THE EDITOR, Sir:ON FRIDAY, December 27, 2002 during TVJ's Prime Time News there was a news item, which seemed to be playing out in front of a TVJ's news team. A bus allegedly owned by a policeman and operating off its route was involved in an accident with another vehicle transporting police officers, resulting in injuries to a couple of those police personnel. The official conductor for this policeman's bus was attacking the driver, accusing him of duping and taking him home and then with the aid of some other conductor was hustling on some other routes when the accident occurred.
What I found to be remarkable though is that while all this was going on, TVJ's News Editor. Michael Sharpe was heard asking this obviously shaken driver, "Are you aware that you were operating contrary to your road licence," while the news camera was pointed in his face.
Is this taking investigative journalism to a new low? Was he interrogating an accused for the purpose of laying charges or was it the ace journalist soliciting material for Prime Time News? Was this hapless accused cautioned and reminded that he had the right to remain silent and that whatever he said may or can be used against him in a court of law?
I think the Broadcasting Commission should take some action in ensuring that this kind of journalism be discontinued. This unfortunately is not an isolated case. There are numerous other instances where TVJ has assisted in providing the police with news material, which ultimately may serve to prejudice accused persons going before the courts. It happened recently at Hunt's Bay in the case of two women accused of stealing a baby in Greater Portmore. It happened again in regards to a 17-year-old boy attending a private school found with a home-made gun and taken to the Half-Way Tree Police Station; and again on the night of February 26, 2003 in a report about a woman accused of abandoning her child at a bar in the Swallowfield area.
Our gatekeepers of justice should also recognise that this kind of in-depth media interaction can only serve to compromise the quality of defence to which individuals brought before the courts are entitled if their arguments are broadcast to the public prior to their trial.
I am, etc.,
R. A. THOMAS
tommy_rohan@hotmail.com
