SITTING AND HAVING HIM STANDING

Jan 28, 2010 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Dan Rather, the former anchor for CBS, was a very forceful reporter. During a press conference with Robert Nixon, Rather so agitated the President that Nixon asked Rather, “Are you running for something?”
Rather without losing a beat answered, “No, Mr. President. Are you?”
That was a memorable moment in media history, one that is referred to even today to instill in young reporters the importance of being aggressive when asking questions and  to be sharp in their responses.
I saw a glimpse of that skill during the recent press conference hosted by President Jagdeo. Immediately memories of that encounter between Rather and Nixon came flooding back. President Jagdeo was being asked a question by a young reporter who I believe is from the Stabroek News. This young reporter usually asks some searching questions of the President.
On this occasion he was asking about the President’s position on political cooperation and referred to what someone else had said about the President.
Before he could finish his volley of questions, the President interrupted and asked him whether he had corrected that report. The young reporter without missing a beat replied, “No, Mr. President. That is your prerogative.” It was masterful reply and placed the pressure back on the President to answer the original question.
It was good to see the reporter thinking on his feet… or rather in his seat because one of the disturbing signs at that press conference, which was aired on national television, was the sight of reporters sitting in their seats asking questions to a standing Head of State.
This is one of the reasons why all press conferences by the Head of State should be moderated. It is not the established protocol for reporters to be seated while asking questions of the President.
Even though, the President as a down-to-earth person may not have been bothered whether the media operatives were standing or seated while asking him a question, the correct thing would have been for the reporters to stand, identify the media house they represent and then ask their questions.
There is no way that Forbes Burnham or even a Desmond Hoyte would have tolerated such things. They would not have allowed any reporter to be seated while asking a question. That could have been considered downright disrespectful.
One of the redeeming things, though, about Desmond Hoyte, was that whatever your problem, he was someone that if you saw him and related your concern he would act regardless of the government agency concerned. If you felt that you were being treated unfairly and you made an appeal to him, he would listen to you— he may even have roughed you up— but he would not be afraid of anyone accusing him of interfering in the work of government agencies.
He did what he thought was right and could not give a hoot about those who thought otherwise.
The recent criticisms by Stabroek News of possible conflict of interest by President Jagdeo are without any basis. We have an Executive President in this country and anyone who has a problem has a right to approach the President seeking redress.  There is no merit in the contention that when it comes to the work of government, the President has no locus standi.
The President always has a standing because he is the chief executive of the government and ultimately the buck stops at him. He may not strictly speaking have a right to interfere in the day to day running of a government agency, but he has every right to  examine or to request an investigation into any action taken by any government department to ensure  justice.
Those who are therefore making a mountain over the mining issue and making allegations of conflicts of interest should ask themselves whether the matter was not resolved in a fair manner.
Someone had a mining concession, which was obtained since during the days of the PNC. Eventually the concession was reclaimed for non-payment of rentals and given to someone else. The matter went to court and the parties who were awarded the concession after it was repossessed were repaid..
So who really was disenfranchised and unfairly treated by the government reverting the concession to the original concessionaires?
What is sickening about the criticisms made by the Stabroek News was that all over this country people are demanding that the President involve himself in matters. Appeals are often made for him to take action to investigate matters. He has on more than one occasion been called to intervene.
When those calls are made there are no criticisms of the President having no locus standi. No one bothered, for example, to say that the President had no locus standi when he requested an investigation into the death of one of his Ministers.
One suspects that all of the hullaballoo over this issue is more about the person concerned rather than about the principle of political interference or that of conflict of interest which in this particular instance has no merit whatsoever.

---

---