The Newsday reported on Wednesday that US actress/singer Queen Latifah's jewelry was stolen from her room at the exclusive Stone Haven Villas in Tobago.
Reporter Nalinee Seelal told us "Queen Latifah, however, returned to her villa at about 12 noon and discovered that her US$10,000 bracelet, two gold rings, a gold chain and a silver ring had gone missing...Investigators...went to the villa and took a statement from Queen Latifah, who said the jewelry had a sentimental value to her and expressed her willingness to offer a reward. The upset star hoped to have her jewelry returned before she leaves Tobago today."
The story is also being quoted from the Newsday on MSNBC's online entertainment page.
But in the 7pm newscast on Wednesday on TV6, we were told that the jewelry actually belongs to a companion of Latifah and not the star herself.
The Thursday Express has that story by Elizabeth Allard: "It was not American actress/singer Queen Latifah who was robbed at the Stone Haven Villas in Black Rock, but a member of her entourage. This was confirmed by Assistant Commissioner of Police (Tobago) Nadhir Khan yesterday. The incident occurred on Sunday but was only realised Monday morning when checks were made."
So which version is correct?
The story is also being reported on the eonline site, but they are also reporting that the jewelry belongs to Latifah's companion: "According to a staff member at the Stone Haven Villas, the posh resort in Black Rock, Tobago, where the 38-year-old Latifah had been staying in a three-bedroom villa with a family member, the items taken did not belong to the Last Holiday star, but to her companion."
Was this a case of the Newsday running with the story before the true facts unfolded? Miss Seelal was probably told that the items were stolen from the star's room, and she assumed that meant they belonged to her.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
NEW-LOOK ONLINE GUARDIAN
The Guardian has debuted a new online look for 2009 (just one day ahead).
Not bad. Guess this was what they were working on months ago when someone inadvertently posted the beta page on the net. The page posted still says beta though.
Tell us what you think of the new look. d.martine6@gmail.com
Not bad. Guess this was what they were working on months ago when someone inadvertently posted the beta page on the net. The page posted still says beta though.
Tell us what you think of the new look. d.martine6@gmail.com
WIKI-WASHY 2
The last post caused quite a stir and we received several stirring comments. Here's a taste of some of them:
"To call her materialistic and to insult people you don't know, shows you need to get a life of your own."
(K. Hernandez)
"As for wikipedia, something is terribly wrong with that site, since it says Samantha John is married to Patrick Manning, and Shelly Dass is married to an American football player. Last time, we in Trinidad and Tobago checked, Patrick and Hazel Manning are married, and Shelly Dass is married to Robert Clarke, who is a well known journalist, not an American football player. That site is garbage. Is it a trini thing, or just a base human instinct to attack people who are easy targets like Samantha and Shelly?" (A. Williams)
"What is really going on with this blog lately? I thought you (we by virtue of participation) were about making constructive criticism, not personal or character attacks? Who is this "AD" person? He or she needs to concentrate maybe on making themselves a better person, and finding better things to do with their time, than clearly holding on to old high school grudges. You, "AD" need to grow up a bit." (Trini)
"Hmmm....wikipedia says Shelly Dass was given a jaguar for a bonus from Ansa McAl. Should we believe that about her too? Wikipedia says Samantha John is married to Patrick Manning with four children. Well, "AD" whoever you are, you clearly have been keeping abreast of current affairs in Trinidad and Tobago to hold wikipedia up as the gospel truth. Do you pray to wikipedia at night as well? What a sad person you must be to believe wikipedia, and mock and insult people based on what's written about them. That's like that government minister the other day in the parliament, standing up and reading a wikipedia definition for something. The point is, wikipedia is an encyclopedia compiled by ordinary people, many of whom would have an axe to grind with some poor person or another. It's not the bible, and surprise surprise, the subject like Shelly and Samantha likely have little to do with the garbage that's written about them." (Coffee)
"To call her materialistic and to insult people you don't know, shows you need to get a life of your own."
(K. Hernandez)
"As for wikipedia, something is terribly wrong with that site, since it says Samantha John is married to Patrick Manning, and Shelly Dass is married to an American football player. Last time, we in Trinidad and Tobago checked, Patrick and Hazel Manning are married, and Shelly Dass is married to Robert Clarke, who is a well known journalist, not an American football player. That site is garbage. Is it a trini thing, or just a base human instinct to attack people who are easy targets like Samantha and Shelly?" (A. Williams)
"What is really going on with this blog lately? I thought you (we by virtue of participation) were about making constructive criticism, not personal or character attacks? Who is this "AD" person? He or she needs to concentrate maybe on making themselves a better person, and finding better things to do with their time, than clearly holding on to old high school grudges. You, "AD" need to grow up a bit." (Trini)
"Hmmm....wikipedia says Shelly Dass was given a jaguar for a bonus from Ansa McAl. Should we believe that about her too? Wikipedia says Samantha John is married to Patrick Manning with four children. Well, "AD" whoever you are, you clearly have been keeping abreast of current affairs in Trinidad and Tobago to hold wikipedia up as the gospel truth. Do you pray to wikipedia at night as well? What a sad person you must be to believe wikipedia, and mock and insult people based on what's written about them. That's like that government minister the other day in the parliament, standing up and reading a wikipedia definition for something. The point is, wikipedia is an encyclopedia compiled by ordinary people, many of whom would have an axe to grind with some poor person or another. It's not the bible, and surprise surprise, the subject like Shelly and Samantha likely have little to do with the garbage that's written about them." (Coffee)
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
WIKI-WASHY
This reader has an issue with CNC 3 co-anchor Shelly Dass-Clarke's wikipedia profile.
"I'm home for the holidays and can't help but look at the local media and all its amusing characters.
"My cousin was showing me the wikipedia profile of a former classmate of hers (Shelly Dass) and she was having a good laugh that at 35, Shelly Dass cannot seem to get beyond the silly, materialistic, insecure schoolgirl she was when she was in high school.
The profile is clearly written by Shelly, and we are amused that she seemed to want to show that she was "successful" for someone so young. She has no idea about the numerous international figures who have published critically acclaimed books, appear on international tv and excel in the many other professions at very young ages?
And then that "million dollar beachfront wedding" to an "important family in Port of Spain". My God.
"(Just as an aside, what 'important family does Mr Clarke belong to? Because we've checked and not only are the Clarkes not really known in the local (much less regional and international) business sectors, but also, we've found no original colonial building named after his family, and no coat of arms attached to his family crest.)
"Shelly needs to realise that standard interviewing may be impressive for the apparently nepotistic Ansa McAl group, but it is amateur beyond reason in general.
And from what we understand, there are so many other deserving journalists in that company of accolades, but Shelly's face fits the profile of what is desired in the
Sabga-run company. You all know that discrimination is quite prevalent in T&T to date.
"Anyway, Happy New Year to the bloggers and keep up the good work."
"AD"
Well wikipedia has had its share of people editing sites and embellishing with information that may or may not be true. Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report caused a stir a couple of years ago when he edited a site during his show just to prove a point.
So which other media workers have been embellishing their wikipedia sites?
"I'm home for the holidays and can't help but look at the local media and all its amusing characters.
"My cousin was showing me the wikipedia profile of a former classmate of hers (Shelly Dass) and she was having a good laugh that at 35, Shelly Dass cannot seem to get beyond the silly, materialistic, insecure schoolgirl she was when she was in high school.
The profile is clearly written by Shelly, and we are amused that she seemed to want to show that she was "successful" for someone so young. She has no idea about the numerous international figures who have published critically acclaimed books, appear on international tv and excel in the many other professions at very young ages?
And then that "million dollar beachfront wedding" to an "important family in Port of Spain". My God.
"(Just as an aside, what 'important family does Mr Clarke belong to? Because we've checked and not only are the Clarkes not really known in the local (much less regional and international) business sectors, but also, we've found no original colonial building named after his family, and no coat of arms attached to his family crest.)
"Shelly needs to realise that standard interviewing may be impressive for the apparently nepotistic Ansa McAl group, but it is amateur beyond reason in general.
And from what we understand, there are so many other deserving journalists in that company of accolades, but Shelly's face fits the profile of what is desired in the
Sabga-run company. You all know that discrimination is quite prevalent in T&T to date.
"Anyway, Happy New Year to the bloggers and keep up the good work."
"AD"
Well wikipedia has had its share of people editing sites and embellishing with information that may or may not be true. Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report caused a stir a couple of years ago when he edited a site during his show just to prove a point.
So which other media workers have been embellishing their wikipedia sites?
WHOSE CAR? 2
Thanks Onika James of the Newsday for bringing some clarity to the many questions we posed after we read the initial stories on the stabbing incident outside an Arouca bar on Saturday.
"...Kelly-Ann Lucio, the sister of Kerwin Lucio, gave a different version of the events. Two guys came to the bar with two girls who were dressed up real sexy. Two fellas who were liming with my brother began harassing the girls, and one of the guys who they came with got vex, and began to rail up. My brother slapped him.
"“A short while later all of them calm down, and my brother went to get a drink for the same guy who he slapped. When Kerwin was coming out with the two beers he saw one of the men who was with the girls stabbing Al and that is where the thing start. It had nothing to do with no glass on no car hood.”"
But in his story in the Monday Express, Gyasi Gonzales sticks to his original script that the incident was sparked by an errant drink: "Police say the attack was triggered when one of Hospedales's friends placed his drink on a man's car, causing the man to become quite enraged. There was a fight between the car owner and the drinker. Hospedales, along with Patrick Holder, Kerwyn Lucio and Al Edmond, aka Rod Edmond, an ex-murder accused, reportedly tried to cool things down. The enraged motorist, however, drew a knife and stabbed Hospedales, Edmond, Holder and Lucio."
"...Kelly-Ann Lucio, the sister of Kerwin Lucio, gave a different version of the events. Two guys came to the bar with two girls who were dressed up real sexy. Two fellas who were liming with my brother began harassing the girls, and one of the guys who they came with got vex, and began to rail up. My brother slapped him.
"“A short while later all of them calm down, and my brother went to get a drink for the same guy who he slapped. When Kerwin was coming out with the two beers he saw one of the men who was with the girls stabbing Al and that is where the thing start. It had nothing to do with no glass on no car hood.”"
But in his story in the Monday Express, Gyasi Gonzales sticks to his original script that the incident was sparked by an errant drink: "Police say the attack was triggered when one of Hospedales's friends placed his drink on a man's car, causing the man to become quite enraged. There was a fight between the car owner and the drinker. Hospedales, along with Patrick Holder, Kerwyn Lucio and Al Edmond, aka Rod Edmond, an ex-murder accused, reportedly tried to cool things down. The enraged motorist, however, drew a knife and stabbed Hospedales, Edmond, Holder and Lucio."
Saturday, December 27, 2008
WHOSE CAR?
We're hoping that the new year brings some clarity to fact-finding and telling in the local media.
The brother of a government minister was critically stabbed outside an Arouca bar on Saturday morning. However the details surrounding the event have once again been re-interpreted by various media houses.
Both stories in the Sunday editions of the Express and Newsday begin similarly.
Here's the lead paragraph written by Gyasi Gonzales of the Express: "A COLD beverage placed on the bonnet of a man's car led to the stabbing death of an ex-murder accused and the wounding of three other men-one of them the brother of a junior government minister."
And here's what Onika James of the Newsday wrote: "The simple act of placing a glass on someone’s car yesterday led to the fatal stabbing of one man, and the wounding of three others, including the brother of a Government minister."
But once again, the reader is left confused about the ensuing facts.
Mr Gonzales tells us: "...the killer, known only as "Cyat Eye" remained at large up to press time last night...(Al) Edmond, Patrick Holder, Kerwyn Lucio and Dane Hospedales...were liming opposite the bar...The Sunday Express was told that someone from the Edmond group placed a glass containing rum and coke on the bonnet of the killer's car. This reportedly enraged the man and he walked up to a member of the group and slapped him...Edmond...was instead stabbed in the chest. Holder, Lucio and Hospedales approached and they too were stabbed by the enraged car owner. "
But Ms James tells us: "According to reports Edmond, and his friends Patrick Holder, Dane Hospedales, and Kerwin Lucio aka “Cateye” were liming in the vicinity of La Luna Bar...a man placed his drinking glass on Lucio’s car. Eyewitnesses said Lucio became enraged, and an altercation ensued. Edmond attempted to make peace between Lucio, and the stranger who walked away from Lucio, but bottles were thrown. A short while later the stranger walked up to Lucio, and began stabbing him about the body...Edmond, Holder, and Hospedales rushed to Lucio’s assistance, and received several stabs about their bodies."
So which version of the event is correct?
Whose car was at the centre of the melee? Was "Cyat Eye/Cateye" the murderer or one of the victims? Who was stabbed first: Edmond or Lucio? Is the dead man's name spelt 'Edmond' (as in the Express & Newsday) or 'Edmund' as in the Guardian? How old was he: 28 (Express) or 29 (Guardian)? What time did the incident occur: 6:45 (Express & Newsday) or 7:45 (Guardian)? What kind of weapon was used: a knife (Express) or a broken bottle (Guardian)?
The brother of a government minister was critically stabbed outside an Arouca bar on Saturday morning. However the details surrounding the event have once again been re-interpreted by various media houses.
Both stories in the Sunday editions of the Express and Newsday begin similarly.
Here's the lead paragraph written by Gyasi Gonzales of the Express: "A COLD beverage placed on the bonnet of a man's car led to the stabbing death of an ex-murder accused and the wounding of three other men-one of them the brother of a junior government minister."
And here's what Onika James of the Newsday wrote: "The simple act of placing a glass on someone’s car yesterday led to the fatal stabbing of one man, and the wounding of three others, including the brother of a Government minister."
But once again, the reader is left confused about the ensuing facts.
Mr Gonzales tells us: "...the killer, known only as "Cyat Eye" remained at large up to press time last night...(Al) Edmond, Patrick Holder, Kerwyn Lucio and Dane Hospedales...were liming opposite the bar...The Sunday Express was told that someone from the Edmond group placed a glass containing rum and coke on the bonnet of the killer's car. This reportedly enraged the man and he walked up to a member of the group and slapped him...Edmond...was instead stabbed in the chest. Holder, Lucio and Hospedales approached and they too were stabbed by the enraged car owner. "
But Ms James tells us: "According to reports Edmond, and his friends Patrick Holder, Dane Hospedales, and Kerwin Lucio aka “Cateye” were liming in the vicinity of La Luna Bar...a man placed his drinking glass on Lucio’s car. Eyewitnesses said Lucio became enraged, and an altercation ensued. Edmond attempted to make peace between Lucio, and the stranger who walked away from Lucio, but bottles were thrown. A short while later the stranger walked up to Lucio, and began stabbing him about the body...Edmond, Holder, and Hospedales rushed to Lucio’s assistance, and received several stabs about their bodies."
So which version of the event is correct?
Whose car was at the centre of the melee? Was "Cyat Eye/Cateye" the murderer or one of the victims? Who was stabbed first: Edmond or Lucio? Is the dead man's name spelt 'Edmond' (as in the Express & Newsday) or 'Edmund' as in the Guardian? How old was he: 28 (Express) or 29 (Guardian)? What time did the incident occur: 6:45 (Express & Newsday) or 7:45 (Guardian)? What kind of weapon was used: a knife (Express) or a broken bottle (Guardian)?
DOWN WITH DOWNS
Once again Lennox Grant proves his prowess with the pen (or keyboard) in his weekly Guardian column, where he's extolling the virtues of those forgotten fruits of his childhood: "Downs. Stemmed globules of gold and crimson and green had been left in the dust, or mashed by indifferent shoe heels, or had rolled unnoticed, untouched, and untouchable, into the gutter."
SO WHAT? 2
Thanks for clearing the air on this one, Trini.
"I realise even though the administrators of this site strive for accuracy, even they too get it wrong from time to time, so just to clear the air on the prime minister's return, he did not come back at 12 noon as one newspaper reported and as this site is also quoting in response to C News' late mention that Dr Lenny Saith was a member of the welcoming party at Piarco.
"CNC3 was the only station with footage of the prime minister's arrival at Piarco. Sampson Nanton who must have had a big tip-off (unlike most Cabinet ministers), that the prime minister was returning, carried shots of Dr Saith together with Ministers Conrad Enill and Paula Gopee-Scoon waiting for the prime minister. It was a well detailed report showing all the activity before the prime minister arrived (clearly shot from upstairs in the eating area), as well as the arrival of the jet, the prime minister and his wife on the tarmac greeting the welcoming party and Mr Manning's classic wave before leaving for the diplomatic centre. Sampson clearly quoted that while Dr Saith had been waiting since before noon, the prime minister touched down at 2 pm (hence the reason for the 2.30 press conference in which the prime minister did say that he came straight from the airport). It appears that C News was only playing catching up the next day after being well scooped.
"So kudos to Sampson and CNC3 for a job well done. Either their sources are very high up, or somebody showed good judgement to check out the airport after learning that the prime minister's office called a press conference that (according to my media sources) came with a request for live coverage. Their coverage on Christmas Eve proved that while everyone was caught up in the season, real journalists were still at work uncovering what to me was the biggest scoop of the year."
And our original question stills stands: even if C News wanted to play catch-up, what was the point of telling us more than 24 hours later that Dr Saith was in the welcoming party? So what? And wouldn't that have been expected since he was holding the fort in Mr Manning's absence?
"I realise even though the administrators of this site strive for accuracy, even they too get it wrong from time to time, so just to clear the air on the prime minister's return, he did not come back at 12 noon as one newspaper reported and as this site is also quoting in response to C News' late mention that Dr Lenny Saith was a member of the welcoming party at Piarco.
"CNC3 was the only station with footage of the prime minister's arrival at Piarco. Sampson Nanton who must have had a big tip-off (unlike most Cabinet ministers), that the prime minister was returning, carried shots of Dr Saith together with Ministers Conrad Enill and Paula Gopee-Scoon waiting for the prime minister. It was a well detailed report showing all the activity before the prime minister arrived (clearly shot from upstairs in the eating area), as well as the arrival of the jet, the prime minister and his wife on the tarmac greeting the welcoming party and Mr Manning's classic wave before leaving for the diplomatic centre. Sampson clearly quoted that while Dr Saith had been waiting since before noon, the prime minister touched down at 2 pm (hence the reason for the 2.30 press conference in which the prime minister did say that he came straight from the airport). It appears that C News was only playing catching up the next day after being well scooped.
"So kudos to Sampson and CNC3 for a job well done. Either their sources are very high up, or somebody showed good judgement to check out the airport after learning that the prime minister's office called a press conference that (according to my media sources) came with a request for live coverage. Their coverage on Christmas Eve proved that while everyone was caught up in the season, real journalists were still at work uncovering what to me was the biggest scoop of the year."
And our original question stills stands: even if C News wanted to play catch-up, what was the point of telling us more than 24 hours later that Dr Saith was in the welcoming party? So what? And wouldn't that have been expected since he was holding the fort in Mr Manning's absence?
Friday, December 26, 2008
SO WHAT?
C News, what was the point of telling us in a 20 second voice over at 7:15pm on Thursday December 25th that Dr Lenny Saith was part of the welcoming party for Prime Minister Patrick Manning at the Piarco Airport, when Mr Manning arrived from Cuba around noon on Wednesday December 24th?
Slow news day?
Slow news day?
"POLICE KILLING"?
It would be great if media people could define the terms they use everyday so they don't confuse viewers, listeners and readers when those terms are used ambiguously.
Case in point: "Police Killing".
Now when you hear that term, what's the first thing that comes to mind? For us it's the image of dozens of heavily armed, black or blue-clad police officers speeding into a community, jumping out of jeeps and shooting up the place, leaving bodies and angry residents in their wake.
What does NOT come to mind though is an off duty police officer in plain clothes cutting grass, getting into an argument with three people and subsequently shooting them, leaving one dead.
Suffice it to say that this little lesson is purely for the benefit of TV6's Sharmilla Persad.
Miss Persad's lead story on Christmas night was titled "Police Killing"....a police officer shoots a man dead in Arima and injures his mother and brother. There was no indication in the lead up to that packaged story that the officer was off duty (or a private citizen at the time) and that the incident was a personal dispute. You gave your viewers the distinct impression that this policeman went into the area with his colleagues (perhaps on a raid) and shot up the place, leaving one man dead, when nothing could be further from the truth. Steups!
Here's how Angelo Marcelle of the Guardian opens his story: "One man is dead and his mother and brother are in critical condition after being shot by a policeman during a dispute, yesterday."
Gyasi Gonzales of the Express begins his story by telling us: "AN enraged senior police officer shot and killed a father of seven, and wounded the dead man's mother and brother during an argument."
So as they begin their stories they tell us a police officer is involved, but they dispel any doubt that this incident took place in the line of duty.
Here's an article in the Newsday of what can truly be described as "police killings".
So now that we have the technical terms out of the way, it's time for us to once again look at the variations in the facts of a story.
Mr Gonzales tells us: "The incident occurred around 10 a.m. yesterday at Demerara Road, Arima. The off-duty superintendent was clearing some bush off a portion of land when he got into an argument with Ashley Charles, 27, who lived nearby, a police report said. Near to Charles were his mother, Joan Charles, 44, and his brother, Macay, 22."
Yet Mr Marcelle's account of the incident is this: "Reports stated that around 8.30 am an off-duty officer was cleaning bushes at his Arima home when he was accused of crossing a boundary and entering another yard. Investigators said Francesca Charles, 49, confronted him about coming into her land. Residents said an argument escalated between the two, when the officer pulled out his firearm and shot the women (sic) in the chest. On hearing the commotion, Charles’ two sons, Ashley, 25, and Mark, rushed to the scene and they, too, were allegedly shot by the officer, residents claimed."
Case in point: "Police Killing".
Now when you hear that term, what's the first thing that comes to mind? For us it's the image of dozens of heavily armed, black or blue-clad police officers speeding into a community, jumping out of jeeps and shooting up the place, leaving bodies and angry residents in their wake.
What does NOT come to mind though is an off duty police officer in plain clothes cutting grass, getting into an argument with three people and subsequently shooting them, leaving one dead.
Suffice it to say that this little lesson is purely for the benefit of TV6's Sharmilla Persad.
Miss Persad's lead story on Christmas night was titled "Police Killing"....a police officer shoots a man dead in Arima and injures his mother and brother. There was no indication in the lead up to that packaged story that the officer was off duty (or a private citizen at the time) and that the incident was a personal dispute. You gave your viewers the distinct impression that this policeman went into the area with his colleagues (perhaps on a raid) and shot up the place, leaving one man dead, when nothing could be further from the truth. Steups!
Here's how Angelo Marcelle of the Guardian opens his story: "One man is dead and his mother and brother are in critical condition after being shot by a policeman during a dispute, yesterday."
Gyasi Gonzales of the Express begins his story by telling us: "AN enraged senior police officer shot and killed a father of seven, and wounded the dead man's mother and brother during an argument."
So as they begin their stories they tell us a police officer is involved, but they dispel any doubt that this incident took place in the line of duty.
Here's an article in the Newsday of what can truly be described as "police killings".
So now that we have the technical terms out of the way, it's time for us to once again look at the variations in the facts of a story.
Mr Gonzales tells us: "The incident occurred around 10 a.m. yesterday at Demerara Road, Arima. The off-duty superintendent was clearing some bush off a portion of land when he got into an argument with Ashley Charles, 27, who lived nearby, a police report said. Near to Charles were his mother, Joan Charles, 44, and his brother, Macay, 22."
Yet Mr Marcelle's account of the incident is this: "Reports stated that around 8.30 am an off-duty officer was cleaning bushes at his Arima home when he was accused of crossing a boundary and entering another yard. Investigators said Francesca Charles, 49, confronted him about coming into her land. Residents said an argument escalated between the two, when the officer pulled out his firearm and shot the women (sic) in the chest. On hearing the commotion, Charles’ two sons, Ashley, 25, and Mark, rushed to the scene and they, too, were allegedly shot by the officer, residents claimed."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
