No thanks, Mr Snaggs

LET US begin this editorial with a categorical statement: The business of this newspaper is to report the news fairly and accurately, to analyse it and to comment on it; we are not in the business of solving crime; that is essentially the job of the Police. We feel the need to make this point up front and as clearly as possible in response to the appeal by Acting Commission Everald Snaggs for the active support of the media in the fight against crime. Speaking to the heads of media houses on Tuesday, Mr Snaggs said: “Many serious crime investigations attract substantial amounts of press interest. If effectively managed, the media can make a significant contribution to investigations by acting as a conduit for information from the general public.” We are not entirely clear on the role which the Commissioner would like to see the media play and we wish he had elaborated his idea in greater detail. But if Mr Snaggs is suggesting that the media should become actively involved in assisting the Police in their investigations, on an ongoing basis and as part of their operations, then this newspaper would have to respond to him with a polite but unequivocal no.

It is not that we are averse to cooperating with the Police on any specific occasion, should the need arise and we happen to be in a position to assist them. Indeed, we can point to our willingness in this regard by recalling the fact that our crime reporter Nalinee Seelal was instrumental in the 1997 surrender of Junior Granderson, who was wanted for murder and described by the Police then as the country’s most wanted man. It was Miss Seelal, together with a TTT news crew, who escorted Granderson to the CID headquarters in Port-of-Spain. But we are certainly not comfortable with Mr Snaggs’ apparent idea of being an ongoing conduit for information from the public to the Police. To begin with, a newspaper, not unlike the Police, is bound by certain responsibilities to the sources of its information; it would be unethical for us to violate the confidence placed in us and the commitment of confidentiality we give in our investigations and in the business of obtaining information from private sources. In such cases, Mr Snaggs would be asking us to violate one of the cardinal codes of professional journalism. It would, in fact, do irreparable damage to our image and effectiveness as an independent newspaper if we should accede to the Commissioner’s suggestion and become a “conduit” for information to the Police.

At a broader level, we must also be careful not to get involved in entanglements which could compromise the freedom, the impartiality and the credibility which are crucial factors in the practice of the media in a democratic country. In our view, it is vital for the protection of our society that the media, in performing its core functions, should remain completely unfettered and independent at all costs, and any arrangement that is likely to abridge, interfere, dilute or undermine that independence and impartiality should be unequivocally rejected. We understand Mr Snaggs’ commitment to dealing with the crime problem in our country. We support his effort to rally the entire society to the cause. We ourselves have repeatedly hammered home the point that members of the public must play their part in this battle. But this drive cannot be pursued at the cost or diminution of principles that undergird our democracy. This newspaper cherishes its freedom and independence, so to his invitation to become “a conduit” we must say, no thank you, Mr Snaggs.