By Dr Randy Persaud, Professor Emeritus
Kaieteur News’ editorial of October 23 (Guyanese on Gaza developments) must give pause to all who are committed to the basic ethics of responsible journalism. Since editorials communicate the basic stance of a newspaper, publisher Glen Lall must draw a red line to prevent KN from becoming an inadvertent flirt with violence. The time is now.
Let us go directly to the issue at hand. Despite the reference to Gaza in the title, the editorial under consideration is nothing but another vehicle used to sow distrust, division, and conflict. You would think that an examination of the plight of war victims must lead to a call for justice. But no, this is too logical for the KN editorial. Instead, we are treated to the following – “…half of the Guyanese population scrap around to make ends meet, with an oppressive oil contract and a government seeking to silence them for objecting to its provisions and conditions” (KN 10/23/2023). The victims of war are simply a prop for KN tears about the oil contract (signed by APNU-AFC).
Too many words come to mind here to capture this assault on journalistic decency. Irresponsible, shameless, incongruous, vapid, jejune, and tasteless all apply. But two characterizations are most appropriate. The first is that it is a disrespectful editorial.
This is the case because rather than stand with a people in their quest for national sovereignty, KN sees solidarity as a form of charity. Here is the how the KN editorial put it – “Charity and empathy begin at home, and when citizens get the most out of what they have been given, they are then in a stronger position to lend a helping hand and a strong voice to what is going on anywhere, anytime” (Ibid). For KN, therefore, the Guyanese people should withhold their “charity and empathy” with the Palestinians because they haven’t gotten enough from the oil contract. Worse yet, is the cynical idea that support for a people in a time of war is a matter of “charity.”
While the disrespect for the victims of war is palpable, the editorial is equally odious with its provocative gesture towards domestic violence. Having dug in on the idea that the oil contract is unfair, and having completely ignored the massive improvements with the new PSA, we get the following – “[u]nfairness breeds resentments which spawn violence” (Ibid). For years now these kinds of incitement have been circulated, although never when the PNCR is in office. The strategy has always been to cloak the insinuation of violence in the language of sociological analysis. An even more diabolical hint at violence has been to make it appear as a prediction.
Readers will appreciate that editorials go beyond articulating the policy stances of a newspaper. In the case of Guyana, editorials also give support and sustenance to commentators, usually in the form of letters to the editor. Bearing this in mind, it is no wonder that beside the October 23 editorial is a long, rambling, and endlessly elliptical bunch of nonsense by a G. Riley whose advice to improve the country is for people to leave.
To further supplement the structural negativity of the editorial is a deposit by Ubraj Narine who wants biometrics for the 2025 elections. This PNC pandit is unfamiliar with his own party’s history. He should do some basic research into the PNCR’s position regarding biometrics. Former Speaker of the House, Ralph Ramkarran (SC), addressed this matter with great clarity. Here is what he wrote – “At each elections cycle further measures to perfect the system have been introduced. One such measure was voter identification cards for the 1997 elections. Both parties agreed to it and the law was passed unanimously. The 1997 elections [were] challenged by Esther Perreira, on behalf of the PNC, alleging, inter alia, that the voter identification law was unconstitutional… The court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, and the elections of 1997 were vitiated. The effect of the court ruling was that any law which placed an obstacle on the right of a voter to exercise his or her franchise, except as provided for by the Constitution, was unlawful” (http://www.conversationtree.gy/bloat-and-biometrics/).
Ubraj Narine is willfully mischievous or authentically ignorant about his own party’s history on the issue of biometrics.
Good, responsible journalism is never easy to find, and in Guyana the outlets with the largest readerships have disappointed too many readers of recent. The KN editorial of October 23 is both disrespectful and dangerous. The publisher should be more attentive to what his paper is putting in the public sphere. If KN wants to criticize the oil contract it should do so as per its daily mantra on the same subject. What it should not do is drag hapless victims of war and occupation to justify its unwitting embrace of extra-constitutional means to political ends.
Dr. Persaud is an Adviser in the Office of the President, Guyana.