25935: Hyppolite Pierre (reply) Re: 25907: Simidor (comment): Reuters Revisited/ Lavalas the devil (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Hyppolite Pierre <hpierre@irsp.org>

It's simply amazing how, depending on the political current, one can be viewed 
either as a "Lavalas" journalist or as a "Convergence" pawn. 
I think Simidor did well, pointing to the inaccuracies in Delva's report which 
was indeed re-worked on and copy filed with the larger audience. The most 
interesting factor however, is how one can get beaten up for not writing enough 
anti-Lavalas reports. I guess there's not enough. 
With Simidor it is no longer a matter that Delva's record of the facts was not 
accurate, as they ought to be. Subtly being injected in his analysis (post 
25907) is the suggestion to Reuters' Editorial Board that Joseph Guyler C. 
Delva needs to be fired. 
Well oh well. Rarely do I say this but quite frankly and in all honesty, I feel 
for Delva and I will explain why. 
First of all, I can to this day recall how less than 3 years ago, Delva used to 
be on a reportedly pro-Lavalas radio talk show in New York almost every Sunday. 
Back then, Lavalas partisans would get enraged when calling him, because they 
were absolutely convinced that he was anti-Lavalas, and that he was working for 
the Convergence opposition. Whatever he would say, when placed into the proper 
context, made reasonable sense. Nonetheless, fired-up Lavalassiens were ready 
to hang him on any rope they could find. 
Earlier this year, former State Department official in Haiti Daniel Whitman 
wrote a book in which he exposed the man's personal marital problems in a 
public forum, all in the name of "anti-Lavalas". 
This is all maddening, at least to me. Haitian politics was and is still, a 
battle between good and evil. The new political religion today implies that 
Lavalas is evil. This is regardless of the fact that the vast majority of 
people who had adhered to Lavalas, did so on a philosophical basis: the right 
of the majority to live freely and successfully in society and under the same 
rights and duties as the more affluent. It's a movement that had been taken 
over by political extremists and traditionalists from lower middle class, and 
we all know the consequences. Tomorrow, say in 10 to 13 years, it will be 
another evil and a few people who try to remain impartial will get into the 
crossfire again, accused of being "satan' or "satanic". 
It's pretty clear, at least to me, that the goal here is to convince Reuters to 
fire Delva and put on board someone who is more anti-Lavalas. This is not about 
journalistic integrity or accuracy. It's again, personal because Delva is not 
anti-Lavalas enough. It seems okay however, based on that logic, for other 
journalists to write stories that are not factual-based but which contain 
enough anti-Lavalas slogans. 
And the circular reasoning goes on. Haitian politicos keep their political 
clock on the wall, committing the same mistakes while thinking that they are 
doing something different every time. Meanwhile, the country sinks deeper into 
the abbyss of stupidity. Its brightest sons and daughters will continue on with 
denigrating, attacking, destroying one another, just so the 
"ôte-toi-que-je-m'y-mette philosophy can survive and even, continue on 
thriving. Meanwhile, the rest of the world keeps on watching how hate can be so 
negatively productive. 
I wouldn't be surprised nor will I be, should Delva be fired. Perhaps Simidor 
will ge his wish: a Dominican-based correspondent from Reuters will take over. 
Perhaps Reuters will please the vociferous crowd of Haitian political 
Ayatollahs, and hire a more accurately anti-Lavalas journalist. I wouldn't be 
surprised, nor should I be. It's the "market", isn't it? One has to "sell". 
We'll see if Reuters takes the good and independent advice of our confrère, 
Simidor. 
As was said recently in a Haiti En Marche editorial, Lavalas is the new Nazi 
party. "Reuters" should take note of that, shouldn't they? 
Best regards,
Hyppolite