It’s because the Government cares so much about the media that it referred two journalists and a media house to the Privileges Committee last week.

So Information Minister Neil Parsanlal would have us believe, and no doubt he convinced a number of people. Mr Parsanlal, a former journalist and corporate communications manager, is often the Government’s mouthpiece in dealings with the media. He’s sometimes described as media-friendly, although no politician in government and in his right mind is a friend of the media. ’Hatchet man’ might be a more accurate description of his mission.

Mr Parsanlal was at least a model of civility by contrast with the ungracious behaviour of his colleague Kennedy Swaratsingh the previous week at the post-Cabinet ’news’ conference. Mr Swaratsingh became peevish when the media were less than grateful for the scraps tossed in their direction that day. These were about the people’s forum at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting-a fringe event, when no one is even interested in the main event; the woolly notion of patenting folk knowledge; and whatever Public Utilities Minister Mustapha Abdul-Hamid had to say.

Mr Swaratsingh professed himself ’amazed’-though I can’t believe he was serious-that the media should ask questions instead about real news-matters such as UDeCOTT, or the Integrity Commission-and not the agenda Cabinet had decreed for them.

The suave Mr Parsanlal, however, would never indulge in such a hissy fit. It was more in ostensible sorrow than in anger that he urged last Wednesday that Samantha John, Sasha Mohammed and TV6 should be sent to the Privileges Committee. This was on account of what he described as an inaccurate account of a ruling by the Speaker and his handling of attempts to refer Opposition and Government members to the committee.

This was the second time in four months that Mr Parsanlal had carried out such a task: in July it was he who asked that Newsday be sent before the committee. So much for his media-friendliness, then.

Last week he repeated a claim he made last year that: ’No one is better convinced than we are that the media has (sic) a tremendous responsibility as a detached informer, educator and entertainer It also cannot be understated that only a press that is fair will retain the public confidence that is needed by a free press.’

Here Mr Parsanlal was practising some sleight of hand. At the beginning he sounds as though he’s leading up to saying the Government understands the importance of the freedom of the press, but he ends by saying something quite different. It’s the ’responsibility,’ not the freedom, of the media that the Government considers important.

As for his touching concern for the reputation of the media, it’s misplaced. Whether or not the press enjoys public confidence is not Mr Parsanlal’s business. That is between the media, their audiences and their advertisers. And if the Government starts determining whether or not the press is fair, the press is no longer free.

The Speaker clearly took a very dim view of the television report in question-Mr Parsanlal had described it as, among other things, ’ a subliminal attempt to paint you as being biased in your rulings.’ Mr

Sinanan therefore said he had no hesitation in referring the matter to the Privileges Committee.

If the party brought before the committee apologises for his or her infraction, the matter will probably end there. But under the House of Representatives (Powers and Privileges) Act, anyone who is convicted of publishing ’any false, scandalous or defamatory matter, reflecting on the character or proceedings of the House or which tends to bring the House into odium, contempt or ridicule’ may be fined $2,000 (a lot of money in 1953, when the act was passed) or imprisoned for 12 months.

Going to the Privileges Committee is the traditional way of dealing with a situation like this, but is it an appropriate one? At the very least, this sounds like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. At worst, it could be a means of intimidating the media. Is this really the best way of handling what in some cases may be a simple mistake committed out of ignorance?

Perhaps, worryingly, it’s relevant that two of the reporters in the present cases-Andre Bagoo and Sasha Mohammed-have written stories that have embarrassed or annoyed the Government (the Opposition was highly displeased when Mr Parsanlal named Ms Mohammed). Since I began going to Parliament in 1999, these are the only two cases I can remember of reporters being sent before the Privileges Committee.

These incidents took place against a background of general government mistrust and scorn for the media, as demonstrated most recently by Mr Swaratsingh. And there are two larger, specific causes for concern.

One is the Prime Minister’s intention to set up a new media watchdog.

The other is a plan by Caricom to include journalists in legislation that would see professionals being licensed by a council appointed and directed by a minister. So the latest clashes may be isolated squabbles, or they may be the opening skirmishes in a dirty, bitter war.