Dear Editor,
I pen this letter to register my disappointment at the misrepresentation of an interview that I gave to the Stabroek News which implied in its Sunday, July 15, 2012 report that I sought to justify the opinions expressed in a letter and by extension the Guyana Chronicle editorial of July 2 for which I had earlier offered an apology.
Please be advised that when I spoke to the reporter I was not aware of the letter to which the person might have referred. I was speaking in a broad and general sense when I gave my comments about the policy regarding letters, and I was not in any way making reference to any specific letter that was published in the Chronicle subsequent to the editorial.
I would like to state that my apology as Chairman of the Board for the offensive editorial stands and I am seeking to in no way to defend or justify the contents of the letters that appeared.
I wish to repeat for the record, the policy of the Guyana Chronicle is to carry all letters – based on availability of space – except in cases where they may be libellous. This cannot be interpreted to mean that the newspaper and by extension its Board and I as Chairman of that Board support the content of letters that may be published.
I am asking that the Stabroek News clarify their article based on the interview they had with me. I was willing to let the article go with the inaccuracy but I felt compelled to send this response after reading GHK Lall’s letter in the Stabroek News of July 19, 2012.
Yours faithfully,
Keith Burrowes
Editor’s note
We apologise for the fact that the reporter omitted to indicate that Mr Burrowes told him he had not seen the letters published in the Guyana Chronicle subsequent to the editorial in that paper of July 2. However, our report does not in any way imply that Mr Burrowes “sought to justify the opinions expressed in a letter and by extension the state paper’s editorial of July 2…” What it does do – by implication – is raise the possibility that there may be a contradiction between the Chairman’s apology for the editorial, and the letter(s) which appeared subsequently. It might seem from what Mr Burrowes writes above that he has no difficulty with the general policy of the state paper, viz, “to carry all letters – based on availability of space – except in cases where they may be libellous” being applied in this specific instance. If that is indeed so, then the problem of a possible contradiction between an apology for the content of an offensive editorial, but publication of similar content in letter form subsequently, remains.
