Journalism and politics: I disagree with Isabelle de Caires on two fronts

Feb 15, 2022 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

I would briefly like to respond to two points raised by Ms. Isabelle de Caires in her other letter on me. First, the editor-in-chief (EIC) of a newspaper is assured of independence by management within a designed framework. He/she does not have unlimited autonomy. There is no newspaper in the world where the EIC has complete autonomy to publish what he/she thinks is fit to be disseminated (maybe except the Stabroek News – SN). This will bring on the wrath of management or shareholders.
That framework is the mission statement of the entity to which the EIC must adhere to. In the modern world, the mission statement of a media house consists of two sets of values – ideological/philosophical and situational.
The philosophical perspective consists of a basket of values – anti-racism, gender equality, respect for separation of powers, citizens right to change government, respect for citizens’ privacy, animal rights, respect for religious freedom, among others. No EIC will keep his/her job if the newspaper’s journalists and columnists denigrate the ethnic background of people.
I will offer one example in the realm of ethnic sensitivities where the EIC of SN faltered. An African-Guyanese columnist from SN walked into one of the most successful enterprises in the Caribbean operating in Guyana owned by a traditional and well respected Indian family that has always been non-controversial and cried racism.
The columnist titled her piece, “I was a victim of racism.” She claimed she was deliberately ignored by the Indian sales attendants. How can you make that fantastic leap? Suppose the customer had a smell. Suppose the attendants had a bad day. In a country that rests on a volatile and combustible ethnic fulcrum that was irresponsible editorship. It was also unfair to the business place. In situations like these, the newspaper management had to step in.
The situational perspective is linked to unfolding events in which the newspaper has to adopt a position. The perfect example is the attempt by the incumbent to steal an election. No newspaper will support that evil and will not allow its journalists and columnists to condone it. No self-respecting newspaper has endorsed Trump’s attempt to derail Biden’s legal victory.
In relation to employment of citizens by the State, I think Ms. de Caires missed my point on what the Stabroek News (SN) did. She wrote that political allegiance should not be the criterion for employment. Which decent person would disagree?
I did not write on that negativity. I outlined what SN did and how repulsive it was. It was a gargantuan lapse on the part of the EIC and warrants intervention by both management and shareholders. The paper argued that Dr. Vincent Adams should have been retained as head of the EPA when the PPP came to power.
Dr. Adams sits in the hierarchy of the opposition party – APNU+AFC. It is a descent into horrible danger when opposition figures can sit in sensitive State positions. That does not exist in the real world and never will. A winning party will never tolerate that in the modern world. I will stop writing out of embarrassment of being wrong if someone can show me where in the world that obtains.
Not only did SN argued for the blurring of this line but in the same breath editorialised that executives of the Private Sector Commission (PSC) should be disqualified from sitting on the board of the Natural Resources Fund because the PSC is close to the government. I would have expected Ms. de Caires to state that the EIC must carry out his/her function with responsibility and moral credibility.
Finally, and this is not a response to Ms. de Caires but a piece of theorising. Should a winning party patronise those that brought about a successful campaign? The answer is yes for three reasons – common sense, legitimate expectation and political survival.
There isn’t a winning party in the entire world that has not rewarded campaigners and advisors. This is the reality of politics and elections. First, it belongs to the world of common sense. These are the people that put the reins of government in your hand, how can you erase the relation after your victory?
Secondly, these people have legitimate expectations and you have a moral obligation to cater for those expectations. In the US, donors are usually rewarded with ambassadorships. Perhaps Obama dished out more of these diplomatic perks than any other previous president.
Thirdly, these are the people whose strategic brilliance you will need when elections come around again. If you did not meet their legitimate expectations and fulfill your obligations to them, then prepare to spend your political future living in Timbuktu. (The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---