Read on Twitter
It is time to look beyond green and orange, suss and rumour, verandah and armchair expertise and realise we cannot rabidly damage reputations daily under the disguise of "accountability"....and we must expect journalists/journalism to guide our information, not add to its mystery
Editorialising in journalism is pretty much just introducing opinions into factual accounts...I'll just get it out the way early....HOW do you have an explanation in the article for why the procurement committee changed their stance, but say "seemingly convinced"? Is that right?
I forgot to tag @owenjamesja @marciaforbes in this...the public ran with rumour and suss in a matter and I'm disappointed journalists didn't apply the right route, but instead followed the rumour train...days after we see a hint of what should have been the root of this story
Instead of trying to make "facts" of a "relationship" become the basis for the story, wasn't the PS a good person and place to start by asking if the contract followed procedure? If it didn't, why not? If it did, what is the next thing? Was there value for money etc? More to ask
How is there an article stating a procurement committee initially decided against a ministry using a company...a document you say you received stating this...and all now yuh nuh tell readers WHY they voted against it? Was it cost, incompetence, breach of procedure etc? WHY?
If it was important to state they voted against it, tell the public WHY...and yet there is a bit of explanation how ministry officials defended their argument...we should assume what they said is why the committee changed their position?
When the committee voted against using the company was it the 1st time the ministry had used the company? If not, on what basis did the committee approve them for prior work? Were they satisfied by time it came to using them again or did they want to use a different company? Why?
If the company had run an entire national campaign satisfactorily in every way using their strategies, ideas etc why would you not continue to use them on the SAME campaign? How could a committee expect next renewal time for others to bid to do the SAME contract in the SAME way?
Based on the article ministry officials reminded the committee a new company would have to come and do exactly what was done before in strategy, ideas, delivery...so HOW and WHY should/could another company be hired to execute ANOTHER COMPANY'S WORK?
Is it unusual/untoward for a procurement committee to vote against something that works well? Oh, we wouldn't know WHY because we still haven't been told...with all the ray ray around the company it seems all around people believe the national campaign was great? So what's up?
If journalists can insert suggestive terms like "entanglement", innuendos about "relationships" and ask about "cheating" while seeking info about a contract award to a company contracted for years in government...should former ministry heads/ministers be asked the same thing?
Should Lisa Hanna now be asked "did you sleep with a director/s of this company for them to get contracts?" Should any other ministry and its officials be asked? Is it "journalism" to sully public officials, professionals and damage families to further suss, rumour and ray ray?
People expect to get FACTS from the media...not personal opinions in the middle of facts, not innuendo led by public sentiment, not catering to lascivious and salacious tabloid tendencies...however, we can resurrect XNews and create that needed space
Btw...if it took my friend George to bat at the wicket for inelegant behaviour, while a reporter who defended it has not...well...and if a reporter made a statement/question to include a colleague and he/she doesn't disassociate from it...we can only assume he/she endorsed it
