In this political season let me resurrect a political slogan from the 1970s, with a slight twist:
How long is too long if it's bad for you?
It occurred to me today that West Indies cricket has been in decline just about half of my life - I mark our 1995 loss at home to Australia as the beginning of the end. How long is too long to hold out hope?
Like all paranoid, superstitious and masochistic WI fans, I have already begun the process of recrimination, self-blame, doubt and misery.
Maybe it was my fault. I DID say last night that the last two days when I did not bother to get up to watch and support my team, that they did well. Perhaps I should have just left it so and got up at my regular time.
But...but...it seemed alright in the morning. The miracle team of the last two days was still in effect, skittling out the Proteas for 195 all out. We even had the luxury of enforcing the follow-on if we wished.
We had a handsome lead of 213 runs. Our batsmen had clicked and played with maturity and application in the first innings. The South Africans by contrast, were all at sea.
Now? After 6 wickets lost for a mere 22 runs in the last ten overs, I am again feeling that familiar feeling of woe. The only hope I cling to is we have a lead of 359 with two wickets in the bag. I want to believe that we still "have this game in the bag" as CMC Cricket Plus host Adriel 'Woody' Richards just assured us so confidently. Only 6 350-plus scores have been made to win a match in the history of test cricket.
I want to believe. But bitter history has also shown that this WI team of recent vintage has a remarkable knack for turning victory into defeat.
But I still want to believe.
Friday, 28 December 2007
Thursday, 27 December 2007
Benazir Bhutto 1953-2007 - Brave or Stubborn?
Various reports are now filtering through that former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazhir Bhutto has been assassinated in a suicide attack on her election rally in Rawalpindi a short while ago.
Reports are still conflicting - some are saying she was unhurt, then several others are saying she was critically injured and rushed to the hospital. I have seen 3 reports now - NBC10, Canadian Press and Wikimedia that indicate that she has indeed been murdered.
I have been following the events in Pakistan with interest since Bhutto returned. All the while I could not help wondering - was she incredibly brave and determined or incredibly stubborn and power- hungry? She and her family seem to have sacrificed so much already for Pakistan - her father was murdered, her brother was murdered and now apparently she has been murdered as well. People patently wanted to kill her and many others patently did not want her in power. Yet she had wealth and could have remained in luxurious exile instead of facing suicide attacks, house arrest and detention and the lot.
Why do it? I will admit I have a grudging and slightly puzzled respect for her. She was fearfully intelligent and articulate whenever I heard her speaking and it just always seemed to me to be impressive that in an Islamic country, some parts of which are gripped by Islamic conservatism, that a woman could wield so much power and influence.
But on the other hand, she wasn't exactly a sweet bread was she? She was charged with corruption and her governments were not terribly successful. Yet... yet... I admire gutsy, ballsy women like Bhutto - she reminds me a bit of South Africa's Winnie Mandela - also much maligned, also at her greatest in a conflict-torn nation and also very brave.
In the end, extremism seems to be winning in Pakistan. God help them.
Update: You can find more information about the unfolding situation around Bhutto's death at Metroblogging Karachi.
Well I'll be!
(photo by Getty Images. Sourced from cricinfo.com)
Tony Cozier put it most succintly:
Almost every preconception, all based on solid statistical or circumstantial evidence, was negated on the opening day of the first Test at St.George's Park.
You're damn right Tony. Who would have thought that this West Indies team would bat through most of two days? Who would have thought that our present healthy score of 400/8 would come not through the heroism of one player as all the rest fell pathetically around him, but from... (gasp!) building several solid partnerships and... grafting when necessary? Well I'll be!
Peoples, Marlon Samuels actually GRAFTED yesterday for a couple hours - took 142 deliveries to get to his half-century, you know! I couldn't believe my eyes. That was Marlon Nathaniel Samuels playing cautiously and defensively and taking his time? What yuh telling me at all?
It's not just that we built up a big score you know. It is HOW we did it. By playing against the bitter stereotype that has come to define us in the last decade. We did not collapse in a heap when two wickets fell close together. We did not attempt to flash and drive and play big shots when consolidation was needed. Truth be told, Marlon and Shiv were so flipping boring there as they poked around in the afternoon that I was falling asleep watching them. But it's alright! I ent mind!
Furthermore, we even got some help from the lower order - Sammy made 38 before he was controversially run out (and the less I say about that the better- all I will say is if anyone believed a white South African tv umpire was going to give the benefit of the doubt to a black, West Indian batsman over his home team, I have a mountain in Barbados to sell you).
One thing was the same as ever though - as I wrote, Shiv 'Tiger' Chanderpaul made his 17th test century - his 15th in the last five years. Have I mentioned that I love Shiv? That is my player from way, way back. He doesn't give you butterflies, wondering when it's all going to end. He comes in there and sticks in the opposition's craw and dependably makes runs. He's only about 5"5 but he's the real big man in WI cricket now.
Anyhow, considering how the first two days have gone, I am actually, tentatively looking forward to this test match and even this series.
Update:
Well I'll damned well be! WHO are these players? South Africa pinned back to 63/4? Gibbs, Smith and Kallis all back in the pavilion? Seriously...what is going on here? I hardly dare believe it...
Update 2:
Well I STILL damned well be! Knocking back South Africa for 195 all out? Allowing ourselves the luxury of enforcing the follow-on if we did so wish? Good catching, incisive and penetrating bowling? I ... I have no words.
Monday, 24 December 2007
Annnnd... they're off!
So just a day after I speculated on the possibility of a tie, the Prime Minister rung the bell and the election date for Barbados is January 15th, 2008.
I must admit - I'm excited. This will be the first time I'm voting. I was of age for the last election but it was called while I was still at university finishing up my exams/ starting summer school and it did not seem right to come home and vote when I had little idea of the issues and what have you.
I must also admit - I'm still in the 'uncertain' category. I figured as time went on I would become more certain as I listened to the two parties put forward their cases but instead I have become more and more uncertain. :(
Both sides have characters that I respect and have made points that I agree with.
But more pressingly, both sides in recent times, as the political ante has been upped, have made some statements that repelled me and made me reconsider my opinion of the person and party.
Having done some parliament reporting in my former professional incarnation, I also know and have interviewed characters on both sides. I know who is intelligent and earnest and who is not. Yet that still hasn't made it any easier for me at all.
I must admit - I'm excited. This will be the first time I'm voting. I was of age for the last election but it was called while I was still at university finishing up my exams/ starting summer school and it did not seem right to come home and vote when I had little idea of the issues and what have you.
I must also admit - I'm still in the 'uncertain' category. I figured as time went on I would become more certain as I listened to the two parties put forward their cases but instead I have become more and more uncertain. :(
Both sides have characters that I respect and have made points that I agree with.
But more pressingly, both sides in recent times, as the political ante has been upped, have made some statements that repelled me and made me reconsider my opinion of the person and party.
Having done some parliament reporting in my former professional incarnation, I also know and have interviewed characters on both sides. I know who is intelligent and earnest and who is not. Yet that still hasn't made it any easier for me at all.
Wednesday, 19 December 2007
What if...there was a tie?
This has been buzzing through my mind for the last few weeks, what with the heightened and heated political atmosphere in Bim. For several reasons, I think this still-not-called-but-definitely-in-the-air election could be quite close.
It is clear now that there is a desire for change in Barbados. According to various CADRES polls, there is likely to be a 5% swing against the ruling BLP. BUT! on the other hand, the majority of people still prefer Prime Minister Owen Arthur as a leader to the DLP's David Thompson.
Then in an analysis of his own poll results, published two weeks ago, CADRES director Peter Wickham revealed that there were as many as 9 current BLP seats where 'change is likely' - again because of the swing factor and the fact that the margin of support in these ridings is less than the overall 5% swing.
Now...the DLP has 6 seats presently. Add 9 seats to that 6 and you get 15. That would mean an evenly divided parliament.
I think it could happen. I think people are weary (and wary) of 3 terms of the same government and Barbadians have been generally inclined to change parties every two terms or so. Three terms is already fortunate and due in some large part to division within and doubt about the DLP.
Still, I don't know if people are quite sold on the DLP as yet. Their team is rather inexperienced but what else can you expect when a party has been in opposition for 13years? You have to start somewhere. I also don't think people are quite sold on Thompson as leader yet.
I think this ambivalence could lead to the electorate doing what the Trinis did 5 years ago and what the Jamaicans nearly did this year - a tie or at the least, a very slim majority for the winning party.
I think this could be a good thing. Honestly, when JA's elections looked to be tied, I was dismayed because Jamaicans are so politically partisan and bitter that I did not see how the two opposition parties could work together.
Even in Trinidad, I thought it would have been finicky because of the racial divide in their politics.
But let's face it, Bim is pretty homogenous racially and politically. Politicians and party supporters like to play up the differences in the parties but I find them slight.
Which is why I am far more ambivalent about politics in Barbados than I am about say politics in the US (Democrats!) or the UK (Labour...despite Blair) or even other Caribbean islands. Honestly, I find it a lot less exciting, even though it affects me directly. There are no great ideological differences between the political parties in Barbados. Seriously - name me one major ideological difference between the two. People say the BLP tends more towards business and top-down development while the DLP tends more towards labour and grassroots-up development(their support base has traditionally been among the trade unions) but to me, even that difference is not significant.
Neither party is foolish enough to alienate labour and both have had their good and bad times with the labour unions. Similarly, neither is foolish enough to alienate big business.
There are few ideological differences on education, Caribbean integration efforts,employment etc.
This is why the parties try to play up the differences in the personalities involved. But I don't especially care about a politician's personality. They could be boring and dry as hell - all I want to know is what they stand for and if they have the ability to get it done.
Which brings me back to my point (sorta). This is why I think that a tied parliament could be a good thing. Since there are few major ideological differences and both parties have people of ability, I think there is little danger in Barbados having a coalition government.
Of all the countries in the Caribbean, I think Barbadians have the maturity and practical nature to be able to handle a coalition government. All over the world, there are coalition governments and they function reasonably well - Germany, Canada, Denmark for example. I think coalitions work well in efficient, practical, fairly homogenous countries and Bim fits that bill.
I relish the idea of both sets of politicians being kept on their toes by the knowledge that neither of them has the advantage and actually having to work hard to hold their place. Writing on the close Jamaican elections some months ago, I mused:
However, the question is - would local politicians actually be mature enough to form a coalition? Would they actually be bold enough to select Cabinet ministers from the 'other party'? Or would they rather hold out and wait on the GG to make the decision on who should lead?
It is clear now that there is a desire for change in Barbados. According to various CADRES polls, there is likely to be a 5% swing against the ruling BLP. BUT! on the other hand, the majority of people still prefer Prime Minister Owen Arthur as a leader to the DLP's David Thompson.
Then in an analysis of his own poll results, published two weeks ago, CADRES director Peter Wickham revealed that there were as many as 9 current BLP seats where 'change is likely' - again because of the swing factor and the fact that the margin of support in these ridings is less than the overall 5% swing.
Now...the DLP has 6 seats presently. Add 9 seats to that 6 and you get 15. That would mean an evenly divided parliament.
I think it could happen. I think people are weary (and wary) of 3 terms of the same government and Barbadians have been generally inclined to change parties every two terms or so. Three terms is already fortunate and due in some large part to division within and doubt about the DLP.
Still, I don't know if people are quite sold on the DLP as yet. Their team is rather inexperienced but what else can you expect when a party has been in opposition for 13years? You have to start somewhere. I also don't think people are quite sold on Thompson as leader yet.
I think this ambivalence could lead to the electorate doing what the Trinis did 5 years ago and what the Jamaicans nearly did this year - a tie or at the least, a very slim majority for the winning party.
I think this could be a good thing. Honestly, when JA's elections looked to be tied, I was dismayed because Jamaicans are so politically partisan and bitter that I did not see how the two opposition parties could work together.
Even in Trinidad, I thought it would have been finicky because of the racial divide in their politics.
But let's face it, Bim is pretty homogenous racially and politically. Politicians and party supporters like to play up the differences in the parties but I find them slight.
Which is why I am far more ambivalent about politics in Barbados than I am about say politics in the US (Democrats!) or the UK (Labour...despite Blair) or even other Caribbean islands. Honestly, I find it a lot less exciting, even though it affects me directly. There are no great ideological differences between the political parties in Barbados. Seriously - name me one major ideological difference between the two. People say the BLP tends more towards business and top-down development while the DLP tends more towards labour and grassroots-up development(their support base has traditionally been among the trade unions) but to me, even that difference is not significant.
Neither party is foolish enough to alienate labour and both have had their good and bad times with the labour unions. Similarly, neither is foolish enough to alienate big business.
There are few ideological differences on education, Caribbean integration efforts,employment etc.
This is why the parties try to play up the differences in the personalities involved. But I don't especially care about a politician's personality. They could be boring and dry as hell - all I want to know is what they stand for and if they have the ability to get it done.
Which brings me back to my point (sorta). This is why I think that a tied parliament could be a good thing. Since there are few major ideological differences and both parties have people of ability, I think there is little danger in Barbados having a coalition government.
Of all the countries in the Caribbean, I think Barbadians have the maturity and practical nature to be able to handle a coalition government. All over the world, there are coalition governments and they function reasonably well - Germany, Canada, Denmark for example. I think coalitions work well in efficient, practical, fairly homogenous countries and Bim fits that bill.
I relish the idea of both sets of politicians being kept on their toes by the knowledge that neither of them has the advantage and actually having to work hard to hold their place. Writing on the close Jamaican elections some months ago, I mused:
On the one hand, I have been impressed by Golding’s call for more co-operation and rather convinced by his argument that the close election results might show that Jamaicans are weary of the vicious partisan nature of their politics and by their actions are forcing the political parties to work together in the best interest of Jamaica.
On the other hand…isn’t this what democracy is all about? Can not the closeness of the election and narrowness of the victory margin also be seen as the voters’ way of keeping checks and balances on their politicians? Mulling it over now, I wonder if it could not be a way of ensuring that the party in power does not get too comfortable.
Perhaps Jamaicans realised they had erred in allowing one party to become too comfortable and by effecting such a narrow balance of power in the House, they have decided to get back to keeping politicians on their toes- as they should be.
After all, corruption is a serious issue in Jamaica and Jamaican politics. A party with a small margin of victory and a watchful, pitbull Opposition is less likely to raid the public coffers and try to get away with million-dollar hanky panky.
However, the question is - would local politicians actually be mature enough to form a coalition? Would they actually be bold enough to select Cabinet ministers from the 'other party'? Or would they rather hold out and wait on the GG to make the decision on who should lead?
Tuesday, 18 December 2007
It's like MJ with the Wizards...
There has been something going on in India for the last few weeks that I have been trying hard to ignore.
Thankfully, it ended this past weekend but now Trini cricket commentator Fazeer Mohammed just HAD to bring it up again in his Express/Cricinfo column.
The rebel Indian Cricket 20/20 Cricket League and more specifically, Brian Lara's million-dollar disappointment. It was T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E!
31 runs in six matches. Lord have us mercy. The (very) brief 'highlights' that I saw of his innings showed that he had no enthusiasm for the game and perhaps, was not quite able to get to grips with this swiping from ball one. After all, Lara is not a swiper. He can beat the ball when necessary (yes, we're looking at you Robin Peterson, with your 28 runs in one over) but those tended to be deliciously beautiful and brutal cameos. Lara was not a poker and consolidator either (we love you Shiv) but rather something in between.
I liked Lara best at Test level - where you got two and three days to savour his building a master-class of an innings. 20/20 is not the format to enjoy such a player- that is snack food cricket for cricketers of more limited but exciting talent (hi Chris Gayle). Lara is by comparison, a full-on Sunday meal.
I say all that to say this. US$1 million aside, this ICL thing may not have been a good idea for Lara. Most of the best players have copped out and gone over to the officially sanctioned IPL anyhow. And his enthusiasm for this curry-goat cricket seems to be lacking.
Worst, it risks sullying his legacy, though only slightly. As Faz put it:
It was like when Michael Jordan retired from basketball for what we thought was the last time (and what a last outing it was - one more ring, battling through flu and fatigue to make one more fade away jumper to clinch the game - beautiful!) and then returned to play with... the Washington Wizards...or whatever they are called now.
It was...gross. And undignified. And I have largely stricken it from my memory because I prefer MJ's legacy to be neatly wrapped up at the conclusion of his career with the Bulls. It will never be that way again. Even the legend who made it so cannot make it so again.
Same thing with Lara. This ICL thing will be stricken from my memory and I hope he does not tarry with it too long. Surely he does not need the money. He only has one child to support after all and plenty of money to do it with. He should get on with writing his memoirs or holding some more boss fetes and make a business of that (a la Courtney Walsh).
When legends don't know when to quit it becomes...not quite sad but disconcerting.
Thankfully, it ended this past weekend but now Trini cricket commentator Fazeer Mohammed just HAD to bring it up again in his Express/Cricinfo column.
The rebel Indian Cricket 20/20 Cricket League and more specifically, Brian Lara's million-dollar disappointment. It was T-E-R-R-I-B-L-E!
31 runs in six matches. Lord have us mercy. The (very) brief 'highlights' that I saw of his innings showed that he had no enthusiasm for the game and perhaps, was not quite able to get to grips with this swiping from ball one. After all, Lara is not a swiper. He can beat the ball when necessary (yes, we're looking at you Robin Peterson, with your 28 runs in one over) but those tended to be deliciously beautiful and brutal cameos. Lara was not a poker and consolidator either (we love you Shiv) but rather something in between.
I liked Lara best at Test level - where you got two and three days to savour his building a master-class of an innings. 20/20 is not the format to enjoy such a player- that is snack food cricket for cricketers of more limited but exciting talent (hi Chris Gayle). Lara is by comparison, a full-on Sunday meal.
I say all that to say this. US$1 million aside, this ICL thing may not have been a good idea for Lara. Most of the best players have copped out and gone over to the officially sanctioned IPL anyhow. And his enthusiasm for this curry-goat cricket seems to be lacking.
Worst, it risks sullying his legacy, though only slightly. As Faz put it:
No-one should begrudge Lara fully capitalising on his still considerable market value for as long as he can before turning his attention to other pursuits, whether cricket-related or otherwise. However, he should be conscious of what sort of legacy he wants to leave behind after a long and generally distinguished playing career.
We can argue about his contribution as a captain and team player until there's no more sorrel in the market, but no sensible observer of the game can seriously challenge his position of pre-eminence - both in terms of quantity and style-among batsmen of the modern era. In that context, to see images of the master batsman being stumped by a mile, or bowled aiming an agricultural heave, or walking away after a first-ball duck, conjures images of a great boxing champion who just didn't know when to quit.
It was like when Michael Jordan retired from basketball for what we thought was the last time (and what a last outing it was - one more ring, battling through flu and fatigue to make one more fade away jumper to clinch the game - beautiful!) and then returned to play with... the Washington Wizards...or whatever they are called now.
It was...gross. And undignified. And I have largely stricken it from my memory because I prefer MJ's legacy to be neatly wrapped up at the conclusion of his career with the Bulls. It will never be that way again. Even the legend who made it so cannot make it so again.
Same thing with Lara. This ICL thing will be stricken from my memory and I hope he does not tarry with it too long. Surely he does not need the money. He only has one child to support after all and plenty of money to do it with. He should get on with writing his memoirs or holding some more boss fetes and make a business of that (a la Courtney Walsh).
When legends don't know when to quit it becomes...not quite sad but disconcerting.
Thursday, 13 December 2007
Power Blacks for Obama
Not that this was not already known, but movie star Will Smith has pledged his support for would-be Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
"I'm available for whatever he needs," declared Smith.
Smith joins other high-profile blacks in supporting Obama. Oprah Winfrey joined him on the campaign trail last weekend and Michael Jordan was one of the biggest contributors to his campaign when he was running for the Senate in '04.
What I find interesting in all of this is not just that these black celebrities are backing Obama, but the kind of black celebs that are backing him.
Oprah, Will Smith and Michael Jordan are probably 3 of the most famous black people in the world. But what they all have in common is their appeal to white people - like pundits are so fond of saying about Obama himself, they 'transcend race'.
Oprah's biggest supporters are white women from 'Middle America'. Michael Jordan was the ultimate, clean-cut, race-transcending, non-threatening black sports celeb. Everyone loved Mike and wanted to be like Mike. And Will Smith is the most highly-paid black actor (possibly the most highly-paid actor full stop) in Hollywood. He no longer suffers the problems other black actors have of getting type-cast and pigeon-holed into race-specific parts. He's just a movie star, a leading man.
I don't know if it is a sign of things to come. I personally have decided that I am going to put doubt and fear and cynicism and disappointment aside and just believe that Barack Obama could really go all the way, that Americans are ready.
"I'm available for whatever he needs," declared Smith.
Smith joins other high-profile blacks in supporting Obama. Oprah Winfrey joined him on the campaign trail last weekend and Michael Jordan was one of the biggest contributors to his campaign when he was running for the Senate in '04.
What I find interesting in all of this is not just that these black celebrities are backing Obama, but the kind of black celebs that are backing him.
Oprah, Will Smith and Michael Jordan are probably 3 of the most famous black people in the world. But what they all have in common is their appeal to white people - like pundits are so fond of saying about Obama himself, they 'transcend race'.
Oprah's biggest supporters are white women from 'Middle America'. Michael Jordan was the ultimate, clean-cut, race-transcending, non-threatening black sports celeb. Everyone loved Mike and wanted to be like Mike. And Will Smith is the most highly-paid black actor (possibly the most highly-paid actor full stop) in Hollywood. He no longer suffers the problems other black actors have of getting type-cast and pigeon-holed into race-specific parts. He's just a movie star, a leading man.
I don't know if it is a sign of things to come. I personally have decided that I am going to put doubt and fear and cynicism and disappointment aside and just believe that Barack Obama could really go all the way, that Americans are ready.
Tuesday, 11 December 2007
Nostalgia for a different kind of friendship
I've been meaning to write this from the other night when I went to the movies.
It wasn't at the movies but rather on the way there that I was hit with a powerful bout of nostalgia. We were listening to a CD full of early 'noughties' (00s) alternative rock - Creed and the like and it just really reminded me of my UWI days, when those were the tunes Bass XS would play right at the end of the night - really to drive out the party-hearty, dancehall and hip-hop crazed crowd, but it just added to the enjoyment of me and my friends.
Anyhow from that bout of nostalgia came the thought:
'Why do I feel so strongly about my UWI years?' My boyfriend for one, is often wont to roll his eyes when I go on about my 'UWI years'. It's not like I'm one of those people that can't let go of the wonder of the university years - obviously I can and have. I graduated, went to work, went to another university etc.
It's just that... at the risk of sounding corny and superior - I think it's just different when you live on campus. The friendships and experiences are much more intense. And having lived on-campus at one university and off-campus at another, I can definitely say the on-campus experience was better.
It's akin to the difference between having a boyfriend who you visit and making that commitment to living with someone. Not that we made a commitment to live together on hall - it's just that we all chose to live on the same hall.
But it still creates a different, deeper kind of bond when you actually live with someone. Seeing people practially 24/7 means you get to know them a hell of a lot better. You are to some extent dependent on them - if you're sick to take care of you, if you're depressed to cheer you up, if you're tipsy to carry you home.
You really cannot replicate the kind of friendship that can come out of that.
It wasn't at the movies but rather on the way there that I was hit with a powerful bout of nostalgia. We were listening to a CD full of early 'noughties' (00s) alternative rock - Creed and the like and it just really reminded me of my UWI days, when those were the tunes Bass XS would play right at the end of the night - really to drive out the party-hearty, dancehall and hip-hop crazed crowd, but it just added to the enjoyment of me and my friends.
Anyhow from that bout of nostalgia came the thought:
'Why do I feel so strongly about my UWI years?' My boyfriend for one, is often wont to roll his eyes when I go on about my 'UWI years'. It's not like I'm one of those people that can't let go of the wonder of the university years - obviously I can and have. I graduated, went to work, went to another university etc.
It's just that... at the risk of sounding corny and superior - I think it's just different when you live on campus. The friendships and experiences are much more intense. And having lived on-campus at one university and off-campus at another, I can definitely say the on-campus experience was better.
It's akin to the difference between having a boyfriend who you visit and making that commitment to living with someone. Not that we made a commitment to live together on hall - it's just that we all chose to live on the same hall.
But it still creates a different, deeper kind of bond when you actually live with someone. Seeing people practially 24/7 means you get to know them a hell of a lot better. You are to some extent dependent on them - if you're sick to take care of you, if you're depressed to cheer you up, if you're tipsy to carry you home.
You really cannot replicate the kind of friendship that can come out of that.
Thursday, 6 December 2007
What journalism is (supposed to be) all about
It must be fate. Just this morning I was sighing in exasperation at yet another ridiculously slanted post on the Barbados Free Press (which I have really been trying to like, because part of their hearts does seem to be in the right place - i.e. speaking truth to power...sometimes) and thinking I really need to do a post about the tension between the main stream media and the burgeoning world of cyber/citizen journalists.
I myself am a blogger and I appreciate the way the internet allows me to get my voice out. I also appreciate how the internet has totally turned the journalistic concept of 'gatekeepers' upside down - there are no gatekeepers to the news anymore - everyone's voice can be heard if they have a computer. And of course, I love the immediacy of the medium. Just look at what happened with my posts on the earthquake - because of my blog I was able to 'report' on it right away and that was valuable to people who were trying to find out what had happened, particularly with the cellular neetworks jammed.
But...!
I am also at heart a journalist. I worked freelance and as an intern with newspapers from the time I was in secondary school, I did my first degree in journalism and I have worked in and now around journalism full-time for a few years now.
And knowing both sides of the coin as I do, I really do not appreciate the smug and naive attitude that many cyber-journos take towards main stream media. The BFP for instance, loves to slag off the Nation newspaper (disclosure: I used to work there)and basically every traditional media outlet in Bim as being cowardly, partisan and practicing bad journalism.
When it is clear to me that the folks at BFP have no clue how real journalism works. For one, they hide - behind firewalls, behind fake names. Real journalists do not have that luxury. Your byline is right out there and if you make a mistake or worse libel someone, people know who to sue and/or get fired.
Another issue I have is that they rarely bother to examine both sides of an issue - if they get 'news' they run with it based on its shock value without bothering to check the other side and then claim they are boldly going where no MSM hack dares go.
That is not bold. It is crass sensationalism and irresponsible journalism.
If they were just careless and cowardly, I would not mind so much - if tabloid type journalism is your thing, then go for it. But to couple that with mocking main stream media companies that are held to much higher and more difficult standards, galls me.
So back to fate. I was thinking all this and then I saw this interview on the Huffington Post with the Diva of DC, fearless journalism icon Helen Thomas. I love her. I LOVE HER. She is one of my true journalism heroes. The excerpts below from her interview exemplify how I feel about this issue.
Take it away Helen...
I myself am a blogger and I appreciate the way the internet allows me to get my voice out. I also appreciate how the internet has totally turned the journalistic concept of 'gatekeepers' upside down - there are no gatekeepers to the news anymore - everyone's voice can be heard if they have a computer. And of course, I love the immediacy of the medium. Just look at what happened with my posts on the earthquake - because of my blog I was able to 'report' on it right away and that was valuable to people who were trying to find out what had happened, particularly with the cellular neetworks jammed.
But...!
I am also at heart a journalist. I worked freelance and as an intern with newspapers from the time I was in secondary school, I did my first degree in journalism and I have worked in and now around journalism full-time for a few years now.
And knowing both sides of the coin as I do, I really do not appreciate the smug and naive attitude that many cyber-journos take towards main stream media. The BFP for instance, loves to slag off the Nation newspaper (disclosure: I used to work there)and basically every traditional media outlet in Bim as being cowardly, partisan and practicing bad journalism.
When it is clear to me that the folks at BFP have no clue how real journalism works. For one, they hide - behind firewalls, behind fake names. Real journalists do not have that luxury. Your byline is right out there and if you make a mistake or worse libel someone, people know who to sue and/or get fired.
Another issue I have is that they rarely bother to examine both sides of an issue - if they get 'news' they run with it based on its shock value without bothering to check the other side and then claim they are boldly going where no MSM hack dares go.
That is not bold. It is crass sensationalism and irresponsible journalism.
If they were just careless and cowardly, I would not mind so much - if tabloid type journalism is your thing, then go for it. But to couple that with mocking main stream media companies that are held to much higher and more difficult standards, galls me.
So back to fate. I was thinking all this and then I saw this interview on the Huffington Post with the Diva of DC, fearless journalism icon Helen Thomas. I love her. I LOVE HER. She is one of my true journalism heroes. The excerpts below from her interview exemplify how I feel about this issue.
Take it away Helen...
Do you think technology is changing that? That a good reporter will always find a venue because there are so many media outlets now?
H.T.: No, but I do think it is kind of sad when everybody who owns a laptop thinks they're a journalist and doesn't understand the ethics. We do have to have some sense of what's right and wrong in this job. Of how far we can go. We don't make accusations without absolute proof. We're not prosecutors. We don't assume.
So if there's this amateur league of journalists out there, trying to do what you do...
H.T.: It's dangerous.
What makes it dangerous? Isn't more information always better?
H.T.: Not necessarily. Not if it isn't true. It could be out there and it could really muck up the whole picture. I'm not trying to suppress information; I'm just saying you have to be very careful.
H.T.: My advice is simply try, as best you can, to only write the truth and try to check everything, and I think you just hope for the best. And, certainly, if someone gives you a story, I think you have to look a gift horse in the mouth. You have to find out why they're peddling it to you.
Always question why anybody does things. That's probably good advice for anybody.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
