Dear Editor,
The impasse between Gordon Moseley and the ban on him from covering assignments at the President’s Office or the State House continues to attract valuable space in the newspapers to the exclusion of reports on government affairs which the press has a duty to cover and to report on for the benefit of the citizenry. So what is the issue that is causing the dividing of lines?

When the President was in Antigua he attended a meeting with Guyanese residents. His opinion was that the meeting was very successful and there were only two minor issues when some adverse comments were made. Moseley who was present filed a report and allegedly highlighted the negative aspects in relation to Guyana. When the President rebuked Moseley he responded with a letter to the press. If the above is correct it is regrettable – “Breathed there a man with soul so dead that never to himself hath said, ‘this is my own, my native land.’” Do we see American journalists criticize their country or government, or run down their country? But then I do not deny Mr Moseley the right to do so; I defend his right to publish things as he sees them, blinkered though this may be.

Mr Moseley’s letter says he will not respond to the President’s “wild and uninformed ramblings about the media.” That statement underlines his contempt for the President who is alleged to have made wild and uninformed “ramblings,” not statements. But he has not given evidence of any wild and uninformed comments by the President. He then goes on to offer gratuitous advice that if the President wants a band-aid propaganda excuse of a news item he should have paid the way to ensure a team from the state-owned NCN was there in Antigua. He then says the President should take the time to look at news reports and not rely on the advice of his PR machinery. Well, what do we have here – Moseley accusing the President of making statements based on second-hand information?

The Guyana Press Association (GPA) is gloating over the fact that it has international support in the Moseley affair. But the statement from Reporters Without Borders has put the matter to rest. In a statement, it said “barring a journalist because a report displeased the President is an attack on pluralism and the press’s critical role.” GINA has made it clear that its ban on Mr Moseley has nothing to do with the Antigua report but with the disrespect and contempt Moseley exhibited in his letter and its insulting and abrasive tone. The ban relates to Mr Moseley’s attendance at the Office of the President and State House – the exclusive preserve of the President. Other members of Moseley’s team are free to attend, and Mr Moseley is not banned from attending any function at which the President may be present. So we see how the GPA has misled those from whom they seek support.

Mr Moseley should have tempered his language and not got involved in a yard-fowl scenario. No one, not even Mr Nagamootoo, has considered it necessary to view the issue taking into account both sides of the story. Even Mr Vishnu Bisram commenting on the treatment of US reporters explained how their President would condignly treat those with whom he is displeased.
Yours faithfully,
Verwayne Adams