Dear Editor,
What is a select pro-coalition media? Reference is made to a Demerara Waves online article titled, `OAS position on recount results smacks of interference but CARICOM’s assessment will be ‘persuasive’ – Harmon,’ on June 5, 2020.
It states: “Speaking from a prepared statement to a select group of pro-coalition media, Harmon said on Thursday that ‘we want to ensure that the validity of every vote that was cast on the 2nd of March, 2020 can stand up to a test and that test is that it was validly cast by persons who were entitled to vote on that day.’”
Is this “select group of pro-coalition media” an official category within the media fraternity?
This may help to explain the combative nature of question-and-answer (Q & A) sessions between certain members of the press and others, particularly political figures. Messrs. Mohabir Nandlall and Timothy Jonas, in particular, have refused to be bullied by some journalists. Mr. Jonas has rebuffed anything perceived to be partisan “spin.”
One noticeable heated Q & A occurred outside the high court (captured on video) when Mr. Jonas refused to answer a question by Mr. Gordon Moseley (News Source), forcing the latter to protest that he was a “journalist.” Mr. Jonas went on to entertain others.
The incident left an indelible impression because one Peter Ram penned an interesting letter bearing rare criticism of Mr. Jonas (for saying Mr. David Granger is a patriot) but asking to be spared a tongue-lashing: “I will disagree slightly with Tim though (only slightly, after all I do not want to be Moseleyed or broadsided)…” (see SN 5/30).
Arguably, certain persons in the media are being perceived as promoting the Coalition’s agenda under the guise of journalism. Now we have an actual description being published as if it is a constitutionally protected body, a distinguished brand to be identified with such liberal ease.
However, there is a danger in this kind of partisan journalism. Here is an example of what this danger appears to be, when it reveals itself publicly.
On or about May 15, 2020, Mr. Kit Nascimento held a press briefing in his individual capacity under the media tent outside the ACCC. Disgusted by misrepresentations (e.g., there was a Claims and Objections period for 2 weeks when in fact it was for about 7 weeks) made by Ms. Cathy Hughes at an earlier briefing, he followed up to correct what the AFC executive said.
During his session, a male journalist possibly irritated from hearing Ms. Hughes being taken to task, attempted to stop Mr. Nascimento by interrupting him with a question. When Mr. Nascimento indicated that he would take questions at the end of his remarks (“like everyone else”), this male journalist became flustered and retorted that “we’d like you to get to the point.”
The entire confrontation which was video recorded and is online reflects a very dark dimension of the journalism exhibited during these elections. We are at the point where certain journalists want to dictate what is to be said and the length of time a speaker is allotted.
The “select pro-coalition media” is so intent on “covering” specific aspects of the elections that others remain really covered, that is, hidden and unaddressed—perhaps intentionally.
One aspect that remains hidden by journalists believed to be sympathetic to the Coalition may be expressed as follows: why is the PNC using shared governance (again) and electoral fraud to avoid having a legitimate enquiry into the party’s historic failure to win elections in over half a century of electoral contests?
Is this to protect (again) the many incompetent or corrupt PNC leaders from reasonable and timely scrutiny by PNC supporters?
Yours faithfully,
Rakesh Rampertab
