Wired868 Wired868 for smart sport news and opinion
The Trinidad Guardian newspaper had observers covering their eyes again when the self-declared “Guardian of Democracy” published a photograph, presumably of activist Wayne Kublalsingh, with the headline: “Trinidad and Tobago discovers a human reptile.”
Under the photograph ran the caption: “The Kub-lal. An unusual human reptile discovered here on the pavement basking in the limelight everyday outside the Prime Minister’s office, defies medical explanation by surviving without food and water for weeks without any sign of health issues.”
It was, according to a footnote, a “paid advertisement” by a group that referred to itself as “Citizens4dhighway” and apparently gets medical advice from the same dark alley as Health Minister Fuad Khan.
Phew. For a second, Mr Live Wire thought the Guardian newspaper was run by some perverse, soulless psychopaths with less human decency than the Boko Haram, who were happy to bully, slander and vilify a frail lecturer on a hunger strike.
But, no, Guardian did not really think those things; the newspaper was paid to publish it, you see. So that makes it alright. Not so?
It is a defence that would not work in court for a hit man or drug mule. But, for a multi-million dollar media house, who knows?
Mr Live Wire is passing the collection basket around to fund a second Guardian ad, which reads: “This newspaper will screw anyone for money while its owner holds the Order of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago for outstanding contributions to public service. Does that mean prostitution is now legal?”
Or maybe: “Wanted: Human beings with common decency to replace heartless f**ks at Trinidad Guardian who ran Kublalsingh attack ad.”
Perhaps Guardian editor-in-chief Judy Raymond can tell us what it would cost to have the people responsible for publishing that advertisement slap themselves repeatedly. Clearly the Guardian has less concern for what happens between their sheets than the average prostitute.
And, for those who say the Guardian is entitled to take all paid ads to run its organisation, ask yourself if the newspaper would still have published if the payer replaced the word “Kub-lal” with “Sabga.”
The popular nutsman, “Nuts Landing”, often tells a joke about a supposed shooting on the Brian Lara Promenade.
An armed assailant fired a bullet which flew straight through the arm of a bystander and killed a passer-by. The police arrested the shot bystander.
“But I didn’t shoot him,” said the bleeding bystander. “Why are you arresting me?”
“Because it’s through you the man dead,” replied the policeman.
The made-up bystander obviously had a point. But the Trinidad Guardian, which collected money and then hid its payer’s identity behind a murky, unregistered organisation, has no case.
But then who needs to justify their actions in Trinidad and Tobago if they have a million-dollar attorney on speed dial?
Editor’s Note: Click HERE to view the Trinidad Guardian’s apology on its digital paper.
Trinidad Express editorial writer: I’m so bad-arse that despite criticism from the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the Chinese embassy, Read more
Commissioner of Police Gary Griffith channeled his inner Mike Pence today as he repeated calls for a range of sanctions Read more
Scene: Dark, almost deserted car park in west Trinidad. Mr Live Wire makes his way towards the lone vehicle in Read more
Soca star Machel Montano secured his ninth Road March title yesterday after his collaboration with Super Blue, “Soca Kingdom”—an okay Read more
Scene: COSTAATT campus. In an effort to spice up its media programme, the tertiary level school has hired Mr Live Read more
It is Day Seven of Hurricane A&V: a low pressure weather system which has struck Trinidad and Tobago with little Read more
Mr. Live Wire is an avid news reader who translates media reports for persons who can handle the truth. And satire. Unlike Jack Nicholson, he rarely yells.
Level slackness. Dehumanising, distasteful, disgusting. The Guardian can’t even be considered a rag at this point. Stop patronising that kennel liner. Don’t buy it, don’t subscribe to it online and don’t share articles from it. Send a message. Exercise your purchasing power and decline to buy the Guardian Newspaper, or watch CNC3 or listen to any GML radio station.
The ad is distasteful, but does the editorial staff see ads before they go to print?
The Chickens are coming home to roost. Many a newspaper worker would lose their job.
As expected from any ANSA Company
Didn’t cross my desk is the new meaning of Turning a blind eye I guess!!
As in Genesis 18:26, I wonder if Abraham would find ten righteous men in T&T to save us from God’s wrath….
As a member of the reading public it’s personal for me. The media house is taking me for an ass. I’m unimpressed.
On what grounds do their critique state bodies and agencies for corruption and inattention to standards, process and procedure and then produce work like this?
Quite frankly, I’m tired of the pretence at balance and integrity.
The sad stranglehold of the puppet masters of this country, this is the status quo that the Highway reroute is challenging… also the status quo a former PM challenged…but got voted out…sad is our portion.
I should point out this kind of stuff is never personal for me. I worked alongside many of those persons in the media and rarely ever had a fall out on a personal level.
But the media is supposed to be the voice of the voiceless.
Then, the media would leverage the respect and following earned in the community by selling space to businesses who can sell their wares to readers.
But some of the work in the media is alienating or insulting readers and thereby violating that three way relationship.
For me, it is morally wrong and, from a business standpoint, it is short sighted.
Correct, Asha Javeed… A member of staff at the Guardian is saying editorial staff never saw the ad.
I don’t know why you think that the mainstream media has any real commitment to ethics, protocols or decency. If you actually believe that, then you are naive in the extreme
That was so disrespectful and inhumane. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.
Ads such as those, in my experience, are usually sent to the editor of the day to look through before publication. The newspaper can say no. Newsday recently refused to publish an ad (which was a statement) from the Central Bank after the bank filed an injunction to prevent a story from publication.
Ask advertising? That’s it from the editor in chief?
Nananana! NANANANA! HEY HEY HEY! GOODBYE
If vilifying, demeaning and insulting a cause doesn’t work, try the next best thing; vilify, demean and insult the man. Seems very logical..
Agreed Lasana Liburd. And the very nature of the ad calls for some discussion among the decision makers within the media house itself, at the very least. There had to be one person in the entire Guardian who possess even basic understanding. Maybe a Panadol Multi-Symptoms ad doesn’t need much clearance. But this right here requires a better excuse..
It may appear confusing but they are all cut from the same soiled moral fabric where MONEY could easily sway someones moral pretense.
And we all know about the stories in the Guardian walk-out that were later revealed to be nonsense. That makes me more skeptical.
Say someone high up ordered them to take the ad. But no way the head of advertising can make that call. That is a preposterous suggestion to anyone with experience of a media house.
So the head of advertising has more weight than the editor-in-chief? That sounds bizarre even for Guardian. I find it hard to swallow that.
Lemme hear Mark…
Integrity is dead, whoring oneself and certifying yourself to be self centered, crass and morally degenerative are the new heights so called professionals aspire too. I have stopped buying newspapers a long time now and it would appear that I am doomed to continue this practice.
If only you got the quote from the editor I got. Boy!
There is this wild free reign within media circles, that seems to be void of even basic consideration. Ask Ian Alleyne. Head hotting seems useless..
Plenty newsprint sold to political parties.
This was real? Grounds for a lawsuit if so:)
I don’t think you can get lower than that, I’d be ashamed if I was a cleaner working in The Guardian’s Office right now, this country never fails to show its true 3rd world colours, smdfh and absolutely disgusted
There are times when common decency should trump money. And freedom of speech should still allow for some manner of respect..
Well Therese and Suzanne not coy about their bias.
One of the editors at Guardian is saying editorial was unaware of the ad. That the advertising dept okayed the ad and sent it down to the print room. One wonders about the editorial procedures and standards at GAML… But Ik sure there is no political interference there.
And that is a tragic state of affairs.
The Newsday is not behind either. Poor taste is normal business:(
It was laid out to look like a story, not an ad. Further, its thrust is personal. It isn’t attacking his ideology but his person. We really going down the road of the US does do it too? Then can we get a KamlaCare Bill?
And remember the test, Kendall, would they have published that ad if you took Kublalsingh’s name out and replaced it with Raymond or Sabga?
If that were an article, the Guardian would have vetted closed for slander and be sure to check the medical qualifications of the person giving the opinion.
Wayne Kublalsingh would have been asked to rebut as well.
But, because someone paid enough, they put in news section and cover identity of source.
That is one of the most despicable things I’ve ever seen in the local media. From the time they read “Human reptile” they should have binned it.
Kendall look at the masthead of the ad – it’s made very much to look like a Guardian piece. I’m curious how that was allowed to pass.
If we get the government, media and police that we deserve; then God can’t possibly be a Trini.
And the worst part is, it wasn’t even funny. Just came across as v bitter and crass.
In the USA, politicians are subject to far more critical ads questioning their integrity etc. Difference is though that said ads are usually endorsed by the opponents of the ad’s focus. There are those attributed to some vague amorphous organisations purporting to represent the public.
Much as I personally dislike the ad, I am not sure I will vilify the Guardian for publishing same. It’s a nasty satirical piece that is meant to obfuscate the real issues and probably a sign of how low they are willing to go. The lawyers will have to advise if this constitutes libel or any other actionable offense.
That is par for the course with them….classless
Yes. It has. And i suspect this approach has become par for the course now.
The Guardian has lost its prominence for years now! ’nuff said.
Even if the Guardian was paid for this it is still classless!
It’s the whole GML group, they advertising on radio too. Is this part of the $20M awareness campaign that each Ministry has been allocated?
With this ad in mind, it is gloves off in the next election campaign. Imagine the most despicable attack possible on your opponent… The Trinidad Guardian would probably publish it.
No paper should have sunk so low.
A couple years ago, the current editor in chief of the guardian was working as a columnist at the Express and functioning as editor from time to time. The Express published the photo of three men who were suspected of a crime, but the Express’ headline assumed their guilt and used it in the headline along with circling their pics in bold red. I raised the issue of judging the men in the court of public opinion before they had actually faced trial and why a leading newspaper needed to be more responsible. I talked about how the need for accuracy and objective reporting should be the priority. The columnist/editor responded on the thread by asking what was wrong with a newspaper publishing a headline and frontpage that would help to sell papers. Shortly thereafter came the Guardian appointment. This approach by the newspaper doesn’t surprise me.
unethical and disgusting coming from one of T&T mainstream media houses
I’ll give a TT$ 100.00 for yur ad, when you ready…. agree with you but they may turn you down for moral or legal (slander or so…) reasons…
Clearly The Guardian does not heed Chrisley’s motto … Class, not ass!
I’m shocked they allowed the ad artwork which so closely resembles their own masthead. If they wanted to, they had an excuse to reject on those grounds alone, no? Quite interesting…
Nicole, as far as i see it, they can refuse a business proposal (that what the request for publishing a add ultimately is..) anytime with no specific reason….