CN and Stabroek News have the same toy!
SOMEHOW humour continues to be reflected from the CN suspension matter. He did say that his station will be open for business during the period it will be off air. Information now in the public domain reveals that CN’s wife, Savitree, who many regard as the station’s cerebrum, asked and agreed for the four-month suspension! CN wanted two. The recommended penalty was for eight months! Classic case of “mouth open, story jump out”! Look how skilfully CN spun the issue as if he was unaware of the period his station will be off air.

A mystery has since been solved. No longer is there need to wonder why CN’s favourite toy is a “bucktap”. Remember the toy? A string was wrapped around it and pulled allowing it to spin on its tip. CN has a collection. In the end, he only got half of the penalty recommended. This he has failed to articulate, just like the Stabroek News which carried an editorial on Tuesday last on the issue. On one hand, they agree that indeed the material aired was libellous, slanderous and not in keeping with good taste! They agree that such transgression will have consequences.

Despite this, the paper claims that the consequence is an oppression of freedom of expression. Isn’t this a clear contradiction of views? To quote the editorial, “…the commentary which was presented by Mr. Anthony Vieira (sic) contained scandalous allegations which no responsible broadcaster should permit without ensuring that there was some bias or evidence to sustain it. In this respect, the proprietor of the station, Mr. CN Sharma, put himself in instant jeopardy…”

In other words, the Stabroek News is clear that the material aired transgressed acceptable standards for decency in television broadcast. Also, the paper is not ambiguous in stating that CN is wholly responsible, thereby ensuring penalty a formality. Further, according to the paper, CN is an irresponsible broadcaster! So what’s the hullabaloo about? Is the Stabroek News saying that the incident should be left to slide? Is the paper advocating that anyone is therefore free to slander and libel without having to face any consequence? 

There are other questions. How come the Stabroek News is swift to conclude that the penalty CN received is an attack on press freedom in relation to the upcoming elections? Did the paper, before the editorial mentioned, report that Mr. Vieira’s commentary was libellous? If it did, did the paper mention what the penalty could be? Clearly the paper didn’t, and with its anti-government stance, it will deliberately and skilfully avoid the real issue. Given the paper’s position on the issue, it would not be wrong to conclude that it is in many ways advocating for such lawlessness on the airwaves.

Such advocacy clearly contradicts the Stabroek News’ pseudo image of promoting responsible reporting/broadcast. It is therefore not surprising that the anti-government and anti-progress entity will mischievously pounce upon the penalty and not the magnitude of the libellous and scandalous commentary.
Maybe, like many others, the Stabroek News was unaware that the Sharmas agreed to the penalty. This revelation must have stunned them. Like CN, the paper seemingly takes pride to misinform.
Don’t be surprised if you see CN and the Stabroek News spinning “bucktaps” on the pave in Robb Street. After all, they live in close proximity to each other!