Today on iNews Cayman we have published a story titled “We’ve reached a new low for victim blaming in Christy Mack attack”.

The story is about a woman, Christy Mack, who was made to undress by her ex-boyfriend, shower in front of him “before beating her insistently, stabbing her with a knife, sawing off her hair, and threatening to rape her from which she was only spared because he was unable to get aroused.

“The result is 18 broken bones in the face, a broken nose, a cracked rib, a ruptured liver and several missing teeth. When Mack arrived at the hospital her face and body were swollen, bruised and lacerated. She was unable to chew or see out of her left eye and could not walk without assistance.”

Terrible isn’t it? However, the main thrust of the story that was reported by the media was Mack’s occupation. She was a “PORN STAR”!!

What difference that made to the injuries she suffered is beyond me. What relevance as to her occupation is to the story is also beyond me.

Was the fact she is a porn star an excuse for the attack? No!!!

So I have to question why the media headlines all led with “Porn star”?

In yesterday’s iNews we headlined a story “British singer Cliff Richard subject of police investigation into sexual assault on boy”. Were we right to actually name the singer? I believe we were wrong but as everyone else in the media had, there really was no point in us not doing so.

We were wrong and the rest of the media was wrong because Cliff Richard has as of this date not been arrested or charged. We have no details of who made the charge, except it was a young boy and it happened 50 years ago. Why it hast taken the alleged victim to make a complaint not until a year ago is not known.

If you or I were the subject of a police inquiry would that have made the headlines with our name splashed all over it? No it wouldn‘t.

Now Richard’s name will be forever known as a “possible” sexual predator, even if it doesn’t go any further.

Even worse, the media (the BBC) were camped outside Richard’s home before the police arrived, even with a helicopter flying above and reporting live from the scene.

Also today we have, like nearly everybody else, published more on the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri following the fatal police shooting of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown on 9 August.

Floods of people have come from afar who know absolutely nothing about the terrible case, except from us the media, so they can appear on television and have their photo all over the world wide web. We are very happy to listen, ask them questions hoping for some outrageous and damaging comment, especially if it is another hit at the police and home guard who are trying to keep order.

And providing food for the news hungry hounds the police shoot a protester dead who held only a knife. And the dead man also was of Afro/American heritage (yes we have to be political correct).

Nothing in that incident, however, justifies the rampages that are happening there. And the media are lighting the flame.

And just when things were calming down  the police issued to the media a video showing someone who MIGHT have been Michael Brown robbing a store prior to the shooting. It was absolute insanity of the police to use the media in this way but they knew we would use the video.Now the police were now trying to justify shooting an unarmed man by saying he could have been robbing a store. No shred of evidence that Brown was indeed that man and the public and media were now having a field day.

Just look at the result.Chaos.

And here in Cayman are we blameless? Do we publish stories as fast as we can just so we can be first to get it up on line? Yes. And  are we happy we have a morsel of information the other houses don’t have?

Of course we are.

Sandra Catron, a woman I have admired from a distance, has now asked our police to investigate the circumstances around changes made to a report on government schools. Nothing wrong with that except the media adds in “Catron is currently facing charges of “uttering a false document” as a result of a complaint against her filed by the education ministry regarding the controversial Nation Building Fund.”

What exactly has that got to do with Catron asking the police to investigate a report on government schools?

Is there some hidden message there? Is it the intention to make us believe Catron is getting her own back on the education ministry? If she is, does this nullify her complaint? No.

And then Catron falls into the trap and tells the media house, “All evidence points to the fact that someone had purposely changed the consultant’s report so that it would mislead members of the Legislative Assembly and public. Whoever instructed or permitted this act to happen has clearly doctored a government document and attempted to pass it off as an original which is the very definition of “uttering a false document”. When it comes to enforcing the law the RCIPS and DPP appear extremely motivated to convict some persons but not others. I am a firm believer in equality under the law and wish for justice to be applied equally to all,” she said.

Actually all the evidence (does she have any?), does not point to what she says. The education ministry has taken great pains to give an explanation as to why the first report was rewritten, as has the woman who was instructed to produce it. You can accept the explanation or not. But don’t try and tarnish someone’s name with conjecture, please. Conjecture is not evidence.

And last, but not least, the government credit card scandal involving the misuse of them by government employees and members of government.

A local media house was given sample credit statements of government credit cards used by government ministers plus snapshots of the spending records of government chief officers. The person who gave this information to the media house is not named although all the names of the ministers and chief officers are.

Is that fair?

And not only are these people named but all the details of these credit statements and snapshots with their names, are published on the media website so the public on the whole world wide web can not only take a peep but download and keep.

Is that right?

Shouldn’t all these persons have been contacted first to give their side BEFORE publication?

I firmly believe there are times when the media should not publish everything we know (or think we know) especially when we know we are keeping something back.