Who hear about the scandal at Power 102 this week?

[zuluwarrior]

Manning remind me of ah happy bird that shit in his nest , ah thought they was livin in ah free country like it change and the people doh know .

[asylumseeker]

Ah waiting fuh de kaiso!

[STEUPS!!]

small ting...i thought somebody sleep with hazel

Now who would seriously do that?  Hazel?  Manning?  You jokin right? 

hello, allyuh be careful uncle patos read dis, arrest we boy tallman, an shut dong d whole site eh.

[dcs]

hello, allyuh be careful uncle patos read dis, arrest we boy tallman, an shut dong d whole site eh.

man is a media watchdog now yes.
It have no law anywhere that u can't mix opinion with "straight news".  And when it come to how u present the news u cud do whatever the hell u want if it get ratings and please your viewers and whoever decide to advertize with u.  So how much thousand of local radio stations it have in the western world u feel none of them does throw in comment when giving "straight news". come nah man.
Is one thing to say what is the norm and respected and is another thing to say u "can't" do that and you "must" apologize.  On a side note...what is Gillette relationship with the PNM/Manning...I forget but I know they have some kinda political affiliation...remember the name from UNC days though.

[weary1969]

Patos is ah embarassment

[Swima]

Looking at CNC 3 this morning, I saw that Gillian Lucky was very concerned about the proposed Broadcast Code, which among other things has a provision for banning any 'offensive' material from being broadcast. Bakes, I asking you among others, since you brought up the issue of mixing straight news with opinion, a truly irresponsible act on the part of the radio personalities in question... please give us if you can a legal definition of 'offensive'. I ask this because it was clear that our Prime Minister was indeed 'offended'.

I maintain the journalists needed to be suspended, just not on the basis of the Prime Minister's demands... and we can all agree that he is no ordinary citizen. O'brian Haynes knows he talking shit, cuz them fellas doing dat since Boom up and running. Why is only now they get suspended?

[assrancid]

In the US if a staement is made with honest belief in their truth on a matter that is in the piblic's best interest (acts by the government for example) are good defenses to a claim of defamation, and that is even if the statements made are logiaclly hard to beleive, if a reasonable person could onestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.

In the UK English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.  (Wikipedia)

The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, dramatically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only if they could demonstrate publishers' "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases dismissed the claim for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true, or are involving opinionated subjects such as one's physical state of being. Recent cases have addressed defamation law and the internet.


The four (4) categories of slander per se are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct her business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct (especially the chastity of a woman). Once again, all you would have to prove is that someone had published the statement to a third party. No proof of special damages is required.

[assrancid]

Many news agancies have broadcasters who give their opinions during the coverage of a speech, events of interest etc.

One only has to look at FOX, CNN and MSNBC to see that this is obviously the norm in the USA.

Even the BBC has been accused of subjectivity in delivering the news in recent times. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/bbc-criticised-after-it-rebukes-humphrys-for-slating-cabinet-505815.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/bbc_in_the_news_friday_39.html

When it comes to talk shows, there is a great difference from lets say Broadcast news.

Talk radio has evolved into a monster of a diferent kind altogether.  Look at Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, and the liberal leaning hosts. they all use OPINION and political leanings in attempting to influence listeners to see the world thru their eyes.

There is now talk tv where people like O'Reilly, Olbermann,Hannity and Combs, Bill Maher, Glenn Beck etc.  hell even The View.

These shows are not based on truth per se but truth thru the eyes of a partisan follower of a political doctrine!

[dinho]

can anyone shed some light on what was actually said or source a transcript/audio clip of the broadcast?

[Bakes]

Looking at CNC 3 this morning, I saw that Gillian Lucky was very concerned about the proposed Broadcast Code, which among other things has a provision for banning any 'offensive' material from being broadcast. Bakes, I asking you among others, since you brought up the issue of mixing straight news with opinion, a truly irresponsible act on the part of the radio personalities in question... please give us if you can a legal definition of 'offensive'. I ask this because it was clear that our Prime Minister was indeed 'offended'.

I maintain the journalists needed to be suspended, just not on the basis of the Prime Minister's demands... and we can all agree that he is no ordinary citizen. O'brian Haynes knows he talking shit, cuz them fellas doing dat since Boom up and running. Why is only now they get suspended?

Swima, essentially there is no one definition of "offensive" it's a nebulous term which when applied may hold significance with one person, and in the same token not be of any note to another person.  Essentially what a court would look for are words which may be "obscene, indecent or profane".  Of course by this I mean an American court, the standards would be different in Trinidad where you can't even curse in public... so that alone should cue you off that the Trini standard would be more stringent. 

That said, by American standards, what is considered 'offensive' varies by medium and context... something in print may not be considered offensive, whereas broadcast material is held to a higher standard from other forms of expression because of the sheer pervasiveness of broadcast material- harder to avoid them, and easier (than other forms of expression) to be accidentally exposed to it.  Here's a rough summary of perhaps the leading American case on the matter:

F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 98 - aka "The Seven Words You Cannot Say" case (George Carlin)

A satiric humorist named George Carlin recorded a 12-minute monologue entitled “Filthy Words” before a live audience in a California theater. He began by referring to his thoughts about “the words you couldn't say on the public, ah, airwaves, um, the ones you definitely wouldn't say, ever.” He proceeded to list those words and repeat them over and over again in a variety of colloquialisms.

Advancing several reasons for treating broadcast speech differently from other forms of expression,FN2 the Commission found a power to regulate indecent broadcasting in two statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 1464 (1976 ed.), which forbids the use of “any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communications,”
FN2. Broadcasting requires special treatment because of four important considerations: (1) children have access to radios and in many cases are unsupervised by parents; (2) radio receivers are in the home, a place where people's privacy interest is entitled to extra deference, see Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U.S. 728 [90 S.Ct. 1484, 25 L.Ed.2d 736] (1970); (3) unconsenting adults may tune in a station without any warning that offensive language is being or will be broadcast; and (4) there is a scarcity of spectrum space, the use of which the government must therefore license in the public interest. Of special concern to the Commission as well as parents is the first point regarding the use of radio by children.”

Thus, the Commission suggested, if an offensive broadcast had literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, and were preceded by warnings, it might not be indecent in the late evening, but would be so during the day, when children are in the audience

Here's a youtube clip of the infamous broadcast btw... classic George Carlin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDWTp5as1vE

[Bakes]

In the US if a staement is made with honest belief in their truth on a matter that is in the piblic's best interest (acts by the government for example) are good defenses to a claim of defamation, and that is even if the statements made are logiaclly hard to beleive, if a reasonable person could onestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.

In the UK English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.  (Wikipedia)

The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, dramatically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only if they could demonstrate publishers' "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases dismissed the claim for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true, or are involving opinionated subjects such as one's physical state of being. Recent cases have addressed defamation law and the internet.


The four (4) categories of slander per se are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person’s fitness to conduct her business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct (especially the chastity of a woman). Once again, all you would have to prove is that someone had published the statement to a third party. No proof of special damages is required.

I'm not sure that this is entirely correct... or on point really.  Also couldn't tell you what the situation is outside of the US.

[assrancid]

I got that from a lawyer and the rest from research.

It is ON point!

[Swima]

Swima, essentially there is no one definition of "offensive" it's a nebulous term which when applied may hold significance with one person, and in the same token not be of any note to another person.  Essentially what a court would look for are words which may be "obscene, indecent or profane".  Of course by this I mean an American court, the standards would be different in Trinidad where you can't even curse in public... so that alone should cue you off that the Trini standard would be more stringent. 

That said, by American standards, what is considered 'offensive' varies by medium and context... something in print may not be considered offensive, whereas broadcast material is held to a higher standard from other forms of expression because of the sheer pervasiveness of broadcast material- harder to avoid them, and easier (than other forms of expression) to be accidentally exposed to it.  Here's a rough summary of perhaps the leading American case on the matter:

F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 98 - aka "The Seven Words You Cannot Say" case (George Carlin)

A satiric humorist named George Carlin recorded a 12-minute monologue entitled “Filthy Words” before a live audience in a California theater. He began by referring to his thoughts about “the words you couldn't say on the public, ah, airwaves, um, the ones you definitely wouldn't say, ever.” He proceeded to list those words and repeat them over and over again in a variety of colloquialisms.

Advancing several reasons for treating broadcast speech differently from other forms of expression,FN2 the Commission found a power to regulate indecent broadcasting in two statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 1464 (1976 ed.), which forbids the use of “any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communications,”
FN2. Broadcasting requires special treatment because of four important considerations: (1) children have access to radios and in many cases are unsupervised by parents; (2) radio receivers are in the home, a place where people's privacy interest is entitled to extra deference, see Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U.S. 728 [90 S.Ct. 1484, 25 L.Ed.2d 736] (1970); (3) unconsenting adults may tune in a station without any warning that offensive language is being or will be broadcast; and (4) there is a scarcity of spectrum space, the use of which the government must therefore license in the public interest. Of special concern to the Commission as well as parents is the first point regarding the use of radio by children.”

Thus, the Commission suggested, if an offensive broadcast had literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, and were preceded by warnings, it might not be indecent in the late evening, but would be so during the day, when children are in the audience

Here's a youtube clip of the infamous broadcast btw... classic George Carlin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDWTp5as1vE

Thanks dawg, and yeah I knew that it was a nebulous term which is why I figured profanity would be the primary content removed from the airways, but that currently isn't a problem in TnT. Not on radio, not even on the locally produced cable shows.

In dealing with a defamation case I would imagine that the courts would have to look for something that is untrue or misleading about what has been broadcast or printed. So my question again comes back to whether or not the action taken was appropriate based on what was being said and the person who was 'offended'.

[assrancid]

As Bakes said it is very nebulous.

What is offensive to you may be insignifcant to me.

I find that this law can be very troublesome if not broken down into its finite points.

As you have said indecency as defined  has not been a problem in T&T..well except for the double entendres in kaisos.

[asylumseeker]

With respect to the discussion raised above and the law on defamation as it is configured in Trinidad & Tobago:

For general background see http://rgd.legalaffairs.gov.tt/laws/Chs.%2010-13/11.16/11.16.htm

However, out of the run-in Ken Gordon had with Panday, I extracted/paraphrased the following in relevant part (not that it becomes any less convoluted) :

Under section 4(e) of the Constitution there is a right to express political views. However, this right to express political views is “identified separately” from the ‘right’ of freedom of expression so as to ensure that the right to express political viewpoints is “not to be subject to the same strictures as they would be if subsumed under the 'right' of freedom of expression”. 

The right is not absolute, but the bar in section 4(e) will defeat a defamation action where the published material of which complaint is made constitutes a political view relating to a public figure and that view was honestly held or not uttered with reckless disregard to its truth or falsity.

Sourced from http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/other/5.rtf

Anyhow, if nothing else ... if you've never read or heard the words that stimulated Gordon's suit v. Panday ... the link will open that up to yuh (under the section "The words complained of").

[Bakes]

I got that from a lawyer and the rest from research.

It is ON point!

Swima asked me specifically about "offensive" language.  You provided information regarding "slander", "libel" and "defamation"... these are all separate and distinct categories from merely "offensive" language... which is why I said I wasn't sure they're entirely on point.

You state that "if a staement is made with honest belief in their truth on a matter" then the statement would be protected, however that isn't necessarily the case, if that belief in the truth us unreasonable then one may still be exposed to liability.  Case in point, I may honestly believe that UFOs exist... in my heart I know this for fact.  My belief is honest... but is that a reasonable belief?

But at any rate, no need to get bogged down in debate, what these cases often come down to is a question of fact (what actually went down, what was said... what the announcers said and what harm Manning accuses them of).  Without actually knowing what was said it's hard to say how the case may turn.

[Bakes]

Thanks dawg, and yeah I knew that it was a nebulous term which is why I figured profanity would be the primary content removed from the airways, but that currently isn't a problem in TnT. Not on radio, not even on the locally produced cable shows.

In dealing with a defamation case I would imagine that the courts would have to look for something that is untrue or misleading about what has been broadcast or printed. So my question again comes back to whether or not the action taken was appropriate based on what was being said and the person who was 'offended'.

Mind you though Swima, this whole debate may be moot as the announcers haven't been charged with any violations of statute, they've simply been administratively disciplined by their employer.  Their 'crime' isn't one of violation of law, but rather of company policy... to hear station management tell it.

With respect to the discussion raised above and the law on defamation as it is configured in Trinidad & Tobago:

For general background see http://rgd.legalaffairs.gov.tt/laws/Chs.%2010-13/11.16/11.16.htm

However, out of the run-in Ken Gordon had with Panday, I extracted/paraphrased the following in relevant part (not that it becomes any less convoluted) :

Under section 4(e) of the Constitution there is a right to express political views. However, this right to express political views is “identified separately” from the ‘right’ of freedom of expression so as to ensure that the right to express political viewpoints is “not to be subject to the same strictures as they would be if subsumed under the 'right' of freedom of expression”. 

The right is not absolute, but the bar in section 4(e) will defeat a defamation action where the published material of which complaint is made constitutes a political view relating to a public figure and that view was honestly held or not uttered with reckless disregard to its truth or falsity.

Sourced from http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/other/5.rtf

Anyhow, if nothing else ... if you've never read or heard the words that stimulated Gordon's suit v. Panday ... the link will open that up to yuh (under the section "The words complained of").

Lol@bolded part  ent!

When I was looking up that Carlin case this morning I was struggling to figure out how to summarize it in a neat concise package that explained all the relevant info... but at the same time without making it too much like a brief/memo.  God knows I doh need SW.net giving me extra work, lol


But thanks for this info though... I'm always curious to see how the laws in TnT stack up relative to American and EU law.  Not sure if you know, but I imagine that there's no online database for legal research in TnT (no Lexis/Nexis or Westlaw equivalent)... is all research done out of books?  Who are the publishers, are these tomes published locally?  How often updated?


So many questions...

[Bakes]

Sourced from http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/other/5.rtf

Anyhow, if nothing else ... if you've never read or heard the words that stimulated Gordon's suit v. Panday ... the link will open that up to yuh (under the section "The words complained of").

This is rich.  I suspect it would put most casual readers to sleep but I just had a chance to read it.  I'm struck by how clear the rationale is derived and how well the opinion is written in general... everything is explained, and explained with clarity.

[Swima]

Thanks dawg, and yeah I knew that it was a nebulous term which is why I figured profanity would be the primary content removed from the airways, but that currently isn't a problem in TnT. Not on radio, not even on the locally produced cable shows.

In dealing with a defamation case I would imagine that the courts would have to look for something that is untrue or misleading about what has been broadcast or printed. So my question again comes back to whether or not the action taken was appropriate based on what was being said and the person who was 'offended'.

Mind you though Swima, this whole debate may be moot as the announcers haven't been charged with any violations of statute, they've simply been administratively disciplined by their employer.  Their 'crime' isn't one of violation of law, but rather of company policy... to hear station management tell it.

Which is exactly my point. What gives this extraordinary citizen who resides in the public eye, holding the most public of offices the right to go into a private company and make demands?

Ssylum, yuh ehn check me back on the crime talk man. I waiting on yuh.

[Bakes]

Which is exactly my point. What gives this extraordinary citizen who resides in the public eye, holding the most public of offices the right to go into a private company and make demands?

Ssylum, yuh ehn check me back on the crime talk man. I waiting on yuh.

Nah, I doh have an issue with that.  Ultimately broadcasters are accountable to their public audience, so even if some random no-name person had complained I think m'gmt may have looked into it.  If there's a chance that there'll be high publicity brought to the issue, they may quicker be spurred into action, as appears to be the issue here.

[Brownsugar]

CNC3 just broad cast the entire clip on their 7 pm news.  I have heard worst things on the air about Manning so I really now want to know what get he so riled up about this particular broadcast. He said it was unprofessional, well from what I just heard, this broadcast paaaalllleeesss in comparison to what I does hear bout Manning and his government.

My opinion now that I've heard for my self, these 2 youths were made scapegoats for something that may have been stuck in Manning craw a long time now....and O'brien Haynes is a kakahole for taking de chain up.
And I could finally articulate what had mih uneasy all this time,

ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS AND POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY!!!....
 

[Swima]

Which is exactly my point. What gives this extraordinary citizen who resides in the public eye, holding the most public of offices the right to go into a private company and make demands?

Ssylum, yuh ehn check me back on the crime talk man. I waiting on yuh.

Nah, I doh have an issue with that.  Ultimately broadcasters are accountable to their public audience, so even if some random no-name person had complained I think m'gmt may have looked into it.  If there's a chance that there'll be high publicity brought to the issue, they may quicker be spurred into action, as appears to be the issue here.

We could speculate that management would have taken action if it was you or I coming in with a complaint. However, after looking at the Prime Minister tonight on the news and hearing him comment on the situation, he said to the station's management "You do what you want, you run the radio station, however I run the country'. Are we to simply take that as being the average aggrieved citizen.

Bakes I hear what you saying eh, and I know it's your professional nature to look only at facts, but people in your profession also use character to interpret a person's actions and more importantly, to establish motive. This man made statements about a former cabinet member which he cannot yet prove to be true. He wants to speak about a lack of responsibility by radio journalists, but is not leading by example, and then makes a heavy handed statement like the one I just quoted.

It not sitting right with me at all, and it will take a lot of convincing for it to do so with me at this stage.

[Brownsugar]

Swima, Manning could pull this stunt here in T&T cuz he know we would just bend over and take it and doh say nutten.  Leave it friggin so....we like it so!!!...

This remind me of when SAUTT was first set up...we eh say nutten.  To this day and I stand to be corrected, SAUTT reports to the Min. of Nat'l Security but there IS NOTHING IN OUR LAWS OR CONSTITUION TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN!!!...

But leave it so, we like it friggin so!!

[weary1969]

He say he eh do nutten wrong and he goin 2 court next time because he fed up ah d media. Yeah Patos gr8 fight 2 pick. Me eh no fan ah dem jokers on d radio but Patos y not do what I do ignore dem. Empty vessels make d most noise

[asylumseeker]

CNC3 just broad cast the entire clip on their 7 pm news.  I have heard worst things on the air about Manning so I really now want to know what get he so riled up about this particular broadcast. He said it was unprofessional, well from what I just heard, this broadcast paaaalllleeesss in comparison to what I does hear bout Manning and his government.

My opinion now that I've heard for my self, these 2 youths were made scapegoats for something that may have been stuck in Manning craw a long time now....and O'brien Haynes is a kakahole for taking de chain up.
And I could finally articulate what had mih uneasy all this time,

ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS AND POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY!!!....
 

Have no fear ... he has not consummated absolute power ... and won't.

Anyway, what Acton wrote was: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

While the the last sentence is laden with cynicism, ah telling yuh fuh sure fuh sure fuh sure, Mr. Manning is NOT a "great man".

Sistah, take comfort in how Shakespeare dropped it: "Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them".

The PM may not fit in any of the three categories.

[asylumseeker]

Thanks dawg, and yeah I knew that it was a nebulous term which is why I figured profanity would be the primary content removed from the airways, but that currently isn't a problem in TnT. Not on radio, not even on the locally produced cable shows.

In dealing with a defamation case I would imagine that the courts would have to look for something that is untrue or misleading about what has been broadcast or printed. So my question again comes back to whether or not the action taken was appropriate based on what was being said and the person who was 'offended'.

Mind you though Swima, this whole debate may be moot as the announcers haven't been charged with any violations of statute, they've simply been administratively disciplined by their employer.  Their 'crime' isn't one of violation of law, but rather of company policy... to hear station management tell it.

Which is exactly my point. What gives this extraordinary citizen who resides in the public eye, holding the most public of offices the right to go into a private company and make demands?

Ssylum, yuh ehn check me back on the crime talk man. I waiting on yuh.

Soon come.

[Deeks]

Is manning accusing them of slander?

[Bakes]

We could speculate that management would have taken action if it was you or I coming in with a complaint. However, after looking at the Prime Minister tonight on the news and hearing him comment on the situation, he said to the station's management "You do what you want, you run the radio station, however I run the country'. Are we to simply take that as being the average aggrieved citizen.

Bakes I hear what you saying eh, and I know it's your professional nature to look only at facts, but people in your profession also use character to interpret a person's actions and more importantly, to establish motive. This man made statements about a former cabinet member which he cannot yet prove to be true. He wants to speak about a lack of responsibility by radio journalists, but is not leading by example, and then makes a heavy handed statement like the one I just quoted.

It not sitting right with me at all, and it will take a lot of convincing for it to do so with me at this stage.

Well I ent trying to convince you one way or another... Manning is the PM and he's in the spotlight, every action is amplified and sometimes we forget that even public figures are human too.  Was what he did a powerplay? Perhaps... but who among us if we know people were deliberately twisting our words or misconstruing our actions wouldn't be outraged?

To be sure he's rightly held to a higher standard, but failing those standards don't make his actions outrageous, but rather merely understandable... as much as it seems admittedly heavy-handed.

[Bakes]

Swima, Manning could pull this stunt here in T&T cuz he know we would just bend over and take it and doh say nutten.  Leave it friggin so....we like it so!!!...

This remind me of when SAUTT was first set up...we eh say nutten.  To this day and I stand to be corrected, SAUTT reports to the Min. of Nat'l Security but there IS NOTHING IN OUR LAWS OR CONSTITUION TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN!!!...

But leave it so, we like it friggin so!!

Brownsugar, nah... as someone looking on with an outsider's perspective I am often amazed at some of the things that the government, and Manning personally is faulted for.  Imagine dat li'l baby died last week and people were blaming the gov't for not ponying up the $300k to send her to John's Hopkins... we have the ultimate welfare state mentality.  We expect gov't to do everything for us... perhaps in part because we've become use to it.

The media here in the US is very critical of the government, but respectful of the offices, even if they have little personal respect for the office holder.  Our public officials deserve some blame for eliding over the differences between the two, but members of the media are also professionals and should conduct themselves accordingly.  The nonsensical gramma and reporting that we pick apart here online is symptomatic of a larger regression in journalistic standards.  The liberties taken by some of our journalists is so startling to me that I'm surprised that they aren't called out on it more often.  There's such a thing as professional standards and responsibilities, and if this helps the media be reminded of that then it's all for a greater good.

[Sando prince]

The PM handled this situation the wrong way...Why cant he take legal action against the station instead of going over to the station and make demands?..Isn't this a democratic country?..His supporters will  see the arrogance in his decisions (and this is not the first time his arrogance has been displayed). Some of our leaders (both PNM and UNC) often stray from the fact that the people of the country are the primary reasons why they are where they are today. Also they are elected for the people by the people and therefore the people HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO QUESTION the decisions they make with tax payers money. The truth is we have a leader who currently focuses more on foreign relations and alot less on major issues we have at home ( crime, health and housing). The media in T&T too is also disappointing, they do not effectively launch the concerns of Trinbagonians towards the current Government, instead they are more quick to broadcast and showcase economic and political plans the government are trying to accomplish with other countries, when everyone in T&T knows we have major problems at home that currently needs more attention...

 T&T politics and journalism has alot to learn from American politics and Journalism. A current American President will always be challenged within his own party for making unpopular decisions (which is understood because the members of these parties are representing the people of their constituence and not just their political party) but for some reason members in T&T political parties seem to forget who they represent when they reach in power. Most T&T politicians seem to forget that their obligation is first to the country then to their party. American Journalism stay on their government Arse and are not afraid to question him about issues that the American people are concerned about..but in T&T most times our media seem unwilling to challenge our leaders with tough issues...

In Conclusion we do not  show overwhelming patriotism in the democracy we have in T&T. (hopefully the young generation of politicians and journalists that are currently embracing T&T can change this disturbing fact) Why is it so unpopular in T&T for Goverment administrations to work with the opposition for issues to help benefit T&T. Not because a senator/representative is a member of the opposition, means he/she cannot work together in unity.. Opposition or Independents may have the best contribution or maybe very good input to solving a problem in T&T. Most Parliamentarians often really just care about PNM PNM PNM or UNC UNC UNC..GOD forbid they care about T&T T&T T&T...One time I sat down and decided to take in some politics on TV..and i was not surprised to hear our honorable PM keep voicing in his speech "because of the PNM this can happen..and becuase of the PNM we can do this...and becuase of the PNM this is how it is...and in no part of his speech he acknowledged parliamentarians/institutions/organisations who help in the success of the project he was talking about...I dont know if to laugh or cry..