Unethical journalism

Nov 09, 2023 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – For almost 25 years, Dan Rather was the face of the CBS Evening News. He served as an anchor from 1981 until his unceremonious departure from CBS.

Dan Rather was a powerful figure in the news network. But he was brought to his knees because of the alleged failure to check the authenticity of documents which he had used as part of a story about George W Bush’s military record. This failure to validate the records led to public criticisms, which in turn forced his imminent removal as anchor of the CBS Evening News in 2005, and his subsequent departure from CBS in 2006.

Rather’s downfall was because of the failure to verify the facts in a document which he used in the story about Bush’s military record. It is not that the facts were not true. Rather continues to insist that the facts were  true. But rather because (no pun intended) he failed to verify the facts in the document – a standard procedure in journalism.

A few days ago, Stabroek News engaged in what can only be described as ‘gutter’ journalism. It took a nasty swipe, in one of its news stories, at the now General Manager of the New Guyana Marketing Corporation (NGMC). It quoted unnamed exporters claiming there were problems at the agency. It also claimed some 37 persons were dismissed. But it never said whether it verified these numbers. In addition, it alleged reports of a double payment of a large sum of money. Not a shred of evidence was produced to substantiate what now increasingly appears to be these contrived allegations.

It is unethical for a news media outfit to run a story based on mere hearsay, even if it gives the other side the opportunity to respond. If this becomes the established practice in the news business, then we might well have a situation where someone comes off the road, makes an allegation of rape and, without asking for at least prima facie evidence, the newspaper runs an article with the allegation and the response of the accused.

It is the duty of a newspaper or newscast to check and verify facts. Fact-checking and verification are foundational principles of journalism. If a source comes to you and says that he is an exporter and has a problem with an agency, your duty as a reporter is to verify that this person is indeed an exporter,  and whether there is prima facie evidence that there is a problem with the agency concerned, and then to cross-check and verify this with other exporters to determine the problem is an isolated case. Did Stabroek News do this?

Did Stabroek News ask its source for the names of the 37 persons it claimed left the employment of the NGMC? If so, did it ascertain from any of those persons the reasons for them leaving the job?

The Stabroek News story on the NGMC lacks fact-checking. It is not enough to fact-check by asking for a response from the NGMC. That fact-checking should have taken place prior to interviewing the General Manager. This is how professional journalists operate.

It is now incumbent on the Stabroek News to undertake an investigation to ascertain whether its reporter verified any of the information that he or she was provided with prior to requesting a comment from the manager of the NGMC. As was the case with Dan Rather, there is a sanction involved in not fact-checking a story prior to publication.

On a separate issue, it is not the practice of this column to reply to critics. People have a right to their opinions and this column has always been about allowing for a diversity of views. However, this column will respond whether there is an attempt to misrepresent or misconstrue what was said in previous columns. Let me therefore make the following facts pellucid to someone named Joel Bhagwandin, in relation to the column about Bharrat Jagdeo and the terms of the production sharing agreement. This column never said, insinuated or implied that Jagdeo was ‘briefed’ on the terms of the Production Sharing Agreement.

The facts are as follows: An Order to affirm fiscal terms was laid in the National Assembly on 4^th August 2016. It was debated on the 8^th August 2016. During the debate, the then Minister of Finance clearly indicated that the APNU+AFC government had entered into a Production Sharing Agreement with Exxon and its co-venture partners. At no time during the debate did the PPP/C or Jagdeo demand that the terms of that contract be made public. It was only 10 months after in June 2017, following a public outcry against the 2% royalties, that Jagdeo came out and asked for the contract to be made public. What was he doing all along: imitating Rip Van Winkle?

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of this newspaper and its affiliates.)

---

• CBS Evening News, failure, journalism, Peeping Tom, Unethical

---