FRANKLY SPEAKING?

I’ll never forget the phone call that came early one morning a few years ago  from an MP. It was the most unusual conversation I’ve ever had with a  parliamentarian. After the customary preamble of greetings and generalities,  the telephoning member of TT’s legislature came to the point. “Suzanne,” he said pleasantly. “I have a question. I speak a lot in the House. Why doesn’t the press give me more coverage?” His next sentence was what made the call astounding. “And please,” he added, “I want you to be frank.”

My shock at the last entreaty was reflected in the minute it took me to answer him. I’d never met a politician that sought honesty from the media. Most, if not all, politicos wanted reporters to be spin doctors, not journalists with hard questions and tough commentary because these, they viewed as malicious nuisances. The majority of politicians tended to be egocentric amnesiacs who forgot they were in public office once they got your vote, particularly when they were in government. Eventually I replied: “Are you sure you want me to be truthful?” “Yes,” he said. “Okay,” I responded. “Here goes.” I explained that although his ideas and content were often interesting, they were difficult for anyone to follow or report because he rambled. “Shorten your speeches,” I told him. “Be less pedantic and you’ll see.” He thanked me — and I could tell he was being sincere — and then rang off.

Soon enough, I noticed he had tightened and lightened up on his contributions and sure enough, he was getting more press coverage. I remembered this strangest of calls last week because of the nonsense some senators were talking during debate Tuesday on a private motion to have House sittings broadcast live. I concluded that the MPs could have saved themselves so much hot air by just asking the media where they were going wrong, just as their colleague had years before. Simple. If half of them had half the humility of their peer, they’d be getting more press and complaining less. I also concluded that if parliamentarians were truly interested in getting greater air time and space in the print media, then they would also have listened carefully last year to MATT’s representative, Suzanne Sheppard, at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s seminar/workshop. During her concise, coherent contribution, Ms Sheppard told MPs they were often too long winded and all over the place. She explained how difficult it was to have reporters stay in the House after the tea break. It seemed no one was listening then, yet MPs are annoyed today!

Astonishingly enough, one of the major complainants last Tuesday was none other than Independent Senator Ken Ramchand. Ramchand does not know that he is a member of that rather large, distinguished group of parliamentarians that evoke sighs of despair from reporters when they stand to speak. He is known for fumbling and stumbling through his speeches, all the while sifting distractingly through papers he has brought with him to defend his serpentine arguments. He also pauses every now and then to run his fingers through the wisps of hair on his professorial head. To hear Ramchand talk about misrepresentation, sensationalism and censorship by the media was indeed, ironic. At times, he was lucky he got any coverage, at all. Or as PNM Senator Danny Montano aptly observed: “If you have not made yourself clear, then that’s not the media’s problem.” Yet nevertheless, the professor was demanding that newspapers dedicate two pages to Parliament. How on earth were we to fill two pages with Chamber bits and exclude other important news? No one was saying serious work was not ever conducted in the House. But, unfortunately, for the most part, it got lost in the loud cross talk, the picong, the mumbling and the rambling.

The Independent Senator also wanted reporters to stay in the House after tea. First, it seemed to have escaped his notice that Newsday usually has someone in the legislature at night. These days it is specialist parliamentary reporter, Sean Douglas. Before him, others, me included, took the “graveyard shift.” When I did the parliamentary “beat,” I arrived home many a night after midnight. What those sitting in the legislature needed to do, was end their sessions early or understand that media houses had deadlines and limited resources and could not cover every minute of every sitting. They also had to comprehend that with crime on the rise, it was dangerous to have parliamentary reporters — many of whom were female- out late. Or did Ramchand expect media houses to foot the bill for transporting reporters from night sittings? Come on. Members of Parliament had to be more reasonable and grounded in reality. Then perhaps the press (and the public) would pay them heed. In my opinion, this private motion on live broadcasts reeked of an exercise in media bashing, not one aimed at setting up, as Independent Senator Eastlyn Mc Kenzie rightly observed, “a joint select committee” to really debate the issue of increased coverage by creating, for example, a parliamentary newspaper.

Sean Douglas reported in last Thursday’s Newsday that the Senate had late Tuesday evening approved its motion for debates to be carried live. He knew this because he was in the Senate after tea. I’m thrilled for the Upper House occupants. Now the whole nation would see for itself how tedious the media’s job was and just how “business” was conducted in the House. Business such as the Attorney General’s objection to Opposition Senator Wade Mark’s comments on the Prime Minister’s Repsol trip. Jeremie’s argument that Mark could not mention the trip because the matter was before the Integrity Commission was a very dubious one because the Commission is not even close to being a court. Only matters before a court are “sub judice” and thus, cannot be discussed in the Chamber. What is worse however, is that the Senate President Dr Linda Baboolal ruled in the AG’s favour and prevented Mark from calling any names. In other words, the Opposition Senator was muzzled. That’s the sort of “business” the country should see and hear for itself when Parliament “goes live,” that and all the other bacchanal. In the meanwhile, I’ll be in the Big Yard today, letting Despers’ electric, magical interpretation of Shadow’s “Cocoyea” sweep away the sounds of mediocrity coming from our Red House. Arranger Clive Bradley’s lyrical contributions to TT society were not only sweet music to the ears; they were also definitely worth talking and writing about.

Suzanne Mills is the Editor of Newsday