Can the media do no wrong?

It's being reported today that our House of Representative's Privileges Committee has recommended that Newsday reporter, Andre Bhagoo, be banned for the remainder of this Parliament's session for being guilty of contempt of Parliament, arising from premature publishing in the Newsday of the activities of a House sub-committee before it reported its findings to Parliament (which contravenes both the Standing Orders and Erskine May Parliamentary Practice).

MATT has stated that it's a bit harsh, since the Newsday's editor has taken full responsibility for the act and apologised.  Apparently, similar acts have occurred before and the trend has been to accept the apology and move on.

This has led bloggers to criticise the government for the proposed action, as the Privileges Committee is comprised predominantly of PNM members.  Some bloggers have used this as an entry point to a discussion on fascism - see the comments following the article on the Guardian.  Some are calling for other media houses to boycott Parliament in protest.  Others see it as another example of the PNM's attempts to muzzle anyone who criticises it - apparently Mr Bagoo reports frequently on UDeCOTT issues.  Most see it as a threat to freedom of the press.

Here's the thing.  The Newsday has acknowledged that it did wrong.  So why is banning the reporter for the rest of the session (about a month, since the session ends 16 Dec 2009) being viewed as a threat to freedom of the press?

It's not as if the Privileges Committee has asked for the banning of ALL Newsday reporters, or all reporters from other media houses.  I suspect, but await confirmation, that the Newsday can send another reporter in Mr Bagoo's place if it desires to cover Parliamentary proceedings.  And if, by MATT's own admittance, this has happened before, isn't the Privileges Committee right to say enough is enough and break with the tradition of just asking for an apology?

So to borrow a phrase from our Sports Minister, what's the fuss?  At this point, rather worryingly, the Newsday hasn't updated its website to publish today's stories (Saturday 14 Nov 2009 12:19 T&T time), so I don't have Newsday's official version of events.  Perhaps other folks with links to T&T media professionals can enlighten us about this issue and the risks of allowing the ban to occur.

PS1 [Sat 14 Nov 2009 02:07 p.m. T&T time]: The Newsday has updated its website and its story on this issue may be found here.  Contrary to the Express, it states that the Parliamentary session ends 08 Jan 2010, and not 16 Dec 2009 - it otherwise matches the Express story and gives a few more details.  Frustratingly, I can't confirm the closing date of the current session of Parliament via Parliament's official website at www.ttparliament.org - can anyone provide the actual date?

PS2 [Sun 15 Nov 2009 06:50 p.m. T&T time]: Trinidad Express columnist Judy Raymond has added her views and additional info to the mix in her latest column.  Apparently, the Privileges Committee actually considered banning ALL Newsday reporters and photographers for a year.  Madness!.  So perhaps there is some truth to the view of the Government's appetite for heavy-handed reaction.  I still disagree with her view that upholding the ban as currently worded is censorship, since the Newsday would be free to send a replacement for Mr Bagoo.