[dropcap]L[/dropcap]ong before there were radio, television and newspapers, people communicated their feelings through speech, signs and symbols. The advent of the newspaper pitched information to like-minded citizens who could read. As the art of reading spread, newspapers further developed to carry news and information across the borders of city-states, further than the human voice could do. As human knowledge evolved, radio was invented and helped to spread information still further. Then television came along and added the new and exciting dimension of action to the sounds that radio had so well provided.
Throughout the evolution of communications, however, newspapers remained a steady purveyor of news and information for those who chose to read. As the number of literate citizens grew, so did the number of readers who turned to newspapers for accurate and reliable information, that is, until the advent of the modern computer. Still, many people look to the newspaper as a source of accurate and reliable information. It could be argued that the industrial revolution begun in Europe in the seventeenth century would not have awoken the rest of the world without newspapers. Accurate, timely and relevant information became the hallmark of the best newspapers in the world. The Times of London and Le Monde of France come to mind.
In the Caribbean one thinks of the Trinidad Guardian, the Barbados Advocate and the Voice of St. Lucia as three worthies that have stood the test of time. These three made their mark by producing regular, accurate and often timely information to citizens of their respective islands while remaining politically neutral. Of course, over time, other newspapers in these and other islands have also distinguished themselves especially by their steadfast neutrality and accurate reporting and commentaries. To people who appreciate the value of the printed word, and the part that reading plays in an enlightened life, newspapers are still looked upon kindly.
The question of whether free speech is abused here in Saint Lucia may have been put more forcefully in the 1970s when one local newspaper publisher specialised in besmirshing the character of politicians for personal reasons.The question regarding free speech is as relevant today as it was back in the 1970s, or since.
In a search for answers to the above question, the concerned citizen ought to turn the spotlight on the newfangled newspaper reporters who seem determined to facilitate their political friends by the way they slant the news. These reckless and political types are not above levelling all sorts of innuendoes against a politician or party they loathe. These party hacks, masked as reporters (journalist is too good a word), allowed the poor management and corrupt secretive deals of their friends in the former government to go unreported.
It was therefore with some relief that I read in the Voice newspaper of 24 February a guest editorial captioned ‘A Measured Tone’. Growing up I was taught that one should praise good work, regardless of who did it. I still hold to this maxim which I strongly recommend to journalists who may have been denied such wisdom. I was particularly struck by the guest editorial’s concluding statement which was drawn from what I thought was an accurate and well-developed line of reasoning. I repeat it here because it is friendly advice to a newspaper that once prided itself amongst the Caribbean’s best.
After lamenting the paper’s apparent lack of understanding of how government projects are conceived and work, as compared to the cyclical elections process, it argued that the work begun by one regime ought to be completed by that which replaces it. The guest editorial concluded as follows: “With great respect, the editorial of the Voice of February 17 read like a plea by the Labour Party to be allowed to wreak further havoc with the development programme of the Government. They are terrified it might succeed, and, it would appear, so are you. How sad. How very sad.”
The reporting, which led to this scathing attack in the guest editorial, did not surprise me. I have of late observed the reporting which makes headline news in the Voice being infiltrated with the narrow and obvious Labour Party bias of the reporter. That was totally unexpected of the Voice of an earlier period. Frankly, it does not matter how the mores of the society may have changed; accuracy in reporting the news without bias remains a desirable goal. This cannot be compromised! Many people in Saint Lucia still think of the Voice when they are asked about newspapers on the island. It would be a great pity if that long-held trust was to be eroded by dishonest and inaccurate reporting which seeks a political advantage for a party that was kicked from government less than two years ago.
Before the egregious innuendoes to which the guest editorial referred, there was also this headline story of the Voice of February 19, 2018: ‘Electricity Reform Soon?’ Prime Minister Allen Chastanet explained why his government was interested in the Castries City Council selling some of its shares in LUCELEC to the National Insurance Corporation. The prime minister’s stated objective was to lower the rate which consumers pay for electricity. The reporter then inserted the following:
“Whether the sale of these shares, which netted the CCC just over $3 million, was for another purpose and not for what was articulated by the prime minister, is unknown. Saint Lucians should not expect a reduction in electricity rates any time soon.”
A wise politician would not have offered such a flimsy unfounded conclusion. I am thankfully old enough to know that there are more closeted politicians who masquerade by other names and who lack the legitimacy to offer themselves to the electorate as election candidates. Such biased reporting could not have come from a new policy direction by the owners of the Voice. This is an abuse which does the paper no good and forces us to ask, ‘Is free speech abused in Saint Lucia.’
