Thank you Madam Chairman. Ladies and Gentlemen, as a trained media professional who has been practicing for about 20 years, I passionately dislike clichés. I have tried diligently over the years not to use them, and whenever I get the opportunity, I discourage the use of clichés. Yet, today, as I attempt to look at the state of media in the Caribbean, nothing but a cliché comes to mind.

    Regional media is at a critical crossroad, right now. It’s at a crossroads largely because of the demise of Caribbean Media Corporation, the CMC.

    The people involved, particularly the Caribbean Broadcasting Union, might not agree that the CMC is dead. They’ll point to the fact that during the last two cricket series they were able to provide live coverage of the matches. They will say that they have resumed limited service. But what is happening now, is an attempt at a Lazarus; an attempt at bringing it back from the dead. I do hope it is fully resurrected, because CANA, which later merged with the CBU to become the CMC, has been the only true regional media entity that we have had to provide information from a Caribbean perspective.

    The state of the media remains critical because the future of the CMC is yet to be determined. And even if it is brought back to life, it will be so different that I am afraid that its role and significance will be radically altered and it will no longer will serve the purpose of bringing Caribbean people together.

    The demise of the CMC has brought us back 25 years. Fed up with having to depend on non-regional news agencies for news about the Caribbean, a group of newspaper publishers and other interested people, with the help of the Caribbean Community, came together 25 years ago to form the Caribbean News Agency. CANA would do what Reuters and the BBC could not do. It would provide coverage of the region from a Caribbean perspective, using Caribbean reporters who understood the region better than anyone else. It was about us.

    The people who established CANA understood regionalism. They understood the need for a Caribbean entity to counter outside influences. Back then there was no Free Trade Area of the Americas; globalisation was not part of our vocabulary and there was no cable television. But the people behind the regional news agency were progressive.

    Today, more than ever before, when cultural penetration is more prevalent than ever; when the Caribbean is working assiduously towards a Single Market and Economy; when as a people we have to grapple with globalisation and all its negative implications; when we need to firmly establish our identity as Caribbean people; when we should be lessening our dependency on foreign media; we are left at the mercy of the very external media. Today, in the 21st century, we are back to the 1960’s, as our only sources of Caribbean news are the BBC, Reuters, the Associated Press and Agence France- Presse. These organisations cannot speak for us! They don’t understand us! They don’t understand our culture! Frankly, they don’t care about us. Yet, they are the ones that determine what we hear and how. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves!

    The people who allowed CANA/CMC to die, either through their actions or inactions, those responsible for its demise, whatever their motivation, and I am not presumptuous enough to speculate on their motivation, but those responsible for its demise have done the people of the Caribbean no justice at all. They have set the integration process back. They, more than any one else, if they have consciences, really have to be ashamed of themselves and they ought to repent and seek forgiveness for what they have done to the Caribbean. History will expose them for what they really are.

    Let me give you a couple examples that will underline the need for a regional media entity that will speak the language of the Caribbean. Last year, I covered the Summit of the Americas in Quebec, Canada. Of the 34 leaders present, six spoke at the opening ceremony; among them, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Barbados. Without being prejudicial here, I believe Prime Minister Arthur had the best speech that night and made more sense than anyone else. But to my dismay, when I checked the very many stories written by the foreign media, not one mentioned Mr. Arthur. When mentioning those who spoke, they left him, and him only, out. Had I not been there, Caribbean newspapers would have carried stories out of the summit without a word to their Caribbean readers on the issues of concern to the region or reference to the addresses delivered by Caribbean leaders, and Caribbean radio and television stations would have done the same.

    Two months ago, I covered the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Australia. Anyone who read any copy from the international media, or who listened or watched international broadcast media, would have read about Zimbabwe and possibly Zimbabwe only. No one look at the interest of the Caribbean. No one but me. The message is, if we don’t do it ourselves, they are not about to do it for us.

    Recently, the British newspaper, the Mirror carried a report on cocaine smuggling on Air Jamaica, which the reporter dubbed Air Cocaine. The picture was painted that if you want to smuggle cocaine into the UK, call Air Jamaica. What the reporter failed to point out was that people also frequently smuggled cocaine from Jamaica to the UK on British Airways. It didn’t matter. He was not telling the story from a Caribbean perspective. I listened yesterday to the BBC Caribbean Report, presented from London, and I heard the news presenter referring to Sabina Park in Jamaica as Sabena Park. I think I have said enough.

    What we are left with, with the passing of CMC, are a host of non-Caribbean media to tell a story that is not ours. They cannot speak for us. They are in no position to speak for us. Yet we shamelessly allow them to. But the demise of CANA/CMC has also left us with a host of insular local media, which pay lip service to Caribbean integration, but which are more insular than ever before. For example, how many people here see the fishing dispute between Barbados and Trinidad from a wider Caribbean perspective? Or is it about the right of Barbadian fishermen to go into Trinidad waters and fish without having to pay the necessary penalty? What local media here told people at the height of the dispute was that it didn’t matter that they were violating Trinidad’s laws and that Trinidad was out of place to arrest and fine them. Not a single local media asked “How dare Barbadian flout Trinidad laws?” No one asked Barbadians if they would be prepared to stand by and allow a group of Trinidadians to enter their country illegally and begin harvesting their sugar canes or cotton to take back to Port of Spain. And the media in Trinidad was no different. All they were interested in is arresting and jailing the Barbadians, many of whom might very well have had relatives and close friends in Trinidad. CANA/CMC challenged both sides. That’s what a regional entity does for the Caribbean. How many people here understand or are concerned about the issues that concern Jamaicans or Trinidadians or Dominicans or Guyanese? How do we relate to their concerns? How are we in Barbados or in St. Lucia or St. Vincent and the Grenadines affected by the economic situation in nearby Dominica? There’s no one dealing with these issues.

    There were two elections in the past month or so that were of concern to the Caribbean. One was in France, the other in the Bahamas. I am told that in Trinidad, the French elections got four times as much coverage as the Bahamian poll. I don’t think it was any better in any other Caribbean country, with the exception of the Bahamas of course. By now, every Caribbean national knows everything about Le Pen. But if I say Perry Christie, most people will ask Perry who?

    I have grave doubts about the way the media are progressing at this time. Up until a decade or so ago, there were no more than two newspapers and two radio stations in each country. Today, there’s a proliferation of radio stations. There are no fewer than eight in Barbados, and 18 in Trinidad. The demand for talent is great, but the educational system is not turning out enough high quality people who would wish to enter and stay in media work.

    At the same time, media owners are prepared to spend less and less on quality professionals, so they hire people off the streets who don’t understand the first thing about media, and in many cases, don’t know simple subject and verb agreement. When I listen to radio, or read the newspapers, although the problem is more prevalent in broadcast media, when I listen to the radio, my ears ache from what I hear. Grammar is a problem throughout the Caribbean and this is so whether or not people have ten A levels or BScs with honours. That’s because the teachers themselves have problems with grammar.

    However, the problem goes beyond grammar. Today’s media practitioner seems lost when it comes to understanding his/her role and because it’s not a high-paying profession, there is a high turn over rate. Sadly, few people become part of the media with the intention of becoming real professionals. Many use it as a stepping-stone to a job in Public Relations, where the financial rewards are higher.

    But for those who remain, the owners provide very little training opportunities or training facilities. I’m not sure if they understand that journalism is a profession and its people ought to consider themselves professionals. You can’t have professionals without training and codes of ethics and behavior.

    The fifth Caribbean Media Conference has just concluded in Antigua. These conferences are attended by the most senior people involved in the media – Managing Directors, CEO’s, etc. At the second conference held in Trinidad, a resolution was passed urging the Caribbean media owners to get seriously involved in training their staff. Nothing has been done since. At present, Carimac is doing a wonderful job but it is heavily oriented towards producing Jamaicans and a minority of people from the other territories.

    You see what I mean when I say that Caribbean media are the crossroads. What we are left with are a host of insular media, loaded with untrained and unprepared employees, and where very little in-depth production takes place. The emphasis is on profits and owners spend next to nothing on training, hiring of professional staff, or on production.

    Nowhere in the media is there more insularity than in the coverage of sports, particularly cricket. The local media insist on pushing players from their countries over those from other states, even when the ones they push leave a lot to be desired. I watched a local television programme a few nights ago and I wondered what on earth was going on. The guest of the programme stated that Adam Sanford should have been dropped for the Barbados test match and replaced by Ryan Hinds, a Barbadian. I was upset, not with the guest, because he can say anything he wants to, but with the journalist who accepted it and allowed the suggestion to go unchallenged. Now, I know you are kowtowing to the local audience, but why can’t you point out that Sanford went into the match as the highest wicket taker for the West Indies and that the West Indies had to win to level the series and they couldn’t drop a bowler for a batsman? What is wrong with educating the audience? Right now, we are not producing media that are of interest to the region. We are not doing a good job of covering the region on a day to day basis. Our local media won’t do it and there is no regional media to do it for us.

    Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Caribbean media are at a critical crossroads. But all is not lost. There is a recognition that we have an important role to play. Although we should not be flattered when people tell us that the media has an important role to play. We already know that. That is why we are in it. But there is the recognition and we hope that it can translate into action to help develop a truly Caribbean media that reports from the perspective of the entire region. At the same time, we must guard against, and object vehemently to the readiness of decision makers to use the media as a scapegoat, like they do no other profession.