Latest update March 29th, 2024 12:59 AM
Feb 10, 2015 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
I am disturbed. We have to be careful that we do not stereotype others whether inadvertently or not.
Freedom of the press carries certain responsibilities. Freedom of the press does not give anyone a licence to stereotype others. This applies to all media practitioners, including those whose many years in the profession may qualify them to be referred to as senior journalists
Seasoned journalists have to be careful that they do not undermine their impartiality and objectivity by the public comments they make, whether oral or written. They have to understand that social media is also a public forum and the comments they make they are just as subject to scrutiny as those they make in the traditional media.
A new form of journalism is emerging. One that is ‘no holds barred’. Much of this new journalism is taking place on social networks which allows persons to receive and propagate their views to a wide audience. These functions and its reach make social networks a social media.
The dangers of social networks is however the fact that the overwhelming content on social networks, including on most blogs is unedited. A great deal of hatred, racism, stereotyping, abuse and misinformation passes through these unfiltered sources.
We have to be careful that we are not advocates of that which we portray as being against. There are startling signs that some of our local journalists are tipping the ship of objectivity dangerously towards the starboard side.
Take for example, the reports about two Guyanese in New York who have been convicted of illegal acts, one on fraud and the other obstruction of justice. Some of the comments on social networks were almost gleeful. If you read carefully and between the lines you would understand why.
But what was utterly disgusting was a comment by someone who by virtue of his experience in Guyana’s media can be considered a senior journalist. In a comment on social media, this journalist said that attorneys in Queens, New York refer to the courts there as machete courts, “Guyanese chopping up mattie.” The stereotypical reference is not hard to miss.
If that were not enough, the journalist goes on to state that if you input any Richmond Hill Guyanese name, the arrests are for fraud, money laundering and domestic violence. This is disgusting.
The comments have not been justified. No evidence was adduced that firstly, the courts in Queens are proliferated with cases of persons charged with offenses relating to the wielding and use of machetes. There is equally no evidence produced that Guyanese in Richmond Hill are the only ones, indeed the main grouping, that are being charged in Queens for the crimes listed. If such evidence exists it should be produced.
It is one thing for those uninitiated in journalism to make sweeping generalizations and uninformed comments. It is another thing for someone who is an accredited journalist to do so because what that person says may be treated as gospel because of his reputation.
An equally disgusting development is the position purportedly being adopted by the Private Sector Commission (PSC) in relation to the settlement of a court matter by the Guyana Revenue Authority. It is claimed that the withdrawal of the charges raises questions about the GRA’s objectivity in applying the law.
This is very strange response by the Private Sector Commission. It is also one that begs the question as to why it is so concerned. It is not as if a raft of charges is being filed against tax defaulters in our courts and that the GRA had suddenly decided that it will selectively withdraw one of these matters. If that were the case then the PSC may have had ground for concern.
Has the Private Sector Commission ever considered the fact that the GRA may have had a very weak case and knew this?
The law allows the GRA to settle matters outside of Court. In fact, recently a ship on which certain substances were alleged to have been transported was released after paying a fine. I think the sum quoted was US$60,000. How come the PSC did not find this worrying? Or did it?
Now that the PSC is so concerned about objectivity perhaps it can address its mind to the question of the lack of charges against the senior government official against whom allegations of threatening behaviour was levelled. It would be interesting to know where the Private Sector Commission stands on this one.
THIS IDIOT TELLING GUYANA WE HAVE NO SAY IN THE 50% PROFIT SHARING AGREEMENT WE HAVE WITH EXXON.
Mar 29, 2024
By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – After a series of outstanding performances in 2023, Tianna Springer, dubbed the ‘wonder girl’, is eagerly gearing up to compete in this year’s...Kaieteur News – Good Friday in Guyana is not what it used to be. The day has lost much of its solemnity. The one day... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – In the face of escalating global environmental challenges, water scarcity and... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]