Wednesday, 18 March 2020
It’s still relatively early COVID-19 days for us in the Caribbean, but I think it’s time we start considering the ways the global impact of the pandemic is likely to change our lives forever – for better or for worse.
The peaks and troughs of outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics are frequently described as statistical growth curves to be “flattened” through interventions that avoid an otherwise unavoidable explosion.
The experience with even less extreme events is that a lasting flattening of multiple social, economic and political curves can accompany such episodes.
It is true that the medically more vulnerable, together with the poor and financially disadvantaged, are called to bear an equal but intrinsically inequitable share of the burden, but it is also a fact that the burden of a pandemic crosses the divides as effectively as natural disasters and the inevitability of death.
It is thus difficult not to make constant reference to what I have been referring to as the “legacy” issues that relate to the world of work, lifestyles, public healthcare delivery, the use of technology, and the general power dynamics of domestic and global politics.
As we speak, the mighty are being brought to their knees and a disassembling of the structures of power and influence is already in evidence. Who would have thought that through all its wealth and political power, Europe (as was the case 1500 years ago with the Bubonic Justinian Plague) would grind to the screeching halt we are now witnessing?
Who would have guessed that the mighty USA would have found itself stuck on the crease, on the back foot, with a bouncer en route with pace to its unhelmeted head?
But all of this is not a new or original contemplation. Our planet has experienced life-changing pandemics in the past that have caused gigantic shifts comparable to the incidence of global warfare and accompanying dramatic changes in geo-political power and influence.
Europe’s 14th Century Bubonic disaster, which claimed up to two-thirds of the population of the continent is thought to have contributed to the eventual dissolution of the feudal state. There were also significant impacts, positive and negative, on farming practices and the process of urbanisation.
Could it be that COVID-19 has played a role in the carbon emissions discussions more than any global commitment of the past 20 years? Could it just be that the value of virtual workspaces has, by force, been finally established? Likewise, the unavailability of schools has not necessarily meant the absence of schooling.
It is also advisable, at this stage, to consider what happened when the HIV/AIDS pandemic peaked in the latter part of the 1900s and took the lives of tens of millions of people.
We have already had to address issues of social stereotyping, stigma and discrimination, harmful disinformation, and compliance with a reorienting of behaviours – “protection”, the role of clinical testing and other lasting features of our response to the virus.
It has also proven inadvisable to focus purely on fatality rates (as important as they are), especially now that current interventions at national levels, guided by the timely acquisition of knowledge are more likely than not to save countless lives and minimise suffering – providing people in the regular conduct of their lives take basic precautions.
There still are too many who do not accept that, at one level, it’s simply a matter of claiming adequate social space, washing your hands, and avoiding contact with eyes, nose and mouth - personal responsibility as the ultimate solution.
Beyond that, workers, employers, parents and citizens, are being called upon to make changes in the ways they have conceptualised their relationships with their natural and social environments.
Governments are now being forced to recalibrate revenue and expenditure estimates in the face of assured fiscal crises while addressing critical and otherwise under-served needs in the social services sector. Food import substitution remains a compelling option along with reduced reliance on imported consumer durables, even as aviation and shipping lanes close.
It might just be that we are all in a rendezvous with economic disaster, but maybe, just maybe, the flattening of the curve also brings with it a new dispensation in which hope can find space through which to shine more brightly than it has in recent times.
(Published in the T&T Guardian - March 18, 2020)
Saturday, 14 March 2020
Today’s column is inspired by the agony of independent journalism in Guyana in the midst of the current post-election turmoil.
My interest in this extends beyond the fact that I have lived and worked there and have been a frequent visitor as a journalism trainer and journalist covering a wide variety of areas for a very long time. Up to last January I was there as part of a training team for journalistic coverage of the elections.
I have also served as editorial consultant for Insight – a public affairs magazine published in Guyana - and have worked alongside the people at the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) on the development and application of media guidelines for coverage of elections there.
That experience inspired inclusion of the now-abandoned GECOM Media Monitoring Unit and system of media refereeing as part of a media best practice chapter in an Elections Handbook for Caribbean journalists edited by Lennox Grant (a former media referee in Guyana) and myself in 2009.
I am saying all of this because people are entitled to raise questions about my personal credentials as a Trini on this issue. But I think I know about what I am speaking when I say that the challenges to independent journalism in Guyana represent a grossly magnified version of what we face in T&T and in most of the English-speaking Caribbean.
For example, the challenges confronting my colleagues in Guyana today result in part from deliberate campaigns to undermine the work of professional journalists over recent years and to insert in their stead regimes of social media led misinformation and disinformation, popularly known as “fake news.”
It is a modus operandi with which established, independent media all over the world are now very familiar. Set political and sectional partisans upon professional journalists – women journalists are particularly targeted – reduce their influence, contaminate their messages, and (hopefully) commandeer the public discourse.
We have seen it here in T&T and in my work up and down the Caribbean region I have witnessed it. In some instances, even the exigencies of industry competition serve the purpose of reducing the credibility of the free press. The fact that poor media practice is so often on display also does not help.
The confusion over professional credentials in the media also adds to the messy scenario. The Guyana Press Association is made to confront this on a daily basis and, in a sense, because of the highly formal nature of the process there, people pretty much know who are the part-timers and posers with absolutely no interest in the professional requirements of transparency, balance and accountability.
I recall my own queasiness over expanding the membership base of the Media Association here some years ago. But that’s another story. The fact is that the accreditation process in Guyana provides a useful starting point for uprooting potential malpractice and identifying the pretenders.
It is of course true that not all of us have been faithful to all tenets of the profession both here and in Guyana. You can usually spot them from a mile. But the problem, by and large, is exogenous in nature and driven by elements inspired by a need to subvert the work of mainstream media.
This is no idle conspiracy theory. It is something that is being monitored closely by press freedom and human rights organisations all over the world. We essentially concede the combined impacts of declining economic fortunes and the rise of “free” media, but at the same time recognise the debilitating effects of concerted campaigns to undermine journalists and the media for which they work.
In T&T, we are also witnessing the resurrection and introduction of social media operations purporting to be legitimate news operations that cleverly combine valid and fictitious “news” reports. All in time for election 2020. Be vigilant.
Similar operations did quite a job in Guyana, and there are prices being paid for that as we speak. Our neighbour’s house is on fire, folks. This is not the distant flicker of an offshore oil platform.
(First published in the T&T Guardian on March 11, 2020)
(First published in the T&T Guardian on March 11, 2020)
Thursday, 5 March 2020
The public alarms rather belatedly activated by Cambridge Analytica whistle-blower Christopher Wylie’s revelations about the company’s purported work in T&T several years ago offer an opportunity for anyone with a genuine interest in human rights and freedom of expression to nuance the discussion into a more informed one than is currently on offer.
I am initiating this modest start, because I have so far not seen much by way of informed public commentary on the implications of threats to privacy when it comes to other rights, and the degree to which we in T&T are already partially submerged in the resulting quagmire.
The fact of the matter is that, in a fundamental sense, attempts at gratuitous derogations of the right to privacy have long been active pursuits of political administrations across the aisle in T&T, and this part of the world.
Now, this is not to render anything disclosed in Wylie’s Mindf*ck or last year’s US Senate Judiciary Committee hearings or the earlier revelations of a UK Guardian investigation of lesser concern or interest, but just to say that the predisposition of our political parties and the people who support them have never sturdily equated privacy with other inalienable human rights.
The international body on whose Council I currently sit, IFEX, accommodates Privacy International alongside organisations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation which looks at digital privacy, free speech, and innovation, and journalism organisations such as the Association of Caribbean MediaWorkers, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and others.
This combination of specialised interests converges at the point where there is recognition of the inter-connectedness of human rights.
It is not inconsistent that the people involved in these organisations advocate for greater transparency on the part of officialdom while at the same time insist that breaches of personal and collective privacy can have the impact of undermining the ability to operate freely as citizens and as communities of interest.
This is among the reasons why it is entirely conceivable that journalists and their representative organisations can fuss over the current wave of data protection and cyber-crime laws in this part of the world which enjoy bipartisan support and can reduce the capacity of journalists and whistle-blowers to play active roles in delivering truth to power.
Mindf*ck is earning bestseller status in T&T, for instance, not long after the Media Association has had to less spectacularly argue (against strong resistance and passive opposition) that data protection legislation as conceptualised here stands in the way of the conduct of untrammeled information flows.
We are also in the throes of the imminent imposition of surveillance activities to regulate the online conduct of citizens (about which there are legitimate concerns and are perhaps already actionable under common law and existing statute) but through which a chilling effect on free expression is more than likely to prevail.
The problem with many of these ad hoc, knee-jerk measures is that they, at their core, refuse to recognise the nature of free expression as not only the right to disseminate information, entertainment, views and news, but also an entitlement to seek and to receive such content.
It is, in this context, always irksome to hear people talk about freedom of the press as a matter only concerned with the activities of the media, without regard for the fact that such a freedom intrinsically includes the rights of the consumers of mass communication.
It is true that increasingly popular governance frameworks for the operators of online platforms can have the impact of restraining unbridled technological power, and there is a very sophisticated international discussion on this issue. But there is always a danger of over-emphasising the role of state power in the reining-in of such influence and even control.
For further illumination we may turn to the guidance of international conventions that prescribe a right to communicate privately without interference, except under the most limited circumstances.
How good it would be to have the most recent cohort of graduating attorneys pay attention to such matters. Senator Sophia Chote forgot about this in her wise counsel to them last weekend.
Anyone challenging or gloating over Wylie’s revelations must also embrace an introspective on how we truly feel about such matters. This is more than just PNM/UNC business.
(First published in the T&T Guardian in November 2019)
There is absolutely no denying that the COVID-19 outbreak is among the more serious global challenges of its kind we have experienced in recent memory. Its spread has been rapid. It has already reached close to 60 countries and there is a 2% - 3% fatality rate, though more than 80% of its patients have suffered only “mild” effects.
It is only a matter of time before we begin confirming cases right here in T&T, maybe even before this column goes to press.
The virus is already nearby and because closing our borders and shutting down the country are not options, we need to focus on controlling its spread and impact when it arrives.
There is no medication to “heal” it and, so far, no vaccine to guard against it. What’s required are proper diagnoses, together with adequate isolation and treatment regimes, and acute public awareness of all facets of the disease.
The experts have suggested that controlling its spread also requires a very high level of personal responsibility.
Unfortunately, this does mesh neatly with our collective predisposition on such matters. We have proven, sadly, not to be readily inclined to favour personal and communal obligation over mandatory official intervention.
For example, the minister of health was once ridiculed for suggesting that people’s health are their individual responsibility - the routine obligations of public institutions notwithstanding.
There are, certainly, legitimate concerns regarding vulnerable groups such as dialysis and cancer patients at public institutions who have raised questions about what happens should they contract the virus. The ministry needs to have clear protocols available to these people in plain language. Healthcare professionals should also be adequately equipped.
It is also not one of those issues for which a reward of cheap political points should be contemplated. I have been watching the various puerile stirrings. This is a matter for medical science, not politics, my friends. This is not going to earn anybody any new votes.
There is also no government ministry walking beside you 24/7. There’s just you and the people in your environment – at home, school, in the workplace and public spaces.
So, wash your hands properly. Do not touch your face. Cover your coughs and sneezes with tissue you dispose of properly. Avoid close contact with people who are ill. Stay at home if you are unwell. Regularly clean doorknobs and other frequently touched areas. The drill is pretty straightforward.
When it comes to overall management of the current challenge, the main enemies remain ignorance, superstition, conspiracy theories, xenophobia and racism, and general panic – treatments for which are always difficult to administer.
I am thus committed to ignoring politicians, religious folks, witch doctors and anonymous WhatsApp dispatches on this subject. Within this “infodemic” lie serious perils to be avoided. National, regional and international institutions are all releasing very useful advice and information. Stop saying there is no information. It’s there. Get it and share it.
Though social media reach in T&T is in the order of 62%, onward transmission of official data and information via the much more widely used WhatsApp has been conspicuously accelerated on this question – though some (not all) of it is rumour, misinformation and, in some cases, sheer mischief.
It is best to rely mainly on information disseminated by the Ministry of Health, CARPHA, PAHO and WHO – all of whom have released guidelines on the spread of the disease and measures for self-protection. Caricom has also activated a regional protocol establishing minimum standards for dealing with the virus.
Outside of the key official institutions, be sceptical about other sources of information that reach your phone, tablet or laptop.
Even so, official information now frequently contends with numerous conspiracy theories and other nonsenses that have not helped ease our tendency to panic and in the process ignore sensible, authoritative advice.
We also live in an environment in which rumour finds pervasively fertile terrain. Conducting a test for the virus does not constitute a confirmation.
The point of all of this today is that while the state has its undoubted share of obligations, stemming the spread of pandemic in the end falls to personal responsibility as a fairly effective safeguard, together with finding antidotes for prevailing ignorance and accompanying fear.
(First published in the T&T Guardian on March 4, 2020)
Friday, 18 October 2019
For all the negative commentary on our work, many Caribbean journalists have been looking at the question of climate change long before it became fashionable to wave banners on the street, to have colourful demonstrations proclaiming its advent, and before the issue earned serious mention in our parliaments.
Predating the efforts of the Association of Caribbean MediaWorkers (ACM) which was established in 2001, was the work of the Caribbean Environmental Reporters Network (CERN) which, since 1993, had been focusing on broad environmental management issues and attempting to zero-in on some of the regional challenges the onset of changed climate conditions was capable of creating.
Then, in 2004, the ACM was invited to participate in the work of Caricom’s Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change (MACC) Project to help produce a Climate Change Handbook for Caribbean Journalists. It was published in 2005.
My enthusiasm for the exercise, as a member of the editorial team, flowed seamlessly from the journalistic work I had been a part of, via CERN, to critically examine the potential sectoral impacts of climate change. We looked at agriculture, tourism, public infrastructure and insurance, among other areas of concern.
By the way, the T&T industry official I called for comment on the insurance angle was unclear what the hell I was talking about – even as Lloyds of London had already established a special programme to examine the future of risk assessment and implications for reinsurance rates. This is not to embarrass anybody or any institution, but to state a dry fact.
Last week, in Guyana, an ACM team assembled for part two in a series of journalistic consultations for production of a publication that considerably advances the narrative of the 2005 text and acknowledges a role in promoting better understanding of what I have proposed we describe as the current “climate crisis.” The first consultation was hosted in Antigua.
Our early work had attracted the attention of our colleagues in the South Pacific via the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) with which the ACM had signed a memorandum to collaborate on an issue we recognised as being of grave, common concern.
Today, Pacific journalists are present at the Conference of the Parties (COP) sessions of the United Nations Climate Change Conference and are among some of the issue’s most competent reporters.
There has been broad recognition of the fact that while the media industry stands, like every other commercial sector, to be affected by our changing circumstances, media practitioners have a very special role to play when it comes to truth-telling about climate change.
This means that greater attention needs to be paid not only to the sloganeering of politicians and the actions of “activists” but to an understanding of the climate science that has, so far, and largely got the story right.
Proceeding along this path has run very much against a Caribbean culture that relies heavily on intuition, a notion of selectively divine beneficence, and the view that, however weighted by fact and data, there are multiple sides to some stories that require equal hearing.
There is a raging debate in some circles on this point because, after all, shouldn’t all ideas contend? Well, there was a time when the flatness of the planet was being seriously debated (I have no time for modern-day flat-earth loonies) and there are conspiracy theories about things like the lunar landing and the causes of some diseases, that are just as easily dismissible.
This, of course, is a newspaper column and not a chapter in a science journal. So you need to go look up the available science on climate change, or read what is happening to those countries near and far that are experiencing the impacts of more frequent and more intense weather episodes, rising sea levels and threats to freshwater supplies.
I had asked in my introduction to the 2005 volume: “Why do journalists need this handbook?” and I answered myself by concluding that climate change had become “one of the most compelling stories of the 21st Century.”
In this season of the budget debate and upcoming local government elections, this is not an irrelevant assertion. I am following the budget debate and the election campaign to hear what our leaders have to say about this. I believe you should follow suit
First Published in the Trinidad and Tobago Guardian on October 16, 2019
Thursday, 12 September 2019
Daily, the unfolding catastrophe in The Bahamas is providing instruction for communicators on some of the most important features of managing the persistent nightmare of our geography and state of relative under-development in the Caribbean.
It is much too early to focus on a finite “toll” or anything of the sort – whether it be lives or property or economic or humanitarian opportunity. But it is always a good time to re-visit some of the things we have learnt through experience and observation over the years. This is especially pertinent as we in T&T remain firmly implanted in the middle of a hurricane season and can all remember last year’s flooding and 6.9 earthquake.
One of the first things diligent professional communicators learn about disaster management is the importance of verified information. Though disaster officials are often aware of the likelihood of greater numbers and more dramatic statistics, it is important for them to ensure a high level of orderliness and precision based on what is known and not the latest round of speculation.
On Monday, one Bahamian publication, relying on information gleaned from “a (single) hurricane rescue worker” who cited unnamed “officials”, claimed that more than 2,300 people had been killed by last week’s hurricane. This may or may not have prompted the country’s police force to later announce that, as at Sunday, 45 bodies had been discovered in the Hurricane Dorian affected areas of Abaco and Grand Bahama.
The news story came from a publication that had earlier reported that people described as “Haitian mobs” had been responsible for widespread looting, home invasions and robberies in Great Abaco.
Don’t get me wrong. The figures can and will change, and there is certain to be a “Haitian” issue, but for the moment it is highly irresponsible to present the unverified as fact.
At a workshop organised by the Association of Caribbean MediaWorkers (ACM) last year, following the 2017 hurricanes, we discussed some of these phenomena. (By the way, we have factored in a climate crisis perspective on all this.)
It was remarkable, I noted, how the purveyors of “disaster porn” are attracted to the unverified; how they are also strong devotees of conspiracy theories, capable of spotting the most remote flavour of partisan favouritism, and are far more prone to entertaining irresponsible, inflammatory language to describe people and things happening around them. We have them here for sure.
The “mainstream” media are typically and haplessly victimised by this, perennially being accused of conspiring with officialdom to withhold important information – before, during and after bad things happen.
Yet, when push comes to shove, people expect radio and television stations to be on the air, newspapers to be published and journalists to be presenting unvarnished fact.
This leads to another thing we discussed in Barbados last year: How quickly the online trolls and mischief-makers disappear and re-appear at times of crisis. On the eve of Hurricane Maria in Dominica, for example, the island was in the throes of sharp political conflict.
The online warriors were hard at work. Category 5 defamation, false accusations and damaging propaganda were in abundance. Then Maria landed. While media workers reported for duty, the online combatants remained under their beds. All that remained was journalism … until the water settled, and the usual suspects were back at it again when it was safe.
In examining this, the focus for some of us has been and continues to be on the plight of working journalists operating in the so-called “mainstream media” at times of disaster. This is so because while social media buffs can be helpful, there is a validating role played by established media that has been determined to be indispensable.
Additionally, media workers in the Caribbean have displayed a sense of professional duty that is almost completely absent on the part of many others at times like these.
This is particularly so when it comes to the independent verification of information (and, yes, mistakes are made), the maintenance of plant and equipment to assure operational continuity, and a level of selflessness many media professionals consider to be a part of their job specifications.
All of this to say that at a time when journalism is under constant attack, there is a necessity for precisely what it sets out to achieve – the validation of potentially life-changing information, a strong professional commitment to present accurate news and information, and a rare level of courage.
Saturday, 20 July 2019
Using the opportunity here to raise multiple issues, instead of the usual one – not that they are unrelated.
Every now and then you see a social media post (none of which will be repeated here) and you wonder whether the marketplace of public opinion is indeed having the impact of leveling off extremes – of separating wheat from chaff, sheep from goats, lambi from freshwater conch.
The idea behind freedom of expression is that out of the unmediated exchange of news, information, creativity and opinion, there emerges an eventual equilibrium that takes people closer to rational conclusions, facts, and enlightenment.
This is the exact opposite of what propaganda seeks to achieve – especially when it seeks to stifle dissent by creating conditions for an imbalance in information flows. This is also the dynamic that disinformation sets out to undermine and destroy.
Our authoritarian instincts clearly also do not sit comfortably with rights and freedoms. Freedom of expression is thus not readily recognisable, in such a context, as a multi-pronged process involving not only the dissemination of expression, but an ability to seek out and to access expression.
Recent discussions on the nature of our Freedom of Information Act exposed a lack of understanding of such a scenario. Access to information is, in fact, a freedom of expression issue insofar as such a right identifies an ability to also research and to acquire information – official information in particular.
The Media Association’s (MATT’s) nuanced response to the challenge was thus spot-on, and the ensuing official responses indicative of an instinct toward the authoritarian.
All of this long-windedness to come to another, as I said not unrelated, point: The perpetual exclamation that “Caricom is ah waste of time” and has achieved nothing in its 46 years.
I have spoken with multiple regional decision-makers in the Caribbean who have, in not so many words, expressed such an uninformed view – despite the existence of over 20 institutions, and numerous areas of functional cooperation that keep some of them in office.
Two developments reminded me of this recently. The first relates to online responses to the news that internecine conflict arose during a caucus of Caricom heads of government in Saint Lucia last week when the subject of the Caribbean Development Fund (CDF) came up.
The other has to do with the fact that the people at the Carifesta Secretariat in T&T had lumped Caricom journalists with “foreign” journalists in tailoring the event’s media accreditation process.
First, the CDF issue. It is disturbing that people who know more than I do are not chiming in on the question of imbalances (“disparities” is the word used in the official literature) in the Caricom Single Market and Economy (CSME) process, and what the CDF was designed to achieve.
There is need for a mature discussion on this – for all 15 member states to take a “deep breath” on this issue, as Dr Rowley put it, because Jamaican intransigence (even as the Golding Report proposes a strategic opting out of it all) can provide an opportunity to revisit the old MDC/LDC formula.
More on that another time. Now on to Carifesta XV. It has taken the patience required of my very first point – acknowledging a marketplace that mixes sense with nonsense – and an understanding of point two, regarding the ignorance that prevails on things Caricom, to have not lost my cool when I realised that the Carifesta folks in Port-of-Spain had not instinctively recognised the event as a quintessential Caricom activity.
Further, that the region’s single market process, to which we are bound both by domestic legislation (the Caricom Act and others) and international law (the Treaty of Chaguaramas) accords (qualified) equal treatment to all nationals of countries signed on to the revised treaty.
This forms the basis of the advocacy some of us have engaged in over some rather hard years to promote recognition of categories such as media professionals and entertainers (“artistes”) as worthy of such status. But there is also an accompanying moral obligation.
Thanks to Keith Subero, in particular, for helping to have the initial Carifesta error corrected – if it was considered to be an error based on ignorance in the first place.
This country’s gradual passivity on Caricom affairs over the years has indeed been taking its toll. So much so that the marketplace of free expression on things Caricom is served by rather dim lighting at the moment, both here and in our immediate neighbourhood.
Originally published in the T&T Guardian - July 10, 2019
It’s still relatively early COVID-19 days for us in the Caribbean, but I think it’s time we start considering the ways the global impact ...
For all the negative commentary on our work, many Caribbean journalists have been looking at the question of climate change long before i...
Delivered in Mexico City - September 29, 2009 It is now generally recognised that the mass media play an important role in ensuring that th...
TalkCity Radio Editorial - December 20, 2013 I think it would be true to say that there is universal support for the view that our chi...