Editors-in-Chief must appear to be, and actually be neutral, objective, and balanced
Dear Editor,
There is a heated controversy brewing. It is over the dividing line - in Guyana that tortured line - that highlights the dual roles lived by a small handful of professionals. At the centre of it all, it is about what has arisen and is best grouped as press controversy and as that is juxtaposed on individual responsibility. The struggle is for that balance that does not impinge upon constitutional authority while safeguarding personal liberty. It is the finest of lines, several of them, in what is unfolding as anything other than a storm in a teacup.
As exhibits, there is the unfinished saga of the Stabroek News matter, which as far as I know has been eased, but still not fully resolved. And as recently as this week, there is the situation that deteriorated badly over there at state-controlled NCN, between state serving senior officers. It does not look good, when the purveyor of the news becomes the news, and this is true whether at NCN or Stabroek News; or those other places not specifically mentioned today. We have had parents assaulting teachers (and the counterclaims) and now veteran pressmen experiencing rushes of blood to the head and the deplorable deteriorations that come from those. The lack of control, the disregard for decorum, speaks for itself as to where we are in this society. With power and authority comes responsibility; I would recommend humility, too. I offer the latter, though already I can hear the mocking and the dismissing. But I persevere, for that is one ingredient that may bring us to our senses and take us someplace else.
Now let me help my fellow Guyanese with where I stand with this separation of duties, this division of the body of the baby that is of the most sensitive and scrutinized of figures. I think that a reader of the news could - and should - be given the benefit of a pass, of reasonable judgment, of cautious discretion. After all, he or she is a mere passthrough, a conduit, for the work product that originates somewhere else in the minds and priorities of the news organization. That news reader must stick religiously to the printed script or electronic scroll, as delivered to him or her. It must be the unalterable equivalent of: no more, no less; and that’s it. Failure
to do so, through departures and insistences to ad lib for the benefit of personally publicized political allegiance, is ground for corrections. These could range from warning to limits to removal.
In the instance of editors and editors-in-chief, I submit that the bar is way higher, and it should be held there. The holders of those highly skilled and highly thought of offices must appear to be, and actually be, neutral, objective, and balanced. Now that is a difficult combination and a tough nut to swallow, and particularly when consideration is given to personal preferences, prejudices, and positions. I say this for several reasons.
First, editors and e-i-cs are inseparable from the paper itself. Second, they are one step removed from the publishers and trustees of a vision and mission. Third, from my perspective only, a newspaper is a public trust, and there are those endless obligations that come along with that reality. Fourth, in a terribly acrimonious society like Guyana, there is the demand for editors and editors-inchief to be keenly aware of, and responsive to, the power that resides in their hands, and what is called for to serve the best interests of the greater good. Stated otherwise, the publicly partisan is a nonstarter, and could only end up as a contradiction and clash between the official and the personal; there can be no accommodation for Dr. Jekyll (the persona of the newspaper) and Mr. Otherwise (the fervent party supporter). I am grasping for equivalents here, and I offer judges and police officers, who have to be of a single public presence, regardless of their known or unuttered political bias. Anything otherwise is unacceptable. It might be lame and insufficient, but this is what I have. Fifth, editors are called upon to pronounce on the issues of the day, many of them disputed and simmering; when they pronounce, the pointedness of truth and facts can be there, but great care must be taken to dilute the sharpness, if only to maintain that treasured qualitative and the respect of readership, who associate with a certain strain of output.
And I think that is part of the conflict (unsaid by the state) between Stabroek News and the Guyana government. The latter has taken, I believe, serious offence at the social media presence and positions of the publication’s editorial leader. It is a constitutional right, and one on which I think the government has overreacted. But with that said, I still humbly recommend that the very public postures of a senior editor are at odds, if not incompatible, with what the paper has always striven to represent; I remind of the indivisible, inseparable line. Both sides have taken matters too far; better sense has to prevail. I am aware that this is not limited to SN alone, but the difference is that there has been no state reprisal.
Yours faithfully, GHK Lall