|
|
|
|
Dec
22
Written by:
Godfrey Smith
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Maybe it’s the perceived similarities between himself and Mr. Obama that caused Mr. Barrow to impose a partial media boycott on Channel 5 suspiciously reminiscent of the White House’s short-lived, ill-conceived boycott of Fox News earlier in October.
To be sure, there are similarities. They are two of only three black leaders in the continental Americas, are lawyers possessed of natural oratorical skills; both came to power on clear and strong mandates to change the political culture that had blighted government in Washington and Belmopan.
Barrack and Barrow’s rising stars crossed at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago in April 2009 where Mr. Barrow, as the incoming chairman of Caricom’s Heads of Government, shared a table with Mr. Obama and invited him to visit Belize. Local media airwaves hummed with expectation.
Similarity hit bedrock at color and the common law. While Obama used his skills to coax bipartisanship, Barrow used his to browbeat and belittle. In contrast to Mr. Obama’s patient, measured, professorial manner, Mr. Barrow is a hubristic parliamentary exhibitionist who talks first and thinks later.
His press office issued a public advisory on December 7th that the government was suspending “normal relations” with Channel 5 meaning that no government representative of any ministry or department would be giving any official individual interview or make any individual appearance on the station.
Mr. Obama’s White House had been roundly criticized for an attempt to exclude Fox News from particular media events, dismissing the station as a mouthpiece of the Republican Party. Obama’s point man, David Axelrod, had stated on ABC’s This Week that Fox was not a “real news agency” and that real news agencies “ought not to treat them that way.” The attempted lock-out collapsed after the other networks refused to participate if Fox was shut out.
Swelling with indignation, like Axelrod, Belize Minister John Saldivar, dismissed Channel 5 as a mouthpiece and arm of the Opposition party. He stopped short of making the surreal allegation which appeared in the advisory that Channel 5 had proceeded down “a deliberate path to systematically undermine, not just the government, but the interest of the entire nation and its people.”
For a television news station that, supposedly, consistently acted against the interest of the people, it was curious at least that all the persons polled on Krem Radio’s popular, grassroots street side poll, Two Cents Cam, disagreed with the government’s boycott of Channel 5.
The government’s public advisory reinforces the emerging habit of the government to equate its decisions with the national interest, then publicly attacking persons who disagree with those decisions as enemies of the state who should be charged for treason, boycotted by government or vilified in government media arms.
The government cited the alleged refusal of Channel 5 to air its propaganda program Belmopan Weekly. Channel 5 disputed this and produced a digital log to prove that it had been aired. More importantly, the station had indicated to the Chairman of the Broadcasting Authority its willingness to air the program, prior to the boycott.
Channel 5 challenged the government to cite a single instance of where it had been unfair in refusing a right of reply to any person against whom a negative story had been run. It countered that it was more the case that ministers turned down requests for interviews.
But those grounds were just stuff to fluff out the government’s real gripe. In two separate television interviews given to journalists, Prime Minister Barrow lamented Channel 5’s “terribly, terribly unfair reporting.”
The harassment-by-letter of Channel 5 from the Press Office, the boycott and Mr. Barrow’s protestations came hard on the heels of an exclusive Channel 5 expose on weaknesses and corruption in the Ministry of Immigration being exploited by international human traffickers.
Human Trafficking ranks high on the US State Department’s foreign policy priorities even where the staging ground is an insignificant country like Belize. It is likely that the story prompted inquires from the US Embassy in Belize, triggering the ire of a bullying, but thin-skinned government.
Unlike Fox’s sister networks in the U.S., other media houses in Belize did not join forces to denounce the boycott. This sad reality was more a reflection of that pervasive Belizean cultural mindset of “staying out of harm’s way” unless personally affected. It is also a reflection of the fact that there is a realization that the government has a clearly defined vindictive streak.
Condemnations for government’s attack on the free press came from the Opposition party, a third party called VIP, individual journalists and parliamentarians and a couple NGOs. The most influential statements however came from abroad. The Caribbean Broadcasting Union, a reputable and powerful force in the region, weighed in with its support.
Then the United States Embassy issued its own statement on the importance of the free press in a democracy and the role of fearless journalists in exposing corruption. It wasn’t pointed but there was no mistaking its intended target and context.
Grunts and groans of discomfort about lack of press freedom from the United States’ Government, no matter how muffled, is more than sufficient warning to a government displaying this kind of intolerance for media criticism.
This perhaps explains the unmistakable thawing in the freeze on Channel 5. A week after trotting out his minister of war, John Saldivar, who announced a hard line blockade of Channel 5, Mr. Barrow has thrown open his arms to some form of mediation in order to restore normal relations with the news station.
The PM should know that there is no shame in conceding over-reaction and bad judgment; even Mr. Obama’s White House realized it had a mistake in freezing out the republican mouthpiece Fox News. No Prime Minister of Belize has been as attacked and vilified by the media as former Prime Minister Musa. To his great credit, he hardly ever refused an interview and never attempted to interfere with the free press in Belize. Mr. Barrow should have taken a page from Mr. Musa in dealing with the media, not from Mr. Obama.
Copyright ©2010 Godfrey Smith
22 comment(s) so far...
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
But Belize's PM is a "Obama knock-off" according to Mike from The Belize Times, and this thus explains why he will not concede his overreaction.
By Oliver on
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
|
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
He (barrow) could never take a page out of Mr. Musa's book he lacks the cojones to come even close to a leader Like Mr. Musa's.
By Marisa on
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
|
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
Godfrey, Channel 5 is a PUP Media House. I am neither a UDP or a PUP but the way how they (Channel 5) broadcast the news, it says a lot about them.
By John on
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
|
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
And just imagine, the sensationalist Jules Vasquez, who benefited from freedom of the press under the PUP, did not even defend freedom of the press. He chose to simply tow his father's party line and keep his garrulous self mute.
By Lavern on
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
|
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
Godfrey, Channel 5 is a PUP Media House. I am neither a UDP or a PUP but the way how they (Channel 5) broadcast the news, it says a lot about them.
By John on
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
|
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
Godfrey, Channel 5 is a PUP Media House. I am neither a UDP or a PUP but the way how they (Channel 5) broadcast the news, it says a lot about them.
By John on
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
|
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
Its sad really. Our media houses all show their "colours". some way more so than others.
The amount of favourable coverage the governement of Belize gets, makes me wonder why unemployment, poverty, terrible streets, corruption etc. still exist in Belize..... The truth is, there is no non-political media house in Belize. We have owners of media houses who sing for their supper -lavish as it is. In fact, they sing louder to get more...they enjoy gormandising! Under both governments they live extremely well. Theirs is an enviable position... Treat them good because if you don't they will talk badly of you; or, treat them well so that they will ignore your shortcommings, and "big u up". I stand ready to support the media house that will ask questions/investigate/probe the issues..
By swimming midstream on
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
|
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
I've been very apathetic with this one. First of all, political news reporting has been going down hill at Channel 5 ever since the new news editor assumed her position at the station. She has not been able to keep her political bias out of the news. It has been VERY obvious. The station has lost my respect in that regard. Of course Channel 5 has always been a bit blue, but when the PUP scandals exploded and the former news editor drilled the former P.M. in a very heated interview, I realized the station had some integrity. That's all gone now. It's sad. I hate the direction Channel 5 has taken with that very important element of news reporting.
I feel the same way about FOX and Obama. I detest FOX News. They are extremely misleading to the American public. They are like Channel 5, claiming to be objective when blatantly biased. It's disgusting and insulting and unfair to the public.
Just not a fan of partisan media. When the government wants to start a beef with a media outlet that has shown attempts to produce fair and balanced reporting, then I will have a problem. The government wanting to break up with nasty, partisan media doesn't light any fire in me.
By Blaaa on
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
|
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
Blaa, Channel 5 is not pro PUP; it is pro Ashcroft, pro John Briceno, and pro Eamon.
By Old Saint Nic on
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
|
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
I too believe that Channel 5 has an obvious political slant but in a democracy they are entitled to have such a slant. Isn't that the fundamentals of a democracy? When I watch the news on 5 at 6:30 I do so understanding their bias, I then watch 7 at 10:00 understanding thier bias as well. And then I make up my own damn mind.
I think it is an insult to us to think that just because 5 is PUP and bias in thier views that the rest of us will just take it hook line and sinka. It is no different than the political newspapers--you read them pick out the nuggets if you can find them and leave the rest of garbage. Thing done!
I do like 5 because they have been putting out some really nice locally produced programs: high qualify good family programs. If you think that they are bias as several people has claimed then take their news with a grain of salt, hell take it with a pound if you want to but don't severe "normal relations" with them. Governments don't get to do that in a democracy. I certainly understand Dean's pain at least we "ordinary people" get to change the channel.
I love you Belize
By Major Jones on
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
|
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
We should never tolerate "slants" as NEWS. I take it as insult when our media outlets pose commentary and editorials as NEWS because I know better, but I feel sorry for many of the feeders of the media who are not as quick to see that bias. It is their great loss and a disservice to them.
Journalists have a duty to serve balanced reporting to the public. When they fail to do so, we should always call them out on it.
And I agree with you that 5 produces many good quality programs. A lot is advancing at the station, while unfortunately, their political news reporting is sinking rock bottom. And because the station is capable of so much good and being the most advanced and popular local television channel in Belize, that their wayward partisan route in political news reporting concerns me. They have tremendous impact on the people. This is why Barrow got pissed. His move to suspend "normal relations", I think, was unnecessary and a really bad move for him politically. (I'm assuming the UDP government suspended normal relations with The Belize Times ages ago, right? Assuming there were any to being with?) Logically though, if he's so concerned about fair and balanced reporting, then he should suspend relations with Channel 7 too. There's the flaw in his logic.
Hmm. Maybe I'm not as apathetic about this as I thought was. I suppose what I want to get across here is that there is a way to reveal bad government practices without interjecting opinions and personal biases into the reporting. The station's news editor just doesn't seem to grab a hold of that skill. And for the sake of professional journalism in Belize, she needs to do so ASAP.
By Blaa on
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
|
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
There is a place for "slanted" reporting in a healthy democracy. It's called OPINIONS/EDITORIALS/COMMENTARY. Not the NEWS.
By Blaa on
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
|
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
I disagree with Blaa. In a democratic nation any media house should be allowed to take whatever position it wants! You have a constitutional right to choose any side, there is nothing wrong with it! If you don't appreciate the loyalty or spin of anybody then you do not have to watch, you can switch the station and watch Jules push the Barrow/Vasquez agenda.
I have to agree with Godfrey, as bad as Said was Dean Barrow has made him look like the bigger man! Nobody took more pressure from the media than Said, yet he shouldered all the blows with dignity and never got petty! Don't get me wrong, I am not a Said supporter. I am just telling it like it is!
By SAID OLIVER WILBERT BARROW on
Thursday, December 23, 2010
|
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
We need to understand that journalism in a healthy democracy require ethical codes, and we are violating them left, right and center. The people deserve objective, balanced and fair reporting. They shouldn't be told what to think. They should be presented the information and form their own opinions on matters. Channel 5 nor Channel 7 has been dutiful in that responsibility to the public.
But I do agree with you Said Oliver Wilbert Barrow that Barrow made a big mistake "suspending normal relations" with Channel 5. Godfrey is right, Musa (and I'm not a Said fan either) looks like the bigger person by taking the heat from the media when he was PM. This was a bad move for Barrow. Political suicide, even.
By Blaa on
Thursday, December 23, 2010
|
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
Well if we are to believe what our local TV news reported earlier today things are on the mend. Channel 5 + PM + meeting = normal relations.
I love you Belize
By Major Jones on
Thursday, December 23, 2010
|
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
Victimization by Belizean Governments have been with us for a longtime which has been the root cause for lack of leadership in the the nation and the apathy of its citizens. Like Gaul we are divided. Where is our Vercingetorix of today?
By Mark Hall on
Friday, December 24, 2010
|
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
Belize's development is hindered by this two-party system. The masses don't have enough sense to see this, so we will forever be underdevelopment. I still love Belize, though. Best place on Earth to live.
Imagine... Briceno as PM in 2013. It's as scary as it's sad.
By RAGM on
Friday, December 24, 2010
|
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
*in underdevelopment
By RAGM on
Friday, December 24, 2010
|
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
There is no such thing as "unbiased reporting."
Those of you who believe that journalists are not influenced by their own political views/beliefs are simply ignorant, and probably don't understand the news anyway.
So long as these biases are publicly disclosed (as it is obvious in Belize), the viewers should be able to interpret the facts for themselves.
The real shame, and unfortunate reality of this situation, is that Channel 5 did not expose Channel 7 for the cowardly idiots that they are. If I was running Channel 5, I would have made a point of the "suspicious silence" from Channel 7, and their failure to support the freedom of the press.
But that's me.
By Belizean in Foreign on
Saturday, December 25, 2010
|
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
Our very own Robert Mugabe in the making. Look at the pattern. Quitar land , expropriate industries, tamper with the independence of the judiciary , constitutional amendments to perpetuate his power, attacking the press etc. But ,baldy, this aint no Africa and we will hold you accountable for the evils you do, jack.
By MELANIE on
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
|
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
Don't forget that Mugabe also steals elections and assassinates political rivals!
By Belizean in Foreign on
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
|
Re: Stifling Media Access: A page from Mr. Obama?
I agree, Barrow is behaving like a spoilt little Tyrant. How can this be, that he has turned out this way? When there was so much expectation of him, when he was to deliver us from the ravages of the PUP plague! Alas I have lost all faith in the Belizean political system...
By SAID OLIVER WILBERT BARROW on
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer
Flashpointbelize.com reserves the right not to publish comments that may be deemed libelous, derogatory or indecent. The views expressed in the comments are not necessarily those of Flashpointbelize.com.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed.
|
Find:
|