Letters & Opinion

Host Disappoints In P.M. Interview

Image of Dr. Kenny Anthony

THE EDITOR:
Shelton Daniel’s “90 Minutes” is usually one of the best produced and moderated talk shows on local radio. The show is well researched and Mr. Daniel has an admirable command of the issues he addresses. His guest on Wednesday was Prime Minister Kenny Anthony.

Having listened to the interview, I was, as usual, impressed with the Prime Minister’s excellent ability to speak to the issues in calm and measured tones. He sounded very much like the academic he is. When he speaks in that kind of forum, one always gets the impression that this is a man on top of the issues and has a vision for the way forward.

I have no doubt that had he been presented with a tougher line-up of questions, the PM likely would have performed equally well. Such is the nature of his wit and ken. We may not have agreed with his positions and explanations but he would have nonetheless answered with a degree of confidence and credibility.

But we will never know for sure.

Lost forever is that little what-if: what if, instead of the lay-ups, the PM actually faced some tough questions. Mr. Daniel did what can reasonably be described as a spineless job in interviewing the PM. He has long been open about his support for the Labour Party and he has correctly stated that no one should hold it against him for exercising what is his constitutional right of political affiliation and preference. But he also presents himself as a fair and balanced professional who, notwithstanding his affiliation, can call a spade what it is.

The issue isn’t that Mr. Daniel is an SLP supporter. The issue is that clearly in that interview, his position as a journalist and talk-show host took a distant second place to his position as a supporter of the SLP.

Most of the questions Mr. Daniel asked were themed and slanted in ways that made them most easy to dispense with. He teed off and left the PM taps-ins for birdie. He all but gave the answers and created the avenue for the PM to sell himself, his party and his government’s accomplishments without facing any challenge to his answers and positions. Of all the questions that could have been asked, for the rare opportunity to get clarification on the various issues of the day, Mr. Daniel chose the easy way out, frequently sprinkling in his own opinions of how fabulous he thought the PM was.

But the PM doesn’t need it. He is an accomplished and experienced politician well capable of selling his party and government.

As an example, Mr. Daniel asked the schoolboy question of how the PM deals with the fact that everyone expects him to solve everything and that all problems of the day seem to be laid at his feet. Lost on him was that no one compelled the PM to take or accept this job. He willingly put his hat in the ring. Mr. Anthony expressed more than just his interest, he expressed his belief that he was the most suitable person for the job. To expect any deep sympathy for the challenges of the office is to eat one’s cake and expect to still have it.

On the Juffali matter, notwithstanding Mr. Daniel’s own view – which he’s expressed ad nauseam – instead of helping the PM re-state what he’s previously said, he should have asked whether, despite his public utterances, the PM was concerned that this matter has now embroiled Saint Lucia in a wholly unneeded diplomatic jumble and further that a judge in the UK has ruled that the appointment was spurious. In other words, notwithstanding what the PM may view to be fact, there is an ugly perception going around that brings into question the integrity of our diplomatic appointments.

On the IMPACS matter, Mr. Daniel essentially repeated the PM’s position for him and squandered the opportunity to ask the PM whether his government wasn’t now past the honeymoon stage and fully accountable for getting to some reasonable closure, and further to point out that the concerns raised by UK, EU and France were that putting aside the original issue, since the government has taken office, no “meaningful progress had been made”. Sure, the PM has addressed these points but he’s never addressed them in a live, open setting and without the benefit of a pre-written statement and the opportunity for follow-up.

No one is suggesting that Mr. Daniel needed to take a completely antagonistic approach, questioning the PM about every single thing but in the interest of some small shred of journalistic integrity he should have made an attempt to ask some real questions. No one was asking the host to betray his allegiance and support for the SLP. But equally, no one expected him to betray his profession.

At every turn he failed to represent the many who do not necessarily agree with his and the PM’s view on things and ask questions on their behalf. His commitment in that programme was first and foremost to his personal opinions and not to his listeners in general.

Mr. Daniel was in the unique position to speak to the most important leader of the day and ask him hard questions about the most important issues of the day and instead he chose to have a most docile conversation in which the PM was challenged on nothing. This is not about putting the PM in a corner or attempting to embarrass him with ‘gotcha’ journalism. This is about the failure of Mr. Daniel to do a credible job of asking the person holding the highest office in the government serious and searching questions about things that matter.

Instead, an excellent and decorated batsman came to the wicket and our captain selected a newcomer bowler with little pace and no spin, a poor line and poorer length to bowl at him. Expectedly, the batsman scored a double century.

– Contributor

9 Comments

    1. Allan Jn Pierre – you’re absolutely right. And in my final edit, I thought about that specific line and thought to change it given the obvious irony you point out. But my reason for publishing anonymously is not because I cannot stand by what I wrote or defend it. It is simply because I do not want to attract unwanted attention to the organization I manage. It is for that reason ONLY.

  1. It is laughable that anyone in our ingrained culture of divisive TRIBAL politics, should entertain the thought of any expectation from any party supporter to quiz the PM in his party, with any question that would expose any weaknesses of personalities and policy. In this regard, this missive exposes our ingrained culture of political stupidity and crass ignorance of psychology.

    To me, this up there like the so-called interview are entirely self-serving There is hardly any redeemable quality to it.

    Try that with the dumb in the society. Get the facts straight. Only backward people think this way. How can one talk about vision when the preponderance of the evidence shows that the SLP in deep paranoia is scrambling because its short-term approach to create projects maturing in time to coincide with elections has failed miserably.

    Look at the situation closely. We are continuously celebrating failure because we have no successes to report. For example, we have reported 0.08 percent GDP growth and project it, meaning, not yet achieved the projected 1.6%. Strangely, for party faithfuls the projection of itself, is most definitely a cause for celebration. .

    Next, we failed to complete the hospital in time. We celebrate a naming ceremony instead. Right now we exaggerate and exploit every photo opportunity to grab the media headlines. Comically, the presence of the opposition going to church is now worthy of condemnation. Going to church now hurts the sensibilities of the injured party hacks.

    1. Allan Jn Pierre – you’re absolutely right. And in my final edit, I thought about that specific line and thought to change it given the obvious irony you point out. But my reason for publishing anonymously is not because I cannot stand by what I wrote or defend it. It is simply because I do not want to attract unwanted attention to the organization I manage. It is for that reason ONLY.

  2. Anybody who cannot see as a joke, a party member interviewing his boss, even with a semblance of objectivity with that kind of theatre, is joker. Nay. A complete idiot.

  3. Perhaps the problem lies in the reality that when journalists, especially on-air journalists, interview persons, they operate under the perception that all the questions should come from them and should be of their own cerebral design. In that manner they would receive public cudos for being smart or criticism for being not so smart.
    In questioning guests journalist should preface their questions with: “How do you respond to those who say….., or, “There are those who think or believe that ……. what is your response.” In that way it would not seem that they are personally asking or attacking their guests , who may or may not be the Prime Minister.

  4. Additionally, the purpose of interviewing any expert in any field, be it political, scientific or social, is not mainly to express the point of view of the interviewer; but, to give voice to the voiceless and to express the opinions and feelings of listeners who believe in and trust the integrity of the interviewer.

  5. Disappointing? Yes!
    Surprising? No!
    Over time, we come to expect certain actions from certain folks. Shelton Daniel is among many who are smart but unfortunately allow their allegiance to rob them of objectivity and fairness. Consequently, they do a disservice by wearing blinders for blunders and magnifying ordinary achievements to mask them as extraordinary. Not surprising; this cushion treatment is exclusively reserved for their affiliates.
    Ultimately – I’d rather suspect unbeknownst to them – they are compromising their credibility and respect. Is it worth it?

  6. Our society is stuck in a rut when such trashy journalism is accepted and is acceptable to the broad mass of any society’s population. Poor governance, like that we have been adoring and hurting from has becomes as the by-product, the accepted norm.

    The law that ‘supply creates its own demand’ suggests that as long as the supply of foolishness is all that is on offer in Saint Lucia, no creativity, no vision, and no innovation, we will not get to a higher level of governance NOR a higher standard of living. We are stuck with pools of mediocrity.

    The revolving door of those very lousy political actors that make up our political directorate today are those who are just too steeped in backwardness and mis-education to be of much value to the country. By their fruits you will know them. In effect, they are just placeholders who do not even make any pretense at being statesmen or stateswomen. Most, 99 percent don’t even know what that is. Supply creates its own demand. We do not yet have a supply. Don’t even talk about critical mass.

    Our borrowed constitution re-inforces dictatorships by PMs. The other elected MPs are just glorified community development officers dressed in yellow and red.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Send this to a friend