Latest update September 2nd, 2026 10:50 AM
Latest News
- Commission wraps up site visit, prepares Arthur Chung Conference Centre, Liliendaal for M/V Barima public inquiry
- Opposition leader demands ring-fencing of future Stabroek Block projects
- GGMC to crack down on unauthorised sale and transfer of mining lands
- Govt. denies negligence in Mahdia dorm fire
- Cuban construction worker electrocuted; two others critical after scaffold hits live wire
Should the public take the Reuters report seriously?
Dear Editor,
Kaieteur News – An investigative journalism report must be fair, objective or neutral, and balanced, and all claims as well as conjectures, innuendos, and insinuations must be backed by strong supporting evidence. It must not appear to be biased or lead reporters to a desired conclusion. A report must present objective facts and let readers draw their own conclusions. Otherwise, the report taints the professionalism of the reporters or bylines and even the profession of journalism.
Does the recent report from a foreign news agency indicting a prominent wealthy Guyanese family and its business, linking it with nefarious activities and even tying the President with the family and drawing unsubstantiated conclusions meet the criteria noted above of a fair, objective report? Readers can draw their own conclusions.
Did the report offer irrefutable evidence to support its claims or conclusions or assess tons or conjectures? Media critics and watchdogs say the report is deficient in objectivity. From a critical perspective, the report was deficient in several areas of objectivity in journalism. There was no evidence of fact-checking. And there was hardly any content-neutral presentation of information. The critics of the report point out that the report didn’t ask probing questions or presented solid evidence. It simply drew conclusions. The caption or title itself was a giveaway of an unstated goal to tarnish a family.
A prominent American journalist I engaged stated that the tone of the report suggests that it is what in America is called “yellow journalism”. He describes it as “a hatchet job” to get at someone. He felt that the reporters were on a mission — out to malign their targets, casting them in a bad light.
He also noted that the report was written with missionary zeal. Citing unnamed sources from the US government is not evidence. He says there was not even an attempt to be objective or present a semblance of fairness. There were no names or titles of government officials interviewed. That in itself suggests that there was an objective to tarnish the reputation of the targeted individuals.
The allegations against the family are very serious. Yet, there were no cited evidence to back them, not in the USA or Guyana or from any international organization as there were no direct quotes or reports to use as irrefutable evidence. The direction of the report was not middle of the road but slanted to get readers to draw a specific conclusion.
I have been in the media, penning opinions and news reports, for some fifty years. I know what an objective, investigative report is. I leave it to readers to determine whether the report is fact checked and whether any strong evidence is offered to form the stated conclusion? Are there innuendoes or assertions and inaccuracies? Were the stories of the targeted parties accurately presented?
Journalists have an obligation to be balanced and fair, speaking with and presenting all sides without showing preference for any one and not leading readers to a conclusion.
Should readers or the public take the report seriously?
Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram (PhD)
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
Website Hits
Blunt of the day
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
