Introduction to Journalism Assignment # 1 Research and Analysis

—Two journalists are in a newsroom having an argument. One argues that it is important to understand the historical context of societies of the world in their journalistic practices. This journalist insists that historical knowledge about power and politics are critical components of the practice of journalism. The second journalist argues that knowledge of the past is not important. He believes that politics and politicians are corrupt and not worth examining in present-day journalistic activities. He feels strongly that what is important is being accurate about the story being told in the present day and that history is immaterial. o Write an essay critically discussing the perspectives of both journalistsstating clearly your perspective on the matter and explain why you hold that perspective.

To do so you MUST: o Access, read and make reference to Robert Buddan’scolumn in the In Focus section of the Sunday Gleaner of January 23, 2011 and the front page story regarding the sale of Sandals Whitehouse in the Sunday Herald of the same date. o Use these articles to provide examples for your argument. o You must cite the opinions of at least two authors of books on journalism in this discussion. WEBSITE REFERENCES WILL ONLY BE ACCEPTED IF THEY ARE FROM SCHOLARLY JOURNALS, OR IN ADDITION TO THE BOOK CITATIONS, BUT NOT AS ALTERNATIVE SOURCES.

• •

4 - 7 pages, Times new roman or arial 12 point, double spaced here is the link to the first article the second article


Party and commission: The Manatt pickle Published: Sunday | January 23, 2011 5 Comments

A masked man places a cross taken from a tomb in the nearby May Pen Cemetery atop a van used to blockade an entrance to Tivoli Gardens from Spanish Town Road during last May's west Kingston unrest. - File The commission of enquiry into the Manatt, Phelps & Phillips engagement by the Government of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) has begun its hearing. The issues being investigated are important in their own right. They can tell us much about how our Government works or has been

working. There are inner conflicts and contradictions that we should know about. Governing cannot be taken for granted. Much about how well we govern ourselves depends on how well Government is structured and operated. It is early days yet in the hearing, although some of the revelations about how the Government has been working are already intriguing. The revelations will also reflect a deeper history of the JLP and of how things have come to be the way they are, that is, how the party got to this Manatt controversy in the first place. It is not just the history of the Manatt issues that is important to know but the history of the party and the forces that have come to surround it. It is those forces that ought really to be understood from this enquiry. Much commentary has justifiably centred on the commission, its members and remit. But it is not out of place to comment on the JLP itself because, ultimately, it is the party and Government that are being investigated. There is a history to them. Party History The JLP rests on at least four different and conflicting foundations. There is the well-known labour foundation that is represented by the Bustamante Industrial Trade Union (BITU). This is the original foundation cast by the founder himself, Alexander Bustamante, as leader of the working people of the 1930s and 1940s. This is the foundation that gave the party its very name, 'labour'. But that foundation has, in effect, been eclipsed by other foundations. Almost immediately after the first general election in 1944, the party underwent a partial metamorphosis. The upper classes, whose parties had done badly in elections in 1944 and 1949, began to infiltrate the JLP. Those behind the Jamaica Democratic Party and the Farmer's Party identified with the more populist but conservative JLP to oppose the socialist PNP. This was the second foundation. The party became a strange alliance between the working class and the merchant class. By the 1950s, the PNP had come to see the JLP less as a party of the workers and more as a party of merchants. The third foundation was the Western Kingston/Tivoli Gardens garrison constituency established by Edward Seaga in the 1960s. It was a new and dangerous element in Jamaican politics and in two-party competition. It became a powerful part of the JLP alliance. Seaga needed his own independent base, and this was it. To the working class and the business class was added the underclass, the tough urban street-fighting lumpenproletariat (as Europeans call such types).

The fourth foundation is the modern business class that, in effect, threw out Edward Seaga but did not give up Western Kingston. Nor did it break with the BITU. The BITU had long since eschewed any pretence of working-class radicalism and was no threat to the business class. The business class, old money and new, merchant, manufacturer and modern service sector had long learned to live with the Western Kingston underclass as long as it was controlled politically. The business class could talk glibly and hypocritically about crime and its links with politics, but it lived comfortably with it and looked the other way. There ought to have been a fifth JLP foundation, the National Democratic Movement (NDM). But that never materialised. It was to have been Golding's foundation when he re-entered the JLP. It was upon the NDM's reformism that he appeared, to some, to have made himself worthy of the JLP's leadership. But the re-entry was troubled from the start. To the NDM faithful, it represented Golding's sellout. To the Seaga-JLP, it represented betrayal. This included Tivoli forces under Christopher Coke. But to the business class who wanted to be rid of Seaga, Golding's embrace would bring big money into the party to finally defeat the PNP, especially after Portia Simpson Miller became PNP leader. The Portia Factor The Portia factor actually threw the JLP to desperate measures. The JLP won the 2007 election. But it was forced to do so with an alliance that was always contradictory and difficult to hold together. In this alliance, anyone was acceptable on any term; any promise could be made and any vote bought. It was the only way to defeat Portia. The JLP won the elections but lost virtue. The election victory was so slim that the alliance was particularly fragile. It had to be defended at all cost because the Portia factor was always threatening. The JLP was afraid of Portia's power and was always looking over its shoulder at what she might do with her popularity. Golding was also sensitive to the perception that he had betrayed Seaga and Tivoli. And, he had never been put under any pressure by the business sponsors over his links with Tivoli and its shadowy underworld. He, therefore, tried to have it all ways. It was this state of mind that the party was in when the extradition request for Coke came. Golding would defend Coke. But after this became a public scandal, the whole matter descended rapidly into one about which personalities played what role to defend Coke; misused what offices in the process; betrayed whose trust; and lied about it. This is what the commission of enquiry is trying to determine. This will tell us something about Government and those who run it. Impact on Government

Already, it has told us some intriguing things. In fact, Ambassador Coye, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, said on day one of the enquiry that the first delegation sent to meet with United States authorities on the extradition matter was effectively hijacked and ended up at the offices of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. As far as she was concerned, it was a government delegation, not a JLP mission. So, right away the GOJ and Manatt had been engaged. An American had been surreptitiously inserted into the delegation on the authority, according to Coye, of the attorney general. The AG is, of course, answerable to the prime minister, who had subsequently threatened that she had to quit office if she had signed the order to extradite Coke. This is damning enough, and this was just on day one. There is stress in other parts of the alliance as well. At its last conference, the JLP found it necessary to have a BITU speaker to pacify the working class which is under strain from 13 quarters of no growth. We now hear that there are more rounds of price increases to come this year. At the same time, other parts of the alliance are being further exposed. The Office of the Contractor General has spoken of serious irregularities and impropriety surrounding the Government's proposed sale of its shares in Sandals Whitehouse to Gordon 'Butch' Stewart's company. Golding has failed badly to hold this impossibly contradictory and opportunistic alliance together. The enquiry will reveal more about how these contradictions have impacted on how Government works.

• OCG cites raft of irregularities and improprieties

2nd Article

One week after announcing that Cabinet has approved the proposed sale of the five-star SandalsWhitehouse hotel to Gordon Butch Stewart's company, Gorstew Limited, the Bruce Golding administration must now consider whether it should obey recommendations from the Office of the Contractor General (OCG) to halt the sale. Citing a raft of irregularities and improprieties, Contractor General Greg Christie on Wednesday urged the government to "take all appropriate and urgent measures to bring an immediate halt to the current proposed divestment of the SandalsWhitehouse hotel to Gorstew Limited." Christie, who started probing the sale, after the SundayHerald alerted the country to secret talks to sell the property to Gorstew, reminded Golding that his (Golding's) condition that Stewart should drop all claims including a US$28 million law suit before any negotiations, remain unfulfilled. The Contractor General noted that "for reasons, which are not clear to the OCG, the government has curiously confined its efforts to sell the hotel exclusively to Gorstew Limited and, in so doing, has failed to take advantage of its rights under the relevant lease agreement to test the open marketplace for alternative buyers as well as for potential openmarket valuations and sales prices, despite having had the opportunity to do so." The foregoing concerns, Christie pointed out, "are heightened when one considers that the proposed deal, which is to be consummated between the government and Gorstew, makes provision for the government's grant to Gorstew of a Vendor's mortgage for as much as US$32.5 million of the US$40 million sale price, with provision for the amount to be repaid in 30 equal quarterly instalments, over 7 years, at an interest rate of 6% per annum." Shrouded in controversy Christie said the highly questionable and controversial circumstances, which attended the failure of the agreements, pursuant to which the government had initially sold the Ackendown lands in Westmoreland to Gorstew for Gorstew and the government's subsequent joint-venture rescue interventions to secure the construction of the hotel utilizing public funds, which resulted in massive costs and time overruns, "the OCG feels obliged, in the public interest, to fully investigate the circumstances which have now surrounded the proposed divestment of the hotel to Gorstew." The construction of the SandalsWhitehouse hotel, on the south western coast of the island, was one which was shrouded in controversy from the start, and which subsequently gave rise to the conduct of a Special OCG Investigation into the matter in 2006.

The OCG's investigation found disturbing conflicts of interest in the award of government contracts, which were associated with the hotel's construction, breaches of the government's Procurement Procedures and, most importantly, major changes in the scope of works of the project, which resulted in massive costs and time overruns and the establishment of an upscale five-star luxury hotel in the place of what was previously budgeted to be a family-type resort hotel. Prior to that in 1990, the government sold 287 acres of its Ackendown property in Westmoreland to Gorstew Limited for US$6 million. The 287acre Ackendown property, which includes prime beachfront lands, was sold by the UDC to Gorstew on condition that Gorstew would have commenced construction of a 200 to 300-room hotel on the property by June 1991, and complete same by November 1992, at its cost. The agreement also stipulated that if the agreed construction did not take place as arranged, the UDC could rescind the agreement and refund to Gorstew, the amount paid for the land, less 10 per cent, which would be forfeited. Despite the foregoing, Gorstew did not commence construction of the hotel until October 1998, and, having done so, construction was halted because of lack of funding. Substantial changes The OCG's investigation in 2006 confirmed that approximately US$22 million of the project's US$39 million overrun in projected construction costs was attributed by the project's quantity surveyor to a substantial change in the scope of works component items. These items included the hotel's room blocks, its central facilities and its external works, and included changes, which were occasioned by the upgrade from the 'Beaches' design concept to the luxury 'Sandals' concept. The remaining US$17 million of the established costs overruns was found to have been occasioned partly by the project's time overruns as well as by certain project management and administration deficiencies. Referring to Golding's assertion that there was no mystique surrounding the deal, Christie said there was a "strong aura of mystique" and secrecy associated with the government's discussions and negotiations surrounding the sale of the hotel. Christie supported his claim by pointing to the government's nondisclosure of the matter to the OCG prior to January 5, 2011, more than eight months after Cabinet's decision to proceed with the matter was arrived at in April last

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful