Dear Editor,
I offer my comments on a section of your news item, ‘KN discontinues Freddie Kissoon column,’ (April 6). The part in question is a controversy that arose within the Kaieteur News out of my article on prescriptive rights and the squatters that live opposite to my home. The notes that follow, in my opinion, are important to a fundamental understanding of journalism. I will ask all media practitioners, all involved in the media, including those who teach journalism at UG, to please read my take on journalism as propounded here. The source of that controversy about the squatters lies in the heart of journalism. It emerged out of the type of questions journalists ask in the course of their work. In this regard, journalism is identical to polling. The essence of polling lies in the question preparation. A pollster has to be meticulous in the formation of the questions. Wrong structure will bring misleading answers. Here is a brief example
Do not ask interviewees if they think Mr Jagdeo is a better leader than Mr Granger. This is a leading question that makes the person feel that the pollster already has an answer. A pollster must give the interviewee space to think and act freely. The question should be like this; “Which of the two you think is a better leader – Jagdeo or Granger?” It is the same in journalism. Responsibility in journalism will never be achieved if journalism does not contain competence. A good journalist is quick to spot a wrongly structured question. There are a million ways to ask the same question.
Nick Fillmore, the media consultant who just left Guyana is in this category. He told me that he immediately picked up the fault in KN’s reporting on my prescriptive rights column because KN journalists instead of probing the squatters on the implications of the law that was just passed chose to focus on the eviction notice that Freddie Kissoon wrote about. The squatters said that I lied. I don’t blame them because they were asked about their eviction that Freddie Kisson wrote about. I didn’t write about eviction and never had that thought in mind when I penned the column.
Unfortunately, Stella Ramsaroop missed this crucial journalistic angle.
I was told that the electricity lines were not removed because they never had lights. What were removed were illegal lines. Here is where situational journalism comes in. The confiscated lines (as reported in KN when it happened) were illegal connections. Squatters are not going to admit to reporters that they had illegal wires. The main thrust of the column was the inevitability of moving now that the law does away with prescriptive rights. The question should have been; “Have you got lights and if you don’t why not?” The squatters would then have explained that lights were being denied by GPL because they are not to be in occupation of the land.
Lines were removed. That is what I saw. It turned out that they were illegal connections. I didn’t lie in what I saw. Water lines were taken away. It turned out that the squatters had water. What I saw was lines from some homes.
Not all. I interviewed two squatters only. I repeat only two. And that was done in the presence of Adam Harris and the cameraman of Prime News. I spoke to the Prime News cameraman. I opened the KN to read that Mr Kissoon was present when the squatters were interviewed and didn’t object. Nothing could be further from the truth. This cannot be responsible journalism. In the end, a big fuss was made about Freddie Kissoon saying that the lines were taken down. The lines were taken away. I saw that. That was reported in this newspaper. But they were illegal set-ups.
How could this be faulty journalism when the lines were in fact carted off by GPL? I reported on what I saw. The intention was not to deceive. If no lines were ever removed and I wrote that they were, then, I could have been accused of dishonest journalism. I believe this journalistic peccadillo should be studied carefully by media practitioners. In looking at the various angles, reporters would discover that responsible journalism can only be achieved by competence in reporting.
Now, involved here is a case where a reporter reads a commentary and goes out to verify what they have read. But the culprit at work could end up being misinterpretation.
I honestly feel that the reporters felt that Kissoon was concluding that eviction is imminent. All I did, I repeat, all I did in that column was to state that with the abolition of prescriptive rights, those squatters will have to go. No one should deny that. This is unrelated to an inquiry about eviction.
Here is evidence of the culprit at work. I quote from a news item of March 20 in KN: “A number of Turkeyen squatters have not supported claims by columnist Freddie Kissoon suggesting that they are to be evicted ….” This is terribly wrong journalism. I never, ever wrote about squatters that are to be evicted. I published the fact that with the abolition of prescriptive rights, these squatters will have to move. Stella Ramsaroop is in Guyana and I will ask her to accompany me to visit that area and let us ask a different set of questions. I request if this paper and others can accompany us. I have never published journalistic fictions and passed them on as facts
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon
