local politicians and reporters.
Even before I’ve gotten into my stride it occurs to me that I risk being falsely accused of stooping to whataboutery, defined as “protesting at hypocrisy.” I will not be accusing anyone of “similar or worse faults.” Nor will I be “refusing to act in an instance unless similar action is taken in other similar instances.” My purpose here is to serve yet again another reminder that where there is effectively no law there can be no useful discussion of lawlessness. Additionally, if we choose to live like animals by the law of the jungle, we should not be surprised if the most successful among us are those who are strong and apply ruthless self-interest.
Pointless sermonizing about right and wrong, good and bad—and “emotionally unintelligent”—only when the consequences of evil too long tolerated are at our doorsteps. (Among the behaviors typical of the emotionally unintelligent is a tendency to focus mostly on what they perceive as wrong.)
“Apart from themselves, of course, everyone needs to improve. So they will show a lack of positivity and generally give negative feedback. Emotionally intelligent people give feedback in a ratio of three positive comments to every one negative.” (At any rate so professes Steve Neale, who considers himself “Europe’s leading expert on personal and professional growth.” I accidentally came upon his blog this week, while searching for something related to the legendary Christopher Hitchens.)
If only for a few more days, last Tuesday’s House session will be remembered. But not for the motions controversially adopted. The seasonal criers for decorum and civility, if only during meetings of parliament, will as usual seek to keep on their political front burners Guy Joseph’s hardly precedential encounter with media personnel, two of whom were especially interested in the MP’s “disrespectful” comments at a recent United Workers Party rally.
The MP was also asked to confirm an allegation that in the time of the Stephenson King administration, almost a decade ago, he had tried to bribe two Cabinet colleagues. His terse response: “Ask them to prove it!”
Referring to the question about his demonstrated lack of respect for Kenny Anthony’s wife, the MP said he had decided not to take any questions from the reporter who had asked it. He suggested she was pretending to be an objective reporter when in fact she had a political agenda. The MP said he had “a problem with that.”
Following the heated exchange outside the House, one of the two participants interviewed on-camera the other on her perspective of what had occurred minutes earlier. She said she was surprised that as seasoned an MP as was Guy Joseph he seemed not to know “journalists are all political actors.”
Whatever may be her definition of “political actor,” I can see nothing wrong with a reporter who happens to have his or her own thoughts on the politics of the day. Indeed I am unlikely to read, to listen to—or to trust!—a reporter claiming to be neither fish nor fowl. I truly believe human beings are altogether incapable of being neutral in the way some countries claim to be in times of war. To my mind our make-up simply does not permit it. I would go so far as to say neutral too often resembles complicity.
None of this is to say I endorse fake news, in times past referred to as fiction; yellow journalism; fabrication. Long before Donald Trump imbued the term with his own self-serving meaning, reporters caught publishing factoids were immediately dismissed. Some who “enhanced reality” suffered a similar fate. But it should always be remembered, especially by politicians and their supporters, that reporters are people too, and do have their biases. That is why some esteemed writers, among them Truman Capote, have stubbornly asserted that there can be no such thing as pristine truth. Truth is not like distilled water, they say, and can never be as pure since it comes from imperfect beings whose sensibilities were formed by their education, experiences, beliefs, religious upbringing and so on. It doesn’t help that a large portion of the caring Saint Lucian public is incapable of arriving at reasonable conclusions, consequently must depend for their information on politicians or particular reporters.
Therein lies another obvious problem. I should add that while journalists may imagine ourselves near perfect beings, the inescapable truth is we are just regular individuals who make our living passing on to otherwise preoccupied others our views of what’s going on in our world. Shades will vary, which is why readers must be educated if they are to understand what they read, well enough to embrace or dismiss it as uninformed, egregiously biased or plain disinformation; calculated propaganda. Ideally, readers should be in a position to judge for themselves the value of what they read and hear.
As for reporters who claim to be the collective voice of the people, I contend that’s immeasurably presumptuous. We are simply storytellers, some more gifted than others, some more committed to reporting truth as they know it, some with good intentions, others full of malice. In the real world, unlike here, reporters must earn their stripes. Only after years of news writing, often without a byline, can a reporter hope to rise to the position of editor or columnist. Is there a limit to what reporters may ask politicians? Certainly not. It’s up to the politician to answer in such a way as will not hurt his image. A vacillating politician will soon be found out, especially in this age when almost everything is on record and easily accessed.
Is a politician compelled to speak to reporters just because he is paid out of the public purse? Ask Donald Trump. Ask Putin, Theresa May. Yes, ask Kenny Anthony. Consider the White House press corps. While almost every known media outlet is represented at White House briefings, only those most trusted by the administration—or who cannot long be ignored without a heavy price—get to put questions to the White House press secretary.
A politician may from time to time be ambushed by rakes in the grass, but if he knows his onions he’ll smile, wave, and keep on walking. Again keeping in mind our times, a politician can keep his vow to be accountable without once speaking to a reporter he does not trust: he can issue press releases that say only what the politician feels a need to say. Or he can invite particular reporters to his office. Again ask Kenny Anthony about that. In any case most of what’s reported locally are the answers to questions from the same one or two reporters.
Few see the need to ask a politician questions that sprang from the reporter’s own research.
And so we come to Guy Joseph’s latest platform statement, deemed by two particular reporters possibly disrespectful of Kenny Anthony’s wife. I’ve heard the recording from the UWP meeting in question and formed the impression Guy Joseph was underscoring what he has often referred to as the “hypocrisy of the SLP’s friends, foreigners and family,” the party’s most recent invention.
What he said in effect, at any rate from my perspective, was that the former PM professes not to love foreigners, at least not nearly as much as does his successor, yet is married to a foreigner with whom he nightly shares his bed. How is that disrespectful of Kenny Anthony’s wife? If I said Kenny Anthony claims not to hold Arabs in high regard yet bestowed our country’s highest honor on a particular Middle Easterner, would that be disrespectful of, say, Gilbert Chagoury?
As for those who say the wives of government leaders are off limits and should never be brought into the politics of their spouses, say that to America’s First Lady, Melania; Theresa May’s husband Philip; Carla Bruni, the singer wife of Nicolas Sarkozy, former president of France. Closer to home: Remember that evening when a fired-up anti-Independence Labour Party mob descended on the prime minister’s Vigie residence? With just one police officer on guard duty, and in the absence of the man of the house, Lady Janice and their young children were handed the worst nightmare of their lives. The attacks continued even after her husband’s passing!
