A STORY HAS MORE THAN ONE SIDE

Aug 02, 2011 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

On Sunday July 24, 2011, the Stabroek News broke the story about a call-in programme hosted by Christopher Ram and Ramon Gaskin being pulled from Channel 6.
The hosts of the show apparently received a letter in which the owner of the television station indicated that he could no longer offer air time for the show, following discussions he had with “the authorities” over the content of the show.
The newspaper reported one of the hosts as saying he attempted to engage the station owner to clear up certain ambiguities about the letter, but the owner was hesitant to speak.
The next day the hosts of the show held a press conference during which one of them disclosed that he had spoken to the Sharmas and was convinced that they were pressured to pull the show. The Kaieteur News reported one of the hosts as saying, “I had several conversations with the Sharmas…the details of which I am privy… and the action convinced me that it was not premature… The threat was real and imminent.”
Yet one day before the press conference, the Stabroek News had reported that the same host was saying that when he had tried to engage the owner of the television station he (the owner) was hesitant to speak.
What was significant about the press conference was that it was attended by a number of the top western diplomats. Diplomats are not often present at press conferences. The fact that they attended this one probably meant that they were invited and chose to attend to signal their concerns about what was taking place.
There are many ways in which foreign governments express their concern. They may issue statements, have private discussions with government officials or do as they did with this press conference- simply showed up. Their presence made a statement.
The diplomatic community in Guyana has to be very cautious in dabbling in domestic issues lest they find themselves and their governments embarrassed.
They must be absolutely clear about the facts before they commit to any action. In Guyana, there is a saying that a story has more than one side. The diplomats should not have attended that press conference unless they were convinced about what was taking place and they could only have been convinced if they had heard all the sides to the story.
The government has since denied that it had anything to do with the withdrawal of the programme and the president has indicated that it was someone from the television station that had called him to plead about not imposing serious sanctions for another matter that is before him in his capacity as Minister of Information.
Following that revelation, the protests about violations of the right to information and its implications for freedom of expression, have died down. All those who were so willing to condemn the government and to excuse the television station for its action in pulling the show, have gone silent.
The diplomats may have been premature in their judgment. They may not have been privy to all the information. Their decision to attend may have therefore been based on not having all the facts at their disposal. They may not have known about the government’s version of this controversy.
If in fact it turns out that there was no Government pressure to pull the programme, then the diplomats would have exposed themselves and governments to embarrassment. They should in the future stay clear of attending such press conferences and operate through the traditional diplomatic channels to make known their concerns.
The Media Owners Association was more circumspect. The members planned a meeting for the day after the press conference. As things would have it, one of the most important persons who were to be at that meeting was not there.
One of the members of the association was told by the individual that he had to drop someone home. The meeting was supposed to have been rescheduled but it never materialized. It is doubtful now that the media owners are going to become involved in this matter.
There is now a need for the television station to issue a definitive statement on just why it pulled this programme. If as it is claimed in the letter to the hosts, there were discussions with the authorities that led to this decision, it must be revealed who were the authorities and what was said.
The government of Guyana has taken a great deal of flak over this issue. It has indicated that it was not part of any decision to pull the programme.
A story they say has more than one side. The truth is somewhere and this story should not simply be dropped by the media. They need to get to the bottom of what took place, what occasioned the decision to drop the show and whether there was any political pressure involved.

---

---