John A.

Lent
Press freedom in the
Commonwealth Caribbean

The former British colonies in the Caribbean are among the terri-
tories of the world now in the process of redefining the concepts
of press freedom that they inherited from their mother countries.
Because of the transitional nature of these societies, government
leaders rationalise such modifications of traditional press concepts
and maintain that they are in order. They claim that in emerging
nations, unusual powers are sometimes necessary to force decisions
that will benefit the people. Acting as benevolent dictators, they
ask that the mass media show restraint in criticising government,
and at the same time, promote national goals and identities. The
leaders emphasise concepts such as government-media dialogue as
if the two institutions were not on speaking terms under libertarian
systems.
Leaders of such new governments tend to have authoritarian
personalities even though they are often the same individuals who
rebelled against colonial oppression. In the Commonwealth Carib-
bean, although the two-party system of government still predo-
minates, most islands are controlled by strong, charismatic execu-
tives, some of whom have been in office over a decade. One-man
rule is particularly evident on islands such as Grenada, St Kitts-
Nevis and Trinidad & Tobago. An opposition does exist, but
because of pressures from the ruling parties, the opposition finds it
extremely difficult to make itself heard.
The opposition press in the Commonwealth Caribbean is equally
maligned so that at varying times dissenting media in the region
have been hindered by the tightening of licensing regulations, the
misuse of libel and sedition acts, economic restrictions, government
monitoring of radio and television and clipping of newspapers,
denial of air time on government-owned broadcasting outlets, or the
drying up of traditional news sources.
The governments of the region say that they have reason to be
sensitive to oppositionist press outpourings. First of all, they feel
some of the newspapers are too destructive in their criticism,
referring to ministers as Hitlerites and Gestapo imitators (this has
happened on Grenada, the Bahamas and Dominica). Second, the
governments say that because of the small size of the political units
in the Commonwealth Caribbean, internal problems tend to be
magnified, so that even a whispering campaign does not go un-
noticed.
Possibly for these reasons, governments in the area are making
concerted efforts to own and control as many media as possible.
On every island in the Commonwealth Caribbean the government
owns, or controls through various means, a substantial number of
56 JOHN A. LENT

media outlets. For example, on Trinidad & Tobago the government

owns two-thirds of the electronic media; of the four non-govern-
ment-owned media, three are in the hands of foreign enterprises.
Prime Minister Eric Williams' regular outbursts against foreign
ownership keep them in line. On other islands, similar situations
exist. The Bradshaw government on St Kitts-Nevis owns the
broadcasting outlet, controls one of the newspapers through the
dominant political party, and threatens the expatriate editor of the
other newspaper with expulsion if he gets too critical. On Grenada,
the broadcasting outlet is completely under government control.
Grenadian newspaper editors complain that most of their news
sources are drying up, while the government attempts to rule by
press release and police action.
Broadcasting in particular is controlled by government. Island
governments own at least two-thirds of the electronic media on
Trinidad, Jamaica and Barbados, one-half of those on Montserrat,
Antigua and St Lucia, and the sole outlets on Grenada, St Vincent,
Dominica, the Bahamas and St Kitts-Nevis.

Press laws
Constitutions that have been written by Commonwealth Caribbean
nations since independence usually guarantee freedom of expres-
sion, but such freedom is often restricted by the misuse of press
laws or is set aside during real or imagined states of emergency.
Probably the laws having the most serious effect upon news-
papers in the Commonwealth Caribbean are those dealing with
libel and sedition. Both have been used, and sometimes misused,
by island governments to restrict newspaper operations. Although
private West Indian citizens are protected by the libel laws, most
of the suits of any magnitude are brought by government or
political figures. This is understandable because of the oppositionist
nature of the papers politically; most of their attacks are directed
against politicians and government officials, rather than private
individuals.
It is not unusual for heads of government and ministers to bring
libel suits against Commonwealth Caribbean newspapers; both Eric
Gairy of Grenada and Eric Williams of Trinidad & Tobago have
done so regularly. Grenadian editors go so far as to accuse Gairy
of intimidating the media, both foreign and domestic, with libel
suits. In the two-year period, 1969 to 1971, Gairy either threatened
or actually brought libel suits against Look magazine and some
London papers from abroad, and Torchlight and Vanguard on
Grenada itself. According to Vanguard editor, A. Michael Cruick-
shank, the four libel suits Gairy brought against his paper during
the two years were meant to cripple it financially. ' In one case,
we lost $12,000 (EC), but party people and anti-government citizens
donated money to pay for our libel case.'
Newspapers on Antigua and St Kitts-Nevis have also been sub-
jected to government pressure through libel laws. In January 1972,
 PRESS FREEDOM IN THE CARIBBEAN 57

both the Antigua opposition newspapers, Workers' Voice and Times,

were forced to shut down because of the enactment of amendments
to the Newspaper Registration Act and Newspaper Surety Ordi-
nance. The first amendment requires that newspapers pay an annual
licence fee of $300 (US); the second imposes a bond of $5,000 (US)
on the papers to cover expenses that might result from libel actions.
Similar laws were expected to be passed on St Kitts-Nevis. Because
of increasing governmental threats, the St Kitts Democrat, an
opposition weekly, has taken the precaution of having all copy read
for possible libel by a party lawyer.
Protection of internal security has been used by a number of
Islands to restrict press operations. In 1972, the Inter American
Press Association was investigating the possible misuse of sedition
acts by the governments of St Kitts, Trinidad and Grenada.
The St Kitts Press and Publications Board Bill of 1971 was pre-
sented to Parliament after Premier Robert Bradshaw's government
won re-election in May of that year. Bradshaw had promised during
his campaign that if re-elected, he would close the opposition
weekly, St Kitts Democrat. It seems the enactment of this bill was
his way of attempting to kill the paper. However, the stated purpose
of the bill (ultimately made into law) was to prohibit ' undesirable
publications calculated to harm the national interest'. Bradshaw
denied that the new law would diminish press freedom on St Kitts-
Nevis.
One of the potentially dangerous internal security laws, designed
to muzzle the press, is the Seditious and Undesirable Publications
Act passed on Dominica in 1968. This law, which gives the authori-
ties broad powers of interpretation, provides for the closure of
suspected newspapers until a judicial decision can be reached, the
seizure or banning of imported or local publications, the banning
of publishers and editors from newsrooms for one year, the closure
of convicted newspapers for one year and the seizure of mail
suspected of containing prohibited publications. In addition, citizens
can be forced to surrender banned publications to the police; and
break/enter/search warrants can be used in the confiscation of
such materials. Edward Scobie, editor of the Dominica Herald,
has described how the act came about:

In 1968, the government was getting repeated criticism from the press,
especially from the Herald. The premier said that I was destroying
his image by talking of government incompetence. He tried to close
the paper in various ways, first by trying to entice me into giving it
up. He promised me he'd put me in charge of national radio or
commission me to write the island's history, if I gave the Herald up.
Then he tried to get at me on charges that the paper did not pay its
debts. When the Seditious and Undesirable Publications bill was
proposed, we three editors got together and campaigned. We said if
one of us was forced to close down, others would close with token
strikes.

While the bill was being debated in the House of Representatives,

Scobie, Chronicle editor S. A. W. Boyd, Star editors Robert and
58 JOHN A. LENT

Phyllis AUfrey and nearly 3,000 Dominicans demonstrated outside

the building. Despite this public reaction, the bill was only slightly
amended and passed. The resentment caused by the passage of the
sedition act encouraged the formation of the Freedom Party by
Scobie, the Allfreys and other anti-government sympathisers. The
main campaign issue of the Freedom Party in succeeding elections
was the sedition act. The law itself has never been repealed, but
neither has it been enforced, probably because it would make a
martyr of the press.
It is fair to say, however, that whereas most of these bills have
resulted from extreme government sensitivity to criticism, there
have also been occasions when island governments have initiated
press legislation because of serious threats to internal security.
After the black power revolt in Trinidad & Tobago in April
1970, emergency regulations were clamped on the mass media, as
they were on all sectors of society. In effect for approximately
seven months, the Emergency Powers Regulations were geared to
minimise publicity given to the April insurgents. For example, there
was a complete ban on the publication of pictures of the revolt
leaders (and their relatives), as well as any of their court testimony.
The media were allowed to identify the revolutionaries only by
their names, addresses, occupations, ages and the charges brought
against them. During this period, the government had the power
to control and censor media content and ban publication; however,
it did not use these powers despite critical comments in the press.
On the heels of the Trinidad & Tobago emergency came a pro-
posed Public Order Act which drew tremendous fire from citizens
of all walks of life. Among other rules, the proposed bill stated
that anyone publishing ' threatening, abusive or insulting' matter,
or distributing such literature at a public meeting or on a public
march, was subject to arrest. After much discussion, the bill was
dropped. However, in February 1972, the IAPA News reported
that a new sedition law had been enacted on Trinidad & Tobago
which the 'journalists of that country consider dangerous to the
free practice of their profession'.
Feeling a threat to internal security following black power demon-
strations in late 1970, and the nutmeg workers' and nurses' strikes
of early 1971, the Grenadian government proposed a strong amend-
ment to the Public Order Act, promulgated on that island in 1951.
The amendment stated that ' a person is guilty of an offence if
(a) he publishes or distributes written material which is threatening,
abusive or insulting, or (b) he uses in any public place or at any
public meeting or proceeding, words which are threatening, abusive
or insulting'. Persons found guilty of these offences are liable to a
fine not to exceed 52,500 (EC), or 12 months in prison, and not
less than $1,000 (EC), or six months in prison.
Other instances where states of emergency have hindered press
functioning have occurred in Jamaica, Antigua, Montserrat, Anguilla
and Bermuda, all in the late 1960s. During the Antigua state of
emergency, the Bird government summoned mass media personnel
 PRESS FREEDOM IN THE CARIBBEAN 59

to the premier's office to tell them what he expected to be published

and broadcast. When Bermuda was having race problems in the late
1960s, restrictions were placed on the reporting of events. An editor
of a black power paper, John H. Bassett, was jailed for inflammatory
writing. In fact, it was a crime to be found with a copy of Bassett's
paper. At the time of his arrest, Bassett remarked that it was im-
possible to get a fair trial in a ' fascist pig court'. A local radio
station and a newspaper that reported the statement were arraigned
along with Bassett.

Access to government information

In the Commonwealth Caribbean, coverage of the legislative and
judicial branches of government has in a number of cases been
hampered by laws promulgated to close legislative sessions or limit
reporters in their coverage of them.
Probably the law of this nature that has raised the most protest
from press circles is the Powers and Privileges Act, passed by the
Bahamian legislature in 1969. It stipulates that a reporter who
publishes a false or misleading report on legislative proceedings is
liable to contempt, and as a result can forfeit his right to cover
either chamber of government for a year. Once a reporter is banned,
all other staff members of his medium can be barred from legisla-
tive proceedings for the same period of time. In addition, no re-
course to a court of appeal is provided in such cases. Shortly after
the bill was passed, the speaker of the House informed reporters
that henceforth they would have to possess passes signed by him to
enter legislative sessions.
On other islands as well, rules tend to restrict, rather than facili-
tate, coverage of public meetings. For example, on St Kitts-Nevis
public meetings are not open to the media during non-election times;
on Anguilla, the Beacon has campaigned unsuccessfully to have
Council meetings open to the press and Council minutes available
for publication. On St Lucia, a number of people have requested
live broadcasts of debates in the House, but to no avail.
Newsmen in the Commonwealth Caribbean also face difficulties
in obtaining general information about government activities,
especially those of the executive branch. What news is forthcoming
is filtered through the tightly-knit government information services,
normally placed in the office of the head of government and
designed to provide information which the government feels the
mass media should have, not what they need. In numerous in-
stances, government information services monopolise the news flow
on islands with their one-sided propaganda messages. Thus, small
island media without adequate reportorial staffs find themselves
increasingly at the mercy of government monopolisation of news
flow.
No doubt the quality of the service provided by the Government
Information Services (GIS) varies, but to get an accurate assessment
of these agencies' role is extremely difficult in the islands. The GIS
60 JOHN A. LENT

people, of course, feel they are fulfilling great needs and talk about
meeting national goals, keeping a dialogue with media and the
public and remaining aloof from governmental interference. The
media personnel see GIS in a different light. Take the example of
St Vincent where the stated objectives of GIS are to 'protect the
government's policy adequately in economic development, educa-
tion, health and social development', to provide a means of expres-
sion for public reaction to government policies and to spearhead
general education among the masses. The director, Cameron King,
maintains that his staff tries to stay out of political election can-
vassing because in a ' small place like this, it is very easy to be
construed as being a political arm of government'. As for his
office's role vis-a-vis the government, King says that no-one from
the executive or legislative branches tries to 'poke anything down
GIS'S throat', that his office operates under set policies. But King is
answerable to the permanent secretary, who in turn is responsible
to the premier. On many issues GIS deals directly with the premier.
On the other hand, Weston H. Lewis, the editor of St Vincent's
only newspaper, said that although he gets a number of news releases
from GIS, most of them are of the political propaganda type. He
also said GIS has used reprisals against him for stories he has
written in his paper. Lewis said the GIS has deliberately withheld
information from! him, including announcements of ministerial
changes. 'The press here is not invited to many functions of
government. The House of Assembly agendas are no longer sent to
the media in advance, and during the last two debates I didn't even
receive the bills,' he added. The government public relations officer,
according to Lewis, is in control of the local broadcasting unit and
as a result, radio is full of government propaganda.
Little doubt exists as to the function of GIS on Grenada. Nearly
everyone, including the former director of the service, is in agree-
ment that GIS serves as a propaganda outlet for Premier Eric
Gairy. One source on the island provided this description of
Grenada's GIS:

GIS in Grenada is more highly stalled and more active than similar
services in other islands. That is why it seems that the government
controls media content here. It does. The GIS tries to give a release
on everything. Its rationale is that it is trying to supplement the poor
newsgathering on Grenada. Other news sources are just about dried
up here, so that the community now sends news tips directly to GIS.
Of course, not every item sent to GIS will be heard. The government
comes down hard on anyone who tries to hurt its image.

Almost immediately after assuming office, Gairy decided his

government did not need an information officer, but instead a
public relations officer who would be directly responsible to him.
From that point on, most releases emanating from the Grenadian
government were designed to promote Gairy's image, not that of the
government.
As an example, the only press release from GIS on 11 May
 PRESS FREEDOM IN THE CARIBBEAN 61

1971 was a 23-inch account of sporting events in which the premier

had participated. Excerpts follow:
The Premier and his team of ' Cavalier Cricketers ' continue to
dominate the cricket scene in Grenada .. . After being sent to bat
by skipper E. Gairy .. . Gairy, in the meantime, was on a length
with some medium-fast bowling that caused the Carriacou team to
panic . .. But Tyrone Harbin and E. Gairy came together and featured
in a fourth wicket stand. After the game, Premier Gairy described
the game as not an easy one and congratulated the opposing team on
their team spirit. On the more serious side, the Premier told the
Carriacouans that they are seeing for themselves progress on the
island which was never seen before . . . In lawn tennis, E. Gairy and
Paul Slinger beat . . .

A ridiculous characteristic of the press releases on Grenada is that

they are regarded as private communications between the premier
and the press on the island.
Reporters and editors on a number of islands complain that
public officials do not facilitate their obtaining timely, accurate and
detailed information about governmental happenings, this despite
the huge outpourings of the services. For example, the St Lucia
GIS sends out six to eighteen press release packets (each packet
containing six to eight stories) a week. In some instances, not even
these press releases are provided to newspapers that have been
critics of the government. The Grenada Vanguard is not provided
with GIS materials, nor is the Dominica Herald. The Antiguans
complain that the government press information officer, directly
under the premier, does not allow any government employees to
say anything to the press without the prior approval of the premier.
The Nassau Guardian feels it must resort to devious means to
obtain information from the Pindling government. Its editor said:
The government here passes the buck, and reporters are passed from
one man to another. So, when the Guardian cannot get confirmation
on the story, we run it as a rumour. The government immediately
comes out and denies the rumour and says we are trying to bring
down the government. On other occasions, when the government won't
talk, we go to the opposition for comment. Their anti-government
remarks usually elicit a response from the government.
Press conferences are not regular items on the schedules of officials
in the region. Press conferences are almost unknown in the Grenada
government and on Dominica the premier has not held a press con-
ference for over five years. Before the 1970 black power revolt on
Trinidad, Premier Williams also had not held a press conference for
over five years. However, from April to August 1970 he held four
such conferences. In the 1950s and the early 1960s, when he did
hold regular conferences, the media had complained that they were
only political propaganda sessions. In fact, in 1969 the Guardian,
Evening News and Radio Guardian had boycotted the Williams
press meetings, calling them 'propaganda conferences'. But this
did not deter Williams; he said the press conferences would continue
even if the press did not show up.
62 JOHN A. LENT

Economic pressures

Besides regulations against harmful publication and restrictions on

news flow, other governmental pressures are used to control infor-
mation considered discomforting or embarrassing to the authorities.
Among such pressures are the use of licensing and tax powers to
punish the media, the deportation of expatriate journalists critical
of island governments, the granting of governmental advertising and
printing contracts to favoured media, and the confiscation of
printing presses.
One of the chief ways a government can restrict mass communi-
cations is by bringing pressure to bear on the economic lifelines
of the media. In the Commonwealth Caribbean, most economic
restrictions on the mass media are imposed by controlling the issue
of printing and advertising contracts and by some licensing. Of
course, other methods have been applied, but usually in isolated
instances. In the Bahamas, for example, a Progressive Labour Party
official asked people not to advertise in the Tribune because it had
been unfriendly to the government. On Antigua, the minister of
commerce and industry told Antiguans not to buy shares in ZDK
radio, because the station is owned by the Bird family, opponents
of the present government.
Governmental withdrawal of printing contracts can be disastrous
to smaller island newspapers, heavily dependent upon this additional
source of income. Thus it was not surprising to hear the editor
of the Montserrat Mirror say that her paper ' never takes up serious
governmental matters in print because the print shop's biggest
customer is the government'. Experience has shown that island
governments will withdraw printing contracts from newspapers that
have been critical of them. The editor of the Grenada Torchlight
has seen this happen to his paper. Since it became critical of the
Gairy government, the Torchlight has noted a marked reduction in
the number of government printing orders received.
A more complex arrangement concerning governmental printing
contracts exists in the Bahamas. For years it was usual for the
government to publish tenders for the printing of its Bahamian
Times, the contract then going to the lowest bidder. The firm that
received the Times printing job was also contracted to print govern-
mental legal notices. Both the Nassau Tribune and Nassau Guardian
competed regularly and vigorously for the contract; in fact, both
were willing to print the government Times at their own expense,
in order to obtain the more lucrative legal notices contract. In
1969, however, the new deputy prime minister, feeling the Tribune
and Guardian were too critical of the government, arbitrarily
decided to give the printing contract for the Times to the Times
itself, and no bids went out. Of course, the Times did not have
printing facilities, so the Guardian was hired to print the govern-
ment paper. The whole point of this manoeuvre by the deputy
prime minister was to make sure that the Times retained the legal
notices contract. Thus, the dominant party-owned newspaper, pub-
 PRESS FREEDOM IN THE CARIBBEAN 63

lished twice weekly, printed the government legal notices that people
depended on daily.
There have not been many complaints from the press concerning
government advertisements, although in most cases they are not
distributed equitably. There have been cases where the government
has used the advertising contract as a control device. In 1964, the
Barbados Advocate-News lost all governmental advertising for a
short time, because the paper had advocated Federation in its
editorials, rather than national independence. Also, Sir Etienne
Dupuch of the Nassau Tribune has complained to the Inter Ameri-
can Press Association that the Bahamian government penalised his
paper by refusing to place advertisements in it.
On Dominica, the government sends most of its advertisements
to the Chronicle, which it considers the least objectionable of the
three weeklies on that island. The Grenada Vanguard does not
receive any governmental advertising support; for a while, even
businessmen would not advertise in the paper because of the fear
of governmental retribution. On the larger islands, newspapers do
not seem concerned about government advertising, probably
because they are not so heavily dependent upon it. In 1959, when
Eric Williams and the Trinidad Guardian were having heated
exchanges, the prime minister announced in a radio broadcast that
Trinidadian newspapers were subsidised by governmental advertis-
ing. The Guardian of 17 February 1959, replied editorially that the
charge was absurd.
Until 1971, most Commonwealth Caribbean mass media did not
see any real threats from their governments' use of tax and licence
powers. For example ZDK radio and ZAL-TV on Antigua pay
$1,000 (EC) and $5,000 (EC) annual licence fees respectively,
while no fee is required of the government station, Antigua Broad-
casting System. Radio and television personnel affected by the fee
really do not complain; they merely say that the government is not
about to tax itself.
But the response was different in 1971 when the Antiguan govern-
ment enforced the Newspaper Surety Ordinance and Newspaper
Regulations Act, both mentioned earlier. The $300 (us) annual
licence fee and $5,000 (us) surety bond required of newspapers
were seen as attempts to destroy the Antiguan oppositionist press.

Immigration control as a restraint on the press

Considered among the most menacing problems of the Common-

wealth Caribbean mass media are governmental attitudes concern-
ing expatriate journalists. On a number of occasions, governments
have denied work permit renewals to foreign-born journalists who
have been critical of official policy and action. In other cases, the
threat of work permit withdrawals hangs over the heads of a
number of island journalists. The Anguillan-born editor of the
opposition paper on St Kitts, for example, said he regularly receives
64 JOHN A. LENT

threats from government supporters who feel he must be shipped

home.
The editor of the St Lucia Crusader said the government has no
need to use legal means to restrict the media as long as there are
subtle controls through work permits: ' Most people who have been
concerned with the mass media have been expatriates. Government
gets at the media through these people.' In 1970, the St Lucian
government used the control by asking Barbadian-born Denzil
Agard, editor of Voice of St Lucia, to leave the island, after he had
been denied a work permit for criticising a cabinet minister's Labour
Day speech. Commenting on the Agard incident, the September
International Press Institute Report said St Lucian politicians
would not stand for criticism from outsiders.
Other examples abound in the region. On Dominica, the govern-
ment put pressure on expatriate newspapermen in 1964 by telling
them that if they expected to purchase local property, they must not
write critically about the government. In the same year, the Jamaican
attorney general sought to punish immigrants who wrote negatively
about the authorities, but refrained from taking any action when
the newspapers complained.
In 1967, the Barbados government refused a residence permit to
Ronald Batchelor, Reuter's Caribbean representative, because of
what government officials termed security reasons. The IAPA felt
the reason was that the prime minister had heard of Batchelor's
background reporting in the area and did not want him prying into
Barbadian governmental affairs. Reuter transferred Batchelor to
another area.
Immediately after the Antiguan elections of 1971, the new
Walter government deported Dorcas White, editor of the Antigua
Workers' Voice. Very little reason was given for the sudden interest
by the government in her lack of a work permit, but a number of
Antiguans assumed she was deported because of the editorials she
wrote and broadcast in the Voice and over ZDK radio.
Another occasion when the Antiguan government used the
denial of a work permit renewal to suppress a journalist occurred in
1968, when television commentator Bobby Margetson was forced
to leave the island for political broadcasts he made.
One of the founding editors of the Anguilla Beacon, Canon
C. R. G. Carleton, was forced off that island during its crises of
1969. The reason given by leader Ronald Webster was that he
wanted to get British subjects (Carleton was British) off the island
before British troops could use their evacuation as an excuse to
invade Anguilla. But Carleton feels that Webster wanted him out
of the way because Carleton was editing the Beacon and keeping
London newspapers informed of island happenings through letters
to the editor.
Probably the Commonwealth Caribbean journalists who feel they
have been hit hardest by the discriminatory use of immigration
laws are those in the Bahamas. A number of outsiders apparently
agree that the Bahamian press has been subjected to unnecessary
 PRESS FREEDOM IN THE CARIBBEAN 65

manpower restrictions. For example, IAPA News of October 1969

accused the Bahamian government of using immigration laws to
restrict recruitment of newspaper staff.
Most of the troubles between the Bahamian government and
the press started in 1969, at the time when the island's first black
government was seated. Using the rationale that he believed in a
free press, but not in the ' right to distort', the new prime minister,
Lynden O. Pindling, helped pass the Powers and Privileges Act of
1969. The original wording would have given the speaker of the
legislature (who characterised newsmen as 'evil pushers of the
pen') the right to bar indefinitely from the islands any dissenting
reporter. After IAPA protests, the act was amended to give reporters
a second chance, but only if their reportorial error was minor, not
deliberate, and if the paper published a satisfactory apology.
Since then, the Pindling government has forced one newspaper
general manager to leave, threatened to expel the editor of the
Grand Bahama Tribune and boosted the cost of annual work
permits from $30 to $150 (Bahamian). Chris Evans, the British-
born general manager of the Nassau Guardian, said he was given
less than a year to replace himself with a Bahamian. In April 1971,
when his work permit was not renewed, he left the island. Among
other cases, the chief reporter on the Guardian was given a work
permit for six months, but before two months had elapsed he
received notice he must be replaced by a Bahamian.
Sir Etienne Dupuch, editor-proprietor of the Tribune, threatens
to close the Grand Bahama Tribune for lack of staff. His editor
there, Bernard Murphy, who operates the paper virtually single-
handedly, is also having troubles getting his work permit renewed
and faces expulsion by the government. As Dupuch has pointed
out in numerous emotion-laden editorials in the Nassau Tribune,
the Bahamian government insists that newspapers use local person-
nel when such trained people are not available. The work permit
renewal dilemma confronts the Nassau Tribune as well. For
example, Dupuch's British-born son-in-law, an editor of the Tribune,
cannot get his work permit renewed. Because of Dupuch's criticism
of the government, the Bahamian Senate in 1968 unsuccessfully
sought to censure the editor.

Public denunciations and intimidation

Government officials in the islands regularly denounce the mass
media on public platforms. This is especially true during election
campaigns. Sometimes the denunciations take the form of veiled
threats and intimidating words; most of the time, however, they are
only part of the standard political rhetoric. One gets the impression
that to chastise the mass media publicly is as much a part of the
political meeting format as the hymns, steel bands and long speeches.
In. only a very few cases do the politicians or government officials
attempt to carry out their threats.
Probably the man who has been most active in taunting the mass
66 JOHN A. LENT

media is Eric Williams, prime minister of Trinidad & Tobago.

Although he has let up a little now that his government owns
Trinidad & Tobago National Broadcasting System and Trinidad &
Tobago Television, for years Williams strongly castigated both the
foreign and domestic mass media. His favourite target was the
Trinidad Guardian, which at various times he accused of concealing
his speeches, scaring away foreign investors and peddling United
States and British propaganda. At one time he told his party leaders
to attack the Guardian ' without mercy'; on another occasion he
threatened to cancel the annual beauty queen contest sponsored by
that paper. He has used an assortment of dramatic acts to get his
point across to the public. While speaking in Port of Spain's
Woodford Square (Williams calls this his ' University of Woodford
Square'), the prime minister has shown his distaste for the Guardian
by cleaning his shoes with it, and on one occasion by burning
copies of the paper and consigning it to hell.
There are some who believe that Williams' constant haranguing
is having some effect upon the public and the media themselves. In
1959 when Trinidadian reporters were being intimidated by political
hooligans, the Guardian of 20 October attributed this action to
Williams' stirring up hate for the press. Ten years later, the IAPA
felt the media themselves had been affected by the public denuncia-
tions. ' There is known censorship carried out by all media because
of fear of reprisals from both government and business interests,'
the IAPA News on October 1969 reported.
Media on the other large islands also hear governmental threats
shouted from the political platform, but so far no government
seems to have done anything about the threats. On most of the
smaller islands, however, not only are public denunciations of the
mass media quite frequent, but, in some cases, they cannot be taken
lightly. For example, Antiguan government officials frequently
announced they would introduce legislation against the opposition
media before they finally enacted the Newspaper Surety Ordinance
and Newspaper Regulations Act. In early 1971, the Walter govern-
ment there warned that it would legislate against the Workers'
Voice to keep it from abusing cabinet ministers. In fact, ex-news-
paperman George Walter himself said he would close any papers
that attacked his ministers. Meanwhile the Antiguan minister of
public utilities used another political meeting platform in 1971 to
tell his audience that Reuben Harris, columnist and part owner of
the Antigua Times, owed $3,000 (EC) in electricity bills. He warned
that if the bills were not paid the next morning, Harris' electricity
would be stopped and he would have to use a paraffin lamp to write
his column. Harris replied in print that, once adjusted, the sum he
owed was actually $33.21.
Recent developments on St Kitts have also deterred press person-
nel from shrugging off government threats to the media. St Kitts
Democrat editor, Nathaniel Hodge, for example, said that constant
verbal attacks by the government do not allow him to feel free to
say what he wants. He cited two incidents that have intimidated the
 PRESS FREEDOM IN THE CARIBBEAN 67

media of that island. In 1967, Bradshaw's Labour Party accused a

number of opposition party leaders of conspiracy to overthrow the
government. Twenty-two people were imprisoned for five months.
Among them was the leader of the opposition, Dr William Herbert,
who also owns the Democrat. Although there were no newsmen
among the twenty-two arrested, the link-up between Dr Herbert,
the opposition party and the Democrat had an intimidating effect
upon the paper's staff. The other incident occurred in 1969. Vivienne
Fieulleteau, then editor of the Democrat, was charged with con-
spiracy and libel for an article she printed. The Bradshaw govern-
ment said Miss Fieulleteau knew who had written the article, but
refused to reveal her source. A great deal of apprehension surroun-
ded the case, which she subsequently won. However, because of this
incident and the numerous attacks and threats on her by the
government, she decided to leave the island in 1969.
On Dominica, government officials have also publicly denounced
the opposition press. At various times, speakers have instructed the
people not to read the Herald and Premier E. O. Le Blanc has
threatened publicly to ' make the Herald inactive' because of its
anti-government articles. One government official showed his scorn
for the Herald by tearing up a copy at a political meeting.
Edward Scobie, Herald editor, thinks government action of this
type has an effect upon the public. He said he receives anonymous
letters from government supporters, threatening to burn his press
building and kill him. During the last elections, Scobie, a candidate
for public office, said he was stoned at public gatherings. The other
opposition paper on Dominica, the Star, has also been the subject
of the government's thundering against media on the political plat-
form. However, Star editor Phyllis Allfrey said the use of irony in
her stories makes it difficult for government officials to attack her
paper. She said, ' for a politician to explain to the illiterate com-
mon man how the Star has done the politician dirt is difficult when
the story is couched in irony'.

Fairness and equal time in broadcasting

Most broadcasting stations in the Commonwealth Caribbean operate
under government regulations, usually dealing with advertising con-
tent, a situation not much different from broadcasting in other
nations. Where Commonwealth Caribbean governments probably
exceed their bounds, however, is in their enactment of regulations
to control political content. The fact that a number of broadcasting
units are owned by governments necessitates the setting up of clearly
denned rules on political broadcasts, but they should be fairly and
equitably applied. Most broadcasting systems in the region either
have a set of regulations to provide equal time, or avoid the issue
by banning all political broadcasts, or completely ban the opposition
from their programmes.
Among stations making an effort to provide equal time are those
on the Bahamas, St Vincent and Jamaica, ZNS in the Bahamas
68 JOHN A. LENT

provides equal time to the opposition to the extent that if a govern-

ment report is aired, the opposition is given a chance to respond.
On the other hand, the station also grants the government the right
to respond to newscasts which might be hazy about government
action. Immediately following the newscast, the government has the
option to prepare a three-minute commentary on the news, if it
feels an explanation of government policy is needed. On St Vincent,
fairness is exercised both during election and non-election periods,
each party being allowed to broadcast for equal amounts of time
announcements of their meetings and campaigns. To take another
example, Radio Jamaica specifies that political parties can buy
15-minute segments up to a certain maximum, depending on the
number of members the party has in Parliament.
Among broadcasting units that avoid all politically oriented
information is ZAL-TV on Antigua. Under the terms of its licence,
the station is not allowed to broadcast any political information or
announcements. This becomes a difficult task in an area such as
Antigua, where nearly anything can be termed political. St Lucia
WIBS has been instructed by the premier on that island not to
broadcast any political materials at all, not even announcements of
political party meetings, ZDK on Antigua is allowed to broadcast
announcements of political meetings, but nothing more political
than that.
At least four government-owned stations fall into the latter cate-
gory, not feeling it necessary to practise equal time objectives; they
don't allow the opposition any air time. On Grenada, the situation
has been so unfair that, during parliamentary debate, only the
government arguments were broadcast. After much criticism, the
Grenadian government consented to allow the opposition party one
half-hour of time during legislative broadcasts. Opposition party
announcements and advertisements are not accepted by Grenada
broadcasting. In 1971, the announcement of the death of the oppo-
sition party leader was not permitted to be broadcast by the station.
The situation on Dominica is similar. Dominica broadcasting
director Jeff Charles described the use the government makes of his
station:

No matter how much the opposition party begs, it cannot obtain

air time on WIBS. The government, on the other hand, uses the
station regularly. A year ago, government used the station for its own
purposes more than now. Government officials would come to the
studio to tape speeches or to borrow one of our tape recorders. Some
ministers pressured WIBS to put their speeches on the air without
enough warning to avoid upsetting our programme format.

The opposition is not provided broadcasting time over government-

owned ziz on St Kitts-Nevis. The station claims it does not get
involved in any political broadcasting, but Kittitians say this is not
true. For example, in 1967, Premier Robert Bradshaw went on the
air to accuse the opposition party, PAM, of trying to overthrow his
government, PAM was denied rebuttal time. Until 1971, Antigua
 PRESS FREEDOM IN THE CARIBBEAN 69

Broadcasting System did not allow opposition parties to have broad-

casting facilities. Even parliamentary proceedings were edited to
keep the opposition voice off the air. Neither announcements of
opposition party meetings, nor the opposition's paid advertisements,
were welcomed at ABS. According to a government broadcaster,
these policies have been relaxed since the Walter government came
to power in 1971. On the other hand, the opposition claims that not
much has changed.

Conclusion
The serving of political goals has always been the chief mission of
a large section of the Commonwealth Caribbean mass media. This
role has been intensified as the larger islands received their inde-
pendence in the 1960s. The difference, however, is that a larger
proportion of the media, having come under government or domi-
nant political party control, no longer spend much time serving
opposition political goals. Also, more and more media are becoming
heavily dependent upon the government that is providing them with
newsgathering and distribution services, as well as advertising and
printing contracts. Those media in the region still retaining inde-
pendent or opposition characteristics are seen to pose a threat to
newly-developed cultures that are extremely immature and unstable
and sensitive to criticism. The result has been numerous instances
of suppression by Commonwealth Caribbean authorities.
This swing to authoritarian governmental practices is likely to be
augmented as more islands seek independence in the next decade.
The Bahamas recently voted for independent status; others will
follow. As they do, it is very likely that governments, being the
largest, most financially secure and powerful institutions in the
region, will through their expansion of government information
services take over the role traditionally played by private media
enterprises. A number of islands already have increased budgetary
allocations for their GIS operations. In other cases, nationalistic
governments, under the guise of keeping out foreign ownership and
management and expatriate journalists, will nationalise the mass
media.
With the current abridgement of press freedom in many parts of
the western world, particularly in the United States, the young
governments of the Commonwealth Caribbean, great imitators of
the West, will find ready rationales for restricting freedom of the
press. At the same time, the island governments will continue to use
the deliberately guided press concept, again borrowed - this time
from African and Asian nations. The mass media in the region see
the handwriting on the wall. Realising that they cannot continue
their severe criticism of governments without risking serious reper-
cussions, a number of mass media are initiating self-regulatory
guidelines. This is all well and good as long as the guidelines are
from within media ranks, and initiated voluntarily, not because of
government threats. However, in territories such as the Common-
70 JOHN A. LENT

wealth Caribbean, where government ownership is so prevalent, one

must question whether the press is regulating itself, or whether
government is regulating the entire press through its own media
outlets and agencies.
The deliberately guided press concept of the Commonwealth
Caribbean and the developing world generally may have merits,
but one readily recognises it as a modified form of authoritarianism.
It is a very idealistic principle that assumes that men in power will,
of their own volition, lessen press restrictions once their govern-
ments are more stable and national goals have been met In the
emerging Commonwealth Caribbean, where authoritarian person-
alities have been in control of the islands for long periods of time,
such a philosophy would seem to strengthen their rule and per-
petuate them in office for even longer. •

'Clockwork Orange' to blame

The violent film A Clockwork Orange was in the mind of a
boy aged 16 who beat an elderly tramp to death, it was alleged
at Oxford Crown Court. The only money the tramp, Mr David
McManus, aged 60, had (Hp) was missing when his body was
searched, Mr John Owen, for the prosecution, said. The boy,
who comes from Bletchley, Buckinghamshire, was sentenced
to be detained during her Majesty's pleasure for murder. He
had pleaded guilty.
The boy told the police that his friends had told him about
the film 'and the beating up of an old boy like this one'.
Mr Owen said: ' If this was robbery, it was all for 1£p or it
may have been carried out for excitement as a result of the
film. If so, the makers of the film have much to answer for.' It
seemed as if momentarily the devil had been planted in this
boy's subconscious.
The irresistible conclusion is that it was the influence of
this book. Many people have much to answer for, whether
they be authors, film directors, television producers or those
who allowed those films to be shown. He continued:
' It has produced a canker among the impressionable young,
which all reasonable people desire to see stamped out at
once.'
Mr Roger Gray, for the defence, said: 'The link between
this crime and sensational literature, particularly A Clockwork
Orange, is established beyond any reasonable doubt.'

The Times, 5 July 1973.