Dear Editor,
I refer to an article with the caption ‘Relevant agencies to probe complaints of truancy, neglect in Vryheid’s Lust” in the Stabroek News of Tuesday, March 17, 2015 which took me and the residents quite by surprise, and left us in a state of shock due to the fact that my name was given as the resident responsible for providing the reporter with information about some residents.
The reporter made an appointment to visit my home at Lot 138 Adassa Street, South Vryheid’s Lust Housing Scheme, East Coast Demerara to interview me with regard to the history of the Vryheid’s Lust community, since I was the first resident in this community. The story thereafter when edited was scheduled to be published as an editorial in the Stabroek News as per our agreement.
I recalled during the interview, the reporter had observed some youths between the ages of eleven to approximately fifteen in the streets at that odd hour of the day and she asked why they were not in school. She gave no indication that she had observed some of the same youths along with others making purchases of cigarettes, etc, nor the playing of a game of dice in another street nor speaking with other residents on this matter of great concern. I only discovered these facts after they were drawn to my attention by other residents in the community when the article was published. What deceptiveness!
Why publish such a distasteful piece? Who gave her permission to use my name without my consent? Why was I selected out of the many residents who were casually spoken to on this subject? Couldn’t she have just written a story for the relevant authorities to investigate without such blatant disregard for someone’s privacy? I have to live among these people. My safety can now be threatened. Can she repair the damage done? No.
Did she place herself in the shoes of each resident to whom she spoke with as to how it would affect them after the article was published? No. Moreso, did she think about how the residents in question would react to such a story or the fact that they will now be investigated by many agencies? No. That was never her concern.
What did she have to gain? One doesn’t have to ponder, she has a lot to gain. It was obvious in the article published. A name for herself and a place in the editorial community.
I demand an immediate apology from your reporter, to be published in the Stabroek News for ruining my reputation and for not having my approval to mention any information about the residents in question, failing which, I will be contacting my lawyer for further legal advice and prosecution of the reporter in question.
With regards to the editorial on the history of the Vryheid’s Lust community, it must have been thrown by the wayside since it has not been published, and that was the reporter’s objective for being in our community and not disrupting the livelihood of the residents.
I await your urgent response and subsequent publication.
Yours faithfully,
Jean March
- What goes into a newspaper is never, at any time, decided by a reporter; that falls solely within the purview of the editor, and it is the editor who takes full responsibility for whatever is published. Mrs. March’s attacks on the reporter, therefore, are quite misplaced.
- The reporter was sent by the editor into Vryheid’s Lust to do a community-based feature as part of the series called ‘The world beyond Georgetown.’ It is not an “editorial” and the interviews are never by appointment. Reporters are sent in without prior notification to the community, and they speak to as many people as are willing to talk to them about their village; never just to one person. There was no appointment with Mrs March, therefore, and the reporter was directed to her home by other residents because, it was said, she was knowledgeable about the village. She was told the purpose of the interview when the reporter arrived, in addition to which she acceded to the use of her name when asked. Contrary to what Mrs March alleges too, the feature was published in the Sunday Stabroek of March 29, 2025 on pages 3B-5B.
- Prior to the publication of that feature, however, a news story was carried in our edition of March 17 concerning truancy and related issues in the village, that had been raised by residents and Mrs March. We did speak to the Child Services and Protection Agency about whether any complaint from two years ago had been made to them in relation to a particular case cited by Mrs March, and they denied it. The editor then instructed the reporter to contact Mrs March to confirm the story – which she did by telephone – and ask her whether her name could be used in a news story about that specific issue. She agreed to this, and so the report was published using information supplied by Mrs March along with that of other residents who said, however, they did not want their names published when we asked.
This news report carried no byline identifying the reporter.
