Commentary
By Floyd French
Observer Reporter
I have encountered a number of obstacles in the execution of my job. The news makers do not make themselves readily available and they do not disseminate neutral information. With these two major hurdles, journalists are left to report using limited information available to them, and they are sometimes accused of propaganda.
But what readers or listeners of news might conclude is propaganda might not have been intentional: it might just be the special effects created by those who avoid commenting or those who hide public information. The story on the plight of workers who are injured on the job, more specifically the story about Ms. Denise Stevens, could have been better if the persons involved in that story were more cooperative.
I had to view the information given to me by Ms. Stevens as subjective and worthy of investigation. I contacted Marriott’s Human Resource Manager, Ms. Lisa Parker, who told me that the General Manager is the most appropriate one to comment on Ms. Stevens’ case. She gave me an extension number for the General Manager’s Assistant. I tried the number and left a voice message. On subsequent tries, I got the answering machine and saw no use in leaving the same message again. Marriott chose not to add their comments to the story about Ms. Stevens.
Ms. Stevens is hoping public opinion would resolve this matter, but I am doubtful of that. The story of her fall, injury and disability was in another newspaper two weeks ago and it has not generated much public debate. Workers at the Marriott told Ms. Stevens that the hotel did not sell the newspaper in its stores that day so the guests have no idea of the pain and suffering of one of the workers who served them.
The reaction of the public or lack there of, is what is creating this impasse between Ms. Stevens and Marriott. The public fails to speak out and the few newspapers on the stands will be hidden from the guests and Ms. Steven will be forgotten.
In the absence of public reaction, I hope my advocacy for Ms. Stevens and workers at the Marriott goes unnoticed, too. I want this newspaper to sell, or even better, I want this newspaper to sell advertising to Marriott because that is how newspapers generate revenue. If the public is keeping out of the fray, journalists and newspapers should reflect the public’s complacency because we should only ask the questions the public does not have the opportunity to ask.
I have heard many criticisms about journalism in this country and those criticisms come from those who sometimes fail to give their side and then after the damage is done cry foul. While I believe they have a right not to comment, they should not view the outcome of the story negatively.
I also tried to expand Ms. Stevens’ story by looking at the old Workmen’s Compensation Act and the legislation under the Social Security Act that facilitates compensation for on the job injuries. I thought readers might be curious to know if the change was more progressive for the worker. No one in Government has a copy of the old Act. I guess the past is not important so we are bound to continue mistakes.
Similarly, I asked the Ministry of Finance to provide me figures of the National Debt for the last five years. My call was sent all over the Ministry because civil servants felt they would get into trouble. I did not get the figures so I decided not to focus on the Prime Minister’s claim that the National Debt is being taken care of. The issue is not the debt but how much is spent on servicing the debt and the resultant hardship. I will leave that propaganda there, too.
