Dear Editor,
Ms. Nazima Raghubir, Head of the Guyana Press Association, has elected to respond to my letter to the press of the 13th July, in which I pointed out that at the President’s press conference “I ensured that every reporter present who wished to ask a question did so with a follow up question and one reporter (Nazima Raghubir) managed to slip in five questions “I further pointed out that “ altogether 25 questions were asked by the media and answered by the President”. I also pointed out that the majority of questions asked did not address the President’s opening statement, which should have been their primary concern, but, instead, only asked about Dharamlall’s resignation and the Mahdia tragedy.
Raghubir has presumed in her response to, both lecture me on press freedom, and launch an ad hominem personal, libellous and defamatory attack on me which was published first in the Kaieteur News of July 14th and again in full on July 15th ,2023.
I do not really know Raghubir as when I served as a practising journalist both in and out of Guyana and as Manager of the Chronicle newspaper, which was then privately owned, she was not yet born. I happen to have a degree in broadcast journalism from a leading North American University, I wonder what Raghubir’s qualifications are!
I believe that I am also the only Guyanese journalist, living or dead, in or out of Guyana, who has been a recipient of a “freedom of the press” award, from the Inter-American Press Association, yet Raghubir sees fit to attack me as she has done.
Raghubir in her letter has also grossly misrepresented the arrangements which were put in place for the President’s Press Conference. In fact, all media houses in Guyana, were written to in a “Media Advisory” announcing the press conference and inviting each to send a journalist and videographer or photographer to cover the conference and requested to submit the names of their designated representatives by 5.00 pm the day before the press conference was held, and to be present at the Office of the President’s waiting area by 9.15 am on the day of the conference, schedule to start at 10.00 am. The Advisory, also, requested that media representatives be prepared to produce their media accreditation and national ID at the security check point at the Office of the President. All media reps were advised that they must complete their equipment set up and be seated (there was adequate seating) by 9.45 am and would not be allowed entry to the Office of the President after 9.20 am.
The decision to invite each media house to submit the name of one reporter was made to begin establishing a Presidential Press Corps, similarly to the practice of the US White House Press Corps.
It is perhaps noteworthy to mention that while the media room at the White House can accommodate about 48 persons, only a select few are seated in the front row and ask questions. The remainder are seated and standing behind.
Raghubir, deceptively, in her letter, stated that “one media house despite arriving early was not allowed in the press conference”, but failed to explain that the media house, HGPTV Nightly News, did not submit the names of their representatives in advance to attend the press conference.
Raghubir also complained that three other media workers were turned away close to 10.00 am. Again, she neglected to say that these representatives were senior reporters who were not sufficiently disciplined to attend on time. They were Julia Johnson of Prime News, Dennis Chabrol of Demerara Waves and Adrian Narine, a Chronicle photographer.
Raghubir accuses me of having imposed a protocol at the press conference, ironically, which, she says “robbed the President and the Nation of understanding many of his Government (sic) plans and programmes and critical issues facing everyday Guyanese”, yet none of her five questions which she improperly asked addressed any of these matters, nor for that matter, the questions asked by the majority of the other reporters.
Incidentally, when I intervened as moderator to prevent her from asking more than one question and follow up she was openly rude and offensive, causing the President to reprimand her. She then attempted to interrupt the President while he was speaking to her.
Is this the behaviour to be expected of the Head of the Press Association, who, we recall was controversially elected.
I have sent my Attorney copies of Ms Raghubir’s letter which has been widely circulated, other than being published in the Kaieteur News and a copy of the Kaieteur News in question to advise me on any action I may consider taking on this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Kit Nascimento
Consultant
