Dear Editor
It was only a few days ago that I read an interesting but very sad letter by Mr Ainsworth Wong, which attended to the issues of democracy and government threatening freedom of expression and press freedom. Now a few days later Stabroek News (16/01/07), following on the heels of VCT 28, had to go public about being the victim of government’s attempts to kill freedom of expression and press freedom. I say kill from the standpoint that the destruction has begun, which if not forced to stop, will result in the death of freedom of expression and press freedom.
The media play a very important role in society. Arguably the fourth estate, following the executive, legislature and judiciary (not necessarily in that order), it is sad to see what continues to happen to Guyana in 2007. In its watchdog role the media mediate between newsmakers and news-receivers in a country’s process of fostering ventilation of views, forging unity, upholding rights and benefits, and shaping developmental issues.
In the realm of private media, advertising makes the bulk of its revenue income. In this business of delivering audiences to advertisers, not ignoring the importance of
economics, the government’s continued oppressive position has destroyed audiences’ perception of any claim to good intentions, more than it has destroyed Stabroek News, VCT 28, et al. The advertising dollars of the State belong to the people of Guyana, not the PPP government. The taxpayers of Guyana have to decide and determine spending. What the government has is a responsibility to spend and invest those dollars in keeping with the collective good. In polarised Guyana, where checks and balances are disregarded, and the government does not consult or respect differing opinions, the situation becomes more difficult. It should therefore be said that the PPP, cannot as a government, be left to singularly dictate issues that impact on the lives of all Guyanese. This continuous behaviour goes contrary to the political objective of the state as enshrined in Article 13 of the Guyana Constitution. Those advertisement revenues that were withdrawn from the Stabroek News and VCT 28 are the monies of the taxpayers of this country.
The government’s arguments of “impact maximization” and circulation do not hold water. If one were to go by data analysis, it will be revealed that the publication of Guyana Chronicle is less than Kaieteur News (KN) and Stabroek News (SN). It will also be revealed that NCN viewership and listenership are the results of having a monopoly in areas such as Linden for television and radio throughout Guyana. This broadcasting muscle was not achieved or earned in an unhindered competitive environment; it was imposed by the government’s deliberate shutting out of VCT 28 attempts at radio and VCT 28 and CNS 6 attempts at television expansion. KN should not be fooled by the government’s talks. KN is being used in the game of divide and conquer. When the PPP would have succeeded with silencing SN, KN will sure be next.
Regrettable are the emissaries of government’s unjustified position on freedom of expression and press freedom. Dr. Nanda Gopaul was a pre 1992 public figure in the original FITUG associating with labour leaders who championed the rights of individuals, including media rights. In post 1992 this gentleman did a 360 degree turn and became a proud agent of oppression and marginalisation. Dr. Prem Misir, Pro Chancellor of the University of Guyana and an academic is engaging in acts that are biased and unscientific, as will be revealed were a proper media study done. Similarly, his participation in acts to kill press freedom and freedom of expression, are a detriment to the hallmarks of the academic environment.
The PPP promises of a better post 1992 environment continue to evaporate daily. It is a scandal that SN, which played a key role in pre 1992, is so badly treated by the PPP today. The case of SN, like labour and other civil society groups, who have influenced another dispensation from October 1992, is that they are forced to painfully realise that they were nothing more than pawns in the PPP’s game of achieving control of Guyana. Civil society therefore has a responsibility to demonstrate to the PPP, in action and in kind, that their pre 1992 championing for a different dispensation, was never meant to hand over Guyana solely to the PPP, but were efforts to influence a better society for all. The struggle has to be intensified on this front, failing which; all will be consumed by the wily and ruthless PPP. SN, and earlier VCT 28, actions in regard to their plight continue the march in the right direction.
Yours faithfully,
M A Bacchus
