Dear Editor,
There is an unacceptable pattern occurring in at least two TV channels wherein discussions on subjects of importance (more often than not political) are cut off without any warning, to the viewer, and possibly the participants.
To compound the injury is the insult of not indicating if and when the discussion will ever be continued to closure. These simply bad media manners were exemplified by Channel 6 on Sunday November 30 during a discussion involving the AFC’s Raphael Trotman, Khemraj Ramjattan and Nigel Hughes, with a moderator of course.
The discussion focused on aspects of the current constitution and its several defects, which became more glaring when comparisons were made with other models within and outside the British Commonwealth. In the former instance a case was virtually being made for the old British Guiana colonial constitution, eg,. the separation of the head of government from the head of state.
As the rush of ideas was too much to absorb for putting in writing immediately, one wondered whether the flow of recommendations which emerged was actually somewhere in the records of the party.
What was particularly annoying about the truncated programme was the insensitivity shown to the viewer at a point when Nigel Hughes in response to a question from the moderator, had launched into a promising list of proposals for reforming the constitution. Viewers were denied these thoughts, even against the background of the non-mention of the existence of an earlier Constitutional Reform Committee and its recommendations.
The abbreviation of the programme now leaves the AFC with the obvious responsibility of setting out in print for public consumption the constitutional reform proposals to which their team of spokesmen so readily (if not glibly) referred.
Obviously the other opposition party should be held to the same account. Their own people are anxious to know.
Incidentally it gives pause for wonderment how three lawyers steeped in the constitution could keep overlooking the fact that Gecom is a constitutional agency, which currently illegally reports to the Office of the President. This must have implications for the conduct of elections.
Yours faithfully,
E B John
