WHY IS FOROYAA HESITATING TO PUBLISH THE REJOINDER SENT BY THE UDP TO CLARIFY CLAIMS BY THE STANDARD NEWSPAPER THAT UDP HAS ENDORSED THE INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE?
QUESTION OF THE DAY
WHY IS FOROYAA HESITATING TO PUBLISH THE REJOINDER SENT BY THE UDP TOCLARIFY CLAIMS BY THE STANDARD NEWSPAPER THAT UDP HAS ENDORSED THE INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE?
Foroyaa has indeed received a rejoinder from the UDP secretariat making clarificationthat Mr Adama Barrow is currently their presidential candidate and they have not endorsed any other candidate so far but have welcomed Dr Isatou Touray to the political field. This rejoinder if not sent to The Standard Newspaper should be sent there since it is the newspaper that published the story. If it is alsready sent to The Standard, it should be published by the paper as a matter of principle of the ethics of journalism.
Foroyaa hesitates to publish articles which pit opposition forces against each other. We hope that The Standard will publish the rejoinder. If they fail to do so then Foroyaa will be obliged to publish it so that it will not censor what the UDP wants to convey to the public to clarify what it considers to be a distortion of its position.
Cullied from Foroyya Newspaper
Why do foroyaa have to publish this report if they are hesitant to publish udp rejoinder ? Halifa needs to stop his game. Just publish the rejoinder since the report by standard was a false news. Rejoinder is meant for clarification so that the public will know the right information but it is not an article which pit opposition forces against each other as falsely indicated by foroyaa . It is within the ethics of journalism to publish rejoinder as means of clarification to false information publish by other media. Foroyaa is once again doing censorship by refusing to publish udp rejoinder and that is irresponsible journalism in my view. The overriding factor in all this fiasco is the public right to know the right information. Withholding such information is deservice to the public and the country . Freedom of expression is constitutional guaranteed.
Do you listen to yourself sometimes..? Why would Forayaa censor a document that could be sent to any number of publishers or newspapers ?
Have you seen any rejoinder to that Standard story in Kaironews, for example or Freedom ? Why are you not accusing Kaironews and Freedom of censorship ?
What is wrong with Forayaa allowing the Standard to first publish the rejoinder, since they were the original carriers of the story ?
Isn’t it clear from this Forayaa clarification, even without publishing the rejoinder, that the UDP is refuting the Standard story ?
You need to look at yourself in the mirror; have a one to one honest conversation with yourself; seriously assess your capabilities and dedicate yourself to achieving what is within your means..
PDOIS is a far too revered, admired and respected institution for a minnow like you to take on…Safe yourself the heartache and troubles..if you have any sense, that is..
Max, do you know why the UDP sent their rejoinder to Foroyaa instead of the Standard that published the false claim?
It is logical to surmise that would have been the best option, although they can send their rejoinder anywhere else.
Does the UDP have the belief that Standard will not publish the rejoinder?
As usual you are ready to cast aspersion on anything Foroyaa , PDOIS and Halifa, without even making a sincere effort to understand where Foroyaa is coming from.
I believe there is something called editorial discretion, and Foroyaa has stated the reasons why it is relying on its discretion not to publish the rejoinder yet. The Foroyaa report is explicit on all fronts. There is no ambiguity.
Freedom of expression is constitutionally guaranteed. People have the right to hold differing views. The question of whether one’s view is right or wrong has either a subjective or objective basis.
If you are of the opinion that how Foroyaa handes this rejoinder issue is wrong, that is your opinion. Nobody can argue with it. But it doesn’t make it right ether.
If foroyaa is of the opinion that how they handle this rejoinder issue is right, that is their opinion. Nobody should argue with it. But it doesn’t make it wrong either. This is how matters stand.
At least we now know that there is a UDP rejoinder to a false claim by the Standard.
UDP should send their rejoinder to Standard. If Standard doesn’t publish it Foroyaa certainly will. What is all your fuss about?
Kamalo , since you have admitted that udp can send the rejoinder to anywhere ( newspaper ) then there is nothing wrong if foroyaa publish the rejoinder. That does not violate the ethics of journalism . Every day we have seen news media refuting or making rejoinders to false news made by other media houses . This is standard routine. Probably udp knows that standard will not publish its rejoinder , therefore they send to foroyaa to publish it .
In this situation , foroyaa is wrong because they have refused to publish the rejoinder when it was send to them which is deservice to the citizens. Foroyaa’s explanation that the article pit opposition forces against each other does not make any sense because it was done for clarification purposes only. Maybe foroyaa and pdois have an agenda to further confuse the citizens that udp have endorsed Dr Touray . foroyaa definitely has ulterior motive on this issue as they always do.
Max, you also have to understand that newspapers/publishers have standards. Not everything that is sent to them could be published.
Yes, newspapers are govern by the ethics of journalism, but I would also believe that what is for the greater good can be an overriding consideration.
An omission that will mend fences and build trust, has a more redeeming value than a commission that will destroy trust and break fences.
Especially at a time when the overall desire for everyone is to mend fences.
The political reality which is quite evident in our political discourse is not lost to Foroyaa. They are just acting in good faith. And to promote goodwill among the opposition political parties.
To infer motives to Foroyaa’s statement is what is a disservice. At least Foroyaa has the decency to publicly state that they have received a rejoinder from the UDP.
Not only that, the paper also has the courtesy to state why it is not publishing the rejoinder at this material time. And the circumstances that necessitated the decision and its eventual reversal.
What you are accusing Foroyaa of is not true. The paper did not refused to publish the rejoinder.
Foroyaa is merely giving an opportunity to Standard to publish the rejoinder. Standard published the original story to which UDP’S clarification addresses.
Your journalistic ethics is more binding to Standard as it is to Foroyaa in this case. Nonetheless, Foroyaa has stated that it will publish the rejoinder if Standard does not publish it.
The issue about Dr Touray and UDP don’t even go there.
I can tell you for certain that Foroyaa and PDOIS do not believe in conspiracy theories. They wait for the facts and the evidence.
Bax , the rejoinder was send to foroyaa , so they are in position to publish it . Why would they said that they will only publish the rejoinder if standard fail to do so ? I am sure if it was send to kaironews they would have published it . So in essence foroyaa is telling us that they have the rejoinder from udp but they will publish it if standard refuse to do it . I do not think that right ethics of journalism .
Bax , I definitely think you have a problem whenever I express my view with foroyaa or pdois . I might be irrelevant to you but your such attitude indicate elite mindset and it is also mindset of self righteous character you have learned from your organization leadership.
Max…
Whether Foroyaa publishes the UDP rejoinder or not is their prerogative, but one can deduce from their point of view, that it is their Editorial Policy not to do so until it becomes clear that the Standard, which is the original carrier of the story, is unwilling to publish it..
What is wrong with that..? How could you allege censorship, when Foroyaa clearly stated that the rejoinder will be published..? The mere fact that the very existence of this document (rejoinder) was brought to our attention by Foroyaa is enough to dispel any allegations of censorship. In any case, the purpose of the UDP rejoinder, which was to refute the story in the Standard, has been achieved, even without its full publication by Foroyaa.
Also, you cannot possibly feign ignorance of Foroyaa’s publication, in full, of the UDP Statement detailing their 3point alliance proposal recently..Does it make sense to you that Foroyaa would publish such a political document from the UDP, but for some bizarre reason, take the decision to censore a rejoinder that rejects a claim not made by either Foroyaa or PDOIS..? Is this sensible and rational to you…?
It is such unexplained irrationality from you at times, that I have a problem with, regardless of whether it was against PDOIS, Foroyaa, Mr Sallah or anyone else. Your readiness to sacrifice common sense, logic and facts to pursue your unfair, unjustified and misguided vendetta against PDOIS is the reason I have a problem with you, and I am even surprised that you are still not sure of this, as you seem to imply in the quote below :
“Bax , I definitely think you have a problem whenever I express my view with foroyaa or pdois .”
You shouldn’t be thinking, at this stage of our long standing interaction, that I have a problem with the way you address issues related to PDOIS. You should be 100% certain of that by now, but I am not surprised, to tell you the truth. I saw your incompetence a long, long time ago.
I do not, for one second, think that you are irrelevant. On the contrary, it is my belief that, like every single one of us, you are relevant to any issues under discussion that concern our country, but whether you want to employ yourself positively to the cause, is a different matter..and at the moment, your misguided, so called crusade against PDOIS, is not adding anything positive to our cause, as the anti-Jammeh camp.
Maxs, the usual professional practice is, the paper that originally publish the article is legally liable to publish the rejoinder so that their readers would know that the original published text is a wrong one or at least make a comparison. In short Foroyaa is doing what is right by exposing the Standard for not doing the right thing. This may be done to push the standard to do what is right.
And that is precisely what has happened. The Standard has immediately published the UDP Rejoinder to save themselves from further exposure not to be seen as being engage in open biasness and unfair reporting. Do you now get the message?
Yero Ba , Bax and kamalo , the rejoinder has been published by freedomnewspaper but foroyaa refusal to publish the rejoinder is censorship and deservice to the citizens . You can all argue with yourself all day but the facts was they should have published the rejoinder to avoid further confusion. In fact foroyaa refusal to publish the rejoinder can also be viewed as sabotage to opposition coalition building since they fail to publish udp rejoinder meant to clarify untrue and unfounded news that udp already endorsed Dr Touray . This can cause disunity , confusion and wrong impression among opposition forces that are interested in coalition building or even the voters who may be interested in coalition . Pdois / foroyaa has helped to sustain and further instill confusion among voters who are eager for opposition coalition when they talk about it in their paper but refused to publish rejoinder. There is no hard and fast rule that rejoinder should only be published in the media which makes the original story. The rejoinder can be send to anywhere for publication as we see everyday throughout the world. Halifa needs to have that basic understanding. This further shows his rigid mentality in dealing with issue of public concern. Suppose he is the president of The Gambia and there is report by private radio station that there is rebellion in other part of the country , will he wait for that private radio to make clarification or will he go to GRTS to make clarification ? I am sure if he is a responsible leader he will not only go to private radio to make clarification but he will go to many media outlets including GRTS to make clarification. It is the same reason that udp sent their rejoinder to foroyaa and freedomnewspaper to clarify false news published by standard . On the contrary , failure to publish the rejoinder was meant to cause further confusion and to pit opposition forces against each other .
I am glad that standard and freedomnewspaper published udp rejoinder for public good .
The rejoinder in question publish in Freedom Newspaper read;
“Gambia: UDP Debunks Standard Newspaper’s Reportage, As UDP Says It Has Not Endorsed Isatou Touray’s Independent Ticket Candidature!
UNITED DEMOCRATIC PARTY (UDP)
REJOINDER: ‘A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION’ – UDP WELCOMES ISATOU TOURAY’S CANDIDATURE
The UDP wishes to clarify that the interview attributed to its Deputy Party Leader by Standard Newspaper was misconstrued and taken out of context by some people. In the article published by Standard Newspaper, the Deputy Party Leader was wrongly quoted for saying “the UDP open support for Dr. Touray is part of efforts to fight what she described ‘a corrupt system’. ”
The UDP believes like any other Gambian who has the required qualification, it is his or her constitutional right to vote and be voted for in any public election and it welcomes any move in fulfillment of that fundamental right. It is on this basis that Dr. Touray’s candidature is welcome.
UDP has its agenda and open to dialogue with UDP Lead Alliance as its first priority. At this juncture, the party has not taken a side to support anyone’s candidature other than its Candidate that is Adama Barrow.
For further information please do not hesitate to contact the spokesperson of the party, Mr. Alhagie S. Darbo, the Deputy Senior Administrative Secretary.
Thank you.
Alhagie S. Darbo
The UDP Spokesperson