THE EDITOR, Sir:
RECENTLY I have been intrigued with the subject of "journalistic ethics".As a Jamaican citizen, I pride myself on my education and feel confident in my knowledge of right and wrong both ethically, morally and legally.
Recently, Mr. Wilmot Perkins began his talk show with an excerpt from CVM News of the previous night in which Reporter Michael Pryce reported on the sabotage of a conveyor belt at a bauxite company in St. Elizabeth. Mr. Perkins described the excerpt as the most "foul" piece of journalism he has ever heard. I listened keenly to the excerpt and I must confess the inability to label anything that could be described as "foul", unfair, or intemperate.
Mr. Perkins consistently and repeatedly referred to Michael Pryce as Michael Peart, giving his listeners a peek into his subconscious with a Freudian slip that revealed his now obsessive "anti-PNP" fixation.
Also recently the mother of the unfortunate seven-year-old boy Romaine Edwards who was killed by gunfire in Lawrence Tavern on Monday was interviewed on the Breakfast Club. I listened with increasing anger and incredulity and was near to tears as one minute to eight (7:59) I heard the mother say "Lawd mi caan tek dis any more" and requested another person, possibly, beside her, to take the microphone/telephone.
My question is:
1. Did Michael Pryce commit "foul journalism"?
2. What is the purpose of that interview on the Breakfast Club this morning with the little boy's mother? Did it assist the listeners in arriving at the "facts" of what occurred? Could this information be obtained from anybody else? Is there no privacy in grief?
3. Are journalists who have a pecuniary interest in providing for their audience "what-the-people-want" subject to any editorial review?
I would love to read comments from your vast readership, or am I just making a mountain out of a molehill?
I am, etc.,
Dr. PAUL WRIGHT
14 Spanish Court
New Kingston
