Martin Henry set journalism back

THE EDITOR, Sir:

This is an open letter to columnist Martin Henry:

Dear Martin,

I just read your article 'Busta set Ja back' - new book, old myths' (Sunday May 25) and must express my delight at the elevation of the controversy into The Gleaner, the primary newspaper in Jamaica for 180 years and, overall, the citadel of good journalism where I enjoyed 10 years' service as a reporter (court, parliament and education), columnist, editorial writer and bureau chief.

Since you provide no information that you have actually seen the book, much less read it, and since your statement that: "We will look to see if the PNP's Matthews Lane-based Group 69, Jamaica's first organised political gang, gets a mention in Walters' book" appears to confirm a fundamental flaw (and thus condemn you in the process), you leave your readers to conclude that you too have joined the blind noisy chorus of denunciation without evidence or context.

Of course, this raises the question - why? What is your motive?

But I will not go there.

COLUMN WRITING

Journalism - of which column writing is still a part - is not a very hard taskmaster. But your effort on Sunday induces some additional weeping for the levels we must now expect from some of our columnists. There is a discipline that suggests opinion pieces should be strong, and controversial - if called for - but should be firmly based on facts.

Your column fails to approach that standard; it is not based on the facts. It masquerades as a response to my book, which is about the national movement and the people who were in it. But it is really a response to a sensational story in the Jamaica Observer about Sir Alexander Bustamante - who is included in the book and must obviously be a prime part of the recounting of any story of Jamaica between 1937 and 1962, and whose birthday was being celebrated at the time. Arising from that newspaper story, but not from the book, some people, including you, have taken umbrage at a section of the prologue from which you have leapt without parachute or life jacket, to the mistaken assumption that I am promoting a one-party State for Jamaica.

TAKING THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT

You have waited nearly two months to comment on that Observer story. But as a columnist of many years' experience and a leader of thought in the island's leading newspaper, should you be happy about herding your readers into the murky quicksand of blind reaction? If you wish to denounce and condemn, should you not have extended your wait until you had read the book? If the art of journalism is to defeat the inflexible constraints of time and space by taking things out of context, and then putting them back into context for the benefit of the reader, then it must follow that this cannot be done honestly without the context.

We can disagree about opinions, and we can discuss our understanding of the facts. But I do not intend to make any defence of my extensively researched book in response to a flimsy article like this one. When properly assessed, my work will be dissected not with a machete but with a scalpel - in the hands of top surgeons. And I don't know whether we can expect a change in your approach when you actually get around to reading it. I will simply give the readers of The Gleaner an idea of the opinions of some of the people who have actually read the book. Here goes:

- "The book is one for the ages, just as it took generations to unfold the story within it."

- "It makes me very proud of you, and to be called JAMAICAN!"

- "You are a patriot."

- "A literary gem."

- "A seminal work of historical importance."

- "Takes us from slavery and colonialism to Independence."

- "An absolutely stunning piece of journalism."

- "A wonderful work."

- "Captures the vibrancy of the country, of the people he portrays."

- "Showcases the resilience of the Jamaican people."

Yours in the cause of higher standards of journalism.

Ewart Walters, MJ