THE EDITOR: Some months ago, I was reputed to have asked for "quotas" and "affirmative action" at UWI, words I never used or demands I never made. I am reputed to have said that Indian teachers do not teach African students, a statement that TTUTA "strongly condemned". Now, it's Mr Manning's turn. He delivers a formal presentation to university students. During the Q&A, he waxes warm and folksy and raps with his audience. He wishes to communicate that although kidnappings have risen in Trinidad, things are not as bad as the media make them out to be. He talks as any ordinary Trinidadian talks.

He says that many of the kidnappings are "bogus". As with a conversation with friends and/or family, he wishes to communicate sentiments of warmth and intimacy and reiterates the distinction between the reality and illusion of crime and asks us to read between the lines. Things are not as bad as they seem. That is how oral language works. It is meant to convey feelings of intimacy rather than offer grammatical exactitude. Many of our newspapers have reduced Mr Manning's address at Howard University to one word: "bogus". One paper proclaimed: "Father of kidnap victim attacks PM's 'bogus' remark: That's insulting" (December 20, 2003).

To any reader, this would be received as the cold, unyielding truth. The only meaningful thing Mr Manning said at Howard is that reports of kidnappings in Trinidad are bogus. In an editorial the same newspaper says: "We have published the relevant transcript of his (Mr Manning's) Howard address and which, incidentally, was sent to us by Mr Manning's communications specialist so the public now has a chance to judge whether the light-hearted dismissal of at least some of the kidnappings with which he introduced the issues was sufficiently counter-balanced by his vivid observation, that the total situation still has a debilitating effect of scaring the population' and the assurance that his Government 'is determined to bring the full measure of force to bear on the issue of which, the country is capable."

After filling the minds and hearts of the nation with the reality that Mr Manning said that kidnappings here in TT are bogus, the newspaper believes it could simply print what Mr Manning really said - almost as an afterthought - and then talk about "counter-balance" after they sought to damage his credibility. To add insult to injury they try to prejudice Mr Manning's corrective by noting that his communication specialist sent it to them. Who else should send it and why is that important? Then, they try to counterpoise Mr Manning "vivid language" with the more sombre tones of his written speech that underlies government's determination to bring the full force of law to the question of crime. This approach fails to signal that oral speech is more "vivid" than written speech. It would have been a million times better if this paper had stuck to reporting the PM's speech at one of the most important universities in the USA at a Centre named after Ralph Bunche, a Noble Prize winner. Let's get real. Maaren Van Der Gaag, the Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, reminds one columnist that we should all seek to be good professionals as to what we do. We should stop personalising issues and stop trying to make others look bad at the drop of a hat and stop engaging in mauvais langue.

SELWYN CUDJOE
Port-of-Spain