If you disagree that this is enough (as it seems you do), please let me know what you would prefer and I will amend the post.

If you disagree that this is enough (as it seems you do), please let me know what you would prefer and I will amend the post.

I just have one problem with some of your observations on one story in
particular. In praising Camini Marajh for her RBC/RBTT story you say: “Her
coverage of the deal should be framed and used as a model by editors and
reporters in other newsrooms.”

Are you serious? Maybe I've been reading too much FT, Wall Street Journal,
New York Times and such, but what Ms. Marajh did in this story is fairly
routine for any such story. In fact, if you've ever used a Bloomberg
terminal you'd know that stories like these cross the 'tape' all the time.
And many such stories are written on tight dealine, sometimes in a couple
hours by wire reporters. Trust me, there is nothing particularly great
about this story.

You also say that Ms Marajh scooped international media. I don't think this
is accurate. At $2 billion, The RBTT deal is a small acquisition and not
exactly something reporters at Reuters, the FT, WSJ and other outlets would
prioritise. My guess is that they only paid it any attention when the RBC
press release hit the wires.

Moreover, this paragraph that you praise (“wonderful. wonderful.”) is
incomplete:

“Both have financial incentives to see the deal through, according to
financial sources. RBC, Canada’s largest bank is flush with acquisition
dollars, assets of Can$563 billion and a market capitalisation of Can$69
billion.”

Missing detail: How much acquisition dollars does RBC have? Also, citing
the bank's assets is meaningless without reference to the bank's
liabilities. Also, we're told that RBC is trailing rivals in the Caribbean.
How much business does RBC have in the Caribbean? Moreover, why is the
Caribbean important to RBC?

You also praise the following paragraphs as “establish[ing] why the deal
would be beneficial to both parties, are neatly hedged (”if approved by
shareholders”) and give relevant financial details.”

“RBTT, Trinidad’s largest bank with assets of US$7 billion, has stumbled in
recent years on issues related to management, flat earnings and growth
limitation.

The RBC offer, comprising 60 per cent cash and 40 per cent RBC stock, if
approved by shareholders, would give RBTT stockholders a much-needed boost
with an option of cash and RBC shares – Can$55.26 at the close of trade on
the Toronto Stock Exchange on Friday.”

The first paragraph is vague. What is the growth limitation? And if that
limitation exists, why is RBC seeking to acquire RBTT? How does RBC plan to
generate growth? (Every acquisition should generate value for shareholders.
Growth is fundamental to creating value.) Is RBTT bloated? Will there be
job cuts to generate cost savings? What's the growth strategy underpinning
the acquisition?

The second paragraph is also vague and fails to answer a fundamental
question: Is the RBC offer a fair one? Are RBTT shareholders getting a good
deal? In fact, I would say that this was the most important aspect of this
story. Ms Marajh should have gotten an expert opinion about the proposed
offer. This paragraph reads more like PR than insightful reporting.

Next, Ms Marajh writes:

“Still to be worked out, however, is the price of RBC shares which are to
be listed on the local Stock Exchange under the depository receipt system
used on the Nasdaq and other major Exchanges where a specified number of
shares of foreign companies are issued and traded.

Sources say the listing of a big international bank like RBC on the TT
Stock Exchange would be a major coup for this country and could well
catapult Trinidad centre stage and a step closer to the Prime Minister’s
dream of making this country the financial capital of the Caribbean.”

You say in response to these paragraphs: “When I got to this point in the
story, I was tempted to applaud. Ms Marajh clearly had spectacular sources
on this one, because details like that are gold dust.”

Really? Do you need to have spectacular sources to state the obvious?
Details like that are gold dust? Wow… (I also notice that Ms Marajh made
no attempt to contact RBC to verify her story. Not even a sentence saying:
“RBC officials declined to comment.” This would have added balance to the
reporting.)

I think you're doing a good job with this blog, but we need to be careful
not to regard routine reporting as excellence. I know that given the sorry
state of our journalism the temptation exists to do so, but we have to
resist that temptation if we ever want our journalism to improve.

thanks
Mike

You say Mr. Rampersad did a decent job of summarizing a complex topic. Really? Much of what he wrote merely paraphrased reports from other sources. I see no real understanding of the complexity of the situation facing financial markets. He mostly quotes local “experts” opining on the implications of the meltdown for local businesses. This isn't journalism; it's stenography.

You yourself have highlighted some of the flaws in this story. And as you've pointed out, this is largely due to the vast majority of 'journalists' being out of their depth when it comes to reporting on the law, politics, business etc. They need to go and train, maybe spend a few months at a real newspaper to see and learn how professional newsmen and women go about the very serious business of journalism.

thanks
Mike