M. Maxwell, Peeping Tom, Stabroek News and the responsibility of the media

AUGUST 5, 2015 | BY KNEWS | FILED UNDER FEATURES / COLUMNISTS, FREDDIE KISSOON

In any discussion on the media, you can bet your life and you will win, that all the panelists will bring up the question of the responsibility of the media. Do we have a responsibility to the nation on whose behalf we print and broadcast? The answer is yes. The media is extremely powerful and anyone who denies that should be dismissed as silly. This power has to be backed by absolute responsibility to those who read and watch us. Even a trainee journalist would tell you that there are responsibilities that journalism entails. The reason we are scared of governments neglecting their obligations to us is because of the power governments have. Surely the media in many contextual situations has power that is equally formidable. Why then should society focus on the obligations of government and not the media? A media house cannot tell a Minister he has to disclose information to the nation, while we in the media can pick and choose what we tell the nation. No! It cannot be! We have obligations too. Last month I sat down outside the office of the AFC and had a chat with Imran Khan, the Director of Public Information in the Office of the Prime Minister. Mr. Khan will tell you I boldly told him I expect the Chronicle to carry leads and front page photographs of PPP events. The PPP represents half of the nation and as such the nation is entitled to know what the PPP does. When the PPP does what it does and that doing is big news, the state media has a responsibility to carry it. I told Khan if Jagdeo goes to Berbice and gets 10,000 attendees, that is news, and it should be on the front page. This is called media responsibility. My editor Adam Harris and senior reporters Dale Andrews and Michael Jordan can tell you I have been in endless discussions with them on the issue of naming names, an area which the media has no option at all. If the Ministry of Labour is investigating a supermarket for industrial violations, the media house has to report the news, meaning it has to name the supermarket. The media house has no special duty to the supermarket to withhold its name. If that is done, then we are reporting news selectively. I don’t believe there is a journalism professor who would support withholding of the business’s name. The supermarket cannot sue for libel because the media was reporting a fact. You do not lose libel if what you say is factual. The case of Ruel Johnson in this context becomes egregious. Johnson said he cannot identify who is his co-editor at Mosquito News. But hasn’t Johnson on countless occasions instructed the government on what is its obligation to its citizens. Doesn’t Mosquito News have an obligation to its readers? A very curious thing happened in Monday’s edition of the Stabroek News. The newspaper carried a letter of mine and gave it the caption, “SN should follow NYT’s guideline on anonymity.” But the paper omitted the New York Times’ guideline that was contained in my letter. The Kaieteur News published my letter with the NYT’s guideline. At the end of my letter there was an editorial note in which readers were informed that anonymous letter-writer M. Maxwell did submit details of his real existence to the newspaper. So the Stabroek News knows who the real M. Maxwell is. But it should not end there. Under the NYT’s policy, the paper should explain to its readers why the anonymous person wants anonymity. In the NYT framework, the anonymous person has to explain to the paper why he/she does not want to be identified. Strangely, M. Maxwell did not supply the Kaieteur News with proof of his real existence when requested. I guess the Stabroek News can logically respond to me and say why are you carping on M. Maxwell, a mere letter-writer, when the Kaieteur News has a daily nameless columnist, Peeping Tom. I didn’t agree with the decision to carry Peeping Tom and I still don’t, and I made my objection in several columns. I honestly think that Kaieteur News has found a special place in investigative journalism in the history of Caribbean journalism. It pioneered investigative journalism in Guyana and brought to light, all, not several, but all the major scandals in Guyana the past fifteen years. With such high status, it should not encourage anonymous commentary the type we see with Peeping Tom. My advice to the paper in this new era Guyana has entered is to look for credible columnists. The era of Peeping Tom should be over and M. Maxwell too.