FROM time immemorial, mankind has been sending messages be it in our music, language – especially body language- as we interact with each other from day to day. Those signals, messages (communication) contain vital information that can redound to the health or demise of the receivers.
It can be sent by the messenger himself, be it a person or radio, telephone or other means. It is a message sent nonetheless. Animals do it. They send their own messages – a gentle pat, a gentle smell or the baring of teeth, all done to convey a message.
Sometimes these actions send mixed information but they are notwithstanding, messages, valuable transmissions that cannot be easily glossed over.
Human beings are more sophisticated, sending messages in various ways and in different forms, some with a refined touch or sophisticated infamy. Then there are inspired utterances. Those of a prophet or sage sending across a moral meaning of a gesture or utterances that inspire, designed to bring out the best in us – simply messages.
In my preparation of this letter I must bring back to our discussion the photograph in the Kaieteur newspaper of that man beating his wife and ask the question, what was the intention of that story? The news editor, after having read the condemnation of concerned citizens about the subtle message that photograph would convey, then calmly runs an editorial which aptly tells the story in precisely the way I highlighted in my article. I quote a few lines from that editorial to bring home the point:  “Over the years there has been much noise made about domestic violence.” I single out the words “much noise”. Is domestic violence making much noise? Is Kaieteur News telling its readers that domestic violence is a trivial matter to the point where it is considered much noise? Is it the case where they at that newspaper have become so benumbed to the issue that they can spike things up with a graphic front page image? I am horrified if this is the case.
What I do think, and again that “macho image” comes into play. Here is it we have a male editor who cannot come to grips with the idea of making an apology, to say I apologise or simply put, I made a mistake. It is so difficult for “a man” to do. Instead, the implied message, I can do what I can do in the way I can because I am “the news media” irrespective of the horrible imagery that picture might conjure up. It is that callous response from a newspaper that prides itself in profiting from such wide publicity that worries me. I would not bother to go further into the other messages sent by this insensitive editor. That being said, he might have meant to convey another message, but the inference drawn from those as well as other lines belies his real intent.

Violence against a human being, any human being irrespective of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or geographical location is of utmost concern to all of us and is never a laughing matter. It should never, I repeat, should never be trivialized, no matter the circumstance.