Self-respecting newspapers should not have anonymous writers

Aug 16, 2015 Letters

Dear Editor,
As long as five years ago, I stated that my policy is that I would not reply to anonymous letter-writers and the pen-name columnist in the Kaieteur News, “Peeping Tom.” I believe no academic and/or commentator who believes in open, candid discourse should dishonour their profession by engaging an anonymous debater
I am only penning this reply to response to the person that goes under the guise of M Maxwel because there is a Stabroek News dimension therefore one can say I am commenting on that input. The Stabroek input is that M. Maxwell’s real existence has been detailed to the newspaper. But one of my contentions is that both SN and KN should inform readers why the need for anonymity
M. Maxwell’s letter (“NYT policy refers to confidential news sources not letter-writers,” Aug 7) says that the New York Times guideline refers only to sources. I don’t know how he/she knows that, because SN didn’t print my NYT guideline which was contained in my letter. But M. Maxwell is right. The NYT document relates to sources only. And that had to be because the New York Times would not tolerate a weekly anonymous letter writer who comments on general issues rather than inside information of a specific nature
If Maxwell did read the NYT policy document he/she would see that it elaborates on the concept of anonymity. That is my contention with SN with Maxwell and KN with Peeping Tom. Apart from rejecting the use of these fictitious names, I also asked for media responsibility, meaning the two papers should explain why they see the need for the service. I think in accepting fictional names, SN and KN should offer their readers an explanation on their acceptance of anonymity. This becomes more obligatory when both papers announced a policy of the requirement of proof of the real existence of the letter-writer
More than ten years ago, I enunciated a policy direction on fictitious names and this arose out of my repudiation of KN’s acceptance of the Peeping Tom column. I will restate that attitude. A newspaper should only carry the disclosures and commentaries of people who use pseudonyms out of two circumstances – their lives will be at risk; they face employment termination. I argued then and will do so now that if there is a whistle-blower in the banking industry, the newspaper should protect the person’s identity. But there is specificity here. There is a specific area of disclosure – banking only. Guysuco is very large and if an insider is giving out information to the media then the false name becomes commonsensical. This not the case with Peeping Tom and M. Maxwell.
My position on Peeping Tom and M. Maxwell is inflexible. In the 21st century, respected newspapers should not encourage such practice. The Peeping Tom anomaly is more egregious. This person writes on everything under the sun using insulting, demeaning language. As an experienced media practitioner, I see no reason why a newspaper should have a general commentator who has a pen-name. I could understand an anonymous columnist who is a whistle-blower in his/her particular area of operation but not general commentary
My point is the SN and KN have never justified to their readers why M. Maxwell and Peeping Tom need to hide their identity. If the answer is that they are afraid of being physically harmed, then why attack people with your pen in the first place. Take GHK Lall. He performs the identical task M. Maxwell does for the same newspaper. But he is a real man. If GHK Lall could do it then the Stabroek should ask M. Maxwell why he cannot too. If he cannot then what are the special circumstances? Why not leave candid commentary and journalistic exposure to real people who are willing to take the risk and there are many of us like that in the SN and KN?
In a country like Guyana where over seventy percent of the population is under forty years, does the media want to introduce a culture of unjustified anonymity? Would it not encourage our young people to substitute bravery for a carnival mask? I suspect we will see years more of Peeing Tom (I know the person and he is a he). The same with M. Maxwell. Very senior people at SN know Maxwell and feel they need to offer Maxwell the favour. I guess this is Guyana were all things do happen all the time
Frederick Kissoon

Latest News

Self-respecting newspapers should not have anonymous writers

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 13th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Windies crumble to spin as Pakistan seize control with 202-run lead...

Ashby, Inverary, Lewis among winners on Friday

Ninvalle and Sports Commission applaud budgetary...

Guyanese Swimming star makes waves at SUNY...

Spartans Dominoes Club/Travis Sargeant tourney on...

Runsfest ends in draw as players await final...

Features/Columnists

Kazakhstan showed that renegotiation is possible

OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus

What objections to renegotiation are all about

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Self-respecting newspapers should not have anonymous writers

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 13th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]