JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Wednesday, July 30, 2025

?TOWARDS RESPONSIBLE MEDIA

by

20090904

?When I was a snot-nosed school­girl I couldn't be­lieve it was le­gal for some news­pa­pers to pub­lish the con­tent they did. I wrote a bit­ter let­ter to the ed­i­tor of the Ex­press–on copy­book pa­per, and pos­si­bly in pen­cil–ask­ing these pub­li­ca­tions to cease and de­sist.

Imag­ine if they had lis­tened to me; there would have been protest lines around the block if the Punch had been shut down like I want­ed it to. It was the charm­ing and beau­ti­ful jour­nal­ist San­dra Chouthi (who has since grown on­ly more charm­ing and beau­ti­ful) who in­ter­cept­ed me in the lob­by of the old Co­coa House at the Ex­press to tell me ever so gen­tly that they wouldn't pub­lish my fiery let­ter.�News­pa­pers, she said, don't like to crit­i­cise oth­er news­pa­pers. That's why what I'm about to do is break­ing a gold­en rule. I thought the News­day's de­ci­sion to pub­lish the pic­ture of the dead ba­by, on Mon­day gone, was wrong. Dead wrong, ac­tu­al­ly. (I can't re­sist a pun, sor­ry.) Then there was the fol­low-up bad de­ci­sion to de­fend their ini­tial dis­as­trous choice in a front-page ed­i­to­r­i­al, no less. "The pho­to was meant to shock," the ed­i­to­r­i­al read. "And shock it did, judg­ing by the let­ters and tele­phone calls we re­ceived ac­cus­ing us of in­sen­si­tiv­i­ty, lack of hu­man de­cen­cy, dis­grace­ful and such like com­ments.

"Like read­ers we were pained to see this pho­to­graph of a one-year-old beau­ti­ful doll-like child ly­ing dead in a patch of grass. But we de­lib­er­ate­ly, and af­ter much thought, pub­lished the pho­to in the hope, which we hope will not be in vain, to sen­si­tise peo­ple about the es­ca­lat­ing car­nage on our roads." An ed­i­to­r­i­al on ve­hic­u­lar ac­ci­dents and road car­nage is sure­ly not out of line. But when it points fin­gers at the griev­ing fam­i­ly, and even the dead moth­er of the dead child, who failed to prop­er­ly se­cure the in­fant, sure­ly, that has crossed a line. I have a ques­tion for the au­thor of the ed­i­to­r­i­al. It cat­e­gor­i­cal­ly states, "Speed­ing or in­tox­i­cat­ed dri­vers are re­spon­si­ble" for the deaths of peo­ple in mo­tor ve­hi­cle ac­ci­dents. I do not wish to im­ply that in­tox­i­ca­tion and ex­ces­sive speed are not the caus­es of some fa­tal mo­tor ve­hi­cle crash­es. But are you cer­tain that those are the on­ly two rea­sons for the crash­es that claim so many lives?

Tired­ness, as any dri­ver would at­test, must share some of the blame. Which of us has not drift­ed off while dri­ving one night or ear­ly morn­ing, blink­ing on­ly to find our car drift­ing too? In fact, a de­fen­sive dri­ving in­struc­tor warned me that falling asleep at the wheel, not dri­ving drunk, was the more present dan­ger. (Maybe he thought I looked too in­no­cent to drink.) One needn't be drunk to have bad judg­ment, to run a red light or a stop sign; and one needn't be speed­ing, ei­ther. There is al­so the very re­al prob­lem of our atro­cious­ly main­tained roads and high­ways. I have pre­vi­ous­ly and vo­cif­er­ous­ly lament­ed the con­di­tion of our roads, some with pot­holes so big you wish you had a tow­el and some sun­block to make best use of them. There are roads so bumpy and rough that they wrench the steer­ing wheel right out of your hands; have you ever dri­ven down the Morne Co­co Road from Le Plat­te Vil­lage? That's a good ex­am­ple of a bad ex­am­ple. Not on­ly is the road it­self steep, wind­ing and un­lit, it is bound­ed on one side by a moun­tain face and on the oth­er by a precipice.

When I first met it, my heart was in my throat as I nav­i­gat­ed the turns, es­pe­cial­ly those where the smooth road gave way to a grav­el­ly, bro­ken, pit­ted sur­face that would some­times fall away to the steep drop. I wasn't drunk and I wasn't speed­ing, and yet, by the druthers of the au­thor of that ed­i­to­r­i­al, had I met my fate on that per­ilous road I would have been blamed for my own demise. It hasn't hap­pened to me but I have heard sto­ries of brakes fail­ing. These things are not planned; my own car's per­sis­tent trans­mis­sion trou­ble used to leave me red-faced and stalled in the most in­con­ve­nient of spots. Once it hap­pened on the La­dy Young; an­oth­er time, cross­ing the Colville Street traf­fic lights. Bless God, noth­ing hap­pened. But it could have; would it have been my fault? Ac­ci­dents hap­pen. Some car crash­es are in­deed caused by drunk and high dri­vers, and by speed demons who en­joy the rush of zoom­ing down a high­way or street. But I am sure, be­yond all doubt, that these are not the on­ly caus­es of fa­tal crash­es, and it is rep­re­hen­si­ble for a news­pa­per in its ed­i­to­r­i­al space to say so.

Was there shock val­ue in putting the ba­by's pho­to on the front page?Ab­solute­ly. And I'm sure the News­day sold out on news­stands that day. But we as me­dia work­ers, jour­nal­ists, must make judg­ments weigh­ing the val­ue of such pho­tos against what is hu­man and ac­cept­able to the pub­lic. This is not the first time such poor taste has been ex­er­cised; as my ven­er­a­ble for­mer ed­i­tor Lenny Grant point­ed out to some histri­on­ic folk on Face­Book this week, some years ago there was a pic-ture of the sev­ered head of a kid­nap vic­tim on an­oth­er front page. There was pos­si­bly some re­deem­ing so­cial val­ue to that choice, too; but did it re­duce at all the grim hor­ror of see­ing that de­com­pos­ing head on the front page? I can still re­mem­ber it, years lat­er. So­cial re­spon­si­bil­i­ty is the thing stand­ing be­tween a free press and hell it­self. With­out self-reg­u­la­tion, we can do any­thing. Any­thing. We can pub­lish any­thing we want to, once it's not li­bel­lous or un­true, or in con­tra­ven­tion of the laws of the land. But does that mean we ought to?

Self-reg­u­la­tion is not the same as self-cen­sor­ship. I am not by any means sug­gest­ing that we should make de­ci­sions to hold our hands from pub­lish­ing in­con­ve­nient truths, or un­fash­ion­able but nec­es­sary sto­ries. But we ought to be able to tell the dif­fer­ence be­tween a sen­si­ble risk and shock for the sake of shock. Per­haps News­day is right and I am wrong. It is pos­si­ble the pic­ture of Nevi Vion­na, not quite a year old, an­gel­ic and pris­tine in her romper and hood­ed blan­ket, has soft­ened the hard hearts of drunk dri­vers and speed demons from Ica­cos to To­co, all the way to Ch­aguara­mas and back to Guayagua­yare. It's not like­ly, but it's pos­si­ble.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored