Cherno,
l am gald you can finally decipher that l never made any statement to the
effect that you are not entitled to your opinion.l will never attempt to
stop anyone from expressing their's either, you can rest assured of that.
However, you seem to be quite perturbed at the fact that l feel l am free to
look at the same material provided by Halifa and come to quite a different
conclusion, both on his position, as well what l see as your motivation on
these issues.That is my entitlement. For the response on my allegation that
your motivation in this debate is much more than just taking a public figure
to task, please see my response to Saul.Yes, all of us are entitled to our
own conclusions.We cannot anything contrary to that principle.
My remark regarding your expression of respect for my views only when we
agree stems from the fact that you wrote:
"Third, my respect for you is not conditioned on your agreeing with
my views, but rather the objectivity and sanity you have mostly tossed into
your writings."
So naturally, the question arises as to whether my writings have suddenly
become un-objective and insane because l have come to a conclusion differing
from that of your own on the issue at hand, and have expressed thus? You
wrote:
"Among other things, my duty is to stir a debate and put in place, a conduit
for an array of views and opinions from others to filter through. In this
way, we all can
learn from one another. It often pleases me for my readers to constructively
criticise me, point out my inaccuracies, and provide better viewpoints. No
one is perfect or can claim a monopoly on ideas."
Please Mr Jallow, let not my conclusions that l reached from my own
assessment of the situation lead you to deny me this ideal you state here.
On Ebou Jallow, l did not intend to state that you have strong convictions
on his allegations, and l am sorry if l failed to be clear in my addressing
this particular point correctly as far as your views are concerned. What l
meant was that you had strong covictions on the way Halifa and Foroyaa
handled this particular issue, as well as the issue regading his role with
the '97 Constitution. My remark regarding your failure to bring the
information you had on this issue to the Gambian public is based on the
fact that you undoubtedly believe strongly about the necessity to bring the
facts regarding this issue to the Gambian people.The role Halifa played in
providing the information on this subject that you say was printed in
Foroyaa is one of the issues that you are taking him to task on, and that
this is one of the reasons you feel his credibility as a public figure is
in question.My question then was, as a Gambian and a journalist, and as
someone who is questioning his credibility based partly on this issue, should
we also not question your credibility and sincerity to our people which you
say is your motivating factor here? As a journalist, should you not have been
moved to bring to the people something counter to what you allege was
misinformation or a sell out on the part of Foroyaa? Shouldn't you as a
journalist been moved to brave the wolves and bring something to the people
to correct this action that translates to a heinous misdeed.l think that it
is not only our public figures who should be held up to high ideals, but
that journalists infact are the eyes and ears of the people even in the wake
of impeccable leadership, much less a repressive one. Journalist prowess is
not deterred by distances between them and their potential interview
subjects. What do you suppose prevented both yourself and Foroyaa from
getting the information from the horse's mouth, because that is the only way
the real truth would and could have been attained, otherwise,. it seems each
of you put on paper what the circumstances put at your disposal, until
further information becomes available. Cherno, l am not a journalist, but l
am not totally cluelees about journalists being careful to substantiate
their stories.Oftentimes, the need to substantiate stores has led them to
even more conviction to find the truth, but sometimes people can only deal
with what is available to them.In this case, l think anyone who is not blind,
deaf and dumb can conclude that credible information on the issue of
Koro's death can only come from those who are not speaking. If we are to be
honest, we must not try to hold others to ideals that we ourselves cannot
reach and did not try to reach.
Question: Did the daily Observer at the time merely give the overview of the
Koro affair ( due to their inability to substantiate the story as you said),
or did they actually also go out and try to conduct an investigation as
Foroyaa said they did.
Cheers.
Jabou Joh
Jabou,
I am now pleased that we are at least understanding each other on this
issue. At least, I have discerned some appeal to sanity in your response to
my response to your posting. Let's agree or agree to disagree. That's
healthy indeed. You said, "...why does my voicing of my opinion, and my
statement that I and others are not prone to manipulation lead you to the
conclusion that I am trying to stop you from pursuing this topic,or from
having a different opinion." Well I neither said you were "trying to stop
us" nor are you stopping us, because you simply can't. What I requested from
you was that we be allowed the opportunity to express ourselves without any
baseless insinuations against us. But you wrote, "... please be forwarned,
manipulation, trickery and attempts to discredit do not and cannot qualify
as acceptable as acceptable methods."
You are insinuating, if not agreeing, that what we are doing is to
"manipulate, trick, or attempt to discredit" in our arguments with Halifa.
That's baseless. If you had provided evidence how we were doing what your
insinuations portend, then we would have been better off in our exchanges.
But when you simply throw tirades against us, without any tangibility,
that's akin to villifying us in our quest to express ourselves in this
debate. And that's unhealthy.
You wrote:"I am sorry if your opinion and respect for me was based only on
stands that I take that agree with you views." Well, first, you have nothing
to be sorry about. Second, it is news to me that you have mostly agreed with
my views. I never knew that. The only time I have seen your agreement with
my views was when you lent credence to my position against Ebrima Ceesay's
article on Gambia's "Liberalised authoritarianism." In any case, if you have
mostly agreed with me, so be it. You are at liberty to be entitled to my
opinions. Third, my respect for you is not conditioned on your agreeing with
my views, but rather the objectivity and sanity you have mostly tossed into
your writings. Fourth, I am not in the business of seeking agreements with
my readers on issues I write about. Honestly, it does not please me greatly
to see my readers concur with, or throw plaudits at, me. Among other things,
my duty is to stir a debate and put in place, a conduit for an array of
views and opinions from others to filter through. In this way, we all can
learn from one another. It often pleases me for my readers to constructively
criticise me, point out my inaccuracies, and provide better viewpoints. No
one is perfect or can claim a monopoly on ideas.
On Ebou Jallow, you seem convinced that I "have strong convictions" on his
allegations. That is untrue. I have never believed anything close to that.
What I said was thus: Ebou Jallow's contentions must be viewed with care and
tact, but again, we still can learn from the snippets of information he is
rendering. You seem inclined that we should have published Jallow's account.
You wrote: "Why did you not find any way to print Ebou Jallow's account...."
Well, without any evidence to rely on should it became evident that we were
going to land in trouble with the law or the military authoirities, we just
couldn't. That's responsible journalism. I presume you are not a journalist,
and since you aren't one, you don't know what is a publishable story or what
isn't. Recently, Jallow used the Net to convey his allegations. And when the
Gambian press got hold of the information, they simply carried an overview
of it, carefully failing to publish the names of those alleged by Jallow to
have "killed" Koro Ceesay. Nor did they publish the details surrounding
Koro's death. And that's what the Daily Observer did at the time. Newspapers
have to be very careful not to disseminate information they cannot
substantiate.
I rest my case. Thanks for the correspondence.
Cherno Baba Jallow
Detroit, MI
>From: Jabou Joh <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Halifa Sallah, PDOIS & Foroyaa
>Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 17:31:39 EST
>
>Cherne baba, you wrote:
>
>" Well some of us beg to differ. And can we be afforded the opportunity to
> hold contrary views, please?"
>
>l am glad that you realize that what one sees is not the same that is seen
>by
>everybody, and that there are two sides to every story. What l express here
>is what l see, and my view, and since you do realize that we are each
>entitled to our opinions and views on any given situation, then we have no
>problem. Also, why does my voicing of my opinion, and my statement that l
>and
>others are not prone to manipulation lead you to the conclusion that l am
>trying to stop you from pursuing this topic, or from having a different
>opinion. My conclusions are based on the arguments and counter arguments
>between yourselves and Halifa. Let the debate continue because it is
>proving
>to be quite an education on more than just Halifa's character actually.
>Also,l am not shallow enough to think that any human being on God's earth
>can claim or have perfection attributed to them, and for you to even
>insinuate that this is what l am doing leaves me a bit dissappointed in you
>too. Since when does voicing support for a stand taken by someone amount to
>declaring them totally infallible? And while you are talking of
>infringement
>on other's opinion and views, perhaps you guys should also take heed of
>this.
>Everything l have stated is my opinion and my observation, and as l have
>said
>before, and will say again, l am entitled to it, and no barrage of words,
>or
>insinuations aimed at belittling my view will change that.
>l am sorry if your opinion and respect for me was based only on stands
>that
>l take that agree with your views.if the opinion l now hold on this issue
>has
>changed your view of me, then l guess that is the way it has to be. A
>question l have for you is this: Why did you not find a way to print Ebou
>Jallow's account of the circumstances surrounding Koro's death if you have
>such a strong conviction about it? Perhaps we should view that as a
>betrayal
>of the Gambian people by a member of the press whose job it is to inform
>the
>public.Perhaps as a competent journalist, you should have pursued the story
>with Mr Jallow and conducted your own investigation, or did you not think
>that you, as equally as anybody else owned this to the Gambian people?
>
>Jabou Joh
>
> Jabou,
>
> You wrote: Mr Sallah, the jury is still out as far as I am concerned, and
> all I see is credibility, competence and undying dedication to the
> betterment of our people and our country."
>
> Well some of us beg to differ. And can we be afforded the opportunity to
> hold contrary views, please? While you and Alpha Robinson and others, see
> ALL "credibility, competence and undying dedication" in Halifa Sallah,
>some
> of us see Halifa as a competent, dedicated public servant, but equally
>see
> him as imperfect, having done things that do not make him credible and
> competent at all. Do you see our differences in our grappling with
>issues?
> Of course, you are at liberty not to agree with us all. But will you stop
> your insinuations of deceit on our part in our challenges to Halifa? You
> averred: "But please be forewarned, manipulation, trickery and attempts
>to
> discredit do not and cannot qualify as acceptable methods." You stressed
> further, "Let those who think that cunning, manipulation and the smearing
>of
> people's character is what will win them or those they support a position
>in
> the hall's of Gambian leadership think again."
>
> And you wonder why Saul Khan is "tongue-lashing" at you? Honestly, do you
> think that we are hell-bent on sullying Halifa's character? Do we have
> hidden agendas to discredit Halifa and his party, much to the advantages
>of
> others in Gambian politics? Given our arguments with Halifa, have you
> noticed any sycophancy, or deliberate vindictiveness to destroy the
> personality of Halifa? Do you know that we were all supporters of PDOIS?
>Can
> we be allowed to voice our dissent with the party we supported in the
>past?
>
> Take or leave, our arguments with Halifa. What you see is not seen by
> everybody. People have different opinions, views, observations. What is
> healthy is to allow unfettered cross-fertlisation of ideas without any
> infringement upon one another. Let's give access to even nonesensical or
> illogical ideas. In the marketplace of ideas, the cure to free speech, is
> not less speech, but more. If you had given Halifa a bed-of-roses speech,
> defending his record, I, and probably others, would have cared less. But
> when you go further to employ tirades against his critics, than can be
> cynical imbecility.
>
> I have always held your views in high esteem. To peddle sycophancy or be
>a
> sycophant, is anybody's inalienable perorogative, but please don't
> disappoint me by stooping so low in your cynicism over our dissent on
>Halifa
> and his party. Perhaps, you need a reminder that there are two sides to
> every issue. Take note.
>
> Best regards,
> Cherno Baba Jallow
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
