is happening in Barbados is truly a horror story of unprecedented proportions.
Adrian Hinds // November 16, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Atman, is that your final answer? ha ha lol!
When are you going to give me something that I can “look-up” to prove or disprove what you are saying?
Just remember, until you do, It is but your opinion. lol!
Atman // November 17, 2009 at 11:49 AM
@Adrian
If you see it that way…fine by me. If I walked up to you and said “I just witnessed a murder”, it would be up to you to believe it or not, but I won’t have to convince you because it makes no difference to me either way. I prefer to leave people like you who profess to know so much, to your own ignorance.
Adrian Hinds // November 17, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Understood Atman. proving what you have published never occurred to you. It is probably a foreign concept to you inspite of it being core to the generations old biblical story “Doubting Thomas”.
He got his proof and became Thomas the believer, why can’t I?
Jesus provided him the proof why can’t you?
…maybe you have never heard the story. ha ha ha lol!
Atman // November 17, 2009 at 3:43 PM
But Adrian, the only person who wants proof is you…and I choose not to accommodate you. Certainly you can do your own research and determine what the facts are. I would not rely on you to prove me with proof of any statement to make, I would find the facts for myself and then I would be in a position to either say either I agree or disagree with you. Now stop being so lazy and do your own homework man.
Atman // November 17, 2009 at 3:46 PM
(corrected version of my last statement)
But Adrian, the only person who wants proof is you…and I choose not to accommodate you. Certainly you can do your own research and determine what the facts are. I would not rely on you to provide me with proof to any statement that you make, I would find the facts for myself and then I would be in a position to either say either I agree or disagree with you. Now stop being so lazy and do your own homework man.
Adrian Hinds // November 17, 2009 at 5:54 PM
Jesus proved his own opinions, I endevour to do likewise with my own, and expect the same from others regarding theirs.
If a person does not wash their undergarments they have no right labeling others as lazy for not washing them.
Atman // November 18, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Have you suddenly become a religious person Adrian? Well let me correct you on something, Jesus did not come with “opinions”, He came with clear guidelines and rules for living. It is up to you to prove my statement false if you’re so dead set on challenging it, but I’m not obligated to provide you with any proof. I know what I know and that is sufficient for me…I’m not here to convince anybody of anything. Do you understand me now Adri?
Atman // November 18, 2009 at 9:34 AM
@Adrian
By the way, on my blog you stated that you do not think that Starcom Network deserves to get a local TV license, would you like to state for the public why you take that view?
David // November 18, 2009 at 7:31 PM
@Atman
Currently there is an over-concentration of ownership of the media space in Barbados by One Caribbean Media. To give that group a TV license would be deepening a vulnerability which exist.
Atman // November 19, 2009 at 10:29 AM
@David
That is a cop out if I ever heard one. So you are telling me that the citizens of Barbados should continue to be deprived of having another local TV option for that lame reason? What exactly is the “vulnerability”, and who exactly is vulnerable to it?
Atman // November 19, 2009 at 11:00 AM
@David
If I may also raise another topic simultaneously. One of the David Thompson’s pre-election campaign points that encouraged me further to give him my vote, was his desire to introduce integrity legislation as it pertains to government ministers, but I’ve heard very little about it since he took office, and I would have expected this to be on his list of priorities as a matter of urgency. This is disappointing for me personally…it could cost him my “X” come next election.
Here’s what the folks over at BFP had to say about it…
http://tinyurl.com/yflrs88
Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Good point David. I would like to contrast the Government’s monopoly of TV which is a subset of the media in Barbados and the concentration of the radio, and print media in one company.
Who has the potential the reach more audiance with their agenda? Government or those who controls One Caribbean Media?
David // November 19, 2009 at 2:22 PM
The vulnerability is obvious as in what defines monopoly. The ability to control information in any country makes the owner very powerful as in what are opinion shapers?
BU is not against issuing a TV license just not to OCM. There is also a lot of bad blood between the DLP and the Nation for example. If you followed the last general election you would have detected such. There is also the current simmering spat between Henry and the Nation i.e. Carol Martindale.
Christopher Halsall // November 19, 2009 at 2:36 PM
@David, @AH, et al…
If I may… May I please point out that in Canada (the Land of the Beaver) the Government owned TV station (who’s acronym is also CBC BTW) is never afraid to ridicule, insult, or to take the Government to task.
Please see “The Rick Mercer Report”, “This Hour has 22 Minutes”, “The Fifth Estate”, et al.
Available to (just about) everyone in Barbados on MCTV channel 703…
Anyone have any ideas as to why the same thing is not true in Bim?
David // November 19, 2009 at 4:04 PM
@CH
Good question, obviously a different culture one which has a higher standard attached to the profession. Remember some of the best universities in the world which train journalist are located in Canada. The other consideration maybe the competing ideologies that exist in Canada which gives rise to competition for space. BU would welcome your views and others who have a better knowledge of the Canadian environment.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 19, 2009 at 4:17 PM
@Chris Halsall, from what journalists and media houses say their reluctance is borne of fear. They say fear of litigation (defamation laws). You’ve cited just fear itself. As I’ve noted before, even in military controlled dictatorships in some of the worst run places in the world, journalists seem to be prepared to challenge all, including the government and head of state, but in Barbados we mostly hear ’special’ pleading.
Christopher Halsall // November 19, 2009 at 4:33 PM
@LIB… (May I call you Dennis?)
@LIB: “…from what journalists and media houses say their reluctance is borne of fear. They say fear of litigation (defamation laws). You’ve cited just fear itself.
IMHO, fear is a stupid emotion.
Fear is what weak people feel.
Fear can and should be faced directly. It should be stood down. Fear should be challenged directly.
To some, fear is debilitating…
To others it is nothing but noise.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM
@Chris Halsall, DJ or LIB work fine enough, so long as you’re not confusing me with someone else.
Fear may well be a stupid emotion, but it still exists, and not every one can learn to control it and not be debilitated.
For it to be ‘neutralised’, means a process where those who hire have courage to go with those who seem to have no fear or have it in control. But as a process it clearly cannot start if the hirers are gripped by fear.
Alternative. Those who feel they have no fear or at least courage should go where others fear to tread. It may be a lonely road, but a satisfying one, I’d argue.
Christopher Halsall // November 19, 2009 at 4:51 PM
@Dennis Jones (AKA LIB): “…means a process where those who hire have courage to go with those who seem to have no fear or have it in control.
But this is the problem we have in Bim… “Those who hire” are fearful; they have no courage.
@DJ: “Those who feel they have no fear or at least courage should go where others fear to tread. It may be a lonely road, but a satisfying one, I’d argue.
I would agree with this statement….
Atman // November 19, 2009 at 7:19 PM
@David
Starcom did not get a license when the BLP was in power either, but yet you would want to give the impression that OCM media houses are pro-BLP. That is just non-sense as far as I am concern. The bottom line is that both parties would like to control the news media to the point where nothing negative is reported about their respective parties. There is no valid reason why Starcom should not be given a TV license, and most important consideration here is that the citizens of this country deserve to have another TV option that they do not have to pay for.
Atman // November 19, 2009 at 7:41 PM
@Adrian
So you finally have a reply, or were you just waiting on David to give you some assistance? What is the agenda of OCM Adrian? And if you also believe that OCM is pro-BLP, then tell me why wasn’t Starcom given a license when the BLP was in power. Or maybe you’re going to tell me that OCM is a Taliban run organization that is trying to destabilize the government and convert Barbados to a religious state under Sharia law.
Anonymous // November 19, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Atman, I like yuh style man. Dah give muh a good belly laugh.
Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 8:55 PM
Seems like comedy hour. Joker in the house?
de taliban? OCM is own and operated by bin laden aint it?
@David:
Besides having a choice to satisfy the saying “variety is the spice of life”
Can you think of any benefits that the Barbadian public may derived from the issuance of a second TV licences?
Should a TV licence be issued to first and foremost benefit the public or a corporate entity?
What are the benefits to public?
new news? and other programming? not already available on the free public television, but nevertheless can only be fitted to the television media format?
Is this a priority in the current scheme of things? Why am I even dicussing this. chuspes.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 19, 2009 at 9:06 PM
There is financial value is selling rights to broadcast, and with limited fiscal space, the government ought to be thinking about ways to bolster its income given that there are few options for broadening the tax base. Whether it sells the TV license outright or with some sort of payments over time, the gains could be substantial. I’m no expert but using the basic principle that currently applies for radio broadcast, cellular transmission, etc.
Something like that would be consistent with the message the PM gave this week about what he’s prepared to do to guard the investment grade without compromising living standards.
Atman // November 19, 2009 at 9:13 PM
@Anonymous
Well I’m glad I could put a smile on somebody’s face. Thanks.
If they (David and Adrian) had told me that maybe the different administrations are looking at things from a business perspective, and doesn’t want CBC to have to compete with Starcom for TV advertising dollars, that would have made more sense to me, but would still be unfair to the public.
David // November 19, 2009 at 9:20 PM
@Atman
You obviously have been selective in interpreting BU’s comment. The substantive point we want to make is there is already a heavy concentration of media ownership in the hands of OCM, a T&T concern.
@Adrian
The problem BU has with issuing a second license has to to with how it fits into our national strategy for nurturing and building the cultural industries. Who wants a TV station to feed our young people more CSI and American networks?
Atman // November 19, 2009 at 9:32 PM
@Adrian
Only you would be silly enough to ask what would be the benefits to the public in having a second local TV station. Maybe you should give up all the various sources of news and entertainment that you currently enjoy, and see how important it is to you. But what do you care about Barbados and Barbadians anyway? You live in America, you believe in America, and you seldom (if ever) have anything good to say about Barbados. When was the last time you visited your homeland Adrian? I’m sure you could afford a trip.
Atman // November 19, 2009 at 9:50 PM
@David
When you speak you always say “BU”, so I have a question or two. Who or how many persons comprise BU, and do you speak for all?
David, I’m not being selective in my interpretation of what you said, I’m just telling you point blank that I disagree with that reasoning. OCM may be a T&T concern, but that does not change my opinion. Would BU be interested in applying for a TV license?
Atman // November 19, 2009 at 10:07 PM
@David
What I mean is that you gave reasons why the current administration wouldn’t want to grant a TV license to an OCM company, but what reason(s) did the Arthur administration have for not granting it? I don’t think the BLP had any problem issuing a license to a T&T company to do business here.
Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 10:39 PM
I don’t think it is silly. I would like to have a very good reason for the government to sell any part of the public spectrum to any private entity. I am for community type television and if CBC being a public broadcasting entity cannot fullfill this role then the concept of Community television and licencing for such should be issued non-profits, or cooperatives, colleges or universities strictly for local programming.
BCC just started an FM station I think.
I did not have access to television as a young boy and do not watch much of it currently. I get my news by reading and listening to the radio. Television makes me sleepy.
I tell you already that I am one hundred percent bajan and you are not, and never will be. lol!
Atman // November 19, 2009 at 11:25 PM
@Adrian
As I always say, it’s a good thing that the fate of Barbadians to not rest in your hands. We the taxpayers here on this rock have to keep reminding government that we employ them to do a job for us, and they need to listen to what the majority of us want.
David first spoke of BU’s concerns about the type of programming that a new TV station should provide, and now you’re jumping on that bandwagon when just a few minutes earlier you didn’t think it was worth discussing. Well Starcom radio stations (especially VOB) have proven to be very community spirited with call-in programmes and other programmes that are positive and nation building…I don’t see why some of that wouldn’t spill over to TV if they had a channel. But the government doesn’t want another TV station around where the opposition would have more opportunities to be seen and heard. It’s all about keeping the opposition at bay…it always has been.
Adrian Hinds // November 20, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Ditto, I have been saying the same for years; but what does the public servant status of our government; have to do with the issuance of a TV license to a private for profit concern? Do you want to suggest that this is what the public wants? Proof please! Moreover, your opinion alone would not suffice.
Sometimes people have the same opinions on a matter, such is the case with David and I. I think that I have demonstrated a similar but varied opinion on the matter. Here are my points
1: more local programming is desirable
2: If for some reason CBC cannot do then it should be done via Community television by one of the mention entities, not by a for profit company
Pointing out community programming that is already available via existing media formats proves my point more than yours. Do we need issuance of a new TV license and to a private concern to enhance what is already available? I say no.
Keeping the Opposition at bay via control of the only TV station on the island has not benefited of the governing party. If that is the only reason that you can find for giving a TV license to Starcom, I approve governments DENIED stamp on their application. It appears to me that on the issue of TV licenses to private concerns both parties are in accord with the public.
Yes, I question why I am discussing this none issue, and yet continue to do so. People make absolute statements all the time only to fall back on it eventually. The Jamaican LIB said he was “done” discussing an issue yesterday only to return hours later. I am no different. You are no different. Did you not say on your blog that you do not venture into places like BU? Why are you here? You need to quit following me. ha ha ha
Anyway, it is becoming apparent that this subject is dear to your heart only because you think it gives you something about which to harp. Clearly, this is not a public interest concern at this time.
Atman // November 21, 2009 at 10:39 AM
You are lost Adrian. I keep telling you that you are out of touch with this country and its people, and you just keep proving my point more and more. Since you have no idea how the average bajan feels about having only one local TV channel which they refer to as “no-choice TV”, then you don’t even qualify to be debating this issue.
Atman // November 21, 2009 at 10:42 AM
I’m still waiting for somebody to give me a good reason as to why Thompy hasn’t address the integrity legislation issue as yet.
Atman // November 21, 2009 at 10:48 AM
@Adrian
I’m only here at BU to show you up Adri, you know that’s one of my favorite passtimes. Since you keep avoiding me I’ve decided to come find you…but my visit here will be rather short.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 21, 2009 at 11:07 AM
@Adrian Hinds // November 19, 2009 at 10:39 PM:
You wrote “I don’t think it is silly. I would like to have a very good reason for the government to sell any part of the public spectrum to any private entity. I am for community type television and if CBC being a public broadcasting entity cannot fullfill this role then the concept of Community television and licencing for such should be issued non-profits, or cooperatives, colleges or universities strictly for local programming.”[What do you see the 'community' as if it is not a set of private entities? Do you mean that you would rather not see the public spectrum sold to profit making entities? What is inherently good or superior in terms of broadcasting about non-profits, or cooperatives, colleges or universities? Or are you implying that these entities would be given access to public spectrums at no cost? If so, how will the government justify giving away a potential revenue stream when it is in a tight fiscal position?]
On a more general point, should we preface all of our references with a locational description, such as the ‘Bostonian Adrian Hinds’ or the ‘Barbadian living in Boston Adrian Hinds’. I’m wondering if this is useful packaging? If you find it helpful in one direction surely it should be useful in all.
Adrian Hinds // November 21, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Nope! I am definately not lost, and yes you do say a lot of things most of which require proof, none of which you have provided.
You are simply stringing words together, and they become meaningless when simple questions are applied to them. Define the way that I am proving your point, and don’t forget to mention what that point is.
It is not for me to have an idea of what the average Bajan feels about one local TV channel. You are the one wanting to argue on their behalf for the issuance of another TV license to a private concern. You need to bring proof that your view is a majority view.
Are you not confusing local free public television (tv8) CBC channel 8, available over the public spectrum via analog signaling with subscription (MCTV) mult-choice TV? Same company different services. I have heard the malapropism “no-choice TV” used in reference to “Multi-choice TV”.
Starcom competes in this space (subscription tv) with Direct TV.
But lets say that the “no-choice TV” comment is directed at TV8 and not MCTV. From the label “no-choice TV”
, How does this reference lead you to the conclusion that government benefits politically from the TV license under their control? How does it lead to another conclusion of yours that the people want to hear the opposition views via another TV company?
Are you getting tired yet? ha ha ha ha
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 21, 2009 at 11:21 AM
I tried to find some definitive information about countries that have only one (government owned) broadcast for TV and or radio. The information I found was partial. However, my experience has been that it’s only in state controlled regimes where such things are still maintained. That opens for me yet again the philosophical question about what kind of democracy Barbados really is. On the one hand one reads here much about free expression, only to see that modified to be ’so long as it’s not’ [choose from a range of things not liked]. There seems to be a contradictory desire to close off certain types of expression but argue in the same breath for freedom of expression. I do not understand how arguments cannot be allowed to flow and citizens be allowed to determine how they are influenced rather than some desire to ‘balance’ the broadcasting of the message as is if that is the same as balancing the reception of the message. After all, in a highly literate society sifting through the messages should not be a problem.
Adrian Hinds // November 21, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Atman // November 21, 2009 at 10:42 AM
I’m still waiting for somebody to give me a good reason as to why Thompy hasn’t address the integrity legislation issue as yet.
————————————————–
THERE IS NO GOOD REASON. THERE IS ONLY THE REAL REASON.
Thompson is one man. He is the Prime Minister yes but in parliament he is “The member from St.John” Only first amongst his equals.
The constitution says “The member of parliament who commands the most loyalty amongst his fellow parliamentarians shall become the Prime Minister.
He cannot legislate without the constent of those from whom he derives his power. Not only does he need the support of his parliamentary party members he needs it from the opposition.
The entire DLP lied to the people on the time frame for ITAL. If their entire term expires and there is no ITAL, I will rephrase to say that they lied to the people about ITAL.
Adrian Hinds // November 21, 2009 at 11:34 AM
My view on television is shape larely by Author Neil Postman in his book “Amusing ourselves to death”.
In the Barbadian context more local programming would be my preference, available free of charge over the public spectrum, leaving foreign programing to subscription services. Of course there could be exceptions i.e public programming from other countries may be of interest to Barbadians and could be made available over the public tv.
I will develop my thoughts on this later.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 21, 2009 at 11:35 AM
@Adrian Hinds: “BCC just started an FM station I think” Do you mean the BBC? If so, they did not ’start’ a station but are relaying World Service programs on an easily accessible FM frequency in Barbados (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2009/11/091118_pmbriefs.shtml).
Atman // November 21, 2009 at 12:16 PM
[Summation]
Dennis, I don’t think Adrian himself has a clue about what he’s saying.
I don’t know if any other private business entities besides Starcom has ever applied for a local TV license, but I find it ridiculous that after all these years we still only have the lone state owned TV station.
Some are of the opinion that because OCM owns so many media houses and is a T&T interest, that’s a good reason to deny Starcom a TV license. I fail to see anything substantial in that reasoning.
From a business and economic point of view, if Starcom were to be granted a license I believe it would have to pay an annual fee, it would also become an additional source of tax revenue for the gov’t, and it would most likely have to employ staff. The only drawback here is that CBC would then have to compete for advertising dollars with Starcom. If this drawback happens to be the reason for denying Starcom a TV license, then it would suggest that no private entity is likely to get a license once competing with CBC. I doubt very much that this is the reason for denying a license.
I do not believe that Starcom and OCM is the issue, but as I’ve stated already on more than one occasion, I believe it boils down to partisan politics and keeping the opposition out of the public’s view as much as possible. A private local TV station may bring too much balance and fairness to the viewing public, or worse yet, it may take a bias stance and lean toward one party or the other. History has shown that neither party is willing to take that chance, they just prefer to have control over the only TV station there is.
Atman // November 21, 2009 at 12:40 PM
@Adrian
Again, you haven’t got a clue on the ITAL issue…do you realize how silly you make yourself look?
Thompson made a pre-election promise as leader of the opposition at the time, did he make that promise without first knowing his team’s position on it? Is that the way a leader of a team operates? Now assuming that it wasn’t just a lone ranger empty promise, shouldn’t ITAL be a priority on the list of things before he and his ministers get too deep into managing the taxpayers’ money?
Adrian, I would caution you to think before you type…sometimes I feel ashame for you.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 21, 2009 at 3:20 PM
@Atman // November 21, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Much of what I have read here opposing OCM getting a license seems to lack coherence.
What is to stop the government launching a bidding process for a new license, and setting certain conditions on the winning bidder? Whoever, that is, would then be bound by those conditions, or the license would be revoked. There is nothing to stop the government stipulating conditions on programme content, including whether a portion of broadcasts should reflect community interests or other ’socially desirable’ elements. (This is similar to some private development projects where a portion must go to low cost housing or some other public policy objective.) It’s just a case of structuring the bidding process.
Now, no one may want to bid given these conditions.
But such a process has many financial advantages, and as I mentioned earlier, potential revenue streams for the government are few and far between.
Adrian Hinds // November 21, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Atman you are funny. lol! you simply have not put up one cogent rebuttal to anything I have said. Of course to do so would detract from your stated reason for being here.
Thompson made his promise as political leader of the DLP. Indeed he would have made it with the consent of the party, parliamentary team and the field of candidates in the then upcoming elections.
There is election politics and politics after elections. The many promises made and never fullfilled, some dating back to 1976. Manifestos that have seen a 30 or 40 percent implimentation etc. This is why I said that as of right now the DLP reneged on their promise to legislate ITAL as a matter of priority. So far they (the entire party) has lied on the timing. Come the end of their term and it is still not legislated they would have lied about legislating Ital period.
David // November 21, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Commonsense alone spells out that OCM will NOT get a TV license in Barbados. Even if we subtract the politics from the decision we can easily replace it with an astute risk assessment decision model . To add the TV channel to the mix of existing OCM chanells in Barbados would contravene acceptable risk given its heavy concentration of ownership currently. If one is to judge by STARCOMS recent launch of Internet TV it is obvious they have read the writing on the wall.
@Adrian
Didn’t Obama promise to generate thousands of jobs by launching the Renewable Energy sector?
Did he promise to withdraw from Iraq in how many months?
Did he promise to close Guantanamo base in Cuba when?
The point as you stated above there is a politics before and after an election and to deny is to demonstrate naiveté on the subject :-)
Adrian Hinds // November 21, 2009 at 4:27 PM
The revenue making perspective for issuing a TV license was not amongst the original reasons given and that I responded too.
When I started responding to this question about issuing a TV license to Starcom, the main reasons listed were “the public wants it” “The government benefits politically from not having it” “The opposition suffers politically from it absence” and “the public cannot get balance reporting from government due to the media shutout of the opposition”.
I refute these arguments by arguing that governments have lost power in spite of owning the only TV station.
That television is the weakest format of media the others being print and radio, in Barbados in terms of audience for political advertising, government announcement etc.
The revenue making possibility is a good suggestion, especially or is it specifically in this economic environment. I could sign onto this if the revenue is significant and if as you suggested, the usage guidelines for such a license insist on a specified amount of local programming etc., Both conditions have to be present.
I take your point that having to purchase something with limited and or restricted use may not be attractive to a private concern, hence the grouping I mention.
Adrian Hinds // November 21, 2009 at 4:36 PM
@David
Didn’t Obama promise to generate thousands of jobs by launching the Renewable Energy sector?
Did he promise to withdraw from Iraq in how many months?
Did he promise to close Guantanamo base in Cuba when?
The point as you stated above there is a politics before and after an election and to deny is to demonstrate naiveté on the subject :-)
————————————————
First of David. Obama would have made his promiseS to you and all who supported his candidacy. Not me as I did not. could not let the slide. lol! ….but I do not talk US politics no more, so don’t prod, as I will not respond. :)
That said I take your point, and thanks for understanding what I have said.
At the end of the term and ITAL is implimented, which it will be; those who goatishly hold on to the delay timing of it being legislated will be ignored. ITAL in 100 day or 5 yrs, is going to be ITAL.
Atman // November 21, 2009 at 5:51 PM
@Dennis
Well I’m really not certain to what extent gov’t can stipulate conditions as it pertains to programme content. I don’t think any private entity is going to run a TV station where the gov’t practically dictates to them what their programme content should be. Any conditions or stipulations would have to be within the framework of the law, which would apply to CBC as well.
If I’m going to run a TV station, I must be free to decide on the mixture of my content and how it is presented. It is a business, and I would have to decide how best to make it profitable. A smart business person would know exactly how to arrange programme content so as to appeal to a wide range of viewers at the right time of day. At the end of the day, advertising revenue will be directly linked to the viewership I’m getting.
I’m willing to bet that the highest number of radio listeners tune in to VOB every weekday to listen to “Down To Brass Tacks”…more than any other radio station at any other time. So it is evident that Starcom Network knows what the people want, and understands the demographics of its listenership. I also believe that Starcom would provide 24-hour local TV progamming, which CBC only talked about doing but hasn’t done up to this day.
Now let me state for the record so that everybody knows; I am not, and have never been employed by any radio or TV station. I have no connection whatsoever to Starcom Network or OCM. I’m just one of many citizens who believe that we Barbadians deserve to have more than just one local TV channel.
Anonymous // November 21, 2009 at 6:42 PM
Atman sounds like a Starcom Rep trying real hard to make a case for a t.v. license for them.
Hope they never get one they have not shown themselves recently to be even worthy of their radio license right now.
Atman // November 21, 2009 at 6:50 PM
@Adrian
You gave all types of invalid reasons why ITAL had not been addressed by the PM as yet:
[***He cannot legislate without the constent of those from whom he derives his power. Not only does he need the support of his parliamentary party members he needs it from the opposition.]
That was a stupid statement to make. It implies that he either did not have the support of his team on ITAL when he made the pre-election promise, or he didn’t seek their support on it at the time.
I think it would be obvious to readers that you are seeking to provide answers to questions that you cannot answer because you have no idea what you are talking about. You simply to guessing.
Unlike the promises and time frames that Obama made as listed by you, the implementation of ITAL is not dependent on or affected by any external factors. No major infrastructural requirements are needed…it is simply the auditing of the personal assets of MPs on an annual basis. It only requires going to parliament to be voted into law.
If the DLP as it said here http://dlpbarbados.wordpress.com/2007/06/10/integrity-legislation-a-step-upward-under-the-dlp/ supports transparency and wants to “clean up” the image of MPs, then this matter should have been dealt as a matter of priority so that it could go into immediate effect. Delaying implementation only raises suspicion by the public on the ruling party, and makes Thompson look like a hypocrite.
I have heard many people saying, “wuh de BLP teef nuff money, do it is only fair dat de DLP get some too”.
Atman // November 21, 2009 at 7:02 PM
My apologies Adrian, it was David who mentioned the Obama promises and not you…so you can scratch my remark pertaining to that mention in my last post.
Atman // November 21, 2009 at 7:27 PM
@Adrian
[I refute these arguments by arguing that governments have lost power in spite of owning the only TV station.
That television is the weakest format of media the others being print and radio, in Barbados in terms of audience for political advertising, government announcement etc.]
You’ve shown your simple-mindedness again. How can you expect that a gov’t will never lose an election at some point because it has a monopoly hold on local TV? I told you on my blog that there is a big difference between serving 1 term and serving 3 terms, and it is quite possible that controlling the sole TV channel in the country could assist in being re-elected a few times.
I think you may be surprise at the number of people who stop whatever they are doing or watching, and switch over to CBC to watch the 7pm eveining news. The only reason TV media is not as strong as it should be in Barbados is because of the strangle hold that successive administrations maintain on local TV.
Adrian Hinds // November 21, 2009 at 7:32 PM
oh lord de Atman. got me deadding den. lol!
That was a stupid statement to make. It implies that he either did not have the support of his team on ITAL when he made the pre-election promise, or he didn’t seek their support on it at the time
——————————————-
It only requires going to parliament to be voted into law.
=============================
Let me help you along. So who will vote it into law?????? Thompy by himself? ha ha ha ha ha There is the politics of election and politics after election.
He did have the support of his team. They all made a promise that may have back peddle on or as he (thompy) has said, the original draft they worked on, had some issues and that is why it is taking so long, or they had hope that people would have forgotten about. Whatever the rationale if it is not implimented before the next election they will have a problem, if they do, they can check ITAL of the accountability list.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 21, 2009 at 7:39 PM
@ Atman // November 21, 2009 at 5:51 PM
I did not say anything like your ‘gov’t practically dictates to them what their programme content should be’. Conditions on private use of public domains are quite normal: it’s part of protecting the patrimony. The form is a function of the nature of the domain, and is there in essence in any government’s contract with private entities.
There are always trade offs, and how such conditions would impact on profit/loss is part of running the business successfully, or not.
See conditions set recently on commercial television broadcasters in Tasmania to ‘broadcast a minimum amount of material of local significance’, http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_310685; this was from a random search for ‘TV broadcast licensing conditions’.
Adrian Hinds // November 21, 2009 at 7:40 PM
You’ve shown your simple-mindedness again. How can you expect that a gov’t will never lose an election at some point because it has a monopoly hold on local TV? I told you on my blog that there is a big difference between serving 1 term and serving 3 terms, and it is quite possible that controlling the sole TV channel in the country could assist in being re-elected a few times.
——————————————-
Government control of CBC TV had nothing to do with the BLP 3 succesive terms. Absolutely nothing, none nada.
The BLP 3 terms was a watershed event in Barbados electorial politics. It had never happen before.
CBC was establish in 1960. Was always a government control entity. How many change of governments did we have between then and now?
A possibility is a just that, It is not a fact, and therefore cannot be use to justify and or substantiate anything.
Adrian Hinds // November 21, 2009 at 7:49 PM
I think you may be surprise at the number of people who stop whatever they are doing or watching, and switch over to CBC to watch the 7pm eveining news. The only reason TV media is not as strong as it should be in Barbados is because of the strangle hold that successive administrations maintain on local TV.
==============================
Prime time television viewership is dwindling. People have multiple sources from which to get their news. They are busier, and have more things with which to occupy their interest and time.
What is the evening news but a regurgitation of what has occured during the day? news that they would have heard on the radio.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 21, 2009 at 7:57 PM
@ David // November 21, 2009 at 4:20 PM
“Commonsense alone spells out that OCM will NOT get a TV license in Barbados.” [What common sense?]
“Even if we subtract the politics from the decision we can easily replace it with an astute risk assessment decision model . To add the TV channel to the mix of existing OCM chanells in Barbados would contravene acceptable risk given its heavy concentration of ownership currently.”[This argument makes no sense. Or if there is some sense to it, it implies that OCM is at the 'equilibrium' point of acceptable risk with its current offering. I do not have any idea how and where you can get that notion, other than to think it to be so.
This 'acceptable risk' notion is also not sensible because the broadcast options that OCM currently has are quite elastic, not some fixed box of products. So, its current media impact is broad and varied and could easily become moreso even without getting a TV license.]
Adrian Hinds // November 21, 2009 at 8:12 PM
This ‘acceptable risk’ notion is also not sensible because the broadcast options that OCM currently has are quite elastic, not some fixed box of products. So, its current media impact is broad and varied and could easily become moreso even without getting a TV license.]
————————————————-
so no TV license?
Let me introduce another dimension to this debate. Surely Atman needs another angle from which to attack. ha ha lol!
I have not signed of on this one caribbean notion of nationhood, we are one etc. The way things are playing out I see lot of seperateness, alot of individualism and at expense of each other.
I am a citizen of Barbados a sovereign state last time I checked. The government of Barbados has a duty amongst other things to protect our culture, our way of life and our borders. Having access to media with which to communicate to the citizens it serves is an absolute necessity. I think the reach that foreign own media houses have in Barbados should be scale back not extended.
Given the outcry of Barbadians to the current level of foreign owned corporate ownership in Barbados, they may agree with me. lol!
Atman // November 22, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Adrian wrote:
[Prime time television viewership is dwindling. People have multiple sources from which to get their news. They are busier, and have more things with which to occupy their interest and time.
What is the evening news but a regurgitation of what has occured during the day? news that they would have heard on the radio.]
As I keep saying, you are sadly out of touch with what goes on in Barbados. I don’t why you continue to debate and make assertive statements on topics that you are really not in touch with. I asked you before and I will ask you again, when when the last time you even visited Barbados?
First of all, the radio news do not carry everything that the 7pm TV news carries. And secondly, many working people do not get the chance to hear radio news during the day, and many of them do not read the newspapers during the day. There are many bajans who buy a newspaper only on Sundays.
The only reason I’m taking particular pain to correct you is because I don’t like the idea that you may be misleading other people in cyberland who (like you) are not aware of what is really going on in Barbados.
Atman // November 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM
@Adrian
Oh I forgot to mention…as for news via the internet, there are many working people in Barbados who do not have access to computers at their workplace\site. And many who has access to computers are not allowed to browse the net. Also, the Nation and Advocate websites are undated only once every 24 hours.
When next will Barbados see you Adri?
Atman // November 22, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Adrian wrote:
[Government control of CBC TV had nothing to do with the BLP 3 succesive terms. Absolutely nothing, none nada.
The BLP 3 terms was a watershed event in Barbados electorial politics. It had never happen before.
CBC was establish in 1960. Was always a government control entity. How many change of governments did we have between then and now?
A possibility is a just that, It is not a fact, and therefore cannot be use to justify and or substantiate anything.]
___________________________
What never happened before…a 3 term gov’t or BLP winning 3 terms? I’d like to remind you that Barrow also had 3 terms. You are in no position to definitively say that CBC did not play a role in the 3 terms that the BLP had. Not every fact can be easily proven Adri, that’s why some opinions are just as good as the facts. That’s where reasoning comes into play Adri.
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 22, 2009 at 1:36 PM
@ Atman // November 22, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Just to put your remarks into another context. I work from home but to be current on news I try to read the local papers only as early as possible. That’s possible for The Advocate, who put the whole daily edition online; but impossible for the Nation, who only put up selected articles.
I get home delivery but rarely see the papers before 8am (or 10am on Sundays). By contrast, in the UK and US, my paper was at my house by about 6.30am latest every day.
I am diligent about getting to see the papers, so regard myself as exceptional.
The papers give the fullest coverage, but are very untimely. Radio news is very patchy and often has little analysis or commentary. TV news is not much better.
That suggests to me a huge gap in informing people on a daily basis.
Atman // November 22, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Adrian wrote:
[Let me help you along. So who will vote it into law?????? Thompy by himself? ha ha ha ha ha There is the politics of election and politics after election.]
You never cease to amuse me. DLP won the gov’t 20-10, if he did indeed have the support of his team when he made the promise, where is the problem? Do you see a problem in getting it voted into law unless it was a big empty promise to begin with? You can give him till the end of the year if you wish, but it’s not going to go down way with sensible swing voters.
In Barbados we know that both parties play the fool, and the only way we can punish them is by taking away power temporarily…alternate between the two.
Atman // November 22, 2009 at 1:53 PM
@Adrian
I meant to say you can give him until the end of the term (not year) in my last post. I tend to proof read a bit late.
Atman // November 22, 2009 at 2:19 PM
@Adrian
I think I’ve had enough fun with you for now Adri…I’m going back into my little rat hole. You know where to find me if you choose to.
@everyone
I have a political forum at my blog as well which discusses politics anywhere it in the world. It’s not very active right now because I find that most people tend to shy away from discussing politics. If any of you should wish to become a member and contribute, you would be very welcome. Here’s the URL:
http://bajantuhdebone.freeforums.org
Dennis Jones (aka Living in Barbados) // November 22, 2009 at 2:21 PM
@Atman, p64 of today’s Advocate: PM says “It certainly is my desire to see it passed in this current term.”
Adrian Hinds // November 22, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Indeed Barrow had three terms, and I had erred in not defining the time line to be since independence. Barrow’s three terms were as Premier once and Prime Minister twice.
It could be argued that independence in 1966 won a third term for Barrow in 1971.
It is more likely to be the case that problems internal to the DLP had a much bigger role if not the only role in handing three terms to the BLP. I have never heard anyone besides you suggest that CBC as a government owned media entity played a decisive role in the longevity of a party in government, and you only introduce it as it as an after thought and as a mere possibility to a point made without substantiation.
Please don’t talk about reasoning becuase you did not use any. You, in your now familiar fashion blast out point after point, totally unaware and or unuse to providing context.
Atman // November 22, 2009 at 4:07 PM
@Dennis
His desire to see it passed in the current term is not good enough for me. It should have gone to parliament already, and since it hasn’t, he should be able to say definitively when it will go before parliament. I think it only goes to show that his pre-election promise was simply to get votes.
@Adrian
My initial point was that Starcom should be given a TV license. I went to outline why I believe there’s still only local TV channel in Barbados. If that’s not good enough for you…too bad. Catch yuh lata.
Atman // November 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM
@Adrian
That should have read:- why I believe there’s only ONE local TV channel
Adrian Hinds // November 22, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Well I will not be following you. If in the future you are looking for somone with which to argue and win. Yuh know were to find me. Make sure to pick a topic that you have a reasonable chance of holding your own with. lol!
Before you go. Um is your vote to do with as you please, but Thompy provide legitimate proof as to why ITAL was delayed. The original ITAL draft, model the one out of Trinidad. It is widely believe to have flaws in it. In addition to this Thompson thinks that ITAL should have the widest consultation possible. Surely you would like all those who will be made accountable under this legislation to be able to review it.
Panday in todays trini news says the same Trini accountability laws are flawed.
Anonymous // November 22, 2009 at 5:45 PM
“Make sure to pick a topic that you have a reasonable chance of holding your own with. lol!”
What altered reality do you live in AH? The man more than held his own and truth be told, made you look like a fool.
Atman // November 22, 2009 at 6:12 PM
@Adrian
Panday would say anything, he would like people to believe that he was innocent. http://www.trinidadandtobagonews.com/forum/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/424
Whether of not the model out of T&T is flawed, is not a legitimate excuse as far as I’m concern. The DLP has been in power for almost 2 years now, certainly that was enough time to come with something useful. Anyway, I hope it will become law before 5 years is up because it is definitely needed.
I hope it won’t be a situation where he feels confident of re-election when this draws to an end, and decide he could sit on it for a longer period. As a matter of fact the opposition would definitely use it against if he fails to do it before next election.
I gone for real this time…I may still check back from time to time to see how you’re progressing. lol