The words of Granger and Trotman: A comparison

Apr 03, 2018 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

It is a well established practice in the media that when a personality in the spotlight goes before the cameras to offer an apology or explanation, there follows an in depth analysis of how the words were said, the body language etc to understand if there was conviction in what was delivered.
The choices of words, the style in which they were delivered and the shape of the emotional delivery are what the analysts look for. If you check the Australian media, there were opinions on that very subject with regards to the press conference of David Warner on his part in the ball-tampering affair.
Leader of the AFC, Raphael Trotman, has reacted to the accusation of David Hinds that the AFC was a decision-maker in his removal as a Chronicle columnist. The press had earlier asked the President for his reaction. The contrasting words tell the story of the political nature of David Granger. Let us cite the response of both gentlemen then do the comparison.
Trotman intoned, “We may not have agreed with all that they may have said, but we didn’t grow to dislike them in any way so the AFC has no interest in the demise of any of them. We remain quite respectful and admire both of them. There was no party decision to get rid of them.”
Granger said, “We must ensure that the public, particularly through the State media, receive information which would help them to make decisions so there is a role for public information… The Chronicle is a public information medium.”
The contrast in the reaction of the two men is illuminatingly clear. Trotman had words of praise for Hinds and Lewis, and the grammar was encouraging. He said the AFC admires both activists. He wished they would have continued access to the Chronicle. Granger was concise. He indicated that his government did not order the removal of the writers and went on to add what is quoted above.
Granger in February at the State House media brunch took objection to the caption of a Lewis column in which the words, “testicular fortitude” were directed to Granger. There was no debate in the society about whether that expression was rude or culturally insensitive.
It is not alright to say something is acceptable in your country because it is a normality around the world and therefore should be fine with Guyanese. In global journalism, I would think that expression would not cause an eyebrow to move. But is it good for Guyanese journalism?
I could only give my opinion – I do not see anything wrong with the publication of that description in 21st century journalism. If my editors do not intervene, I would have no hesitation in using that description.
I would like to repeat Mr. Granger’s reaction because when studied it defines a certain type of mind-set that does not auger well for the state media.
It is either a mysterious or a deliberately misleading statement. By “we” I am assuming he means the government. By the “public” I am assume he means we, the people of Guyana including countless numbers that admire and respect Hinds and Lewis as the leader of the AFC asserted. If “we” means the government, then the government has to make policies in consultation with the ‘Demos’ (Aristotelian concept meaning the community).
If “we” means the government and according to Granger the government must ensure the public gets information through the state media so they can make decision then one hopes Granger knows what he is saying. The media is owned by the public therefore the opposition supporters belong to the public.
The public must also get information about the official opposition party so the public can make decisions about their political parties. Granger seems to be contradicting himself. I hope he can see it.
If the state media’s role is to inform the public so they can arrive at decisions then the state media cannot carry information on state activities only. It has to carry an array on reporting and commentaries so the public can make up their mind. It is President Granger himself in that brief response who has ironically argued a case for anti-government critics to be featured in the state media. I have this funny feeling Granger is not who he says he is.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News