Dear Editor,
I agree with Leon James Suseran (‘Where are the local media?’ SN, Oct 26) and Pandit Harry Nauth (‘Why SN did not report miracle?’ SN, Oct 25) that that the media houses should have reported (as news) on the supposed miracle taking place at the Radha Krishna Mandir, where it first began, as well as its occurrence at the other mandirs. By any definition of news, the miracle event is newsworthy and I believe the media erred in not providing coverage to this event.
The issue for news coverage is not confirmation of a miracle, as SN editor argued, but the newsworthy aspect of the event that has attracted hundreds daily and thousands, from all faiths and ethnicities, since the miracle began two Mondays ago.
I agree with SN editorial comment that it does not have the power to decide or confirm what is a miracle and when one has taken place but for thousands of believers, it was a miracle. And that is what makes the event newsworthy, not the miracle itself. I am no scholar of journalism but from my limited knowledge of news reporting, an event is newsworthy depending, among other factors, on its significance, timing, and interest to the reading public. The Goddesses’ miracle is significant because of the large number of people who visited the temples to see it, because of faith (at least 25% of the nation believes in it), because it appears so close to the holiest (fasting) Navratri period in Hinduism, and because so many people want to learn more about it. And there is also the human interest in the story – of how people feel about it. I can assure the Guyanese media that if the event had occurred in another country, it would have received prominent news coverage. How the editors of a media outlet feel about the event is inconsequential whether an event is newsworthy; it is news if it passes the test of what is defined as newsworthy. Using virtually any definition of news makes the miracle event news.
I should note that in September, Goddess Durga and her two feminine reincarnations, Goddesses Saraswati and Lakshmi, were “drinking” milk from devotees in several mandirs in Trinidad. The event made the news in the newspapers, TV stations, and the radios. The Guyana miracle is no different. Thousands of worshippers visited the Trinidad mandirs and offered milk to the murthis which accepted the milk. The media did not say they confirm that miracle but rather reported on what transpired as the reporters saw the event.
So the Guyana miracle issue is not whether SN is unable to decide whether a miracle indeed took or has been taking place but whether the event is significant for large numbers of people as news. And clearly it is because thousands of people have flocked to the mandir (s) and the matter has been covered as news in one newspaper as well as, I am told, appears on the internet and has had a lot of hits. The media in Trinidad has reported on it and Trinidad media personnel have flown into Guyana to report on the event. The event has attracted considerable public attention and crowds do flock to it. Even some Guyanese from North America flew down to observe the miracle.
I feel SN, which is Guyana’s most respected newspaper, blew this one by not reporting on the miracle and it has caused many Guyanese Hindus in NY, whom I spoke with at a couple mandirs I visited last Sunday, to feel that the papers slight Hinduism, even though I do not support that feeling.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
Editor’s note
Mr Bisram clearly did not read the whole of our editor’s note appended to Pt Harry Nauth’s letter, only the first part. If he had cast his eye a bit further down he would have read that we said we would be prepared to cover an event involving a “miracle,” real or supposed, if it attracted considerable public attention and crowds flocked to the site of its occurrence.
