14349: Sanba: Re:14344: Dorce: Re: 14332: Vishnusurf: Re: 14328: JJeanPierre1 (fw d) (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: sanba@juno.com

Dorcé,

I think it is worthwhile underlining some of your statements from your message, because we, as human, too often miss the point and let the real issue escape the focus it deserves; inadvertently, or purportedly.
Indeed just because somebody is supporting a movement does not mean s/he cannot be objective. In fact true supporting is careful to see to it that order and efficiency be the trademark of operations from the group to be supported. After all, one does not support a movement because it is worthless in the first place. Why should it be tolerated that it derails in the long run? Unless that through the surface of supporting, egoism is hollowing substances and objectives to the point that debating and research for improvement become empty exercises of misleading policies.
Therefore working with or for somebody not only may mean, as you said, but should mean being in a very privileged position to witness what is happening, so that one can work to influence it for the better. It is a matter of responsibility towards oneself, towards society, and truth. That is exactly the difference between being biased and being objective.
Unfortunately it’s not the way we are privileging. Oppositions in general are blindly partisans. That is why in Haiti, we see people -taking advantage of a communication void from the government- bashing Aristide as a mere culprit of everything that can go wrong, while never citing one positive thing about him or his government. Such an attitude can’t but polarize the issue without hope of any solution.
As you say, Dorcé, it’s about objectivity, ethics and truth.
In Haiti, today, objectivity, ethics and truth start with admitting that Aristide can win any election without tampering with ballots. Any report worthy of consideration should take that into account. And that raises the question of interest. Who could have then the urge to tamper with the ballots as claimed: the party who was sure to win or the other one who was afraid to lose?
In Haiti, today, objectivity, ethics and truth go with analyzing and interpreting the fierce opposition from the like of IRI, the State Department, and even the national petty-bourgeoisie, let alone the bourgeoisie itself, notwithstanding the personal status of the President himself? And, please, let’s not entangle the issue to escape the point, as I read sometimes on different forums, by staunch opponents of Aristide. As soon as the notion of class is addressed, referring to Aristide, some opponents think they have found the absolute argument against him by bringing about the issue of his wife’s skin color. In fact, that has nothing to do with a serious analysis. If anything, it may be very indicative that skin color does not predestine let alone foredoom someone into a specific political or ideological position. If it were so, all black petty-bourgeois would be progressive, and all white petty-bourgeois would be reactionaries. Simply ridiculous!
In Haiti, today, objectivity, ethics and truth demand that we stop mislead people in even hinting that Lavalas government might have been dictatorial, because we have been witnessing Duvalier’s regime. We know that the mere fact of complaining about dictatorship from 1957 to 1986, including “le Conseil Militaire de Gouvernement du général Antonio Th. Kébreau” meant Fort Dimanche or death. Let us be serious, for truth sake.
In Haiti, today, objectivity, ethics and truth cannot be silent about the stubborn popularity of the president despite the daily systematic bashing against him, even in Creole, and despite the embargo that prevents him from better delivering in crucial areas such as health, potable water and job creation. Fairness of reporting should mention that such embargo could damage any popularity. If it does not that means what?

To be short and stay focused, let us say that good judgement is essential when it comes both to report as a journalist, and understand what goes beneath the way reports are written as a reader.

François-Marie