RICK’S CRAP THEORY OF POLITICS: IS IT JUST RICKYLEAKS? A QUICK RESPONSE

 Three things about Rick’s new show on CHOICE TV Sunday Night caught my attention:

1.   The equating our politicians with “crap”; either Rick has a serious personality aberration or a major "differentiation" problem.(cf comments below).

2.   A public confession that he was “duped” about Super 8 by d’Auvergne. His profiling of d’Auvergne was a replica of Richard’s maligning of the NDM leader. If we needed any evidence that Rick was in Richard’s back pocket, then there it was! (In fact, one of his callers accused him of being the 9^th disciple in a new “Super 9” configuration).

3.   A caveat at the end of the show indicating that the views expressed by Rick did not reflect the views of the Station. Choice must be applauded for that caveat. I note HOT FM does the same for Sam “JukeBois” Flood. HTS needs follow suit and to do the same for Richard Frederick, Claudius Francis etc.

SundayTalk: “no show” Rick?

From an academic and intellectual standpoint, SundayTalk was a disappointment: flat, unimaginative and unstructured.  Of course, there were apparent political motives; but the show in itself didn’t have a clear “heuristic” - not that we expected Rick to ever be “academic” or “intellectual”. We can’t teach an old (anti-intellectual) dog new (intellectual or academic) tricks; but one observation will suffice: last night, Rick looked like a dwarf (intellectually) when juxtaposed next to Timothy.

Crappy Rick

One subtle strategy which apparently did not get any traction was the “bundling together” of Dr Anthony (and his team) with King (and company) and labeling them all as “crap”. Firstly, that type of generalisation suggested that Rick has a serious "differentiation" problem - he can't separate the "wheat from the chaff". Secondly, he was thoroughly debunked by callers. It is unbelievable that an intelligent listener would ever buy into that paranoid generalisation that "all our politicians are crap".

I don’t know how Dr Rigobert, Andy Daniel, Spider, Chastenet will take it. - that their own PR mogul believes they are all crap. Notwithstanding their limitations, I don’t believe they are crap. They simply have an extremely bad leader. Similarly, nobody in his right frame of mind would ever refer to the esteemed Dr Anthony and the promising cadre of professionals around him (like Emma, Dr Robert Lewis, Phillip pierre, Dr Raymond, Dr Pep, Alva, Lorne, Alvina etc) as crap. These are men and women who have perhaps at great sacrifice put up themselves for service to the country. I don’t believe that Rick, in the paranoid pursuit of his selfish and narrow motives, should ever attempt to debase these people to the extent he does.

Rick’s public confession

Rick made a public confession that he was careless with the truth when he reported about the super 8. Implicitly, he acknowledged he was duped by d’Auvergne.

Let us take Rick’s controversial word for granted; and let us assume that he spoke the truth; then what does that say about his limitations and his judgment as a journalist? Does he ever practice due journalistic diligence? How do we know that he is not in that same quagmire today? And judging from his cover-up for King, Richard and Bousquet (the real crap in St. Lucia politics), it’s looking like history may be repeating itself.

The big question is: Can we trust Rick? Can we trust his judgment? Part 3 of "Wikileaks vs Rickyleaks" will look at some of those issues in greater detail.