WHAT ABOUT THE DETAILS?

Here's another story that leads us to question whether journalists pay enough attention to the details of their stories.

"UDeCOTT denies project problems" (no byline)
http://guardian.co.tt/business6.html

Here it is Udecott is denying everything that the television and newspaper reporters said in their stories, even giving details of documents (in the public domain) from the EMA.

"Regarding the San Fernando academy, the company said that on August 11, 2005, it was granted a CEC by the EMA for demolition works at the site."
"UDeCOTT also denied that it was building the Brian Lara Cricket Academy without a CEC. It said it received a CEC from the EMA and outline approvals for the project on October 27, 2005. It said subdivision approval was given for the creation of the site and an approval from the Town and Country Planning division was received on March 6,2008. the company said it had also received approvals for the project from the Ministry of Works and the T&T Fire services."

Even a simple matter as when a photograph was taken has come under fire.
"UDeCOTT said that work on the Port-of-Spain academy was never stopped and is going ahead “as it has for the past months.” The company said pictures showing no activity at the construction site may have been taken during the lunch break which it said was from 11 am - 1 pm daily. It said when the builders resume work at 1pm, they continue “for extended hours into the evening and night.”

"UDeCOTT added that May Day, May 1, was a Chinese national holiday and there was a limited work shift at the site on that day."

So the reporter who wrote the story based on the photograph showing few workers on the job site did not contact the contractor to find out what the problem was? Did you ask your photographer why he did not take several pictures throughout the day in order to give a more complete (and fair) view of the situation?
And did anyone check with the EMA or Town and Country or the Ministry of Works or the Fire Services to verify Udecott's claims?
Sounds like sensationalism to us.

We hold no secrets for Udecott, but fair is fair.
Why would your editor allow you to write a story which is one-sided, and allow yourself and your establishment to come under fire from the very people you are trying to expose?
Unless you like leaning towards tabloidism.