The quarrel between M. Maxwell and the Stabroek News

Aug 02, 2015 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
In the light of the quarrel between the pen-name letter writer, M. Maxwell and the Stabroek News, I reproduce the New York Times’ policy on anonymity. Both independent dailies – Kaieteur News and Stabroek News – have a stated policy that if letter-writers want to remain anonymous, they must supply proof that they are real persons. But even if they do that, based on the New York Times’ guideline, a newspaper should not encourage the relentless appearance of a particular nameless person
M. Maxwell (not his/her real name) took umbrage at what the Stabroek News did. The paper referred to M. Maxwell using the word, “correspondent” in relation to Maxwell’s disclosure to the paper that there was a document in the US national archives that showed Venezuela wanted to overthrow the Jagan Government in the sixties. This was a curious quarrel. From Maxwell’s perspective it was dangerous for the paper to refer to him using the word, “correspondent” because it puts him in the spotlight and this may cause others to pursue him/her and it may eventually lead to him/her being unmasked
Maxwell was furious. He/she wrote that he/she objects to the use of the word, “correspondent” and merely wants to remain as a letter-writer. The Stabroek News for its part is getting into bizarre territory. Why does it want to make people think that Maxwell is real? Why could it not have stated that the document from the US archives was sent to it? And just leave it at that. The fact that they printed Maxwell’s name leaves readers to think that there is a real person named M. Maxwell. Why is the Stabroek News encouraging a fictitious name over such a long period of time? I hope the Stabroek management read the NY Times’ position reproduced in my letter here
Why has the Stabroek encouraged M. Maxwell for so long (in fairness to Kaieteur, it hasn’t shown the same attitude to Maxwell). The Stabroek is not a Johnny Come Lately. It is a fine newspaper of sound quality that can do without the moral hypocrisy of M. Maxwell. The Stabroek can get a plethora of missives to fill its daily letter columns.
It is mysterious why the paper is so enamoured with ‘Maxwell’ who has cast aspersions on every politician from every political party in Guyana while hiding under his/her mother’s bloomers. Respected media houses like KN and SN should not engage in such silly journalism.
Here is part of a column from the NY Times “The paper announced a revamped policy for the use of confidential news sources in February 2004. One major change: Before a confidential source makes it into the paper, at least one editor has to know the source’s name. After an internal committee on credibility came up with more recommendations early this year, Bill Keller, the executive editor, further tightened the guidelines for the use of anonymous sources in June. The most notable change: Readers are to be told why The Times believes a source is entitled to anonymity — a switch from the previous practice of stating why the source asked for it.” (end of quote). Here is the Times’ official policy on anonymity. I would urge both KN and SN to follow it. Now that the Chronicle is being fumigated, I would urge that paper too to read the Times’ guideline
• “Readers want to know as much as possible about where information is obtained and why it should be trusted; therefore, the New York Times has a general policy that journalists should identify their sources by name and title. If that is not possible, journalists must explain why he or she considers the source to be authoritative, why the source is speaking to the newspaper, and why the source has demanded confidentiality.
• The use of unidentified sources is reserved for situations in which the newspaper could not otherwise print information it considers reliable and newsworthy.
• Generally, anonymity should not be offered to a source. Exceptions are made when journalists are reporting on highly sensitive stories or when the New York Times was the one who sought out a source who may face legal jeopardy or loss of livelihood for speaking with the press.
• New York Times will not use anonymous sourcing when sources are readily available and journalists can find a source who is willing to be named.
• The news organization does not promise sources that it will refrain from seeking comment from others on the subject of the story.
• Any editor who learns a source’s identity is required to maintain exactly the same confidentiality as the reporter.
• When agreeing to anonymity, the reporter’s duty is to obtain terms that conceal as little as possible of what the reader needs to gauge reliability.” (end of quote)
Frederick Kissoon

---

---