Dear Editor,
Prof. David Hinds called out the Guyana Times (no evidence cited) for what he claims are biased reporting and negative commentaries (of Africans and some Indians) by the paper (in letter captioned `I have not seen more vile attacks on public persons …’ SN Oct 25). Dr. Hinds did not provide examples (of negative comments or biased reports) to buttress his assertions. Hinds used the term “vile racist attacks” but others I spoke with said they did not find any; GT did not attack or poke fun at anyone because of their race. What Dr. Hinds interprets as attacks may be viewed by others as sarcastic responses meant to evoke laughter, poking fun at the inarticulate comments of the names (public figures) he mentioned. The comments are not racist or even attacked the individuals; rather, they expose the bias of the comments rendered by those individuals. By Dr. Hind’s own admission, GT critiques both Indians and Africans – so where is the racial bias in its commentaries. Thus, Prof. Hinds must differentiate between (satirical/sarcastic/picong) and negative (racist) comments (attacks). Another paper uses the same method (in one of its daily columns) and Dr. Hinds has no issue with the paper – where is the balance and fairness in his critique? Is it because the column attacks Indians and government officials? Satires are a great method of political commentaries and I encourage more of them — but they should be based on facts and not selectively poking fun only on opponents.
Public figures are fair game and these individuals (names mentioned by Hinds) are known to harshly critique (in fact blusteringly attack) others with the worst gutter comments that don’t belong in the media; a tit for tat is to be expected. You can’t want to play Phagwah and don’t want abeer on your clothes. Nevertheless, there is no place for attacks on anyone or for biased reporting and all four papers are guilty of the practice – some (the so-called independent papers) more outrageous than others if one truly wishes to give a fair assessment. In fact, in recent trips to Guyana, people complained about the biased reports and commentaries in the so-called two anti-government papers (Hinds also described them as such).
In journalism classes, and in graduate school regardless of subject matter, one is taught that all reports must be factual, reflecting all sides, and commentaries must be fair, balanced and objective. Can Prof. Hinds tell us how many commentaries or reports in the four dailies meet those criteria? No paper should be used to attack anyone. Some of the papers don’t allow responses and when they do they severely edit comments that are not even defamatory; it is not even certain this response will be allowed.
What is troubling about Prof. Hinds’ complaint is that he did not call out the other papers for their biased reporting and publishing of their vile racist attacks against Indians and those who make an effort to defend the hapless Indian population. It is noted that Hinds did not critique a buddy columnist for daily (unsubstantiated, unprovoked) ranting against eminent Indians and for the publication to allow it. Dr. Hinds did not criticize another paper or file a complaint when it published an unverified attack against Mahatma Gandhi.
Also, Hinds did not criticize those commentators of his ethnic group who sully the good name of prominent Indians – their crime was simply exposing what they perceive to be biased commentaries – the same complaint Hinds now makes. One of Hinds’ buddies in ACDA attacked people principally based on their origin from India; he is silent on those attacks. Nothing is wrong with Hinds or anyone else taking up Afro-centric causes (I applaud David for his Afro-centricity) advocating only an African agenda. But he must be fair in his comments and make an effort to view issues from the perspective of someone not from his ethnic group. And Hinds should not be upset with others who respond in kind or take an opposing view or those who are nationalists defending their ethnic groups. I prefer a multi-racial agenda in which all of us are co-equals and I prefer a publication that does not allow attacks on one another.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
