Gordon Moseley ban

Jagdeo says press body like the ‘new opposition in Guyana’
President Bharrat Jagdeo says the Guyana Press Association (GPA) is like the “new opposition in Guyana” following its protest actions against the ban imposed on Capitol News journalist Gordon Moseley.

The President’s words have since attracted the ire of the association which has now withdrawn from the Crime Stoppers Board of Directors in which it had been invited by the government to participate.


Denis Chabrol

The association in a release on Thursday night after the airing of the president’s comment on NCN Channel 11 said that any future engagement with the Crime Stoppers group would be subject to a review of the existing media climate.

According to a Government Information Agency (GINA) release the president in an interview on NCN on Thursday said he did not have much time to waste on comments being made by Caribbean and local media persons on the banning of the journalist and he was adamant “that some reporters are totally biased against the Government.”
The move to ban Moseley has been strongly criticised by regional and international journalists, including the Association of Caribbean Media Workers (ACM) and Reporters Without Borders.

Following the ban, which was made known to Moseley on Monday last, the association issued a statement condemning the move and wrote to President Jagdeo offering to mediate the issue. The association also staged protest actions which saw reporters walking out of a press briefing at the Ministry of Home Affairs and walking out of parliament as Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh rose to address the House. The reporters also wore red arm bands at parliament as a sign of protest.

“We have a press association that has demonstrated its bias against the Government on numerous occasions. In fact, it is even more hostile to the Government than the opposition party. It is like the new opposition in Guyana and they consistently mislead the international community. They did this on several occasions,” GINA quoted the president as saying.

“I don’t have time to waste on people like Gordon Moseley. Access to this office is a privilege and I will extend that privilege to ordinary people, not to some people who, regardless of what you do, only see the negatives and they’re looking for the next story,” the president further said.



Prime News reporter and news anchor Nazeema Raghubir ties a red band around the arm of fellow reporter and news anchor Gordon Mosley as reporter Paul McAdam looks on at Parliament Buildings on Thursday. The red band signified the journalists’ opposition to the ban on Mosley from the Office of the President and State House. Shortly after, journalists staged a walk-out of Parliament in protest.



However, the association asserted that since the president’s personal efforts, in the face of mounting local, regional and international pressure and outcries, have been rebuffed he is now seeking to cover his failure by discrediting the intensifying protest action.

Falsehoods
The association charged that GINA, “acting on political commands has resorted to a propaganda attack of falsehoods against the GPA after two days of telephone appeals to a number of members of the media for Mr. Moseley to write `a few lines’ clarifying what he meant in his letter by `fed up’ or to issue an apology.” The association said that President Jagdeo on Wednesday contacted the President of the GPA, Denis Chabrol on the matter, “who is now being labelled an Opposition Force because the president’s actions have not borne fruit. Being unable to crush the protest actions by media workers, GINA has resorted to attacking the messengers of the successful clarion call.” “We shall not flinch one inch!! The existing doors of opportunity that the GPA had left open in its statement issued on Wednesday for a possible rapprochement that could have led to a serious and sober discourse on relations between the state and the media have now been shut as a result of the GINA statement,” the association said.

The association also called on its members and supporters not to be intimidated by the “utterances associated with the government and, instead, gird our loins for the long haul.”
The association labelled the utterances included in the GINA release as being “wicked and malicious”, adding that the “baseless fabrication is an attempt to discredit our protest action that has been forcing several cancellations of ministerial and other engagements with the media.”

“Rather than devote their time and energy to concoct an excuse for banning journalist Gordon Moseley, President Bharrat Jagdeo would be better off lifting the ban unconditionally,” the association declared.

In the GINA release the president said that he has had meetings with ordinary people, mentioning Thursday’s meeting with the religious leaders in Buxton and the Foulis Housing Co-op Society, adding that those are the people who will have the privilege of visiting his office.

Privilege
“They have more right, not so much of a privilege… what we have in this country is a syndrome where many very powerful people in our society ‘suck-up’ to reporters because they’re afraid of bad press. They call them and they treat them well… I don’t care whether Gordon Moseley or others write bad things about me, once it’s objective, it’s fine and even if it’s not objective, I don’t pay too much attention to it,” the head of state said.

“I have to meet with ordinary people to try and solve their problems. I am not going to ‘suck-up to this group of people, so nothing that we do in this Government, the PPP Government or I do, will find a favourable voice in some of these reporters. They’re hostile. They see themselves as anti-government media and they will try to make a story out of even the most positive thing,” President Jagdeo said.

“Mr. Jagdeo, who is well-known for his botched and blemished history of transgressions against the media and media operatives, in the state and private sector cannot easily escape the sad reality that those political actions of his warrant the strongest response. We agree that media workers are opposing forces in response to his actions against the media. Does the president expect media workers in this country not to oppose his actions that date back to when he was Finance Minister?” the association queried. Meanwhile, in a release Press and Publicity Officer at OP, Kwame Mc Coy singled out Chabrol as the one from whose bosom “inexorable hatred” emanates. He said that it is common and customary practice for the GPA to “selectively distort, mislead and fabricate stories even at the expense of further tarnishing the image and reputation of the association.” He said Chabrol should strive “to be objective and stop masquerading around promoting anti-government sentiments.”

In a comment on the situation yesterday afternoon, Stabroek News (SN) Editor Anand Persaud condemned the attacks by President Jagdeo and GINA on Chabrol and the press association. Persaud said the banning of Moseley by GINA was completely unwarranted and wholly unjustified. The SN Editor said that Chabrol and the press association are defending the profession from the kind of attack which could be used arbitrarily by the government against other practitioners if not nipped in the bud. Persaud added that President Jagdeo’s likening of the GPA to the opposition was most regrettable and said the controversy could best be ended by the lifting of the ban on Moseley. Moseley was first told he was banned from Office of the President and State House by a security guard at OP when he turned up for an assignment last Monday. He later received a letter signed by Head of the Government Information Agency (GINA) Neaz Subhan stating that the administration of GINA had withdrawn his accreditation to OP and State House with immediate effect. The letter said that though other employees of Capitol News would not be similarly prohibited, GINA would be “inclined to review the decision providing that you issue an apology in relation to the disparaging and disrespectful remarks couched in your letter to the press.”

Moseley has since refused to apologise saying that he would not allow anyone to “waste his time.” He has also questioned what accreditation GINA was withdrawing since no accreditation had ever been given to him or any other media worker for OP and State House. The only accreditation GINA has issued to the media is a press pass that gives journalists permission to go past police cordons.
http://www.stabroeknews.com/news/gordon-moseley-ban/

Was Mosley disrespectful to the President?

I am not a fan of this president but one of the reasons I have abstained from writing on this board is that many of you have begun to take liberties beyond what is reasonable and apparently is outraged when asks for substantiation. This apparently is a recent addendum to the culture or rather an infection of the culture by sides of our political divide. It specifically has to do with an assessment of how one gathers data, analyzes it and present the findings.

Recently, and presently headed by the peerage of Freddie Kissoon, the habit of passing off of second hand information, of constant mutterings and veiled insinuations of the worse behavior, combined by direct bilious attack on character has emerged to be pinnacle of logical analysis in many quarters. In this mode, prejudices are transmitted as facts and when one asks for clarifications, vociferous protestations of persecution is piled on to feed the flames about "burying the evidence" has left nothing but abject ignoramuses as the vanguard of media personalities and panderers as political cognoscenti.

If one has opinions that one feels obliged to transmit to others as messages of essential truths; one is obliged to make one’s case in the acceptable manner, without succumbing to these very common logical pitfalls. Also, if when one believes one is alone authoritative on specific matters and others cannot question that authority one is clearly being an ass. Likewise, when what one says becomes as predictable as Mr. Kissoon and Mr. Mosley in this case, it is a clear sign that one is not reporting truths but dispensing tripe to defend dogmatic positions. Much of what is repeated in the Guyanese press these days as news can be reduced to the dogma of opposing views. Unfortunately, it leaves the society bereft of a necessary respite in a sea of confusing dogmatism.

I believe Mr. Mosley was grossly irresponsible in listing his sentiments about the president response as an “attack on the media”. The President has a right to state his opinion in all matters of state even as it relates to presentations of media personnel and their manner of reporting the news. All Presidents in every country on the planet does this as a matter of procedure. It is strange that most of you miss that habit in 4th estate countries as well as the corresponding fact that reporters do not feel they have a de jure right to be invited in the homes of or office of the Presidents or heads of states!

Since Presidents are always are defending their position and their party line, it is inevitably stilted to their concerns and their view of the events at hand. There is no sin in this. Mr. Mosley’s job and that of every responsible journalist is to unravel what is said and highlight the disconnect with reality where it exists ( if it does). The imperative of any journalist also is to avoid the pompous attitude that they alone are authoritative on such matters and they alone are acolytes of our national press virtues. Here Mr Mosley takes it upon himself to tell us what is propaganda and what is not. In attempting to attack the President for over reaching in his reasoning, Mr. Mosley turns around and commits the same transgressions!

If Mosley feels slighted personally, he ought to have addressed it directly as an individual reporter salvaging his good name. Instead he uses the tact that he is authoritative on what is the legitimate Press and assumes that by that authority he can scold the president on appropriate protocols of handling members of his community. What arrogance! This is the habits of a juvenile reporter with an axe to grind.

He needs to put in the necessary work through measured reporting in his dissembling of the Presidents words. He has no authority to decide what is legitimate news reporting or not. He cannot have it both ways. If Mr Mosley wants to make statements such as ” If the President wanted a band-aid propaganda excuse of a news item, then he should have paid the way to ensure a team from the state-owned NCN be there in Antigua rather than to have its Editor in Chief acting as cameraman and reporter for both NCN and GINA.” then he is not a reporter but another political hack (despite denying such is the case).

As the president “should not” ( as opposed to “must not”) take it upon himself to personally chide individual reporter ( or get into petty squabbles with individuals); individual reporters do not have the authority to decide for the rest of us which sections of the press is legitimate and which is not. We are sufficiently adept in discerning truth from fiction on our own when good reporters follow their calling and tell us with of an alternative views. We want our news unfiltered and if personal viewpoints are given we want them to come as alternatives not as diatribe. Instead, Mosley has joined the President in being petty.

Much worse, he assumes the President and he are on the same level authoritatively. He feels he can treat him with callous disrespect as he pleases and all will be well. Good or bad, Jagdeo is president. Mr. Mosley is a reporter. One elected, for the job in a national plebiscite and the other was hired on the sole authority of his Editor in Chief. His job is to report and not to lecture our President. If he feels a need to lecture he is in the wrong business. He should join GN&I instead. As a member of the press his task is not to chide our President but to report to us on the state of the Presidency. He should concentrate on being a good reporter without caring if he is allowed in as a member of the press in Office of the President etc. Also, surely his loss does not constitute a manacled Press. Further, while the President cannot shut out the press, he can most certainly can limit who comes before him.

Heavy anti-government bias
When the President's meeting with Guyanese in Antigua was shown on NCN Channel 11, 6 O’clock News, it was clear that he was very popular with the crowd and kept receiving loud and regular cheers, so that at times, he had to wait on the cheers to die down before he could resume speaking.


I, along with others, then watched Capitol News on Channel 7, which I have come to regard as the Roger Khan channel, as so much is broadcast about him and when the part came about the President's meeting in Antigua, I told those watching, " look, you're going to see something completely different now" because we have all become aware of this newscast's anti-government bias, and so it was.


They showed two speakers, who could hardly be heard, so that they had to raise their voices, because they were shouted down by the other participants. What Capitol News showed made you wonder if it was the same meeting.


No one can doubt the anti-government bias of this newscast, as well as that of the Guyana Press Association, given their stance and record over the years. The instances are too numerous to mention.
JOHN Sa SILVA
=======================
So-called champions of press freedom
The PNC officials before 1992, should be charged with crimes against humanity. Until charges are brought against those who looted, burnt, raped, rigged votes, bribed and threatened citizens to vote PNC or else, as long they remain free to do so again, and without any doubt they and their disciples will again be free to do.


We also have a new crop of so-called champions of press freedom who mushroomed and are now dancing to the piper’s tune. These people will continue to subvert the Government under the name of freedom of the press and democracy. I am convinced that some of the hierarchy of the PNC and Trade union leaders have their secret agenda to get rid of the PPP by civil disobedience or civil unrest to destabilise the country to achieve their ends.


For those narrow minded people, they must know that the international community have them in their sights, especially the US, UK and the European community.
Guyana must be stable for progress, and not discord.
CECIL SAWH

In any country where there is free press, they tend to become somewhat anti govt when a president is long in power. This is a sign of press freedon. In all his years, LFSB had little press pressure except from the political opposition parties, of course there was no TV then. Press freedom and criticism of the sitting govt is somewhat comforting.

baseman, I hope you realise that there is no question about FREE PRESS in Guyana. The fundamental question is whether the PRESIDENT has the AUTHORITY to ban anyone from The Office of The President for not being Civilised and mannerly.

quote:

Originally posted by baseman:
In any country where there is free press, they tend to become somewhat anti govt when a president is long in power. This is a sign of press freedon. In all his years, LFSB had little press pressure except from the political opposition parties, of course there was no TV then. Press freedom and criticism of the sitting govt is somewhat comforting.

Why did LFSB ban Rick Singh?

quote:

Originally posted by Nehru:
baseman, I hope you realise that there is no question about FREE PRESS in Guyana. The fundamental question is whether the PRESIDENT has the AUTHORITY to ban anyone from The Office of The President for not being Civilised and mannerly.

I believe that compare to PNC days there is press freedom in Guyana. Jagdeo should not have gotten involved with this present issue. His staff should have cautioned Capitol News about the perceived behaviour of its reporter. Another example of Jagdeo micromanaging.

D2 WROTE:

[b]I believe Mr. Mosley was grossly irresponsible in listing his sentiments about the president response as an “attack on the media”. The President has a right to state his opinion in all matters of state even as it relates to presentations of media personnel and their manner of reporting the news. All Presidents in every country on the planet does this as a matter of procedure. It is strange that most of you miss that habit in 4th estate countries as well as the corresponding fact that reporters do not feel they have a de jure right to be invited in the homes of or office of the Presidents or heads of states!



RESPONSE:

You think the President has a right to ban a reporter because he THINKS the reporter disrespected him when the reporter merely stood up to the President? US reporters, members of the 4th estate you referenced, have taken elected officials to task and exposed them on the basis of FOI laws, but not once has a reporter been banned by an elected official for taking a stand in defence of his or her news coverage of that official. The US is not Guyana!

Reporters in the US, relying on investigative journalism procedures, have brought down elected political officials who thought that because they were elected, that meant they had all the power to do and say whatever they wanted. In New York, a powerful State Controller, Alan Hevesi, was running for elected office to another term amidst charges he abused his privileges by having his state-paid driver transport his sick wife to and from doctors and other personal errands.

The media got hold of this information and worked it until the Governor asked Hevesi to withdraw from the race, but Hevesi refused, and he went on to win the race. But before he could be sworn in, he was arrested and charged with with something akin to theft of services. He had to get ouf of office. Election does not entitle you the right to all that power that you cannot be asked to step down if you mess up. And boy has Jagdeo messed up. Only thing is, the Constitution protects him from being charged. This is a recipe for dictatorial behavior, which is what Jagdeo is exploiting at will.

Jagdeo abused his office against Moseley, just like he has abused his office on a number of other occassions. But unless and until people with spine and balls stand up to this freaking wannabe dictator, they're going to watch a reincarnation of Burnham.

This president has irresponsibly lashed out at the media in the past, so it is par for the course if media operatives take him to task. When Stabroek News operatives asked him for details about the government giving Buddy's a loan for 168 million dollars in TAXPAYERS' MONEY to finish the hotel that Buddy's later sold for a tidy profit, he laced into SN, and the next thing we know is that government withdrew its ads from SN. He has repeatedly scolded SN for its news coverage, which he always though was negative. He only wants POSITIVE coverage, but that's not how real newspapers operate.

The president wants to be viewed in a favorable light all the time, but he is totally lacking in transparency in his own government. When Yesu Persaud called him out on the Queens investments viz a viz Sanata textile factory, he scolded Yesu in a humiliating manner. After Christopher Ram exposed the government's failure to do right by the laws governing the recent Sanata textile sale, government rushed a bill through Parliament making the law retroactive to cover its mistakes in teh Sanata deal.

This President has made a string of mistakes and the media have done their home work callin ghim out, but he doesn't like that. Captiol News, for example, was being targeted because of its incessant coverage of the Roger Khan case. Look at today's letter column for one from John DaSilva and see how he exposes the government's true motive for the ban.

quote:

” If the President wanted a band-aid propaganda excuse of a news item, then he should have paid the way to ensure a team from the state-owned NCN be there in Antigua rather than to have its Editor in Chief acting as cameraman and reporter for both NCN and GINA.”

This is is what you call disrespect? If anything, Moseley exposed the government's failure to provide enough personnel to do the job of providing news coverage. Who on government's side covered the President? The Editor in Chief of NCN, who acted as cameraman and reporter for both NCN and GINA.

Unless government can disprove this, then this is revealing of the substandard approach the government took to ensuring adequate coverage for a touring head of state. And even if Moseley is incorreect in his assessment, that was his view. He is entitled to his view.

Jagdeo told a group of PPPites that the PNC is in bed with criminals and not once has Jagdeo ordered the police to arrest a PNC official. He was entitled to his view, as libelous as it was, but who sued him?

At the launching of Guyana Times, he said this new newspaper will help present his government's positives. Guyana Times reporters were among those who kept walking out of press conferences in support of Moseley's ban.

Jagdeo wants to have a positive image of himself portrayed by the local free media, but he does not want to give the free media a Freedom of Information law that would allow them to do investigative journalism and expose the corruption going on in his government. He has a probelm with transparency and accountability and responsibility. He is a wannabe dictator.

You have your view and so do others.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nehru:
Heavy anti-government bias
When the President's meeting with Guyanese in Antigua was shown on NCN Channel 11, 6 O’clock News, it was clear that he was very popular with the crowd and kept receiving loud and regular cheers, so that at times, he had to wait on the cheers to die down before he could resume speaking.


I, along with others, then watched Capitol News on Channel 7, which I have come to regard as the Roger Khan channel, as so much is broadcast about him and when the part came about the President's meeting in Antigua, I told those watching, " look, you're going to see something completely different now" because we have all become aware of this newscast's anti-government bias, and so it was.


They showed two speakers, who could hardly be heard, so that they had to raise their voices, because they were shouted down by the other participants. What Capitol News showed made you wonder if it was the same meeting.


No one can doubt the anti-government bias of this newscast, as well as that of the Guyana Press Association, given their stance and record over the years. The instances are too numerous to mention.
JOHN Sa SILVA



Response:

John DaSilva is a PPPite who wrote letters in defence of the PPP and its government until he finally got a job with GINA. But I am glad he wrote this letter because it actually, yet inadvertently, exposed the real reason for the Moseley ban: Capitol News' constant coverage of the Roger Khan case. It drives the government batty.

I noticed of late that Kaieteur News has also started providing constant coverage of Roger Khan, following in Stabroek News' footsteps, and that may explain why KN has been writing editorials decrying attempts to adversely impact its ability to do its job.

Is Jagdeo worried about the perception being created by so much RK coverage? He should, because Guyana Chronicle has not been carrying coverage of RK period. That's positive news for Jagdeo.

quote:

Originally posted by Communicator:
D2 WROTE:

[b]I believe Mr. Mosley was grossly irresponsible in listing his sentiments about the president response as an “attack on the media”. The President has a right to state his opinion in all matters of state even as it relates to presentations of media personnel and their manner of reporting the news. All Presidents in every country on the planet does this as a matter of procedure. It is strange that most of you miss that habit in 4th estate countries as well as the corresponding fact that reporters do not feel they have a de jure right to be invited in the homes of or office of the Presidents or heads of states!



RESPONSE:

You think the President has a right to ban a reporter because he THINKS the reporter disrespected him when the reporter merely stood up to the President? US reporters, members of the 4th estate you referenced, have taken elected officials to task and exposed them on the basis of FOI laws, but not once has a reporter been banned by an elected official for taking a stand in defence of his or her news coverage of that official. The US is not Guyana!

Reporters in the US, relying on investigative journalism procedures, have brought down elected political officials who thought that because they were elected, that meant they had all the power to do and say whatever they wanted. In New York, a powerful State Controller, Alan Hevesi, was running for elected office to another term amidst charges he abused his privileges by having his state-paid driver transport his sick wife to and from doctors and other personal errands.

The media got hold of this information and worked it until the Governor asked Hevesi to withdraw from the race, but Hevesi refused, and he went on to win the race. But before he could be sworn in, he was arrested and charged with with something akin to theft of services. He had to get ouf of office. Election does not entitle you the right to all that power that you cannot be asked to step down if you mess up. And boy has Jagdeo messed up. Only thing is, the Constitution protects him from being charged. This is a recipe for dictatorial behavior, which is what Jagdeo is exploiting at will.

Jagdeo abused his office against Moseley, just like he has abused his office on a number of other occassions. But unless and until people with spine and balls stand up to this freaking wannabe dictator, they're going to watch a reincarnation of Burnham.

This president has irresponsibly lashed out at the media in the past, so it is par for the course if media operatives take him to task. When Stabroek News operatives asked him for details about the government giving Buddy's a loan for 168 million dollars in TAXPAYERS' MONEY to finish the hotel that Buddy's later sold for a tidy profit, he laced into SN, and the next thing we know is that government withdrew its ads from SN. He has repeatedly scolded SN for its news coverage, which he always though was negative. He only wants POSITIVE coverage, but that's not how real newspapers operate.

The president wants to be viewed in a favorable light all the time, but he is totally lacking in transparency in his own government. When Yesu Persaud called him out on the Queens investments viz a viz Sanata textile factory, he scolded Yesu in a humiliating manner. After Christopher Ram exposed the government's failure to do right by the laws governing the recent Sanata textile sale, government rushed a bill through Parliament making the law retroactive to cover its mistakes in teh Sanata deal.

This President has made a string of mistakes and the media have done their home work callin ghim out, but he doesn't like that. Captiol News, for example, was being targeted because of its incessant coverage of the Roger Khan case. Look at today's letter column for one from John DaSilva and see how he exposes the government's true motive for the ban.

The president can if he so chose limit those to whom he permit access to for interviews etc. Regan did it and in fact had very few press conferences in his 2 terms.

The reporter has no right to access to the president. He is also not banned from reporting only from the state house and private functions under the jurisdiction of the president.

Guyanese reporters follow no protocol similar to US reporters so any comparison is mute. Very few ever had a day in journalism school for that matter so are not inculcated in a tradition of proper sourcing of their materials. Their only constraint rests with their Editors and of these only a few have demonstrable experience for the task. We have a hodge podge mess instead of seeking to formalize and set fort standards we have this crass debacle of a reporter purporting to chastise the president.

Jagdeo is not burnham however evil you may conceive him to be. Burnham would have had his henchmen give Mosley a sound trashing.

Also, do not conflate Buddy's loan with this argument about press freedom. Those are different issues. The matter before us is whether he president has a right to deny Mosley access to his Office etc and he does. He had no jurisdiction to offer Buddy a loan and that is a different matter. The same goes for letting the Russian Mafia or the US mafia into our Bauxite and hospitality industry. Lets complain about that rather than some reporter thinking he has de jure rights of access to the President or that he can scold him as he pleases.

quote:

Originally posted by D2:

quote:

.

The president can if he so chose limit those to whom he permit access to for interviews etc. Regan did it and in fact had very few press conferences in his 2 terms.

The reporter has no right to access to the president. He is also not banned from reporting only from the state house and private functions under the jurisdiction of the president.

Guyanese reporters follow no protocol similar to US reporters so any comparison is mute. Very few ever had a day in journalism school for that matter so are not inculcated in a tradition of proper sourcing of their materials. Their only constraint rests with their Editors and of these only a few have demonstrable experience for the task. We have a hodge podge mess instead of seeking to formalize and set fort standards we have this crass debacle of a reporter purporting to chastise the president.

Jagdeo is not burnham however evil you may conceive him to be. Burnham would have had his henchmen give Mosley a sound trashing.

Also, do not conflate Buddy's loan with this argument about press freedom. Those are different issues. The matter before us is whether he president has a right to deny Mosley access to his Office etc and he does. He had no jurisdiction to offer Buddy a loan and that is a different matter. The same goes for letting the Russian Mafia or the US mafia into our Bauxite and hospitality industry. Lets complain about that rather than some reporter thinking he has de jure rights of access to the President or that he can scold him as he pleases.

D2,

Your first four paragraphs do not add anything new to the discussion. And I only referenced the US journalists modus operandi because you originally referenced the '4th estate', which is another name for the media in democratic countries.

Now, as to the Buddy's deal, I brought this up to show you that a newspaper operative asked the President about the deal because there were serious questions about the shadiness of the deal. Just like with the shadfiness of the QAII deal that the government had to pass a law that was made to be retroactive to cover the same QAII deal.

But instead of simply answering the operative's question on Buddy's, the President angrily lashed out at the operative and eventually took punitive action against the newspaper. If it wasn't for Stabroek News' insistence on covering this Buddy's story, that went on to include a fresh deal for Buddy's to pay off his outstanding balance by renting out rooms to government only to learn that Buddy's would sell the hotel for s profit, we wouldn't know what we now know. Jagdeo is a discriminating and corrupt politician.

The Buddy's deal means that a private citizen was helped in his private business venture with TAXPAYERS MONEY and then turned around and made a PERSONAL PROFIT by selling off the venture. How many other private Guyanese businessowners got such a sweetheart deal from government? Again, we would not have known all of this if it wasn't for SN's relentless pursuit of information that government preferred to hide from the people.

If it wasn't for Yesu Persaud questioning the President publicly and Christopher Ram writing in Stabroek News, we also would not have known about the crookedness of the QAII deal. We really need aggressive and proactive journalists to keep the government's feet to the fire, even if the government and its apologists get angry. Guyana does not belong to the PPP or Jagdeo. We all have a stake, including journalists, in Guyana's well-being.

And I am saying all of that to hammer home the point that it was the good work of journalists in the free media that has gotten Jagdeo's undies in a bunch. They're giving hima major wedgie and he doesn't like it.

Look, the President has a right to ban Moseley on grounds that satisfy a stated criteria for journalists who violate the rules governing providing coverage on state or public property. And I am saying that even though you boldly highlighted what you perceive to be a disrespectful statement by Moseley in your original post, that statement does not rise to the level of disrespect.

If Moseley used his journalist position to pen a letter that questioned Jagdeo's sexual orientation or questioned whether Jagdeo was genuinely married, then I'd consider that disrespectful, reproachful and disparaging.

But since the President is always of the view that the free media always reporting negatives stuff about him or his government, and since he also felt that Moseley did report negatively on the Antigua trip, then Moseley basically told Jagdeo that if he wanted positive coverage that he should have made arrangement for his people to do just that.

But like I have observed in another post above, the true reason for the ban was based on what John DaSilva revealed in his letter: Capitol News spends too much time with negative news: THE ROGER KHAN CASE!!!!!!

You have a right to your opinion and so do others.

quote:

Originally posted by Communicator:

quote:

Originally posted by D2:

quote:

.

The president can if he so chose limit those to whom he permit access to for interviews etc. Regan did it and in fact had very few press conferences in his 2 terms.

The reporter has no right to access to the president. He is also not banned from reporting only from the state house and private functions under the jurisdiction of the president.

Guyanese reporters follow no protocol similar to US reporters so any comparison is mute. Very few ever had a day in journalism school for that matter so are not inculcated in a tradition of proper sourcing of their materials. Their only constraint rests with their Editors and of these only a few have demonstrable experience for the task. We have a hodge podge mess instead of seeking to formalize and set fort standards we have this crass debacle of a reporter purporting to chastise the president.

Jagdeo is not burnham however evil you may conceive him to be. Burnham would have had his henchmen give Mosley a sound trashing.

Also, do not conflate Buddy's loan with this argument about press freedom. Those are different issues. The matter before us is whether he president has a right to deny Mosley access to his Office etc and he does. He had no jurisdiction to offer Buddy a loan and that is a different matter. The same goes for letting the Russian Mafia or the US mafia into our Bauxite and hospitality industry. Lets complain about that rather than some reporter thinking he has de jure rights of access to the President or that he can scold him as he pleases.

D2,

Your first four paragraphs do not add anything new to the discussion. And I only referenced the US journalists modus operandi because you originally referenced the '4th estate', which is another name for the media in democratic countries.

Now, as to the Buddy's deal, I brought this up to show you that a newspaper operative asked the President about the deal because there were serious questions about the shadiness of the deal. Just like with the shadfiness of the QAII deal that the government had to pass a law that was made to be retroactive to cover the same QAII deal.

But instead of simply answering the operative's question on Buddy's, the President angrily lashed out at the operative and eventually took punitive action against the newspaper. If it wasn't for Stabroek News' insistence on covering this Buddy's story, that went on to include a fresh deal for Buddy's to pay off his outstanding balance by renting out rooms to government only to learn that Buddy's would sell the hotel for s profit, we wouldn't know what we now know. Jagdeo is a discriminating and corrupt politician.

The Buddy's deal means that a private citizen was helped in his private business venture with TAXPAYERS MONEY and then turned around and made a PERSONAL PROFIT by selling off the venture. How many other private Guyanese businessowners got such a sweetheart deal from government? Again, we would not have known all of this if it wasn't for SN's relentless pursuit of information that government preferred to hide from the people.

If it wasn't for Yesu Persaud questioning the President publicly and Christopher Ram writing in Stabroek News, we also would not have known about the crookedness of the QAII deal. We really need aggressive and proactive journalists to keep the government's feet to the fire, even if the government and its apologists get angry. Guyana does not belong to the PPP or Jagdeo. We all have a stake, including journalists, in Guyana's well-being.

And I am saying all of that to hammer home the point that it was the good work of journalists in the free media that has gotten Jagdeo's undies in a bunch. They're giving hima major wedgie and he doesn't like it.

Look, the President has a right to ban Moseley on grounds that satisfy a stated criteria for journalists who violate the rules governing providing coverage on state or public property. And I am saying that even though you boldly highlighted what you perceive to be a disrespectful statement by Moseley in your original post, that statement does not rise to the level of disrespect.

If Moseley used his journalist position to pen a letter that questioned Jagdeo's sexual orientation or questioned whether Jagdeo was genuinely married, then I'd consider that disrespectful, reproachful and disparaging.

But since the President is always of the view that the free media always reporting negatives stuff about him or his government, and since he also felt that Moseley did report negatively on the Antigua trip, then Moseley basically told Jagdeo that if he wanted positive coverage that he should have made arrangement for his people to do just that.

But like I have observed in another post above, the true reason for the ban was based on what John DaSilva revealed in his letter: Capitol News spends too much time with negative news: THE ROGER KHAN CASE!!!!!!

You have a right to your opinion and so do others.

My first 4 paragraphs sets out the prevailing conditions of impoverish reporting. The rest is about a reporters etiquette. By concern is not with maters extraneous this issue with which I have no disagreement.

The office of the Presidency is not Jagdeo. He merely occupies the seat for a finite period. No reporter is entitled to unlimited access to that office nor can any reporter treat it with disrespect. This one did.

Further, no one validated this ones credentials as s member of "the legitimate press" that he may in a perfunctory manner dismiss all others as mere facsimiles or propaganda tools. That is a sin no less than any he accuse Jagdeo of possessing.

Further, this reporter ought to recognize the bounds of his authority and that resides solely in his skill at penning accounts of the news. If he wants to be an activist then he should hand in his credentials and be a shill for whatever cause that pleases him. He may then find we agree on many issues.

quote:

Originally posted by D2:

quote:

Originally posted by Communicator:

quote:

Originally posted by D2:

quote:

.

The president can if he so chose limit those to whom he permit access to for interviews etc. Regan did it and in fact had very few press conferences in his 2 terms.

The reporter has no right to access to the president. He is also not banned from reporting only from the state house and private functions under the jurisdiction of the president.

Guyanese reporters follow no protocol similar to US reporters so any comparison is mute. Very few ever had a day in journalism school for that matter so are not inculcated in a tradition of proper sourcing of their materials. Their only constraint rests with their Editors and of these only a few have demonstrable experience for the task. We have a hodge podge mess instead of seeking to formalize and set fort standards we have this crass debacle of a reporter purporting to chastise the president.

Jagdeo is not burnham however evil you may conceive him to be. Burnham would have had his henchmen give Mosley a sound trashing.

Also, do not conflate Buddy's loan with this argument about press freedom. Those are different issues. The matter before us is whether he president has a right to deny Mosley access to his Office etc and he does. He had no jurisdiction to offer Buddy a loan and that is a different matter. The same goes for letting the Russian Mafia or the US mafia into our Bauxite and hospitality industry. Lets complain about that rather than some reporter thinking he has de jure rights of access to the President or that he can scold him as he pleases.

D2,

Your first four paragraphs do not add anything new to the discussion. And I only referenced the US journalists modus operandi because you originally referenced the '4th estate', which is another name for the media in democratic countries.

Now, as to the Buddy's deal, I brought this up to show you that a newspaper operative asked the President about the deal because there were serious questions about the shadiness of the deal. Just like with the shadfiness of the QAII deal that the government had to pass a law that was made to be retroactive to cover the same QAII deal.

But instead of simply answering the operative's question on Buddy's, the President angrily lashed out at the operative and eventually took punitive action against the newspaper. If it wasn't for Stabroek News' insistence on covering this Buddy's story, that went on to include a fresh deal for Buddy's to pay off his outstanding balance by renting out rooms to government only to learn that Buddy's would sell the hotel for s profit, we wouldn't know what we now know. Jagdeo is a discriminating and corrupt politician.

The Buddy's deal means that a private citizen was helped in his private business venture with TAXPAYERS MONEY and then turned around and made a PERSONAL PROFIT by selling off the venture. How many other private Guyanese businessowners got such a sweetheart deal from government? Again, we would not have known all of this if it wasn't for SN's relentless pursuit of information that government preferred to hide from the people.

If it wasn't for Yesu Persaud questioning the President publicly and Christopher Ram writing in Stabroek News, we also would not have known about the crookedness of the QAII deal. We really need aggressive and proactive journalists to keep the government's feet to the fire, even if the government and its apologists get angry. Guyana does not belong to the PPP or Jagdeo. We all have a stake, including journalists, in Guyana's well-being.

And I am saying all of that to hammer home the point that it was the good work of journalists in the free media that has gotten Jagdeo's undies in a bunch. They're giving hima major wedgie and he doesn't like it.

Look, the President has a right to ban Moseley on grounds that satisfy a stated criteria for journalists who violate the rules governing providing coverage on state or public property. And I am saying that even though you boldly highlighted what you perceive to be a disrespectful statement by Moseley in your original post, that statement does not rise to the level of disrespect.

If Moseley used his journalist position to pen a letter that questioned Jagdeo's sexual orientation or questioned whether Jagdeo was genuinely married, then I'd consider that disrespectful, reproachful and disparaging.

But since the President is always of the view that the free media always reporting negatives stuff about him or his government, and since he also felt that Moseley did report negatively on the Antigua trip, then Moseley basically told Jagdeo that if he wanted positive coverage that he should have made arrangement for his people to do just that.

But like I have observed in another post above, the true reason for the ban was based on what John DaSilva revealed in his letter: Capitol News spends too much time with negative news: THE ROGER KHAN CASE!!!!!!

You have a right to your opinion and so do others.

My first 4 paragraphs sets out the prevailing conditions of impoverish reporting. The rest is about a reporters etiquette. By concern is not with maters extraneous this issue with which I have no disagreement.

The office of the Presidency is not Jagdeo. He merely occupies the seat for a finite period. No reporter is entitled to unlimited access to that office nor can any reporter treat it with disrespect. This one did.

Further, no one validated this ones credentials as s member of "the legitimate press" that he may in a perfunctory manner dismiss all others as mere facsimiles or propaganda tools. That is a sin no less than any he accuse Jagdeo of possessing.

Further, this reporter ought to recognize the bounds of his authority and that resides solely in his skill at penning accounts of the news. If he wants to be an activist then he should hand in his credentials and be a shill for whatever cause that pleases him. He may then find we agree on many issues.

D2,

The Office of the President and the government of Guyana are being treated as property of the Bharrat Jagdeo. And because of this, this President determines who disrespects him and metes out the punishment. He did the same thing with CN Sharama, even though there is a duly recognized constitutional body set up to address Sharma's errors.

Moseley's error, in the President's view and in your view, is that he told the President, who loves positive reportages on him and his government, he should have walked with his own media team to ensure he got positive coverage in Antigua. You are as shallow and vacuous as the President and I am glad you are not an elected official in Guyana.

I don't know what the relationship is like between Caricom governments and their countries' media houses, but I have not been reading of any rifts between them, which then makes thge Jagdeo administration the only one that is caught up in this warring scenario. Perhaps it is because the Jagdeo administration is being run by a wannabe dictator who cannot accept the truth being written about him and his government. So he sanctions those he dislikes.

He can actually ban another reporter every other day for reasons he says amount to something equivalent to an infraction, and folks like you will say he is right. It's folks like you who gave us Forbes Burnham, because when he was being exposed by the small free media, he put the clamps on the, and you said he was right.

Your continued warped analytical defence is exposing you as being ignorant of the fact that most genuine democracies have a working relationship between the government and the media to help earn the people's trust, confidence and support. It is not the journalist's job to report information as news to simply make the President look good, and the President cannot put that kind of pressure on a journalist or else the journalist will be denied access and privileges. That's what we expect in dictatorships.

Jagdeo has a TV station, a radio station and a newspapers at his disposal to report positively about him and his government, so when he resorts to banning Moseley because of a perceived infraction, it means Jagdeo's three media outlets are not doing an effective job, so he has to put the squeeze on those media houses that are exposing him.

He is no man. He's a mouse. But like all mice, the cat or the trap awaits.