Tweet
Barbara Gloudon's predictable garbage
RIP, Bob - pardon the confusion
Barbara Gloudon
Friday, June 15, 2007
FROM EARLY in the day, I was never at ease with the reports of Bob Woolmer's death and the subsequent train of events. One of my major concerns was the flow of information through the local media as compared to overseas entities.
Too often it seemed to me that the BBC appeared to know more of what was going on here than we did. More than once some new developments in the case would come from Over There, rather than Down Here. We never appeared to question the process and seemed comfortable playing on the second eleven, to use the appropriate cricket metaphor.
I was not unconscious of the sensitivity of the Woolmer issue.
What bothered me, however, was how the rest of the world would speak of us once again in disparaging tones. The "Foreign Press", as they used to call it here in times past, and the British media in particular, always seemed happiest when they were highlighting our imperfections.
We could always be guaranteed a headline when it came to matters of our predilection for violence. The sudden death on Jamaican soil, of an international sportsman of the stature of Bob Woolmer, was guaranteed therefore to give us more attention than we would wish for.
As one who felt pride in our showing at the opening of the Cricket World Cup, it was sad to see how quickly such achievement was unceremoniously ushered off the stage once the Woolmer affair became global news. Some of us took comfort in the fact that there was no allegation of a Jamaican being involved in his death. Naively, we assumed that since "it wasn't we", we'd be home high and dry this time. Well, it is there for all to see now. We're right into the middle of one of the biggest mix-ups of all times.
If it were not so deeply tragic, the story would be a real farce, a true comedy of errors. Besides Mr Woolmer's demise, we had to deal with aspersions about match-fixing, shifty bettors and hit men who, it was said, had travelled half-way around the globe to get here and "do their thing". Through all of this, the stream of press reports continued to flow more from the North than from the South. We became spectators at our
own game.
I believe that most of our journalists here tried to keep on top of the story but let's admit it, we were outdone. Excuses aside, I also believe that we didn't do better because things were skewed towards the "Foreign Press". How else could the BBC and others consistently have information of things happening here to which we were not privy? Were we done-in by our own ineptness but by an over-managed public information system?
I find no virtue in the tight
reign which the Constabulary Communication Network now keeps on information to the media. A whole generation of journalists is growing up on a diet of press releases, some badly written and in such a predictable formula that they have no impact, yet we regurgitate them daily to the public, especially via the electronic media. On the occasions when the formula is modified, it still comes across as clumsy.
The big, fat press conference given by the High Command on Tuesday morning was too little, too late. What would have served a better purpose during the Woolmer business was a sense that information had been shared in a sensitive and even manner all along, rather than a big show when the house has fallen down. If this is not so, I stand to be convinced.
SOME WEIRD THINGS happened in the course of this Woolmer story. One of the most disturbing for me was the photograph of Woolmer's dead-cold face seen from inside a body bag, which was published in the Gleaner last week Wednesday (June 6), alongside a Jamaicans for Justice article. It has drawn little or no public reaction. The photo was credited to Reuters, one of the world's oldest news agencies and, according to the caption, was taken March 20 in a Kingston morgue.
As it has come to me, the photographer was one of the visiting press corps, and dawg newspaper sey, a morgue attendant benefited financially. True or false? Don't all answer at once. While we're at it, shouldn't there have been some form of official security at the morgue considering the suspicious circumstances of the death? Could someone have gone there and tampered with things? No? Then somebody defend it.
To get back to how we journalists performed, it would be unfair to give the impression that everyone failed to do their best in trying to get the story. I have to salute Rohan Powell of the RJR News Centre for his doggedness in pursuing what he could get. He held his place in the crush of overseas reporters who staked out the Pegasus and he turned in some interesting work. He deserves commendations.
OUT IN THE STREETS, in the places where people love argument, one of the most contentious issues is the status of Mark Shields, the imported wunderkind of the Jamaican Constabulary. All things being equal, the Woolmer affair should've been the Super Cop's shining moment, proof-positive that Superman had indeed come to town. It wasn't and it isn't. Anyway you cut it, he was in charge of the investigation. The story is a mess, like all leaders have to accept where the buck stops. Despite the media blitz, many people are not impressed. There are others who do not like to hear this, but it is democracy.
I've heard it being said if it were a born-yah JA cop who had spearheaded such a high-profile investigation which has ended so disastrously, there would be calls for resignation not just of the pathologist, but of everybody from minister to commissioner to the benighted crime fighter. Our Golden Boy remains untarnished, fulfilling the ancestral credo: "Puss and dawg nuh have de same luck."
THE MINISTER of National Security Dr Peter Phillips informed Parliament on Wednesday of retired Justice Ian Forte's appointment to review all the facts of the case and report back in six weeks. Only hours before, I was advocating such an appointment. Co-incidence or prescience? What does it matter? Gwaan, Missa Forte!
Of equal interest, too, was the announcement that the ministry will also be strengthening the capacity of the Constabulary's Forensic Department. This is good news for the many Jamaicans who have been complaining of the anguish they experience when they have to await post-mortems of loved ones who died suddenly or tragically. So, good may yet come out of bad, but for now, the name of poor Mr Woolmer stands alongside "confusion".
DID YOU SEE the news item wherein former Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq is advising his players who were questioned, fingerprinted, DNA-tested and detained in Kingston for 11 days after Woolmer's death, that they should now pursue legal action? Against whom? All a we? Whoy!
gloudonb@yahoo.com
Barbara Gloudon
Friday, June 15, 2007
FROM EARLY in the day, I was never at ease with the reports of Bob Woolmer's death and the subsequent train of events. One of my major concerns was the flow of information through the local media as compared to overseas entities.
Too often it seemed to me that the BBC appeared to know more of what was going on here than we did. More than once some new developments in the case would come from Over There, rather than Down Here. We never appeared to question the process and seemed comfortable playing on the second eleven, to use the appropriate cricket metaphor.
I was not unconscious of the sensitivity of the Woolmer issue.
What bothered me, however, was how the rest of the world would speak of us once again in disparaging tones. The "Foreign Press", as they used to call it here in times past, and the British media in particular, always seemed happiest when they were highlighting our imperfections.
We could always be guaranteed a headline when it came to matters of our predilection for violence. The sudden death on Jamaican soil, of an international sportsman of the stature of Bob Woolmer, was guaranteed therefore to give us more attention than we would wish for.
As one who felt pride in our showing at the opening of the Cricket World Cup, it was sad to see how quickly such achievement was unceremoniously ushered off the stage once the Woolmer affair became global news. Some of us took comfort in the fact that there was no allegation of a Jamaican being involved in his death. Naively, we assumed that since "it wasn't we", we'd be home high and dry this time. Well, it is there for all to see now. We're right into the middle of one of the biggest mix-ups of all times.
If it were not so deeply tragic, the story would be a real farce, a true comedy of errors. Besides Mr Woolmer's demise, we had to deal with aspersions about match-fixing, shifty bettors and hit men who, it was said, had travelled half-way around the globe to get here and "do their thing". Through all of this, the stream of press reports continued to flow more from the North than from the South. We became spectators at our
own game.
I believe that most of our journalists here tried to keep on top of the story but let's admit it, we were outdone. Excuses aside, I also believe that we didn't do better because things were skewed towards the "Foreign Press". How else could the BBC and others consistently have information of things happening here to which we were not privy? Were we done-in by our own ineptness but by an over-managed public information system?
I find no virtue in the tight
reign which the Constabulary Communication Network now keeps on information to the media. A whole generation of journalists is growing up on a diet of press releases, some badly written and in such a predictable formula that they have no impact, yet we regurgitate them daily to the public, especially via the electronic media. On the occasions when the formula is modified, it still comes across as clumsy.
The big, fat press conference given by the High Command on Tuesday morning was too little, too late. What would have served a better purpose during the Woolmer business was a sense that information had been shared in a sensitive and even manner all along, rather than a big show when the house has fallen down. If this is not so, I stand to be convinced.
SOME WEIRD THINGS happened in the course of this Woolmer story. One of the most disturbing for me was the photograph of Woolmer's dead-cold face seen from inside a body bag, which was published in the Gleaner last week Wednesday (June 6), alongside a Jamaicans for Justice article. It has drawn little or no public reaction. The photo was credited to Reuters, one of the world's oldest news agencies and, according to the caption, was taken March 20 in a Kingston morgue.
As it has come to me, the photographer was one of the visiting press corps, and dawg newspaper sey, a morgue attendant benefited financially. True or false? Don't all answer at once. While we're at it, shouldn't there have been some form of official security at the morgue considering the suspicious circumstances of the death? Could someone have gone there and tampered with things? No? Then somebody defend it.
To get back to how we journalists performed, it would be unfair to give the impression that everyone failed to do their best in trying to get the story. I have to salute Rohan Powell of the RJR News Centre for his doggedness in pursuing what he could get. He held his place in the crush of overseas reporters who staked out the Pegasus and he turned in some interesting work. He deserves commendations.
OUT IN THE STREETS, in the places where people love argument, one of the most contentious issues is the status of Mark Shields, the imported wunderkind of the Jamaican Constabulary. All things being equal, the Woolmer affair should've been the Super Cop's shining moment, proof-positive that Superman had indeed come to town. It wasn't and it isn't. Anyway you cut it, he was in charge of the investigation. The story is a mess, like all leaders have to accept where the buck stops. Despite the media blitz, many people are not impressed. There are others who do not like to hear this, but it is democracy.
I've heard it being said if it were a born-yah JA cop who had spearheaded such a high-profile investigation which has ended so disastrously, there would be calls for resignation not just of the pathologist, but of everybody from minister to commissioner to the benighted crime fighter. Our Golden Boy remains untarnished, fulfilling the ancestral credo: "Puss and dawg nuh have de same luck."
THE MINISTER of National Security Dr Peter Phillips informed Parliament on Wednesday of retired Justice Ian Forte's appointment to review all the facts of the case and report back in six weeks. Only hours before, I was advocating such an appointment. Co-incidence or prescience? What does it matter? Gwaan, Missa Forte!
Of equal interest, too, was the announcement that the ministry will also be strengthening the capacity of the Constabulary's Forensic Department. This is good news for the many Jamaicans who have been complaining of the anguish they experience when they have to await post-mortems of loved ones who died suddenly or tragically. So, good may yet come out of bad, but for now, the name of poor Mr Woolmer stands alongside "confusion".
DID YOU SEE the news item wherein former Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq is advising his players who were questioned, fingerprinted, DNA-tested and detained in Kingston for 11 days after Woolmer's death, that they should now pursue legal action? Against whom? All a we? Whoy!
gloudonb@yahoo.com
Comment