EDITORIAL
As Barbados’ oldest mass media publication, we at The Barbados Advocate consider it our duty to be unfailingly responsible in our journalism. Our reluctance to be sensational for the sake of sensationalism, and hence popularity, might have cost us a number of readers in comparison with other local publications, but we are firmly wedded to a higher ideal as stated in our motto.
Our concept of responsible journalism extends beyond the context of defamation in which it was fashioned and covers also the journalistic equivalent of not untruthfully shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
And while we understand fully the impact of the scoop and the acquisition of leaked information (or its “falling from a truck” as it may be colloquially put) to mass appeal, we also believe that the maintenance of the civic trust in our more important institutions, especially those of a financial nature, is equally important. For a citizenry only now recovering from the effects of the CLICO debacle, it seems to us that the public should be spared any conveyance of a suggestion that a repeat of this fiasco is likely, especially where sterling efforts are being made precisely to avoid this eventuality.
We refer to the recent publication of a story in another section of the local press that intimated a likely reprise of the CLICO episode in light of an IMF report that was critical of the nature of the regulation of one of the major regional firms, SAGICOR, given that the local regulator, the Financial Services Commission [FSC], “was not in a position to conduct group-wide supervision and supervision was weak”.
That such a report might still be in a draft stage and thus subject to further clarification or amendment seems not to have occurred to the mind of the journalist who was clearly following the advice of the Duke of Wellington’s advice to the scandal-monger to “publish and be damned…”.
We hold no brief for either institution but, if we are to judge by their respective reactions to the story, it appears that neither was contacted for a comment before publication. In a full-page press release next day, SAGICOR reiterated its repute as a well-governed and financially strong international institution that has consistently received commendable ratings from the global rating agencies. It addressed also the nature of its regulation and condemned any implication that it was an under-regulated financial institution.
For its part, the FSC through its Chairman, Sir Frank Alleyne, also subsequently rebuked the gist of the article, affirming that another CLICO-type scenario was highly unlikely especially given the current diligence of that institution in managing institutional risk.
We have no reason to doubt that the report referred to exists. However, it might also have been viewed as being a recommendation for legislative change and a bolstering of the human and other resources of the regulator in order for it to achieve it statutory objectives. In a different context some years ago, Lord Nicholls of the British House of Lords offered a number of indicia of what would constitute responsible journalism as a defence to an action for defamation. Among these were “whether comment was sought from the plaintiff, since he may have information others do not possess or have not disclosed”, although his Lordship did concede that an approach to the plaintiff will not always be necessary. He also referenced “the tone of the article”. According to him, “a newspaper can raise queries or call for an investigation. It need not adopt allegations as statements of fact”. For what it is worth, we urge the local print media to adhere to these standards as we swiftly approach the season of campaigning by the several political parties.