Wasn’t Freddie’s teacher a dictator?

Aug 03, 2008 Features / Columnists

The Parrot had in the past squawked about Freddie’s flawed and deliberately skewed analyses on what he terms “elected dictatorship”.

This now seems like an obsession on his part and many have since refuted it. Last week, the Peeper chimed in and clearly stated that no such “thing” exists. Freddie’s fixation with this issue seems more personal than factual.

He has publicly described his personal endeavours, some of which may have necessitated the intervention of a government official and of which the final outcome were unfavourable to him.

All who read these related rants can easily conclude that his “elected dictatorship” mantra has seemingly stemmed from his own bitterness and appears to have a vendetta-like “ingredient”.

He has over the years “blown his own horn” in relation to his journalistic ability and has never hesitated to express surprise when, according to him, journalists do not investigate certain issues; issues in which he clearly has a personal interest. Space would not permit for me to delve into these.

I would recommend this newspaper’s archive to those who wish to familiarise themselves with what I have alluded to.

However, Freddie of all persons must be aware that journalists cannot inject their personal biases in their reports which must be fair and balanced.

Any deviation from this leads to an erosion of credibility which is one of the fundamentals of journalism. The journalists must be believable.

The audience, in Freddie’s case readers, is not made up of imbeciles. They know those who have “axes to grind” from those who are considered to be credible.

Given this credibility scenario, Freddie can claim to be a journalist so as to benefit from and be “protected” by the “terms of reference” of those in the profession.

Of course we all know that Freddie is considered a feature writer/columnist and, like most if not all, bends the rules of journalism; rules which lead to a compromising of credibility.

This, in addition to his personally tainted vinegary tirades, is an indication of his deficiency in credibility. In other words, given his “portfolio”, he writes what he feels like.

Freddie of all persons knows the “tentacles” of a dictator; he was on the receiving end of Forbes. Forbes banned him from the university making it extremely difficult for him to earn a livelihood here.

The freedoms Freddie and others with a similar agenda now enjoy were a dream when Forbes was dictating.

This is where I have a difficulty in fathoming his branding the administration of having an elected dictator.

If it were that a dictator is in place, then would the frequent unbalanced commentaries of Kissoon be allowed to be published?

Would the political bias and unfair commentaries of the self-styled “analysts” be allowed to be aired on television? How can the notion of an elected dictatorship be peddled when the person peddling it is free to do so?

Now, don’t try to use the Channel 6 and Moseley scenarios as a counter to my arguments herein. Those were different circumstances and if “measured”, would be a mere “drop in the ocean” to the many politically skewed and almost derogatory comments being made both in the print and parts of the electronic media.

Freddie is a prime example of a columnist who uses the paper space to sully the character of some and to denigrate others.

Some have taken the time to reply to him in an effort to set the records straight. With about twenty television stations and four major newspapers, all free to publish their material, yet Freddie sees a dictator.

Should I believe that he is still being haunted by the mental trauma he so unfortunately suffered under Forbes?

To him, everyone is a dictator. The Parrot would not be surprised if Freddie brands his teachers as dictators. After all, they dictated the lessons he would have learnt through the years.

His English teacher, when testing him and his classmates through dictation, would have had to dictate what was meant for the dictation test.

In essence, that person would have shown dictatorial tendencies and could have been branded a dictator. A Judge in directing the jury can be deemed a dictator.

A boss dictating a letter to his secretary can be deemed a dictator. A Director directing a play or a movie can be deemed a dictator.

An Engineer responsible for the construction of a particular project can be deemed a dictator. The list can be exhausting.

In a sense, Freddie can be deemed a dictator too, since through some of his rants directed at individuals, he tends to dictate the attention he wants to receive.

This is made possible through the replies of those whose character he would have brought into disrepute.

In lecturing to his students at the university, he is dictating the course(s). As such he can again be deemed a dictator.

Many have spoken about his unbalanced writings in the newspaper. Should I believe that this is an indication of his psychological state?

If it is that he is exhibiting symptoms of “imbalance”, then the Parrot can only advise the logical thing; get psychoanalysed. This may help to remove him from the state of illusion in which he seems to be existing.

His walks on the seawall may then become more gratifying. Farfetched, unbridled comedy; Kissoon’s elected dictatorship?
Squawk! Squawk!