Media workers in Barbados are cognizant of the restrictive nature of our defamation laws and how they have served, in many ways, to stymie the pursuit of investigative journalism in the country.
A country’s democracy operates at its best when it can boast of a free, fair, aggressive and independent media landscape, where practitioners ask no quarter and give none.
Much is demanded of media workers. Citizens want them to boldly call out wrongdoing, not only by the “small fish” but by the powerful, and those of influence.
In the media’s pursuit of matters of public interest, media practitioners are required to walk a tight rope. This is particularly so when seeking to uncover truths that involve the well-to-do, politically connected and the powerful business class.
While local journalists have been lambasted over the years for being timid and tepid in their coverage of some controversial issues, it has often been the chilling effect of defamation action that drives fear in media owners and bosses.
Important also is the fact that Barbados is a very small society where familial relations, friendships, business associations, school alumni, and even fraternal links can carry significant influence.
Reporters have often questioned whether it is worth the sacrifice, the public backlash, and recrimination against friends and family members.
Regrettably, even small errors in which neither reporters nor editors intended any malice have resulted in local media houses paying substantial sums in damages and legal costs.
The majority of defamation cases involved reporters simply doing what the public expects of them, uncovering and reporting as fairly as possible.
Many claims of defamation are settled out of court and away from public glare. However, a few very high profile ones came to the public’s attention.
In the 1990s, a consultant at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital successfully sued the Advocate Newspaper over a news story in which junior doctors claimed they were not being properly supervised by the senior practitioner and this posed a risk to patients.
Then in the 1980s and 1990s came probably one of the longest running defamation suits in the island’s history involving businesswoman Asha Miss Ram Mirchandani, over media coverage of activities at her chicken farm. The farm, owned by Miss Ram and her husband Ram Mirchandani, reportedly collapsed as a result of the news reports. Defamation action was brought against most media houses as well as the National Cultural Foundation (NCF), stemming from calypsos that highlighted the chicken allegations.
Local media are more exposed to defamation actions by virtue of the absence of critical protective legislation such as a Freedom of Information Act.
Long promised by politicians, freedom of information is still an elusive dream of media workers. Such legislation, as exists in Trinidad and Tobago, would help to lift the veil on information that should be readily available to the public because it is in the public’s interest to know.
Why in 2023 are Barbadian media unable to have ready access to information on all the businesses and individuals who have received contracts or awarded tenders by government?
Why is the public not fully apprised of data like the number of people who have been given work permits and in what areas of employment? Members of the media and the public should have access to simple information on who are the largest land owners. What portion of land in Barbados is owned by Barbadians and how much is owned by non-nationals? How many gallons of potable water are used annually? In the current drought conditions, what are the current levels of water in our reservoirs?
The amount and range of information that Barbadians do not know and have no access to is staggering.
We hail the successful defamation suit brought by technology company Dominion Voting Systems against the Fox News Network in the United States of America.
Fox News, owned by billionaire Rupert Murdoch, was correctly forced to settle the suit they were very likely to lose, with a cheque for US $787.5 million (BDS$1.57 billion), for spreading lies about Dominion’s voting machines during the 2020 USA presidential elections.
The debacle causes us to refocus our attention on how Barbados’ defamation laws, while protecting the good names of individuals and entities from defamatory words and actions, are also too restrictive, and they depress the cause of investigative journalism in the country.
The post #BTEditorial – Defamation laws can hide truths appeared first on Barbados Today.