Dear Editor,
I take this opportunity to express my annoyance over the omission of a part of my letter which was published in Stabroek News on Saturday, September 11, under the heading ‘Does the President have to do everything?’
For the sake of readers to get a sense of what I really wanted emphasized and notice to be taken of, I will quote the section with the omitted part italicized: “But let me say something about the new young just out of school Doctors that have taken up appointment; though we ought to be proud of our young people and their achievement especially – our own Lindeners – I think that it is totally unfair to [them] the newly qualified young doctors, and I dare say a disservice to the community, to have them totally on their own without experienced back-up, as critical cases may demand. I need to point out further that no top officials, let alone Govt. Ministers willingly submit themselves and their family in the hands of our young medical recruits. They don’t! They pay big money and go to where/whose professional expertise they respect.”
As you are aware, I am not known for complaining when these things happen, though like most letter writers I dislike it. As I have it, this newspaper is yours and so is the prerogative when some part(s) in your judgment is deemed obnoxious and not printable. Even so, editors should not, based on their personal whims or subjective reasoning, omit portion(s) from letters that do not violate any principle.
A lengthy letter? Yes! But 3½ lines, no way! The part you deleted, though it may not paint a nice picture is nothing but the plain truth. It is no secret and was made in earnest, it happens all the time, people know this. To chop out what may seem harsh comments made against some top functionaries for their hypocritical behaviour – ‘talking the talk but not walking the walk’ does not reflect balance.
Aren’t we stretching things too far by becoming hypersensitive, or as we say in Guyanese parlance, ‘yuh too thin skin.’ I look forward to the publishing of this letter so that the public at large can gauge your impartiality, principle and good judgment on which your editing of letters is based.
Yours faithfully,
Frank Fyffe
Editor’s note
Newspapers all over the world edit letters on a variety of grounds which we have published on many occasions before this. Where the letter of September 11 is concerned, the first sentence (italicized above) cited by Mr Fyffe was unnecessary, and nothing was lost of the meaning by contracting it. (Mr Fyffe has acknowledged that his letter was very long.) Where the second was concerned, that too seemed gratuitous for a different reason. Mr Fyffe had made the point (which was carried) that newly qualified young doctors should not be left on their own without experienced back-up, and that this, in addition to being unfair to them, was also “a disservice to the community.” Why then go on to impugn the young doctors’ professionalism by saying that no senior official trusted them? It adds nothing to the point that they should not be left on their own, and simply serves as a kind of insult – and this when Mr Fyffe writes that we should be proud of our young people. Stabroek News has never had any sensitivity about reporting on where officials go for medical treatment.
