Dear Editor,
I read with utter disappointment and frustration one of the articles in today’s edition of your newspaper captioned, ‘Newborn’s arm broken during delivery at Georgetown Hospital – grandmother calls for probe.’
Only recently I applauded your writer/editor for affording the PR’s office an opportunity to investigate an allegation that was levelled against the hospital before taking it to print. However, I spoke with one of your reporters yesterday [Monday] about the alleged incident and without seeking my consent, he quoted my name in the article as having made several comments on the issue.
It is noteworthy that in the past I’ve had, as the PRO, no qualms about giving information to the media; however, I am becoming more sceptical about doing so because of instances such as this.
Moreover, I was privileged to attend a training/workshop this past weekend pertaining to the media (and HIV), and I was reliably informed it is somewhat unethical for media reps to quote someone in a public office simply on the basis that he/she would have spoken to that individual. This lends to the open distrust that such individuals have towards media operatives and as such are reluctant to provide them with any information. It is sad that no representative from the Stabroek News was present at this training. My simple request herein is not to have my name quoted in any article unless it is cleared that any statement made is ‘on the record.’
Yours faithfully,
Alero Proctor
Public Relations Officer
Georgetown Public Hospital
Corporation
Editor’s note
The Public Relations Officer of any entity is by definition the person who liaises with the media, and to whom they first have recourse if they are seeking a comment or have a question to ask. In other words, a PRO is the one who is normally authorized to speak for an organization, and as such it would be very unusual for a reporter seeking a public comment from this particular official to ask whether what is said is on the record. If a PRO wishes to speak off the record or unattributed, the onus would be on him or her to so indicate.
In this particular instance, Ms Proctor had nothing of substance to say in any case, telling our reporter that “she would need the full facts before she would be able to comment.” We reported her as going on to say that she would look into it, and as pointing out “that there is always someone on duty to whom complaints can be made.” We are not altogether clear why Ms Proctor should have wanted her name withheld when effectively all she was doing was informing us that she could not say anything because she had not been apprised of the circumstances of the case.
We have noted Ms Proctor’s request that she always be asked if we can give attribution when SN approaches her for a comment.
