Intellectual dishonesty in the Jamaican media- the case of Ken Chaplin

Ken Chaplin, a columnist with the Observer has written two columns recently on the PSC/Vasciannie issue. The first was published on December 25, 2007, and was entitled Golding, PSC, and the Opposition. The second was published on January 08, 2008 and entitled Fight over control of public service.

Both these columns symbolize the intellectual dishonesty that prevails in the Jamaican media.




In these columns, Chaplin has largely justified the government's position, citing among other things:

1. The partisan nature of the PSC;

2. A convention of resignations by the PSC upon a change of government;

3. The supposed animosity between the PM and Stephen Vasciannie;

4. The alleged misbehaviour of the PSC that warranted its dismissal;

5. Partisan lawyers in the AG's Chambers.


Following Chaplin's first column, I faxed him a note (see previous post), pointing out several mistakes of facts and analysis. I know he received the note because I called him to confirm receipt. Despite the information provided to Chaplin, he has persisted in propagating the same nonsense. For example, he continues to insist on the existence of a convention of resignations, when I have clearly demonstrated that it does not, and cannot exist. He now baldly claims that all the members of the PSC except for Alfred Sangster were either rabid PNP supporters or sympathizers. Chaplin advances no evidence in support of this claim. The question I would put to him is this: even if all of the PSC members were indeed rabid PNP supporters, has this negatively impacted on the discharge of their responsibilities? Did this PSC habitually select persons for public service based on party affiliation instead of merit? Of course, Chaplin completely ignores the fact that these so-called PNP-packed PSC was appointed on a bipartisan formula of consensus, based on the Vale Royal talks of 2005. This is a singularly powerful example of Chaplin's intellectual dishonesty at work. His dishonesty and indeed maliciousness is no less in his characterization of the lawyers of the AG's Chambers as being partisan. Frankly, I think this allegation borders on defamation.

What does Chaplin say now about the new PSC? Isn't this PSC more likely to be labelled a JLP PSC given the circumstances of its appointment? Does Chaplin imagine this PSC to take any decisions that go against the wishes of the JLP government? Again, the intellectual dishonesty is stifling.

Chaplin, like other "journalists" of his ilk have become just as tribal as the politicians they criticize. What irks me is none of them are honest enough to declare their interest or agenda. I fully expect opinion journalists to express their opinions, but for God sake, I don't expect them to wilfully ignore the facts in the process.