Did CVM TV give Jamaicans the full picture on Holness’ classroom comments?
Jamaica Live News Desk– | Sept 11, 2026
KINGSTON, Jamaica — A social-media report by CVM TV highlighting public reaction to Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness’ controversial comments about children learning outdoors has raised a broader question about media responsibility: when public opinion is clearly divided, should a major news organisation present viewers with only one side of the conversation?
The controversy erupted after Holness addressed images and reports of children being taught outdoors at schools affected by Hurricane Melissa. Speaking during the launch of the Jamaica Reconstruction and Resilience Oversight Committee (JAMRROC), the Prime Minister acknowledged concerns about inadequate school facilities but also reflected on the uncomfortable conditions inside many Jamaican classrooms.
Holness said he had visited classrooms that were “unbearably hot” and suggested that learning outdoors, closer to nature and in cooler surroundings, should not automatically be regarded as something negative.
Importantly, Holness also explicitly qualified his remarks, saying: “I’m not excusing the lack of resources in some schools.”
Nevertheless, the remarks sparked considerable criticism, with some Jamaicans arguing that children deserve properly repaired and equipped classrooms and that outdoor schooling should not be normalised nearly a year after Hurricane Melissa.
Those criticisms are legitimate and deserve to be reported.
But they were not the only opinions being expressed.
Jamaica Live finds another side of the conversation
Jamaica Live reviewed the CVM Social segment presented by Michael-Paul on what social media had to say about the Prime Minister’s remarks.
The comments selected and displayed in the segment were critical of Holness or raised objections to his position.
A viewer watching that presentation could therefore reasonably come away with the impression that the social-media response was overwhelmingly one-sided.
However, Jamaica Live found multiple comments supporting or defending the Prime Minister’s remarks, even while numerous negative responses remained readily apparent.
One commenter wrote:
“That picture brought us back to reality. It showed resilience.”
Another said:
“It’s better than being at home on the phone playing games.”
Perhaps more importantly, another commenter raised a significant piece of context surrounding the situation at the school, writing that the teacher had a tent available but chose to take the children outside because she found the ambient temperature better outdoors.
That distinction matters.
If a temporary classroom had been provided and a teacher voluntarily decided that the children would be more comfortable beneath the trees because of the heat, that presents a considerably different picture from children simply being abandoned outdoors because no temporary accommodation existed.
It does not mean that tents are an acceptable permanent substitute for proper classrooms. Nor does it erase legitimate questions about the pace of school reconstruction.
But journalism is supposed to provide sufficient context for audiences to understand those distinctions.
The issue is bigger than Andrew Holness
This is not about Jamaica Live defending Andrew Holness.
It is about journalism.
CVM TV is a major Jamaican media organisation, and with that reach comes considerable influence over how national conversations are presented to the public.
There is nothing improper about CVM broadcasting criticism of the Prime Minister. In fact, scrutinising the Government and its leadership is an essential function of a free press.
But there is a difference between reporting criticism and presenting a selection of public reaction that can create the impression that criticism represents the entire conversation.
If supportive opinions existed — and Jamaica Live found multiple examples — why were none reflected in a segment specifically devoted to what social media was saying?
Fairness does not mean that every news report must artificially divide itself 50-50 between opposing positions. If the evidence overwhelmingly points in one direction, journalism should report that reality.
But where a genuine difference of opinion exists, selecting comments exclusively from one side can shape the audience’s perception of public sentiment.
That is precisely why editorial selection matters.
Jamaica is recovering from a catastrophic hurricane
There is another piece of context that deserves serious consideration: the scale and duration of disaster recovery.
The existence of children learning in temporary facilities almost a year after a hurricane understandably generates frustration. Parents want normality restored, children need appropriate learning environments, and the Government should be held accountable for the pace and quality of reconstruction.
But rebuilding after catastrophic destruction is measured in years, not merely weeks or months.
Hurricane Katrina provides a useful international comparison — not because Jamaica and New Orleans are identical, but because Katrina is one of the world’s best-studied examples of large-scale hurricane reconstruction.
A peer-reviewed study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examined decades of disaster-reconstruction research and applied those historical patterns to post-Katrina New Orleans.
Researchers identified a roughly six-week emergency period following Katrina. Based on historical reconstruction patterns, they projected restoration over approximately 40–60 weeks and estimated that reconstruction of the physical environment and urban infrastructure would take approximately eight to eleven years.
Later research examining New Orleans’ long-term recovery similarly described the six-week emergency period and the projected 8–11-year reconstruction period, while noting that housing and population recovery varied substantially between neighbourhoods.
Nearly a decade later, Katrina recovery was still visible in the numbers
The U.S. Census Bureau’s own figures make the point even clearer.
Before Katrina, the New Orleans metropolitan area had approximately 1.386 million residents. That fell to 1.040 million in 2006. By 2014 — nearly nine years after Katrina — the population had recovered to approximately 1.252 million, but remained below its 2005 level.
Housing followed a similar trajectory.
The metro area had approximately 592,800 housing units in 2005. That number plunged to 438,278 in 2006. By 2014, it had climbed back to 553,627 — still approximately 39,000 units below the pre-Katrina figure.
Business establishments also remained below the pre-Katrina number in the Census Bureau comparison: 31,401 in 2005, 29,002 in 2006 and 29,794 in 2013.
The lesson is not that Jamaica should take eight or eleven years to repair its schools.
It absolutely should not be used as an excuse for unnecessary delay.
The lesson is that catastrophic hurricane recovery is an enormous undertaking and that temporary arrangements during reconstruction are neither historically unusual nor, by themselves, proof that reconstruction has failed.
Government accountability and context can coexist
Two things can be true simultaneously.
The Holness administration can be held accountable for ensuring hurricane-damaged schools are repaired as quickly as reasonably possible, while Jamaicans also recognise that rebuilding a country after catastrophic destruction cannot happen overnight.
Likewise, Jamaicans can believe that every child ultimately deserves a safe, properly ventilated and adequately equipped classroom while recognising that a teacher choosing a cooler outdoor environment over a hot temporary tent is not necessarily evidence of Government neglect.
And Jamaicans can strongly disagree with Holness’ choice of words while still acknowledging his complete statement — including his explicit declaration that he was not excusing inadequate resources.
Those nuances are precisely what journalism should help audiences understand.
Show the criticism. Show the support. Show the context.
Jamaica Live is not arguing that CVM TV should have suppressed the criticism of Andrew Holness.
Quite the opposite.
Show it.
If Jamaicans are angry, report their anger. If parents believe reconstruction is moving too slowly, give them a platform. If people believe the Prime Minister’s remarks were insensitive, let their voices be heard.
But if other Jamaicans are defending his position, show them too.
If the teacher had a tent available and voluntarily moved the children outside because it was cooler, tell viewers that.
If Holness expressly said he was not excusing inadequate resources, include that context.
And if Jamaica is undertaking reconstruction following a catastrophic hurricane, give audiences some perspective on what rebuilding after disasters of that magnitude has looked like elsewhere.
Then let Jamaicans reach their own conclusions.
Journalism should inform public opinion — not leave viewers with the impression that only one public opinion exists.
Jamaica Live – Your trusted News source both locally and Internationally.