THE EDITOR, Sir:
PETER ESPEUT'S article in Wednesday's paper has, as its headline, 'Real negativism and false positivism'. In this article Peter starts by letting us know how strongly he criticised the then Archbishop about how the Roman Catholic Church was being run. He then goes into fulsome praise of Wilmot Perkins, defending his style of journalism, because, as Peter puts it, "that is what journalists are supposed to do". He then defends his own style of writing by using the question often asked by Mutty in defending his programme. The question is, "Is there anything that I have said that is false?"
That is the defence of Peter Espeut, and when I listened to Mutty Perkins, that was also his defence.
ALWAYS LOGICAL
I was an avid listener and fan of Wilmot Perkins. I admired, and still in fact do, and even though he is not always correct, he is always logical. I do not agree with some of his premises, but I respect his approach. However, I stopped listening to Wilmot Perkins on a regular basis sometime ago. On a programme right after the Prime Minister of Jamaica collapsed while speaking at a function at the HEART Academy in Portmore, Perkins reported that the hall had been sprayed prior to the Prime Minister's speech with a pesticide against roaches, and Mr. Perkins further went on to report that the Prime Minister was the only one who got sick!
I found that to be totally unacceptable. It is a fact Mr. Perkins reported the truth. I choose not to listen further because of how it was reported. I choose not to support Wilmot Perkins and that type of journalism by turning off my radio. If Peter Espeut defends that type of journalism, then the only recourse left to me is not to read Peter Espeut.
I do host a very small radio programme. The life of the radio programme depends on the advertisers' dollar. I am acutely aware that they advertise on a programme because of the listenership generated or is likely to be generated. If the programme does not have a listenership base, the advertiser cannot support the programme because his product or his service will suffer. Peter Espeut reports that Wilmot Perkins programme is subject to an advertising boycott and he opines that it is because negative elements in Jamaica's private sector support a drive for false positivism.
NONSENSE
I've never heard such nonsense in my life! An advertiser supports a programme because of what he hopes to get from the programme, not false positivism or negativism or because he likes Peter Espeut or because he likes Wilmot Perkins. He has a product that he would like to get to a wide audience and he would like that audience to support his product. There is no other reason. If Wilmot Perkins or (Peter Espeut) believes that reporting the truth (as I have outlined above, regarding to the Prime Minister's illness) is journalism, and that I must support it no matter what, then I will invite them to wake up and smell the coffee.
I am, etc.,
DR. PAUL WRIGHT
14 Spanish Court
New Kingston
