Freddie Kissoon asks who is more dishonest

Mar 02, 2012 Letters

---

 

 

DEAR EDITOR,
I am responding to a letter by Adam Harris in the Wednesday edition of KN titled, “Frederick Kissoon was dishonest.” By now readers of KN are accustomed to the frequent appearances of publisher’s and editor’s note on my media work in KN. Of course Mr. Harris is not the first and will not be the last to accuse me of dishonesty.
I leave it to the Guyanese people who have been acquainted with my public life since I was sixteen (and I am now 61) to decide how they see me. From where I stand, I don’t think I am seen as a dishonest person. At least in my dismissal from UG in January, there was no charge of dishonesty
Now for the crux of the matter. Nowhere in Mr. Harris’s statement is there even the slightest mention that he had discussion with me on the release of the e-mail one day before I disclosed its content of the e-mail sent to Ms. Nadia Guyadeen from David Dabydeen. Anyone reading that letter would think I went ahead and published the e-mail and then Harris read about it. Nothing could be further from the truth. After my explanation here, I will leave it to Guyana (and perhaps the world) to decide who is more dishonest.
Mr. Harris gave a long explanation about Kaieteur News’s internet protocol address being hacked into and how he got certain types of e-mails etc. I don’t see what that has to do with how I got the e-mail. Mr. Harris’s long detour is completely irrelevant and I have no idea what he is talking about.
I know of no discussion with Adam Harris about people hacking into KN’s computers and how he told me about e-mails he acquired. I repeat; I had no such conversation with Mr. Harris. What is mysterious is the following line from Harris; “The e-mail came into my possession from a strange source at a time when many people were holding Mr. Kissoon out to be a liar.” There is no context here and I honestly don’t know who or what Mr. Harris is referring to.
So we come to how I acquired the e-mail. But first. Is Mr. Harris dishonest or disorganized? Nowhere in my publication on the e-mail did I say that Ms. Guyadeen gave me the e-mail. I hardly knew Ms. Guyadeen and the only conversation, I repeat, the only conversation I ever had with Ms. Guyadeen when she worked at KN is when she lodged a complaint to me about Mr. Harris. I repeat, prior to that complaint, I did not share a collegial relation with Ms. Guyadeen and never had a conversation with her.  The nature of that complaint need not detain us here.
Ms. Guyadeen never gave me the e-mail so I would not and could not have written words to that effect. What I did say is that Ms. Guyadeen shared her e-mail and it is through that process I got it. I received it two years ago from Mr. Harris.
It happened one lazy, obscure night at KN when Adam told me he has proof that David Dabydeen in fact nominated President Jagdeo for the Nobel Peace Prize. I asked that he forward it to me. He did with the understanding that I was not to use it. I kept it for two years, betraying the confidence Adam reposed in me only once. I showed it to Mr. Yesu Persaud because I wanted Mr. Persaud to know the type of person David Dabydeen was. I did not tell Mr. Persaud who I got it from. I guess Adam is entitled to an apology here. He has one now.
Two months ago, I asked Mr. Harris for permission to use the e-mail. He said yes. Had I done that, I would have mentioned that I got permission from Adam to use it because he said yes without qualification. Last Saturday, I renewed my request to Adam. I informed him that to safeguard the integrity of my journalism I would have to say who I got it from. He then said I don’t have to say who my source was. In other words, I got the distinct impression that Harris was talking about him, Adam Harris.
After the publication, he called me in an agitated mood denouncing me for the mention of Ms. Guyadeen’s name. He never brought in that angle. Had he requested me not to say that Ms. Guyadeen was the recipient of the e-mail, I would have done so. But her name never came up. Where does all of this leave Mr. Harris’s accusation of mischief and dishonesty on my part?
Finally, my journalism is different from Adam Harris’s. Unless your source requests not to be named, then journalism’s credibility remains intact when you outline specifics, specificities and particularities, especially in a Guyanese context. You are always accused of mischievous inventions when you say that a Minister ran a red light. You are always accused of lying if you say a priest was cussing in a Regent Street. You get the familiar response; “where is your collaboration, where is your evidence?” So for the sake of journalistic credibility, you mention which other driver saw the Minister running the red light and you name the eminent person who was standing in line when the priest was cussing down.
The first thing I would have heard is that I am lying on Dabydeen. Anyone can say that he saw an e-mail. I never thought of doing an injustice to Ms. Guyadeen. It appears Ms. Guyadeen has spoken to Harris. The problem originated with Harris. He never told he got the e-mail from Ms. Guyadeen. He never told me not to name Ms. Guyadeen. I assume now that Ms. Guyadeen is enraged, Harris makes me out to be the dishonest one.
Well, for whatever it is worth, I am sorry if Ms. Guyadeen is hurt. There was no intention to do so. She has a sincere apology from me, but I would have expected her to contact me about the apology. Nevertheless she has one here.
Frederick Kissoon  

---

---