Of course, shortly after that, things went downhill - and within 10 more minutes - Faber would have walked off the set - rejecting the hard line of questioning taken by host Jules Vasquez.
It is - as they say - a moment that will live in infamy - but who was right and who was wrong? Well, public opinion has been very divided in a robust debate on all public and social media platforms. Today Cherisse Halsall sampled some expert opinions:
It's the moment that made broadcast history in Belize and it has polarized all of social media with an avalanche of comments, but those comments are divided because...
While many people feel that host Jules Vasquez overdid it, and in the process robbed us of all of the details of the case, many others have offered praise for what they've called his championing of the victim, Dr. Shanikka Arnold.
Here's one from Former Head of the Press Office Dorian Pakeman he says, quote:
"So people bex wit Jules but not the man who went on national television in an effort to discredit and victimize the victim by disclosing her private medical condition. Amazing!"
The supporters also include UDP insider Juliet Thimbrel who made this post, saying quote: "Thanks Jules Vasquez for not allowing her to be revictimized, it simply was NOT right! Dr. Arnold is an amazing individual, ALWAYS willing to help! We have been around Doc for some time and I can say I would love for others to meet this lady, Genuine! Caring! Smart! Helpful! Loved and supported by many! Stay Strong Doc, this too shall pass!"
And while we reached out to other UDP personalities including Shyne, and Micheal Peyrefitte they both declined to comment at this time.
We did hear from two members of the PUP, the first further defended Dr. Arnold in correcting this detail:
Albert Vaughn - Social Media Activist
"When I learned about the interview on Channel 7 news the evening, I was excited what was coming forward from the leader of the opposition. I thought that he would have come to show to really say how sorry he is this thing happened and apologized to the nation but I really disappointed because I think yeah Jules has always been Jules, nothing change with Jules but we are politicians, we are to take the hard questions no matter how come that question may come, so I'm very disappointed with the leader of the opposition. Jules now become the villian and that is ridiculous, we must allow the press to behave as the press, whether you like it or not. Me and Jules are no friends but I have big respect for the person, so I don't care what question you throw at me, my responsibility is to answer the question."
Hon. Dolores Balderamos Garcia - Minister of Human Development
"Can I say my understanding and I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong, my understanding of this latest incident involving Mr. Faber, the young lady did not recant and even on Channel 7 last night I heard one of the reports saying the lady recant, recant means you go back and say I told a lie, that has absolutely not happened. What happened to my understanding is that the lady went to court and said I do not wish to give evidence on the charges that have been laid based on my report. Please let me make the abundantly clear, there is difference between recanting and saying to the court you do not wish to proceed with your evidence at this time."
We also wanted to get some professional opinions from our press colleagues, starting with the man who once went similarly viral for an interview with a public official.
Aaron Humes - Reporter, Breaking Belize News
"If there was anyone who I thought would get this interview and get it in the best context possible it would be Jules, unfortunately I think it fell short of this usual standard. I think there was a great opportunity lost for some serious dialogue, not only on what this means for Mr. Faber personally but for him politically and for the country as well because there is a lot as I understand it coming down the pipeline as it regards this particular issue and what it means personally and politically."
But my subsequent interviewee, talk show host, Louis Wade says he doesn't believe that the episode could have gone any other way.
Louis Wade - Pastor/ Broadcaster
"I expect Mr. Patrick Faber now to give his side, he did not do that. The first thing he talked about was the police, so he went into the police and that they were unprofessional. The next he went into he didn't give his story, what he said first is that what was written and signed is a lie, so he is now not only this person as the victim, we see now that he is saying the person is lying, then he continue to say it is not abuse but he did not again describe what happened and then he dropped the bomb where he makes a unprofessional accusation in the public domain about the very same person who claimed abuse and he brought up this issue of mental illness. Now, I don't know where a conversation is going to go from there, it can't go up, it can't go north, it can only go south and it can only go down from there because now which host is going to allow any guest to declare that a person is mentally challenged on air and that will be the basis now of telling your story, I don't know how else the interview could go up from there."
Cherisse Halsall
"Now, when Mr. Patrick Faber takes off the mic and walks out, what are you thinking then?"
Louis Wade
"I'm thinking of a Key and Peele comedy."
Still many think that the interviewer is the one who lost if not his temper then certainly his composure, among those are news reporter Isani Cayetano:
Isani Cayetano - Television News Reporter
"I like many who tuned in last night to catch that episode of UNCUT, walked away feeling short changed or cheated simply because this was perhaps the only opportunity for the country to find out from the area representative of Collett as to what really transpired at this residence last Wednesday and the opportunity for him to share his side of the story was aborted based on the manner and the conduct in which the interview was carried and in this case I feel as if though the interviewer never let up, enough for the subject of the interview to be able to respond to the question. Secondly, one of the primary fundament of reporting. Aborting the interview at that point did nothing to be able to shed light on what happened, you knew you were going on a platform with arguably the toughest reporter in this country, so you ought to have been prepared for what ever came your way. It's a kin to an expression I like to say, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it, so you knew exactly what you have expected, so the line of questioning to me would have been faired if it wasn't opposed upon Mr. Faber what the interviewers' beliefs and opinions are. These are allegations being made against him, allow him the equal opportunity to be able to vent his side of what happened and have us as the viewers be able make up minds whether or not there is any culpability beyond what is shared with us."
Later on in the news - we'll have more on Faber as we look back at his political career.
