Description of US President George W Bush as ?a weapon of mass distraction,? by vice chancellor of University of West Indies Prof Rex Nettleford, touched a sore spot on US Ambassador Dr Roy Austin on Sunday night.
News Source: Trinidad Guardian
So much so, that when it was his turn to speak at the podium, Austin fired verbal missiles of his own.
He reminded Nettleford and the audience at the dual launch of the Commonwealth Journalists? Association Media Exhibition who Mr Bush really was.
?Lest we forget, the person mentioned by Prof Nettleford provided $15 billion in the battle against AIDS.
?And, not because he wanted to, but he had to, send many of our people to war, yielded freedom for women, and gave the opportunity for people of a country, the freedom of a government. Is he such a bad person??Austin said.
?This is something you see every day. Statements are half-baked; people are misled to think bad things.
?It is important that we get away from that kind of behaviour.?
Nettleford?s comment was in the context of how Commonwealth journalists are positioned in the new world order of the European Union, the US and Japan,
?The ?CNNisation? of consciousness,? Nettleford said, ?is a media phenomenon...and despite the tenacious hold of BBC broadcasts on pockets of Commonwealth elites, the electronic media, with the opening up of galactic spheres and the communications technology revolution, have long captured many minds on the planet which are yet to escape the saga of Iraq and the missionary zeal of George Bush, that is arguably the world?s most dangerous weapon of mass distraction.?
Although many appreciated the parody, Austin was not amused.
His diatribe, which consisted of prepared references and off-the-cuff statements, did not go down well with some members of the audience, who opted to leave while the ambassador was on his feet.
There were also cries of ?rubbish,? ?nonsense,? ?foolishness? and attempts at clapping the diplomat into an early departure.
Nevertheless, Austin stood his ground and, continuing his onslaught, accused media practitioners of not being responsible.
He referred to a commentary made in 1973, which noted a crisis of credibility in the press.
?In the zeal to show freedom, we forget. The question is, has the situation improved since 1973??
He also recounted his own experience, deeming himself a victim of the proverbial mighty pen of a newspaper editorial.
The editorial (which appeared in the Guardian), he said, did not have all the facts, and in turn, he composed a response which was never printed.
?Not one of the four newspapers printed it,? he lamented.
Although a report was made to the Media Complaints Council, nothing was done to resolve the matter properly, he complained.
After the launch, Austin said he used that forum to express his displeasure, because he did not believe the media was following freedom of expression.
?They have stiffled it. They have limited the right of the people to know,? he said.
He believed that the media?s new trend was an anti-American stance.
?America is being blamed for many things. America is to blame for the terror in Spain. The US is the agent for attacks on civilian and international soil,? he said.
Although Austin believed he expressed himself in a responsible manner, veteran journalist George John was of a different view.
?I was most disappointed, first of all, that the US Ambassador was invited to speak at a Commonwealth meeting.
?The US is not in the Commonwealth,? John said.
?Then he proceeded to abuse the invitation extended to him by a most disgraceful speech?totally out of concern for the occasion, that is to primarily celebrate the launch of the CJA.
?After listening to Rex Nettleford, it was disgusting that we should have to listen to him.?
Remarks totally out of place
Dr. Roy Austin has done himself and the US a disservice with his ungracious and out of place remarks on Sunday evening.
So we?re not even allowed to make a joke about George Bush now?
As for Dr Austin?s earlier complaints, the Guardian editorial he speaks of was one which criticised his attitude to the media, after a speech he made in February saying the local media were anti-American.
In the editorial, Dr Austin was described as an Uncle Sam sorely hurt by the ingratitude of his beneficiaries?exactly the attitude he displayed once more on Sunday in recounting the good deeds of President Bush.
There was no question of the editorial ?not having all the facts.?
An editorial is not a news report; it?s an opinion based on facts. We had all the facts.
Our offence, like Prof Nettleford?s, was merely to use them to reach a different conclusion from Dr Austin?s.
Originally published in The Trinidad Guardian on May 3 2004
