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
i wasn’t suggesting that at all…im just saying i make ads for a living..and this is hardly the first or only example of crass /unethical advertising…
no?..
Darryn Dinesh Boodan, are you suggesting I should have left this topic alone and written on quack medicine instead?
I’m a media man. I worked for the Guardian and the Express. I served very briefly on MATT. This is a topic that I have strong feelings about.
But feel free to do that blog on quack medicine.
but wait didn’t ian allyene destroy whatever reputation CNC3 and the guardian had a long time now anyway lol
lol ..this is certainly crass and in poor taste..but i don’t think it would qualify as incitement to violence and I think people know its proposing the idea that Kubs may not be going without water as he stated….its a crap ad that will do the opposite of what it intended…like i said..the only reputation thats damaged is the Guardian..
Targeting an individual and inciting like this could get somebody killed too eh. I hear you, but not sure I agree.
the only people who seem to have been injured by this ad is the Guardian themselves
to me yes..telling people that youve got the cure for cancer can get people killed
Quack medicine is worse than a personal attack on a citizen at this level?
Paid advertisements… Advertorials that were approved by the media house. The issue here is the media house claims it didn’t approve the ad… An ad they published.
Lassna i have actually seen far worse than this in the local press.from .religious groups and people selling quack medicine
the question to ask now maybe ..if they somehow really did int mean it..are they going to return the money ..and given the mistake..is anyone going to get fired..?..
So you apologise and keep the money. There are many ways to earn a dollar Darryn Dinesh Boodan. And I know a thing or two about needing ad revenue to survive.
well there is no way a full page ad that looks like that could run without first being approved by a lot of people..so obviously thats not true..
I hope this conversation continues when election season opens the door to excessive mudslinging.
Your point is they can advertise what they want to. Agreed. The EIC is saying they didn’t approve the ad… In short they didn’t mean to publish it. Sooooo… Why apologise if they can?
No newspaper in Trinidad can claim to be reputable or without agenda.
Mel, yuh mean they like to boast
well look Im hardly a defender of the press/media..in Trinidad..would the Guardian run an ad attacking the PM or some other powerful person? ..of course not..do they use the fear of libel to evade stories that could cause them problems ..? sure i think so…but the reality is Lassana is that newspapers are dependent on advertising revenue ..and are run with politics and self interests as much as anybody or any other company..i wouldn’t put the blame squarely on the editor, or even the upper management ..and if its any consullation ..bad advertising like this always backfires..which seems to be the case here
We will know who placed the Ad eventually…Trinis can’t keep a secret for long
Just watch and see
When Jack Warner attacked the Soca Warriors and called them greedy mercenaries who were in the pocket of the PNM, the players pooled money to respond in a full page ad that rebuffed those claims. All three newspapers refused to publish it because they claimed it was libellous. It wasn’t. The papers just didn’t want to upset a senior Government minister.
But, on Saturday, Guardian published an ad that called Wayne Kulalsingh a human reptile. Think about that.
Lol. Not Gov’t party per se… Just the group, body or what have you.
That question has been answered several times on this thread Darryn Dinesh Boodan. You might agree or disagree but I cannot think of a different way to say it.
When Jack Warner attacked the Soca Warriors and called them greedy mercenaries who were in the pocket of the PNM, the players pooled money to respond in a full page ad that rebuffed those claims. All three newspapers refused to publish it because they claimed it was libellous. It wasn’t. The papers just didn’t want to upset a senior Government minister.
But, on Saturday, they published an ad that called Wayne Kulalsingh a human reptile. Either people get it or they don’t oui.
What do you mean by the ‘Party’ that paid for it Lasana?
as someone who works in advertising..the only thing i find surprising is that the mock editorial seemed to co op the Guardian branding..which to me is unethical…as for the message itself…people/groups have a right to say what they want .no matter how moronic .as long as it doesn’t break the law .why cant the Guardian publish it? ..
How it reach in the first place? Oh right I know Guardianunc.
Guardian apologises in its print format: http://digital.guardian.co.tt/?iid=104802#folio=2
Fayola Bostic, if Wayne Kublalsingh paid Guardian for an ad that called the Prime Minister a human reptile with a drinking problem and then offered a very weak defence of that claim, would the Guardian have run it?
I think it is very obvious why the paper should have run that ad once we believe that all people deserve the same protection and respect from the media.
Remember when CNC3 spoke about that incident with Asha Javeed, Phelps and John Jeremy? The next day, they apologised to Phelps and Jeremy but not to Javeed.
Or what about Garth St. Clair’s case?
I say Kublalsingh and everyone else should get the same respect as the people with million dollar lawyers.
Rhoda Bharath. Thanks. Understood
Fayola Bostic, my point is the company must have a criteria for the type of advertising it accepts. If it didn’t have a criteria then the EICs comments about approval would be redundant. This is not me saying they have to like the ads. This is me saying that any business has standards and procedures. Media houses have codes of conduct and ethical issues that must be addressed. Does the Guardian have a policy on advertorials and their content. If so, how is the entity taking out the ad more responsible than the newspaper for it being published?
At any point in today’s paper did the Guardian indicate that it was going to apologize, retract and explain what evidently went wrong here? Because that headline is bollocks…
And that comment is a general media ethics question and not about whether this particular ad should have been printed ok. There must be some guidelines about the type of ads accepted (slander, hate speech, etc.), right? It doesn’t just boil down to do we agree with it does it? Genuine question for media people on the thread.
*reads this thread..LL and RB….don’t you just love Cognitive Dissonance?
I don’t know Rhoda Bharath. I find the ad distasteful but at the same time I don’t know if I can get behind a newspaper only printing ads they agree with.
If a senior columnist at the Guardian can argue that the fault lies with who placed the ad, and not the newspaper that accepted it then my decision to boycott the newspaper entirely os justified. How on earth can an advertiser force the Guardian to publish an ad it doesn’t agree with?
Fine
To clear the air Lasana Liburd, I have no pity for the media, nor do I have any for Kubs in this specific instance. As a citizen I am free to pick and choose what I support.
The point Jason is we are not discussing Kublalsingh’s court case or the Armstrong report here. Of course it is a debate worth having. And there were threads dedicated to that as well.
But this conversation is really about media ethics.
Well if there are laws, Kubs should use said laws and lay some law suits. But then again Kubs himself does not respect the law. He lost 3 consecutive cases in Court and is still making himself a security threat outside the Office of the Prime Minister. So laws are only mentioned conveniently when someone other than Kubs should respect it. Lasana Liburd you seem to only welcome people who agree with you to make comments. That is a poor sign. I offer my exact feelings on the matter. I alone do not have these views so if you want to ignore my views and bury your head in the sand you are free to do so.
That’s the last guardian I buying.
Lasana Liburd… If those with the responsibility of checking the newspaper before it goes to bed playing Pontius Pilate, should I expect Abdullah to pressure the right people?
I’m expected to turn off my brain and accept that the entire editorial dept went home Friday evening and say the newspaper same time as Joe/Jane Public.
Mr Live Wire is now my EIC.
The Guardian’s follow-up story headline today:
“Probe source of anti-Kublalsingh ads-Abdulah”
And the editorial: “Planning for Petro-Caribe final”
Rhoda Bharath, this the Guardian’s follow-up story today:
“Probe source of anti-Kublalsingh ads-David Abdulah”
Because the problem is the person(s) who paid for the ad you see. Not the company that took the money and fired shots at Wayne Kublalsingh’s reputation.
Everyone knows hitmen never go to jail right? It is just business for them.
“You can’t tell private citizens what to spend their money on”?
You would be surprised to know that there are a whole bunch of things called laws and they actually point to quite a few things people cannot spend their money on.
And saying that to speak about something is the same as promoting it; thereby Wired868 has done more to the anti-Kublal cause than the Guardian…
Well, I really think I should just sidestep that one. That is straight out of Inception 2.
I feel your intention was to wreck this conversation. There is a word for such behaviour online. But I’m trying not to be rude.
You are right Jason Lewis. A girl can still wish though…
You can’t tell private citizens what to spend their money on.
Exactly Fayola! Of course some will suggest we are expecting way to much. In fact they will insist on it. Basic courtesy? Decency? Laughable.
I wish instead of spending money on calling someone a “human reptile” they had sent in an ad with counter-arguments supporting the highway being built as planned, and the good reasons for considering, but not following the Armstrong report (if there are any. I don’t know enough to say either way). All I see is a frail man fighting for a cause, a dismissive gov’t basically saying we know best, dead if you must dead, and then bullies attacking the man. If this is not the correct narrative, I wish someone would shed some light without all the vitriol.
Guardian apologises: http://digital.guardian.co.tt/?iid=104802#folio=2
Ms. Prem I can assure you that it was not people of the ilk of Kubs that made sacrifices for our progress. I repeat if innovators were like Kubs we would be bareback in the bush shitting in a hole. Kubs wrote a pamphlet and calling it a book. That is his innovation in a nutshell.