– over ‘disparaging and disrespectful’ remarks in letter he sent to media
Capitol News’ reporter Gordon Moseley has been banned from the Office of the President (OP) and State House following what has been described as the “disparaging and disrespectful” remarks he made in a letter he sent to the newspapers last week.
A security guard informed the senior reporter about the ban when he visited the Office of the President for an assignment yesterday and later, he received a letter to this effect from Government Informa-tion Agency (GINA) Head Neaz Subhan.
Moseley was told that should he apologise, then the ban would be lifted.
In his letter to Moseley yesterday afternoon Subhan said the administration of GINA, “has determined that it will withdraw your accreditation to the Office of the President and State House,” and that the decision take immediate effect. The letter further stated that other employees of Capitol News would not be similarly prohibited. “GINA is however inclined to review the decision providing that you issue an apology in relation to the disparaging and disrespectful remarks couched in your letter to the press,” Subhan said in his letter.
But Moseley, who is also a producer at the newscast, last evening refused to apologise and questioned what accreditation for OP and State House was withdrawing since he has never been issued any such accreditation. He said as far as he knew no such accreditation has been granted to any media worker and as such he was “at a lost as to what accreditation they are talking about.
“I will not apologise to Kwame Mc Koy [Press and Publicity Officer at OP] and Dr Prem Misir [Head of the Press and Publicity Unit, Office of the President].”
The journalist said he was not going to allow anyone to “waste his time” pointing out that he has been covering President Bharrat Jagdeo for almost a decade both locally and internationally. “It is clear that GINA is trying to run the newsroom at Capitol News and deciding who should cover what and that is a decision that rests with Capitol News.”
He said he would not apologise for remarks he made in the letter, published in this newspaper and later Kaieteur News, in which he responded to remarks made by President Jagdeo at a press conference in Antigua. The President had criticised Moseley for a report he aired on a meeting with Guyanese in that country. The President said the report was biased and Moseley’s letter responded to the remarks and included a transcript of the report in question.
“I make no apologies,” Moseley said. “The president made statements to the regional press and I thought it best that I respond to those statements since they were directed at me personally and at the newscast at which I work.“
Managing Director/Editor-in-Chief of the newscast, Enrico Woolford said, “The administration of Capitol News feels that this ban should be lifted forthwith and that the press be allowed to function within its constitutional mandate.”
In a statement issued last night, he revealed that his newscast, with assistance from public and private sector companies, “and the excellent output from a dedicated, loyal and committed staff shall continue to present the news from wherever it matters to the Guyanese and Caribbean public.”
He said it was “wholly unfortunate” that the OP feels that it should, in the “spirit of the past regimes over the last fifty years in this country dictate to the press who it likes or dislikes covering an assignment.
“It is unfortunate too that the current administration seeks to distract attention from more salient matters of national interest and lurch from one contretemps with the media to another. It is important, Capitol News feels, that the Office of the President should engage in trying to run the country rather than trying to run the media.”
Meanwhile, the Guyana Press Association (GPA) has slammed the move to ban Moseley and has since dispatched a letter to President Jagdeo asking him to correct “what appears to be an administrative error.”
The GPA in its statement said it “is deeply disturbed by the decision” to prevent Moseley from entering the two premises.
It said Moseley was informed of the decision yesterday when he arrived to cover the presentation of credentials that was postponed for later in the afternoon.
“The guard advised that the decision was taken by the administration of the Office of the President but refused to say who specifically made the decision so that redress could have been possibly sought then,” the statement said.
The association said it would be exploring “all the possible options to have this matter resolved. Aside from claims and counter-claims of biased reporting, we do not believe that any media worker and/or media house should be punished for freely reacting to statements made against them.”
The statement said if Moseley was debarred from covering assignments at the two locations because of a perceived ‘unbalanced’ story he reported on when President Jagdeo met with Guyanese living in Antigua recently, “then the decision is both flawed and without merit.
“And if as we have been informed, the decision was made in reaction to Moseley’s rebuttals of claims that he carried a biased report, the GPA deems this most oppressive and vindictive.”
The association has offered to mediate to find a speedy resolution to “what could potentially become a grave media infringement on the part of the administration.”
Head of the GPA Denis Chabrol, who signed the statement, said that during an informal “conversation outside Oasis Cafe, Carmichael Street, [the President] appeared not to have known of such a decision when Mr Moseley, Mr Enrico Woolford and I raised it with you.”
Chabrol said he later raised the matter with the President yesterday afternoon via telephone during which “you indicated to me that you did not know of the ban and that you would check it out. Prior to our telephone conversation, I also spoke with your Secretary Ms Nancy Ferreira, who also said she was unaware of a decision against Mr Moseley.”
PPP/C Member of Parlia-ment Moses Nagamootoo in an invited comment to the GPA said, “This [the decision] is unnecessary and unprecedented, this kind of sanction cannot be the answer to issues of fairness and balance, this marks a new low in the relationship between the state and the media.”
