Dear Editor,
As long as five years ago, I stated that my policy is that I would not reply to anonymous letter-writers and the pen-name columnist in the Kaieteur News, ‘Peeping Tom.’ I believe no academic and/or commentator who believes in open, candid discourse should dishonour their profession by engaging an anonymous debater.
I am only penning this reply to respond to the person who goes under the guise of M Maxwell because there is a Stabroek News dimension, therefore one can say I am commenting on that input. The Stabroek input is that M Maxwell’s real existence has been detailed to the newspaper. But one of my contentions is that both SN and KN should inform readers why the need for anonymity.
M Maxwell’s letter (‘NYT policy refers to confidential news sources not letter-writers,’ Aug 7) says that the New York Times guidelines refer only to news sources. I don’t know how he/she knows that because SN didn’t print my NYT guidelines which were contained in my letter. But M Maxwell is right. The NYT document relates to news sources only. And that had to be because the New York Times would not tolerate a weekly anonymous letter-writer who comments on general issues rather than inside information of a specific nature.
If Maxwell did read the NYT policy document he/she would see that it elaborates on the concept of anonymity. That is my contention with SN with Maxwell and KN with ‘Peeping Tom.’ Apart from rejecting the use of these fictitious names, I also asked for media responsibility, meaning the two papers should explain why they see the need for the service. I think in accepting fictional names, SN and KN should offer their readers an explanation on their acceptance of anonymity. This becomes more obligatory when both papers announced a policy of the requirement of proof of the real existence of the letter-writer.
More than ten years ago, I enunciated a policy direction on fictitious names and this arose out of my repudiation of KN’s acceptance of the Peeping Tom column. I will restate that position. A newspaper should only carry the disclosures and commentaries of people who use pseudonyms in two circumstances: their lives will be at risk or they face employment termination. I argued then and will do so now that if there is a whistle-blower in the banking industry, the newspaper should protect the person’s identity. But there is specificity here. There is a specific area of disclosure – banking only. GuySuCo is very large and if an insider is giving out information to the media then the false name becomes commonsensical. This not the case with Peeping Tom and M Maxwell.
Take GHK Lall. He performs the identical task M Maxwell does for the same newspaper. But he is a real man. If GHK Lall could do it then the Stabroek should ask M Maxwell why he cannot do it too. If he cannot then what are the special circumstances? Why not leave candid commentary and journalistic exposure to real people who are willing to take the risk and there are many of us like that in the SN and KN?
In a country like Guyana where over seventy per cent of the population is under forty years, why do the media want to introduce a culture of unjustified anonymity? Would it not encourage our young people to substitute a carnival mask for bravery? I suspect we will see years more of ‘Peeing Tom’ because the owner feels he has an obligation to him (I know the person and he is a he). The same with M Maxwell. Very senior people at SN know Maxwell and feel they need to offer Maxwell the favour. I guess this is Guyana were all things do happen all the time.
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon
