An olive branch Mr Prime Minister? How a communicator would advise Mr. Manning
I am being presumptuous, I know. But if I was to advise the Prime Minister on the brewing controversy, I would certainly tell him this.....
"Honourable Sir,
As a professional communicator I couldn't help but cringe over the way you handled the inappropriate comments made by the two radio announcers recently.
But what was done, is done and now you must seek a way to move forward.
You did wrong Sir. It is best to face it. Given your stature of your office and personality, an apology may be out of character and appear to be inauthentic. May I advise Sir that you extend the olive branch in other ways. I would humbly suggest a direct, face-to-face meeting with the executive of MATT; a reassurance that your government understands the role of a free and unencumbered media in a democracy
This meeting must work two ways though. And the media should recognise that in the controversy there is a bigger story about standards and responsibilities when they stand on their varied soap boxes. In your messaging, feel to press the media to adopt and share policy guidelines. Challenge MATT to be more vigilant.
This shouldn’t be too difficult Sir. It will win you points. It may send a strong message that your relationship with the media is turning a corner. And depending on the sincerity with which you communicate it, it may even guarantee you some positive headlines
Mr Prime Minister, respect can be legislated. Look across the pond. Ask Obama. Respect has to be earned across the divide of race, gender, religion and yes, even incompetence (again, these announcers clearly were wrong ).
Finally Sir, I would ask that you trust your Minister of Communications. Don't make his office a mockery. Communicators are (generally) trained spokespersons with the required skills to communicate tough messages with diplomacy and tact. Might I even say, taste? We are concerned with solid messaging, advocacy and the preservation of key stakeholder relationships.
A phone call to your Minister should have sufficed. May I also suggest a meeting with him, one that is focused on relationship building, policy articulation (who says what, when) and oh yes, trust.
http://www.mangomediacaribbean.com/blog/trackback.cfm?904F1E32-3048-2D03-0A8DEAFB8C615EA9
Judette Coward Puglisi (MSc, Dip IR, BA), Managing Director. Find out more 
And I think the Prime Minister went to that station on purpose to create this brouhaha...the PM often does not do things without carefully planning out the effect he wants...
I think he maybe a bit more Shrewd than we give him credit for
But this is some sound advice
Which raises this issue, why in the world did he do it knowing the brouhaha it would have caused?
i think it's a red herring in some way
a diversion to something else. I do not believe for a second he went down there all huffing and puffing...
The PM should have handled the situation differently, everyone agrees with that. I think the media has not taken enough of an issue or a stance in stating their position, this is frightening, especially when one considers the beast that the media is. The media is the most powerful tool in communcations, and need to stand up for what is right, if not only for what they believe in.
An olive branch is so easy to do, yet can speak more than a thousand words, but inevitably would suggest an apology which we know ain't forthcoming. In the meantime we sit by an allow the man WE appointed as boss to run a democratic press. Governmentatily at best.
Media deregulation is part of the problem, too much competition can lead to decreased standards especially with the amount of radio stations and in an attempt to maintain market share 'mauvais lang' seems to take precedent with some stations over professional journalism (note I said some).
I agree the PM should have followed a process (MATT, TTPBA, TATT) if felt that he was wronged by the radio station, that's what democracy is all about - the same way we as citizens have to follow a process if let's say become victims of crime, We can't (unfortunately) take the law in our own hands. Would like to see something positive come out of this rather than more conflict.
We're also planning a general meeting of the membership to discuss other possible steps we could or should take. NB: MATT is not a trade union but a professional association.
Judette: the MATT executive would certainly be willing to meet the PM. It would be great to have the opportunity to sugest that if he's troubled by what he considers low standards in the media, perhaps the government could offer scholarships to journalists (once there were no strings attached) or give incentives to media houses that invest in training for their staff (which they have always shied away from and regarded simply as a cost).
But even here the rules that govern what may or may not be said during a newscast are up to the individual media house (within the confines of law, good taste, etc). I don't know what guidelines 94.1 sets for itself or how seriously the station or anyone else takes its news.
But that's a matter for the station & doesn't necessarily have anything to do with its standards. And a lapse on the part of one media house certainly doesn't lead to the logical conclusion that standards are unacceptably low in every branch of the media in the country.
And even if 94.1 had been completely out of place, that doesn't mean it was acceptable for the PM to take the unheard-of step of going to the station to complain.
Re the Mirror, that the PM disagreed with its interpretation of events doesn't ipso facto mean it was illegal or that he has the slightest grounds for legal action. It will be interesting to see what his lawyers have to say.
Training and scholarships are tangible things and can be easily invested in by the Government, after all an educated citizenry is one of the tenents of Vision 2020. Plus training programmes will have real benefit to one of the Government's principle stakeholders, the media. In the world of communications this would be an excellent case of corporate partnering and social responsibility.
Might I include your suggestion in a letter I wish to write to the editor, attributing it to you?
Laura, I am thinking of a letter to the editor? Maybe via the Express given their front page editorial..what do you think?
They must remember that they influence the minds of many people more so on the radio than from any other medium. So what they say must be carefully thought out and phrased etc. The chat shows seem to be getting out of hand with sometimes many inappropriate comments.
There must also be great respect for our leaders even if they are being criticized. More attention must be paid on what is being communicated on our airwaves,while still maintaining "Freedom of the press." It is not so much what you say but how you say it as my mother used to tell me.
Judette, may i suggest you send it to all press, let it be at the front burner.
Also, please note that I don't necessarily agree with the view that the announcers' comments were inappropriate. As I said, I think that's up to the media house concerned.
And I'm not sure why you'd want to tell the PM to challenge MATT to be more vigilant. It's not MATT's job to police the media; that's what TATT & the Media Complaints Council are for. If MATT is to be vigilant about anything, it's to ensure that the freedom of the press is not threatened or further constrained.
Also, Neil Parsanlal is Min of Info, not communications.
if we forget (if only for an instant, since longer could be fatal) the lessons history has taught us all re fourth estate censureship, how is P's outburst (calculated or not) any different to the rest of shock jock talk radio we all tune into and "love"? Another 9-day wonder full of thrills, spills and chills?
even if P's action was a mere uninspired political ruse, designed to stir up aggressions and shunt attention from the ongoing social and upcoming economic stultification, in a time where the media represents the one agent that can galvanise any effort of social change, one still has to admire the sheer balls on the man....to take 'em on...
Quite simply, remember the man's mantra "if u can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with ur bullshit....
so the only question that lurks is...is there anyone out there in Patrickdad and Hazelago, who, after 15 or so years, is either dazzled or baffled by anything our Crime Minister does?
i'm too apathetic to notice, too lethargic to act and too stupid to vote....
i was glad to see that training came to the surface in the discussion, because to me, besides the honorable prime minister's dishonorable tactics, that is a big problem.
people forget the kind of power they hold when they are in control of a portion of mainstream media. right now, people are saying whatever comes to their minds. it's not that expressions and opinions must be muzzled (i am the last person to endorse that!) but there is a way to do it. there is evidence to support, there are disclaimers to be put forward, there are various forums where different things would become appropriate... standards must be maintained. if they were, all of this would not have happened.
but the PM didn't have to go there doh.
For at least a decade, PR and related people were entitled to Matt associate membership. At one point that "arm" of Matt was the most vibrant, organising regular breakfast events.
Maybe the Matt constitution is now unwritten, but I and others are ready to deliver "case-law" testimony of what happened.
The present monkey pants we're in: a substantial element of the Matt executive are now beholden to a rampant Louis Lee Sing.
We shall see.
i wager the same.
i would be surprised if by next week, this issue exists outside the lines of a calypso being written for the party bashing season, or a random rapso track or two.
Till now, pervasive absence of training has been the so-called elephant in the room, that nobody talked about (except maybe would-trainers like me).
It's not just the cost of training: my experience has been of a scramble to fill spaces in FREE training courses!
L.L. Sing's Citadel declined invitation to nominate a single staffer for the last such freeness run by the Commonwealth Press Union in PoS in January.
But I am concerned that L.L. Sing (as Mr G calls him) has taken this matter to a personal level. What right does he have to give an ultimatum to the MATT president? (see page 4, Trinidad Express). Isn't that censorship? Or he getting pressure from PNM muscle?
This matter has gone beyond a wake up call for media houses to get their act together. This has become downright nasty.
But no "h" on this Sing.
I've written a column on this.
For $3 you can save my deathless SG prose for the expanding ranks of your posterity.