This is the text of the contested paragraph: "Omar J., who fled the scene of Wednesday's shooting in Dutch Quarter, is still on the run. He managed to hit his brother's suspected killer in his leg. Afterwards, he fled in the direction of Oyster Pond where he set the car in which he made his escape alight."
The second line should of course have contained the word allegedly (as in: he allegedly managed to hit his brother's suspected killer ..., etc.), because it reads now indeed as if the identity of the shooter is an established fact. But it is a small omission, given the explanation in the previous paragraph. To arrive at his popular judge jury hangman argument Badejo took this paragraph out of context, as people who have read the complete article will understand. And by the way, the information in the article is solid information; source: the office of the public prosecutor. Today did not make up the possible involvement of Omar J. in the drive by shooting. And the guy IS on the run. Again, according to the office of the public prosecutor.
And if the Chief Prosecutor says that Omar J. is on the run, there is only one explanation for it: he is wanted by the law. That does not mean that he is guilty, it means that he is wanted in connection with a crime. That's all we wrote. We too stand for the presumption of innocence, but if the suspect is the brother of a recent murder victim it becomes an essential part of the story, and makes his identity impossible to obscure.
Let's move to some other points of criticism, like the "gloating" about the downfall of Buncamper-Molanus. The Today newspaper is indeed proud that it broke the story that led to her downfall. But it is what the minister did, not what we wrote that ended her career. Many people are still angry about this evident self-enrichment scheme.
We suspect that Badejo's reference to distorting a minister's policy may have to do with Minister Duncan's gun policy. In fact, we have contributed to a better policy, because in an opinion piece published in Today on Friday March 11 under the headline A very special experience we wrote this: "Making it possible for teenagers to obtain a gun license is insane. Making it possible for youngsters barely into their twenties is not such a good idea either. If the minister is going to do this at all, then let's set the bar at a sensible level and make the minimum age for owning a gun 25."
At first, against the advice of the police who wanted an age limit of 21, Minister Duncan set that limit in the original policy at 18, but that has in the meantime been changed to ....25.
So what exactly are we distorting? Opinion has but one goal: to stimulate debate, so that together we arrive at better solutions.
About anonymous blogs: they are the heartbeat of a modern society and their content is as valid as the opinion of a senior policy advisor to our Minister of Education, Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs. I am even sorely tempted to say that opinions of people whose paymaster is the government are more suspect than those of anonymous bloggers.
And yeah, the raison d'être for the Today newspaper is to play the role of the critical watchdog, so we will always look critically at the background of candidates for key functions. That's what newspapers are there for, remember? That role is not always appreciated by government hacks.
As for Today's opinions: they are what they are and I ask nobody to agree with them. On the contrary, Today challenges readers to come up with their own views. In that sense, Badejo's criticism is, and always will be, more than welcome at Today.
Journalists who are worth their salt stand for what they write, and dealing with criticism is part of the job.
Also this week Today was accused by some colleagues of biased reporting. As I understand the charge, this is based on, among others, the fact that I wrote a headline about the investigation at the Tourist Bureau. Embezzlement investigation underway, I wrote.
Using the word embezzlement was slanting the story, the colleague muttered. Really? Fact 1: there IS an investigation underway. Fact 2: the focus of this investigation IS embezzlement. How slanted is that?
It's easier to open a microphone and let politicians say whatever they want to say. That way you never have to wonder whether they are telling you the truth or spinning a yarn for public consumption. That's not the kind of journalism I want to waste my time on.
Hilbert Haar,
Managing Editor @ Today.
