Wednesday, December 8, 2010

George Grant’s unfortunate broadside against MWAG

IN the last 24 hours, a media colleague of ours, showed where his allegiance lies as regards to any perceived threat to press freedom, and the ability of commentators (no matter what their point of view), to add their voices to national debate without seeming to be threatened by the most powerful person in the country.

In his self-appointed righteousness, George Grant demanded that the Media Workers Association of Grenada (MWAG) withdraw its statement that condemned Prime Minister Tillman Thomas’ ill-advised and ill-tempered rant.

Left up to me, MWAG need not make a statement, for different reasons than George would argue.

In one infamous hour on George Grant’s show, Prime Minister Thomas did more damage to himself, than any commentary any of us could have written.

His rant said less of me, and a whole lot about himself – or at least his current mindset, made deviant and strangled by pressure and desperation, which is understandable from a person who leads a government that promised so much hope but instead delivered so much despair.

I could not be intimidated because for me this emperor has no clothes.

But MWAG said what it did because it was defending a principle that will always be bigger than me.

They were not defending what I said – for alas a group like this can’t have an opinion on that.

They were not declaring that I have some personal bias, or I am some upset out-of pocket commentator. –If that were true, it would negate my right to have an opinion – and a strong one at that -- in the land of my birth.

MWAG was defending my right to write what I did.

It is that principle that the likes of George Grant find it inconvenient now to defend because it involves one of his favorite sons.

I just wonder what his position would be if it was Keith Mitchell who said the same things, Tillman Thomas did on his show.

It is that which is frightening about this Grenada – that for too many people a supposedly sacred principle shifts based on the personalities involved.

George Grant rants about an “unsigned” statement as if to question its authenticity, which begs the question then why did he publish it.

He also said the statement was put out without the knowledge of the rank and file, as if he does not know that things like these are not brought to a general body, but the elected executive is mandated to so act.

That was no different from the many statements MWAG had issued during the reign of the Mitchell administration – a process up until now, George never questioned or had a problem with.

He implied that the statement did not have unanimous executive support, but he did not say that there was only just one hold out, which as I understand it, was what made the statement so late.

And by MWAG’s tradition, I am told, such statements are made once a simple majority of the executive agrees.

In this particular case, it was an overwhelming majority.

The only hold out came from an executive member who frankly should have excused himself from the discussion, since Prime Minister Thomas is his boss.

And it is people like these, using half-truths and innuendos (printing corporate proposals without the cover letter as if to make it look as my personal proposals), who will want to school some of us on integrity.


  1. Question - Are the printed proposals true or fabricated?

  2. Very good question. Stay tuned. The object of this post was to deal with comments about MWAG's statement, not to comment on the PM's office classlessness and selectivism. But thats coming.

  3. Why do I have to "stay tuned?" its a simple question! I read two proposals on George Grant site, you had stated you never sent any proposals, so are they fake or real?? Its a simple question

  4. Did I ever said I sent no proposal, or I said I never wanted even when offered, any personal position? Don't know if you see the difference between a corporate proposal, that was specifically requested, and me turning down personal positions that were offered.

    Maybe if the folks published the cover letters, you will understand the issue. But it was convenient that they did not do that, and also moved to leave out certain things in another.

    It just did not fit the story.

  5. Why was my last comments deleted even after I saw them posted? Why don't you just publish the cover letter then so you could be absolved? Are you playing games just as you are accusing them of playing? Still have not answered my question but I assume from your evasion the proposals are real. Woo cares whether they were presented as "Personal" or "Corporate"? They originate from your company signed by you. SO publish the cover letters here and clear yourself already

  6. George Grant is very NDC so who expects anything more than that from him?

  7. SO what if he's "very NDC"? We live in a democracy and he is entitled. I believe Mr. Mark was acting as a willing combatant in the recent conflict and not acting like a journalist and when it failed now he is retreating cowardly and crying foul and hoping MWAGG will prop him up

  8. it appears that the right to have an opinion is void under the rule of Tillman Thomas...and there are those like Grant and Ray Roberts who will continue to go out of their way to keep up that fallacy..
    Hamlet Mark has always called it as he sees it and he has never coloured his opinions to suit the egos of the politician.
    As far as I am concerned the posting here of this anonymous is a well known trick of the NDC to attack anyone who does not toe their line.

  9. Wrong Mister Paranoid, this is a private individual not affiliated to any party. If you are a cheerleader of Hamlet that's your right, what I see is Hamlet playing activist when it suits him and want to then be Journalist when the fire gets hot. That is my opinion. Let the records show that you are now attacking me for not toeing YOUR line. How ironic!!

  10. What's going on? I thought Hamlet was speaking from the right to an opinion based on 'freedom of the press'. I also thought that the PM had the right to give his views as well on what was said/written. As far as I am concerned, the PM was jailed during the revolution for speaking/standing on a principled position re: freedom of the press, so no matter what is said or printed now to defame him will not work.
    So Hamlet, you are yet to experience/work/walk in the PM's boots. Have some respect for the office he now holds and stop this cheat shot of firing on him via the media. If you are so forthright as you claim, seek an audience with him and deal with the personal issues which seem to be the problem. Yes, there are some sour grapes since the 2008 elections, be honest. It is being revealed from your present tirade against the PM and recently with the present branding of persons as NDC.
    Give jack his jacket: PM Tilly is not as soft as some tried to proport him to be. He does have BACKBONE. He is already over you, Hamlet. So get on with it.
    If you love the country of your birth so much, let's hear all the positive things/ideas that you know and have to take us out of the despair you are talking about now.
    Do you think that the continual washing of our dirty linen in the global public will help our cause?
    Stop fighting to win. No one will. Grenada will continue to suffer. I'm fed up with politicians, journalists and all other opportunists who only think of their personal satisfaction while claiming they love this country.
    Finally, the choice is given to select a profile. We chose to be anonymous. Stop hitting under the belt.
    We still like and admire you even if we don't always agree with you.

  11. POLITICS POLITICS POLITICS! aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaW