It was a mistake; I apologise
Freddie Kissoon Column
Kaieteur News
January 29, 2007
The KN columnist, Peeping Tom, suggested more than two years ago that I should publish my e-mail address.
Though it is a valid suggestion, I have not gone that way because I still want to retain whatever little is left of my privacy. However, I am in constant receipt of e-mail and telephone calls.
It is virtually impossible to pen a column each day on the exchanges I have with friends, well-wishers, people I respect and admire, and those that solicit my views. A columnist must provide some form of explanation to his/her readers on the things that come from his/her pen.
One has a moral obligation to do so. But sometimes there is too much to reply to. Yesterday morning at 08.00 hours outside the Ogle gas station, a senior police officer stopped my wife and me and wanted to discuss my Sunday article on the words Tony Vieira uttered about my appearance and the reason for my visage.
For the past week, the question of the old issue with Mr. Miles Fitzpatrick and my two articles on Stabroek News's advertisement controversy have followed me. I did reply on this page on what two prominent businessmen wanted to know; why would Mr. Fitzpatrick nurture such an inflexibly negative opinion of me.
It is clear to me from the encounters I have had this week that many persons have quite a positive conceptualisation of Mr. Miles Fitzpatrick and therefore cannot believe that Mr. Fitzpatrick would have behaved the way he did towards me.
In the midst of the questions on Mr. Fitzpatrick, someone that I consider a valued citizen of this country that has played a substantial role over a long period in the struggle for the restoration of democracy, has asked me to clarify my position on the Stabroek News entanglement with GINA because that person is of the opinion that I may have done harm to my record.
He specifically pointed out the last paragraph of my article two Sundays ago, entitled, “Mr. Miles Fitzpatrick refused to be Freddie Kissoon's lawyer.”
His opinion is that I should re-think what I wrote in that last sentence.
I have read again what I wrote. It was an emotional statement that should not have found its way into political analysis. So overtaken by my emotions, I composed a sentence that politically is very unwise.
Let me quote from myself then offer an apology to my readers. “I admit if I was President of Guyana, I would not have given them (Stabroek News) a cent of advertisement after what they did to me.”
It was pointed out to me that on occasions too many to count I have advised past presidents, and the present one, that a leader cannot be petty-minded.
I was told that I was actually saying that if I had been president, after knowing what the Stabroek News did to me before I became president, I would not have given them any state advertisements.
I admit that was a terrible statement to make. I apologise to my readers.
Now on a related matter. I have been nicely accused by at least three persons, including a former staff of Stabroek News, of supporting the pressure put on Stabroek News. Unfortunately, my writings on the issue have been severely misinterpreted by of all persons, someone I expect better of.
This is my last statement on the GINA conflict with the Stabroek News. I have penned my position twice before.
Here is it for the third time. I do not support the policy of not giving placements from the Ministries to Stabroek News.
I could accept the argument that with the Kaieteur News circulation, more offerings will be given to KN. But I honestly believe that more people, more organisations and more business houses encounter the Stabroek News than the Chronicle. Therefore, it is hard to believe that more effect will be achieved by exposure to the Chronicle than SN.
The context of my argument on the Stabroek News must not be confused with the advertisement controversy. I need to repeat that context which is three-fold. One is that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in the Guyanese society.
When for the first ten years of its existence, Kaieteur News did not get offers from the state, the Stabroek News did not write about that as a violation of press freedom.
The Stabroek News had to know about that because twice in my articles over the past six years, I brought this to the attention of the reading public.
Alright, let us assume that the editor-in-chief of Stabroek News does not read my stuff, then, twice KN complained of a lack of patronage by the Guyana Government, and Stabroek News never commented.
For years, KN was shut out of many Ministries and Government-owned agencies. No one lifted a finger to help.
Secondly, the Stabroek News's argument in its condemnation of GINA contains unbridled chauvinism. Even up to Friday, SN was positing the theory that it is of a better quality than KN. In other words, SN is saying that it should get more favoured treatment than KN because it is of a higher standard.
There is no way I can argue against this without being emotional since this definition of the Stabroek News is derived not from the contents of the newspaper (KN that is) but on the nature of class society in Guyana . The Stabroek News must understand that its days of hegemony are over. It is not a better newspaper than KN.
Life is a dynamic process. The Hegelian law of the negation is part of that dynamism. The Stabroek News rose to fame just like the Catholic Standard in particular situations that have long gone. The Stabroek News was the only paper in a highly authoritarian system. That niche made it powerful.
The authoritarian society as we know it in the eighties has changed considerably. The Stabroek News is clinging to the past.
Thirdly, I wrote in the context of what Stabroek News did to me which should allow anyone to question its belief in freedom of the press. Finally, I am not going to write a third column on Miles Fitzpatrick suffice it to say that those that are disappointed in what he did, ought to discuss it with him.
Fitzpatrick is not important for me, so why should I keep writing on him.