For some time now, going back to the headier days of George Odlum and Peter Josie, House sessions have more than anything else been bad theater. There were also the choreographed sideshows in Constitution Park, mostly comical, a boon to visiting and native journalists alike. The show has never closed. Same tired old scripts, albeit performed by actors a lot less talented than their predecessors.
It was difficult to tell on Tuesday which was the more nauseating, which the more hilarious. The answer depended on viewer sensibility, in these parts more often than not determined by party affiliation. There can be no doubt, however, about which attracted more press attention: what seemingly went on endlessly inside, or the 20-minute sideshow in Constitution Park starring the prime minister and an angel-voiced Choice reporter.
Several weeks ago, at the same venue, she had clashed with the singular Southeast Castries MP, Guy Joseph. I dare to say few will recall offhand her question. At any rate, not nearly as readily as they will the parliamentarian’s response that he was disinclined to take questions from political activists masquerading as journalists. In an on-camera interview soon after the revisited exchange, the angel of Choice expressed her befuddlement at the MP’s reaction. It seems she expected him after fifteen years on the hustings to know all journalists are political actors.
Who knows how the government reacted behind closed doors to the resultant publicized contretemps? More predictable were the anonymous and pseudonymous Facebook computer warriors in blazing red and yellow. As for the STAR, we were hardly surprised. Not by what had occurred in Constitution Park, not by the aftermath. Over the years every administration had at one time or another declared this newspaper and its associates “enemies of the people; a cancer that needed to be excised from the body politic” and other such encomiums.
One prime minister had by official missive demanded the dismissal of a Voice reporter whose work the prime minister considered unflattering of his administration. Two Saint Lucian news correspondents lost their jobs with overseas media outlets after their coverage of certain government activities displeased the day’s prime minister.
And then there was the unforgettable “media terrorist” who was uncovered by still another prime minister on the steps of the Castries market. It is worth mentioning that the prime ministers in the recalled incidents were not without their vociferous supporters whose noise easily overwhelmed the few who dared to defend the targeted journalists at great risk to themselves. I might also add that the attitude of politicians toward the STAR has never prevented the newspaper from carrying out its objectives, sometimes to the short-lived annoyance of its friends when they landed on the STAR’s front page.
Journalism is no easy job when it’s done well. There is always the feeling that we’re at war, whether in relatively peaceful zones such as Saint Lucia or in Trump’s volatile America. The enemy is not always the politician. Too often we are our own worst detractors. We do not react well to friendly fire. By which I mean to say we are often intolerant of free speech that is critical of us, especially when it comes from our own.
CNN’s Jim Acosta certainly has criticized the competition but that did not prevent Fox News, for one, from standing by him when Trump’s White House chose to go for Acosta’s jugular. (See Judge Orders White House to Return Jim Acosta’s Press Pass, below.)
Speaking of which: Imagine if you can Allen Chastanet demanding that a reporter at his press conference “shut up and sit down!” The leader of the free world has done exactly that without demands for his resignation. And just in case some may see the reference as an endorsement of official arrogance and betrayal of my fellow journalists, I hasten to add nothing could be further from the truth.
Politicians are free to do as they please within the law. No law in free countries denies the President or the Prime Minister the right to decide whom he will talk to. No law dictates whose activities journalists may or may not cover, or the questions they may ask.
While officials are under oath to be accountable to the people, they are free to use multiple media choices at their disposal to get their messages across to the electorate. Journalists are free to report and comment on the degree and quality of official accounting. And for that we need not talk to politicians openly hostile to us. Indeed, politicians remain at the mercy of talented journalists, as doubtless our angel of Choice knows only too well.
If I may end on yet another personal note: my own journalism has never depended on the generosity of politicians. Indeed, I’ve often been taken aback by politicians that offer themselves to be roasted alive!
