It is of critical importance that Barbadians make their voices heard in the way that the media has been genuflecting to the whims and fancies of a certain political entity. Responsible reporting, journalism, and socio-political commentary has taken a turn for the worse in Barbados, and this downward trend has to be immediately halted. A report published by the Commonwealth Secretariat in 2000 recognises that “it is the responsibility of government to inform the public” and annexed to this observation is the widely held view that, “the key to freedom of expression is a strong independent media.” So here there is a situation in which there is a shared co-operative responsibility between government and media. The question has to be therefore asked, to what extent is the media in Barbados contriving with particular interests in such a way as to prejudice what ought to be a reliable conduit between state and society?

The appearance of a maligned element of journalism that is deeply situated into crafty descent from professionalism and sound democratic affixation is laid bare by the pens (and maybe not brains) of a selected few. Indeed, the very report which was published by the Commonwealth Secretariat also posits that “in small societies it was especially necessary for the media to protect the public through responsible reporting.” I daresay that the print and electronic media, and specifically the Nation Publishing Company, are the main culprits in this debacle that undermines the democratic process in Barbados. The Nation is repeatedly varying and veering away from this area of responsibility and duty to the general public by choosing to be less than independent on several of the most pressing issues. It is the people and society at large that needs to be protected from dubious characters – some of them masquerading as academic straight-necks.

I read with dismay, labour, and patience an article authored by Dr. Don Marshall in the Sunday Sun of December 9, 2007. There is no doubt that here was an article failing to report responsibly to the general public. The article rather sought to make sordid the name of Clyde Mascoll and determine on the basis of approximation to certain personalities, the fate of Mascoll (e.g. referral to ‘depreciating stocks’). What was evident from the title and sub-title of the article was the attempt to twist public perception negatively towards Mr. Mascoll and by extension the Barbados Labour Party (BLP). I contend that rather than a headline featuring the words “Slipping on Hardwood: Mascoll’s political stocks depreciating,” which was a conclusive remark without any empirical evidence, would suggest the extent to which malice aforethought is inherent in Marshall’s unsafe calculations. Interestingly, it is the very Dr. Marshall who has from time to time invoked the public to submit to his self-proclaimed air of non-partisanship on VOB when he does moderate the call-in programmes. It is the same Dr. Marshall whose acumen for academic research and discourse influences us into believing that his analyses and accounts about social and political issues are not contorted against any single entity, but that such information deserves merit based upon strict criteria of validity and reliability. Moreover, what can an academic who claims not to be ‘in bed’ with any particular political party gain by the risk of discrediting his own integrity? Marshall’s jingoistic language that was couched behind a slate of obnoxious sentences and phrases, has done nothing to invite the public to understand better the workings of Parliament, how to undulate among the choice words of politicians so as to extract substance and fact. Indeed, Marshall’s ruse is easily revealed in his opinionated jargon and error-filled depiction of what the facts were in actuality to Mascoll and the BLP.

Clear examples of these erroneous suppositions can be seen in Marshall’s statement that “there is little room to hide from the realisation that Hardwood Housing Factory Incorporated (HHFI), after nearly two years in operation, has not lived up to expectation.” Am I to understand that one year can be easily translated into two years depending upon who is the object of his analysis? Another glaring piece of academic mischief by Marshall was seen in his chaperone roll to the Leader of the Opposition when he concluded that “it was a succinct presentation punctuated by a willingness to make pieces of information official documents of the House.” Marshall, let the public know what the parliamentary procedures are and what do the rules of the House demand. This is in contradistinction to his enmity function in relation to Clyde Mascoll and Elizabeth Thompson as he observes that there was “lazy resort to stereotypes of the ‘poor black man’ as arduous but driven to dodgy business practice.” Marshall does not have parliamentary privilege, and he should be answerable to a judicial authority and explain why he misrepresented the substance and content of both Ministers statements. Dr. Marshall, what is your agenda?

All in all, Dr. Don Marshall’s diatribe should be dismissed as nothing more than a depiction of twisting jargon that incredibly says nothing and does very little to responsibly inform publics. On this basis, it would clearly have been better to replace Mascoll’s picture with Dr. Marshall’s and the headline should have been “Marshall Slips into the Dems: In Line for His Share of the Fatted Calf.” The public will make a judgement about Marshall and the propagandist orientation of the Nation newspaper. This author has always declared proud membership in the Barbados Labour Party and while fighting for a cause built on the philosophy of social justice and social empowerment refuses to in anyway spring misrepresentations based upon academic camouflage. When academics speak and write, there is the expectation of greater clarity of expression and impartiality on matters of national interest than does appear in the wily article offered by Marshall. Marshall seems to be reflecting the level of articulation that Thompson is known for in Barbados (e.g. IMF secret deal), and it also reflects some cowardice on his part.
Back To News