Dear editor,

WITH regard to your editorial on the $6 billion lawsuits (Oct 19) under the preceding management of the paper, the editor-in-chief and or editor (s) who allowed those irresponsible statements to be published should be required to pay the damages. The editorial department acted injudiciously. In addition, there was mismanagement as a result of policies of specific individuals. Those responsible for that state of affairs must be held liable.

The then editor-in-chief or reporter who was responsible for the careless contents of what were published must be held personally responsible for all lawsuits. They cannot claim ignorance. They know the rules of journalism. They must be the ones to compensate those they injured. An editor is trained in ethical and responsible, impartial journalism. He ought to know that certain information is libellous. And therefore, he or they should have exercised editorial restraint in publishing information that would be considered libellous
If the editor was instructed to publish the information by government ministers, then the person (s) who instructed the editor to commit libel should be held accountable. The paper or government should not have to bear that burden of libel. Aside from civil penalties, if the editor acted very irresponsibly, he should also face criminal charges.

Having expressed the above view, as a media operative over the last 45 years, and as someone who supports open, transparent governance, I am opposed to measures meant to restrict press freedom. Thus, I am against libel (written) or slander (spoken) lawsuits. I see these court actions as efforts to stifle free speech — to silence news publication or broadcasting. Publications should be free to publish factual information and to entertain fair, objective commentaries. Some bad speech is better than no speech. The US Supreme Court has taken that position; some American President (forgot name) had also made that very point over 200 years ago.

However, free speech must be cautious and responsible and not attack people’s characters. Commentaries and reporting must not be defamatory (purposely attacking or damageable) and contain (damning or objectionable) information that were/are known to be false.

Journalists undergo training on such concepts as defamation and journalistic negligence and ethics. They (editors in particular) are trained on what crosses the line of defamation and libel. And therefore, they should not be attacking. If they do, then surely they should and must be held accountable. The person who were/are responsible for the libel should be roasted, not the paper, unless the papers takes responsibility through the editor.

Inaccurate information is not automatically libellous, not in the US anyway. The American standard on libel is very high. A publisher is libellous if it can be proven that there was recklessness with the truth. The libel must prove that the falsehood was/is intentionally published – the editor or writer knew the information is/was false and went ahead and published it anyway. If a publication publishes information even if damaging to someone and the editor or writer did not know it was false, a court would not grant a libel. The court would throw it out if the publisher (editor) can prove that he/she did not know the information was false; an apology is not even granted for the falsehood. A few times I penned letters that contain inaccurate information, but I did not know they were inaccurate. When brought to my attention, I issued an apology or retraction.

In Guyana and in the British Commonwealth, the standard on libel is much lower. If the information is thought to be inaccurate, the court may grant libel. People run to the court for any little matter published on or about them that they feel is false or defamatory. The bar should be raised. Publications are careful what they publish. It is not unusual that a publication (as was the case with the Chronicle over the last five years) or writers don’t care what they publish against people whom they consider as opponents. Some of the articles were defamatory and libellous; they contain virtually no truth and were intended to ridicule political opponents or those thought to be supportive of the opposition. Why were they published? The then government wanted to defame people and or justify some of its policies and decisions and used the state media to do its hatchet job. The then government believed that if they defamed people, the public would support their decisions or policies.

In any publication, there must be a balance between the public’s right to know (or free speech) and terrible speech that damages peoples’ reputations. Articles that knowingly and deliberately have falsehoods must not be published.

Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram