Wired868 Wired868 for smart sport news and opinion
“[…] National budgets are critical moments for shaping a country’s future. Instead of addressing the actual content of the budget, this article reduces the coverage to petty complaints about time.
“CNC3 should aim to deliver coverage that explains how budgetary measures will affect the economy, jobs, healthcare, education, and more…”
The following letter to the editor, which critiques a review of the 2024/25 Budget by CNC3 journalist Akash Samaroo, was submitted to Wired868 by JP of Fyzabad:
Photo: Office of Parliament 2024
The recent article by Akash Samaroo, criticizing Finance Minister Colm Imbert’s five-hour budget presentation, is a disheartening example of the decline in journalistic standards at CNC3.
Instead of offering a thoughtful analysis of the 2024/2025 national budget, the piece fixates on the speech’s length and opposition reactions, failing to engage with the substance of the financial policies presented.
Sensationalism over substance: By using inflammatory language like “abuse” to describe the duration of the presentation, Samaroo diverts attention from the real issue: the policies and their implications for the country. High-quality journalism should focus on delivering fact-based, objective reporting, not sensational headlines.
One-sided reporting: The article heavily emphasizes criticism from former ministers without offering balanced perspectives or insights from those who may have seen value in the speech. CNC3 owes its readers a more impartial view, one that allows for a full understanding of the event’s impact.
Missed analysis of policy: National budgets are critical moments for shaping a country’s future. Instead of addressing the actual content of the budget, this article reduces the coverage to petty complaints about time. CNC3 should aim to deliver coverage that explains how budgetary measures will affect the economy, jobs, healthcare, education, and more.
Excessive reliance on social media: The article’s reliance on social media posts from politicians weakens its credibility. Journalism should prioritize expert analysis and factual content over social media commentary, especially when covering an event of national importance.
Context absent: How does this five-hour speech compare to previous budget presentations, both locally and internationally? Without context, the criticism feels hollow. Good reporting provides readers with meaningful comparisons and context to better understand the event in question.
Akash Samaroo and CNC3, as a prominent media house, have a responsibility to uphold journalistic standards and provide the public with well-rounded, informative, and balanced reporting.
The citizens of Trinidad and Tobago deserve better coverage that digs into the substance of the budget, not just its length. We challenge you to elevate your reporting and meet the standards expected of respected international media outlets.
Let’s focus on informing the public, not sensationalizing trivial aspects of critical national issues.
“[…] The Government’s position, as expounded by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Affairs Minister, is not neutrality by any Read more
“[…] Today the government is putting us on the wrong side of history and in support of a colonial and Read more
“[…] Dr Eric Williams was clear in his articulation—in a democracy, citizens have both rights and responsibilities. The government, too, Read more
“[…] The US operates with a policy of imperial hegemony—that it and it alone must be in charge. This is Read more
“[…] Independence Day is not merely a ritual—it is a vital reaffirmation of national unity, resilience, and cultural pride… Cancelling Read more
“[…] Individuals in authority cannot stand before the population and openly claim criminals have weapons of war, the relevant agencies Read more
Want to share your thoughts with Wired868? Email us at editor@wired868.com.
Please keep your letter between 300 to 600 words and be sure to read it over first for typos and punctuation.
We don’t publish anonymously unless there is a good reason, such as an obvious threat of harassment or job loss.
Is the review “petty”? Or is this a case of what teachers called many, many years ago “a transferred epithet”?