Jabou,
I told you that you're at liberty to come to different conclusions/opinions
with us on this issue. I have no problems with that. The bone of contention
is when you insinuate that we are trying to manipulate, trick or attempt to
discredit in our arguments with Halifa. I have asked you to provide evidence
of that; you still haven't. That's all.
Cherno
>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: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 09:34:58 EST
>
>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
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|