Information Minister responds
21/03/08 09:00 Filed in: Editorial
I did not cut off the
microphone
Your editorial of March 17 contains a factual inaccuracy which I am quite certain you cannot substantiate, and an allegation about my conduct of the post-Cabinet press conference of March 13, which is equally without foundation.
In its fifth paragraph, the editorial asserts that “Information Minister Neil Parsanlal simply cut off the reporter’s microphone.” There is absolutely no truth to this statement.
As the moderator of the post-Cabinet press conference, I have no control over the microphone system, and therefore I am in no position to cut off any reporter’s microphone.
This matter was first raised publicly in a report carried by the Newsday reporter the day after the press conference, in which he alleged that “I was cut off by moderator, Minister of Information Neil Parsanlal.” He went on to add that “mysteriously, the microphone set up for this reporter went dead.”
It is indeed a pity that the Guardian, before compounding this inaccuracy, did not afford the minister the traditional courtesy of the right of reply, but rather accepted without question and repeated the Newsday reporter’s unfounded allegation.
What is indeed even more troubling, is that the Guardian’s editor-in-chief (ag) was present at that press conference and could easily have prevented his paper from committing this journalistic travesty.
The post-Cabinet press conference has a structure which follows closely the pattern of similar international briefings. Reporters are asked to identify their names and media houses before posing their question. Having done so, I usually allow sometimes two or three follow-up questions, before moving to another reporter.
With ten-15 reporters in the room, it would be improper to allow any one reporter to dominate the press conference, particularly when the question has been posed and answered by the minister.
If a reporter does not get the answer s/he is looking for, that does not give him/her the right to stall the press conference and prevent his/her colleagues from being able to pose their questions. As moderator, I have an obligation to all reporters in the room.
The second point of contention is the editorial allegation that my purported action underlined “the Government’s apparent position on questioning intended to result in answers that might reflect an addressing of public concerns.”
Working with syllogisms, one would be forced to conclude that the wrong premise would always result in the wrong conclusion, which is the precise error in this case.
Since assuming office I have deliberately set an agenda of openness and public disclosure. I have engaged all sections of the media, including both employers and employees, as well as their umbrella organisations.
I have been available and accessible to the media, sometimes at great inconvenience to my family and myself but, I hasten to add, I accepted this job and recognise that as par for the course. To impute therefore that I am part of a plot to prevent reporters from asking questions is ridiculous at best and libellous at worst.
I continue to be available to the Guardian, as I am to all other media houses, and pray that in the interest of journalistic integrity and fair play, that your error will be publicly corrected.
Neil Parsanlal
Minister of Information
Your editorial of March 17 contains a factual inaccuracy which I am quite certain you cannot substantiate, and an allegation about my conduct of the post-Cabinet press conference of March 13, which is equally without foundation.
In its fifth paragraph, the editorial asserts that “Information Minister Neil Parsanlal simply cut off the reporter’s microphone.” There is absolutely no truth to this statement.
As the moderator of the post-Cabinet press conference, I have no control over the microphone system, and therefore I am in no position to cut off any reporter’s microphone.
This matter was first raised publicly in a report carried by the Newsday reporter the day after the press conference, in which he alleged that “I was cut off by moderator, Minister of Information Neil Parsanlal.” He went on to add that “mysteriously, the microphone set up for this reporter went dead.”
It is indeed a pity that the Guardian, before compounding this inaccuracy, did not afford the minister the traditional courtesy of the right of reply, but rather accepted without question and repeated the Newsday reporter’s unfounded allegation.
What is indeed even more troubling, is that the Guardian’s editor-in-chief (ag) was present at that press conference and could easily have prevented his paper from committing this journalistic travesty.
The post-Cabinet press conference has a structure which follows closely the pattern of similar international briefings. Reporters are asked to identify their names and media houses before posing their question. Having done so, I usually allow sometimes two or three follow-up questions, before moving to another reporter.
With ten-15 reporters in the room, it would be improper to allow any one reporter to dominate the press conference, particularly when the question has been posed and answered by the minister.
If a reporter does not get the answer s/he is looking for, that does not give him/her the right to stall the press conference and prevent his/her colleagues from being able to pose their questions. As moderator, I have an obligation to all reporters in the room.
The second point of contention is the editorial allegation that my purported action underlined “the Government’s apparent position on questioning intended to result in answers that might reflect an addressing of public concerns.”
Working with syllogisms, one would be forced to conclude that the wrong premise would always result in the wrong conclusion, which is the precise error in this case.
Since assuming office I have deliberately set an agenda of openness and public disclosure. I have engaged all sections of the media, including both employers and employees, as well as their umbrella organisations.
I have been available and accessible to the media, sometimes at great inconvenience to my family and myself but, I hasten to add, I accepted this job and recognise that as par for the course. To impute therefore that I am part of a plot to prevent reporters from asking questions is ridiculous at best and libellous at worst.
I continue to be available to the Guardian, as I am to all other media houses, and pray that in the interest of journalistic integrity and fair play, that your error will be publicly corrected.
Neil Parsanlal
Minister of Information
|
