You are here
Adhere to rules of journalism
I am beginning to notice the different turns journalism and un-biased, un-opinionated reporting is taking. There is seldom not one article that does not carry a subliminal, carefully concealed message or opinion that insinuates something to their readers.
For instance, on reading an article in the Sunday papers I noticed that, in between reporting the contribution for the motion of no censure against the Attorney General, the anonymous writer goes on to pose personal questions about the contribution.
Allow me to quote:
“It was unclear why a lawyer for the Attorney General was seeking to ask the DPP to discontinue all charges, or why Lewis’ advice to the Attorney General was permeated by the Attorney General’s instructions.”
The writer then went on to the Attorney General’s actions, making mention of how many times he wiped his face with his handkerchief, Anil Roberts providing him with a bottle of water and Prakash Ramadhar pouring him a glass of water. Of what importance were these innocent incidents to the AG’s contribution on the motion of censure against him?
When you read the editorials from various papers you form the impression that they were always objective and have always been calling out the PNM when UNC was in opposition. But this is not so. If you look at Calder Hart alone, besides one journalist stating that he sat on five state boards, there was never any journalist to do digging.
How come they weren’t able to get secret e-mails or documents about Cabinet meetings as they are doing now? How come none of them dug deep to establish the connection between Calder Hart’s wife and Shanghai?
Every day these people get an inside scoop or get information and viciously attack ministers and PP officials. How come when Rowley was reportedly behaving like a wajang at the Finance and General Purposes Committee meeting over UDECOTT, nobody knew about it till Patrick Manning fired him?
How come up to now nobody knows who the five ministers are who complained (allegedly) to Manning about Rowley’s “wajang” and “hooligan” behaviour? Where was the investigative Sherlock Holmes-style of journalism then?
Now everything the Prime Minister does, where she goes, and who ministers interact with are promptly reported. Petty things such as a Louis Vuitton shoes or Ramadhar pouring a glass of water for Ramlogan who wiped his face four times—what utter nonsense.
If the media are ever so observant in scrutinising every move of MPs, how come they did not report how disrespectful some members of the opposition, particularly Dr Rowley, were when they failed to bow to the Speaker’s chair and the speaking member when they enter and exit the chambers, as I saw last Friday from the gallery.
Journalists are supposed to give reports on current events, refraining from including personal views and leading questions. If they are compelled to do so, then I suggest that they switch to writing daily columns where they can freely express their opinions and pose their questions to the public.
Of late these journalists are breaking the fundamental rule of journalism and nobody seems to notice or say something about it. I hope this letter gets published for the sake of fair, unselective journalism.
Michael De Silva
User comments posted on this website are the sole views and opinions of the comment writer and are not representative of Guardian Media Limited or its staff. Guardian Media Limited accepts no liability and will not be held accountable for user comments.
Please help us keep out site clean from inappropriate comments by using the flag option.
Guardian Media Limited reserves the right to remove, to edit or to censor any comments. Any content which is considered unsuitable, unlawful or offensive, includes personal details, advertises or promotes products, services or websites or repeats previous comments will be removed.