THERE ARE TWO things that I have learnt from my job as a journalist – one is that the truth is not as simple and straightforward as it is sometimes presented to be, and secondly, that you don’t know who is connected to whom, so you’re never quite sure that what you’re being told is the truth.
Because of this, something that sounds plausible – especially if it involves a conspiracy theory and certain high-profile individuals – could turn out to be a total untruth.
That’s why as journalists we like to get hold of documents to back up whatever information we hear. That evidence not only helps us to separate fact from fiction but ensures that we can prove what we have stated if we’re called on do so in a court of law.
But even with those documents we still seek comment from the party(ies) involved to ensure that what we publish is fair comment and balanced.
Websites
The public needs to understand that those anonymous individuals who operate Internet websites that purportedly provide the “real news in Barbados” do not subscribe to these rigorous, internationally accepted standards.
As it is not known who is operating these sites, and therefore near impossible to prosecute anyone for breaking this country’s defamation laws, these sites circulate articles which can destroy people’s reputations, and they do it without any factual evidence whatsoever.
This is not journalism. It is character assassination, and it is wrong.
Some of you may argue that Barbados’ defamation laws are archaic and the media should have licence to expose more things even though they may not have all the documental evidence to support claims. But as I indicated earlier, the truth in an issue is not always as straightforward as presented.
And those who say these things appreciate the need for legal restraint only when the spotlight falls on them or their relatives, and the untruths – read rumours – abound.
I make this point in response to the gentleman who called on Monday to ask why The NATION keeps hiding “the truth about what is really going on at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QEH)” between the Board and Dr Richard Ishmael.
He abruptly put down the phone when I sought to explain why the paper could not carry the letter Ishmael wrote concerning a matter involving himself, Dr Alfred Sparman and Minister of Health Donville Inniss.
That letter, which is now at the centre of pending legal action among the three, was carried in full on one of the websites to which I earlier referred.
Letter in question
You may recall, readers, that because that letter was written on a QEH letterhead, the board suspended Ishmael from the institution from last December 10, with full pay pending an internal enquiry to be held on or before January 14.
The QEH rescinded this order last Thursday without explanation, after calling Ishmael out on two occasions to deal with emergency cases. The doctor is now seeking an apology from the board for how they handled this matter and is going to court to get it.
The flying-under-the-radar Internet channels can take the reckless road and publish whatever they will about this matter. I, a professional journalist, operating in plain sight of the law and the legal beagles, must tread more carefully.
So this is what I can responsibly say: It is shameful that this incident has reached this level with no immediate end in sight. I am particularly disappointed with the board’s clumsy handling of this matter. Their capitulation now, as well as the fact that they called Ishmael out twice while on suspension, calls into question the wisdom of their initial decision.
If what Ishmael wrote defamed Sparman and Inniss as the last two claim, then these gentlemen have a right to defend their good name. And if by writing that letter on a QEH letterhead Ishmael broke the rules, then he should be punished. But a month’s suspension seems excessive.
The fact that the QEH gave him full pay on suspension meant that though he was being punished, he was not financially deprived from the move – so what lesson were they trying to teach him?
Real facts
We may never learn the real facts on why this matter was handled in the way it was. What we do know is that people suffered through cancelled appointments and it further tarnished the image of the QEH.
As our only tertiary level medical institution, the QEH is the place 99 per cent of us will end up for treatment at some point. The public must therefore feel confident about the facility’s ability to deliver the best health care. How can they feel so when there seems to be ongoing tension between the doctors and the board? Better needs to be done!
