The mood is red.
A short four-word phrase has created such an inferno over speech and what determines what fair speech is. Timothy Poleon’s use of the term “the mood is red” with the fatal accident in Marjomel caused many ripples around the island. Backlash was so fierce and quick that I saw condemnation of the use of the term before I was even made aware of the accident.
For many it was confirmation that Timothy Poleon MBE was cosplaying as a journalist whilst flying the Flambeau flag high. For others it was just another cause of whataboutism, what about that particularly odious host on that program or the minister who has become their bete noir who also demeans women as they claim.
Now whataboutism is often weak because it deflects from the current topic and what was said.
However, there is often merit as it exposes the hypocrisy of many persons who are concerned solely when the colour of who said what is at odds with their political allegiance.
That said it was either a callous word choice by a journalist, with enough years of broadcast experience, perhaps to stimulate conversation about his show, or another example of the foot-in-mouth disease that often struck many during the election season.
Glenn Greenwald, a noted free speech advocate and lawyer who broke open the NSA spying case behind his source Edward Snowden often articulates that there is no such thing as ‘hate speech or bad speech’. Rather there is just speech that we disagree with.
Greenwald further opines that policing speech or legislating speech is a steep road we should not go down. He is one of a handful of free speech absolutists who fail to see limits on speech as having merit. Despite my fervent disagreement with him on those aspects there is merit in what he posits. And we must examine if there is a need for Timothy to apologize. As a broadcaster unless he has slandered anyone then it remains that his speech is protected. As a black man I understand the power dynamics of the use of words from an in group to an out group and Timothy as a pillar of the journalistic community has influence and professional responsibility he should carry.
Additionally, was there harm committed by his words? Perhaps the families of the deceased and the company which broadcasts Newspin may lay claim. If either decides they require an apology, then perhaps he may need to swallow the foot in his mouth and provide an unreserved apology.
Which is not to say that he shouldn’t apologize without being encouraged to. Nor is there any dissenting opinion that associating a particular party’s phrase with bloodshed and harm is also an example of irresponsible journalism. Many persons have before and continue to do the same on Facebook in particular powered solely by Caribbean superstition and political propaganda. But they lack the visibility and public audience that Mr. Poleon holds.
This is not the first foray of Mr. Poleon into these waters, others have gone before him as well and met with the oh if was so-and-so argument, and so we need to query what we can do to avert such incidents. Reprimands from dormant organs like the St Lucia Media Workers Association, which often sway to and fro between political entities? Will they be there at all points and maintain the impartiality that many of us lack the realization that speech should not be controlled? Persons need to understand that sadly freedom of speech does not equal freedom from consequence. And for Timothy a swift apology may be his best friend.