THE National Communications Network (NCN) has attracted attention by making its own news pertaining to two of its staff members — Mrs. Jocelle Archibald-Hawke and Ms. Natasha Smith. In this Information Age, a story can spread quickly, and often with little or no control by the sender or those affected by it. Sometimes it even takes on a life of its own and attracts consequences that are favourable or unfavourable, depending on the receiver or the person being affected by it. In this landscape none escapes, as experiences have shown worldwide.

Simultaneous with the NCN issues, there is a controversy with Philippines’ President Rodrigo Duterte and United States President Barack Obama. The two leaders are presently attending the meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in Laos. At a press conference on Monday, Duterte used some choice language to describe Obama, and threatened to swear at him at their scheduled Tuesday bilateral.

The White House responded by cancelling the meeting, and Obama describing Duterte as a “colourful guy”, though it is said that such conduct is not uncommon to the manner in which Duterte speaks.
Duterte has since said he regrets that his swear came off as an attack on the U.S. President, when it was not intended to be.

While it is hoped that these two countries would resolve their differences, this scenario highlights the impact communication leverages on relationships between countries in this Information Age. Prior to this period, such information may never have gotten out to create international embarrassment, touch the ego of either country or leader, or put either or both in a position of needing to ‘preserve’ a particular image for self and country.

The NCN staffing issues regarding what was said, or believed to have been said — which have created a measure of discomfiture, including suspension for Mrs. Archibald-Hawke and Ms. Smith deciding not to read the news — exemplify how information can travel the highway and create collisions that can be injurious to those directly involved.

In the instance of Ms. Smith, the story being circulated in the media — social and some mainstream — is that she was allegedly relieved of her duty as a news anchor because of her pregnancy and marital status. Ms. Smith, in a report carried in this newspaper on Tuesday, made known her side of the story. Without getting into the nitty-gritty of the matter, even as it is expected that the matter would be resolved in the interest of all, it is evident that (mis)communication was taken to the point where it was felt — real or perceived — that one has been violated because of one’s gender and lifestyle choice.

The battle to discriminate against women who choose to work and have children, be they single or married, was won in the 1960s. This matter should never again be litigated. And in this era, where choice in pregnancy apparel exists, the traditional loose fitting versus the contemporary closer-fitting, such should also be respecting of the individual’s choice; and that choice should be within the ambit of what constitutes appropriate dress code for the staff.

In the instance of Mrs. Archibald-Hawke, where it has been alleged that on her Facebook page she had posted some views that were offensive to another colleague, this requires careful thought and consideration that while freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it carries corresponding responsibility, and it ought not to violate legality. From a cultural standpoint, where the expressed view may be deemed offensive, though a Facebook is one’s private space, in our society, where ethical conduct is more observed in the breach, it may require bringing all the experiences to bear in dealing with a matter of such a nature.

Whereas the case of Obama and Duerte was cited to make the point about the dire consequences that attend saying things that can hurt relations and feelings, it ought not be forgotten that even at such high levels things happen; but the offended and affected work to resolve same in an amicable manner.

In presence of a microphone inadvertently left open, heads of government have in instances been caught saying things about each other that they would not normally say in public. Such goes viral, but are often resolved amicably.

One hazard of the Information Age is that such occurrences are normal; and though they may result in bruised egos and hurt relationships, what is never to be lost sight of is the sphere within which the information originates, its legality, and the respect for free speech.