THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRITICISM AND DISRESPECT

Jul 18, 2008 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The declaring of Capital News reporter, Gordon Moseley, as persona non grata is not as straightforward as some would have us believe. It cannot be simply a case of condemning the banning of the reporter from the Office of the President or State House.
The Guyana Press Association needs to seriously consider the content of what Moseley said in his response to criticisms of his report on a meeting the President held with Guyanese resident in Antigua.
It needs to determine whether Moseley was disrespectful to the Head of State and if so, whether such conduct justifies attracting the status of persona non grata.
I ask the Guyana Press Association to carefully consider the content of Moseley’s letter to decide whether anything disparaging was mentioned about the President. I have seen this newspaper run an editorial condemning the intemperate language of an editorial published in the Jamaica Observer assailing President Jagdeo.
I think all sides of this issue needs to be considered. I have found just before this latest development that the media in Guyana were demonstrating a great deal of hubris.
A good example was a Press Conference hosted by the Minister of Home Affairs during which the media seemed to wish to dictate just what questions the Minister needed to answer and the forthrightness the Minister ought to have taken.
I think the Minister was right to offer the sort of answers that he offered and the media cannot be displeased about the answers given.
They can editorialize on what they may feel is a less than expected disclosure by the Minister but they ought not in covering the minister’s press conference be upset about what he was or was not saying. This is something that is better left to the op-ed columns.
Similarly, I feel that while the Guyana Press Association may feel aggrieved about one of its members being declared persona non grata in respect to State House and the Office of the President, some of the protest actions leave much to be desired. It is patently unfair for the media to take the action it has taken without a public assessment of the circumstances that gave rise to the ban.
In making this assessment, the GPA must consider the side of the government over the Antigua report. The criticism of the Capital News report was because it was felt that the report was lopsided and focused only on the negatives of the meeting.
Fairness and balance would have dictated that any report on Antigua should have tried to capture the various moods of that meeting. It would be unfair to the government if in a meeting where the mood was generally uncritical of the government for a few isolated criticisms of the government to be presented as reflecting the tenor of the meeting.
It is as if during a cricket match there was generally dull play but the last ball of the day was hit for six. How should a reporter set the tone of his report? The dominant mood presented by the report should be about the dullness of the play.
There is however a saving grace, but this is something that the Guyana Press Association needs to consider because it is watering down journalistic standards.
With reports now reaching different audiences there is a growing tendency within the media today of simply highlighting certain aspects that may interest one target audience or another at the expense of a general report which captures the dominant mood and themes.
This is happening all the time, especially in on-line reporting, where for example if the President of the United States is speaking at an event there will be a brief report on one aspect of his speech. This approach of some journalists of isolating pieces of a story while losing focus of the entire story is something that I believe has grave ethical implications for the media.
I also do not agree that if the Office of the President has done something wrong to a journalist that the entire government and also Parliament should be punished for that through media walkouts and blackouts. I do not agree with this approach on two counts.
Firstly, I believe that it is unethical to fight what is considered a wrong with another wrong. If the GPA feels that the Office of the President was wrong to ban Moseley, then it should not react by walking out of press conferences hosted by other ministries.
This is just as excessive as the perceived wrong. I believe that if there is need to send a strong signal that this is best done by a walkout of press conferences hosted by the Office of the President.
Surely the responsibility of the media is to bring information to the public. By not being able to bring such information to the public because of walkouts of important press briefings, the media is neglecting its responsibility to the public. This cannot do.
It must limit its actions to the Office of the President. But before it does so, it should convince itself that Moseley was not disrespectful to the president. In my book, being a member of the media does not bestow on journalists the right to say and write what they want.
In my book, if any person is disrespectful to me that person would be excluded from meetings I hold. I would be disrespecting myself if I allowed eye pass.
I do not know whether there was eye pass in the case of the response by Moseley but if there was then I believe that the Office of the President would have been within its right to take some action. If that action was declaring someone persona non grata would depend on the circumstances.
Criticism is different from insult. The former should never invite sanctions; the latter may. It is therefore for the GPA to conduct an analysis of whether it feels Moseley was disrespectful to the President.

---

---