Guest column - The more things change

The following column by DANA SEETAHAL has been reproduced unedited from the Trinidad Express with the permission of the author. 

It was funny hearing the new CEO of CNMG, Ken Ali, in parroting an explanation as to why Fazeer Mohammed was removed as co-host of a morning show, say that the company had other plans for Mohammed.

Did the company tell this to Fazeer when they summarily removed him as host of the popular morning show?

This statement reminds me of one made by Patrick Manning 15 years ago when the Honorary Consul to Hong Kong was fired by fax. 

In the wake of the public outcry at this rude termination Mr Manning said they had plans for him, which included appointment to a higher post. Needless to say no indication of this had been given to the consul before his appointment was ended.

As to the admission by Mr Ali that the removal of Mr Mohammed was "bad timing", one is left to wonder whether it never occurred to him that the removal of someone from such a position via the telephone two days after his confrontation with a Government minister would not suggest something more egregious than "restructuring".

After all, one would expect that restructuring in an organisation would be planned and more than likely discussed among all the participants if it is to be effective.

It should not come like a thief in the night to one of their number, the one with whom the exercise is said to have started. 

Further, we are dealing with a Government-owned media station and it ought not to have come as a surprise to anyone that people would make the immediate connection that the removal of Mr Mohammed was politically motivated.

For Mr Ali to say he did not anticipate the response is naive, especially coming from someone whose championing of freedom of the press goes back even to before 1996 when the Independent newspaper case, in which he was involved and which was taken to the Privy Council, arose.

I note that Andy Johnson, who has replaced Mr Mohammed on CNMG's morning show, is reported to have stated that the position is only "temporary" and indicated that he is really only holding on. 

Yet Ken Ali in the same day's newspaper is reported as saying that Mr Johnson would permanently co-host the show. Don't the two men talk so as to get at least this right?

With the wave of outrage at the summary removal of Mohammed one wonders whether Andy Johnson will be able to get any credible persons to guest on his show. People might very well view him as a tool of the Government and might worry, regardless of their political affiliation, that by extension they may be perceived as participating in attacking press freedom in some way.

While that remains to be seen the immediate concern must in my view be, what is the head of the Government Information Services Ltd (GISL) doing hosting a talk show on a television station?

The GISL is "primarily involved in the provision of media services to the Government and its agencies" according to its website. It is a State-owned limited liability company that commenced operations in 2007. 

"C" is the flagship television station of the Caribbean New Media Group, a state-run media company in Trinidad and Tobago. It commenced operations in June 2006, six months after the demise of its predecessor, TTT.

Both are state-owned companies but they are separate entities. One is clearly designed to promote Government news whereas the other is meant to be an independent media station that just happens to be owned by the State.

Whereas state agencies can control the information coming out of GISL which is designed to showcase the Government in a positive light, the same ought not to be true of CNMG. Now that Andy Johnson is co-hosting a talk show on CNMG, however, the lines are becoming blurred. Will he seek to promote the Government in a positive light as is his mandate as head of GISL or will he really entertain other views?

There are other areas of concern. We have a case of a CEO, an employee of a company (be it State-owned or not) filling in, whether temporarily or not, as an employee in another company — both providing similar services.

Is there not an obvious conflict of interest here? And does Andy Johnson, CEO of GISL in his guise as talk show host, employee of CNMG, take instructions from the CEO of CNMG? Do the rules of each company allow for this?

If this situation continues it seems to me that it is likely that in time the functions of GISL and CNMG will become one: there will be no difference. Do we need to wait for that or should the Government not act now and just shut down CNMG?

That will be a real cost-cutting exercise since not only will Andy Johnson, for example, not have to be paid two salaries but the combined staff of both companies will be halved. Everything will then be transparent and above board: we will be dealing with a government media house, not merely a government-owned media house.

As it is the Government now controls GISL, CNMG and Channel 4. This entire incident has revealed the need to remove media from State ownership as far as possible. 

The Government should resolve what is the future of Channel 4; and either sell CNMG (preferred option) or fuse GISL and CNMG. To maintain all this State media serves no valid and transparent purpose. 

-Dana Seetahal