Screwing with the facts
THE public has an appetite to know and responsible journalists, as the disseminators of information, have a sacred duty to be honest, balanced and accurate in their reporting.
In his article for ‘Deadlines & Diversity’, Nicholas Russell sets out three “yardsticks” for a journalist to measure the accuracy of his story. They are: “Is my motivation a genuine desire to inform the public?”
The second follows up the first question, by asking: “What does this decision do to the newsroom’s credibility?” The final question ties the two previous questions together: “Can I comfortably confess my techniques to the audience?”
In all of this, editors have a supervisory role and are duty-bound to ensure that these basic steps are followed, as a slip in one can result in a slide of the credibility of the news entity. Importantly, too, while it is human to err, it is the responsibility of media houses to inform its readers of any major inaccuracy brought to its attention.
It is an unpardonable sin for any media house to peddle distortions with the agenda to misinform the people, and the recent reporting by the Kaieteur News on the multi-million-dollar contracts awarded to digital technology seems to mirror this brand of journalism.
First, the newspaper claims that Digital Technology, the company that was awarded the contracts came into existence in 2009, when in fact, the entity was registered as a sole trader business in 2003, and a company in 2009.
The newspaper then went on to state that the Ministry of Education paid Digital Technology $10M for the replacement of two UPS at the University of Guyana (Turkeyen Campus) that were damaged by floods in 2005.
This assertion was found to be grossly inaccurate as the two pieces of equipment were replaced by the manufacturer. Both were on a three-year warranty.
That’s not all. The newspaper reported that two computers supplied by Digital Technology to the Ministry of Legal Affairs were faulty and that there was no tender for a contract awarded to the company to supply computers to the Ministry of Finance some three years ago. Both of these claims were found to be false by these two ministries.
The head of the University of Guyana, Information Technology Department (Turkeyen Campus), Raymond Khan and the Director of the Berbice Campus Professor Daizal Samad have also confirmed that the computers supplied to the university campuses by the said company are of good quality and are working well.
These are real persons who spoke on the matter, not the highly questionable or perhaps fictitious sources Kaieteur News claims it spoke with and continues to hide behind.
After being found to be wrong on these matters, the newspaper shifted gear and began to focus on another issue, claiming that a minister is suspected to be a financier of Digital Technology.
And that was not enough, there was more to the tale being propagated by Kaieteur News. The newspaper’s Editor-in-Chief Mr. Adam Harris, when challenged by the Minister of Education Mr. Shaik Baksh to release the name of the minister, boldly stated that he will do so after the ministry provides him the list of 38 contracts awarded to Digital Technology.
For any layman, it is farcical to say the least that the Kaieteur News, which holds itself as a crusader against corruption, should not be setting a condition for the disclosure of the name of the minister it claims is a financier to Digital Technology.
Kaieteur News, as the ministry stated, is duty-bound to reveal the name of the minister without any regret or apology, and failure to so do is a dereliction of duty to its readers and the Guyanese public.
Kaieteur New’s non-disclosure of the name of the minister can only be construed to mean that its claims that a minister is the financier of Digital Technology is a gross and shameless fabrication. On the other hand, if the newspaper indeed knows of a minister who is a financier of the company but chooses to remain silent, then its position is tantamount to supporting corruption, a disgraceful mockery of the position it claims to defend.
What more can be expected of a newspaper, which continues to say that the Ministry of Education awards the contracts, when in fact, it is public knowledge that the National Procurement and Tender Board Administration  is the authority that makes such awards?
And unlike the practice under the former administration, the process of the awards today is open, fair and transparent.
Tenders are opened publicly, evaluated by a committee appointed by the board which makes reports and recommendations, and an award is finally made by the board.
Kaieteur News should know that if it screws with the facts, it will get screwed. The move by Minister Baksh to take legal action against Kaieteur News from all indications appears to be a last resort by the Ministry of Education to stop the slew of inaccuracies being peddled by the newspaper. This is the ideal forum for the newspaper to have its grouses addressed once and for all.