On Thurs­day last week, in re­sponse to a ques­tion put to an NCC pan­el con­vened to dis­cuss a study of the broad­cast po­ten­tial of Car­ni­val, the Com­mis­sion's con­sul­tant Ian Roy­er said the ex­ec­u­tive would de­cide whether the re­port of a group of in­ter­na­tion­al me­dia ex­perts would be made pub­lic.

This is ex­act­ly the type of re­sponse that's ex­pect­ed of the po­lit­i­cal­ly mind­ed and it's deeply dis­turb­ing to find that at­ti­tude worm­ing its way in­to a non-com­pet­i­tive state agency re­spon­si­ble for the dis­pen­sa­tion of hun­dreds of mil­lions of dol­lars worth of tax­pay­ers' mon­ey.

It's not sur­pris­ing then to find that much of the post-Car­ni­val bac­cha­nal about this year's fes­ti­val has al­so been about trans­paren­cy and ac­count­abil­i­ty, from Mr Shak's al­le­ga­tion that his marks were doc­tored to en­sure that he would not win to the con­fu­sion sur­round­ing the NC­BA's de­ci­sion to pe­nalise some bands in com­pe­ti­tion.

http://www.guardian.co.tt/dig­i­tal/new-mem­bers