Dear Editor,
I have noticed that the Stabroek News is now carrying a daily statement on its front page, denouncing government for its decision to withdraw advertisements from the paper. The statement describes the administration as ‘undemocratic’ since it has ‘attacked freedom of expression’ as guaranteed by the Constitution.
This claim by the Stabroek News is wholly preposterous and smacks of a desperate attempt by the newspaper to garner sympathy and support for its failure to retain government advertisements due to its plummeting circulation and reach.
If the administration’s agenda was to launch an attack on press freedom, victimizing those perceived to be anti-government, then what logical explanation is there for the continued placement of advertisements in the Kaieteur News, and several privately owned television channels, which openly criticise the government?
Why hasn’t the administration taken steps to unceremoniously silence talk show hosts/channels that often incite the public, fostering racism and violence?
Stabroek News should direct its attention to upgrading its journalistic quality, thereby enhancing its credibility and standing, which may well result in higher circulation and readership.
Finally, when the Kaieteur News first started publication and received little or no government advertisements, the Stabroek News was curiously silent. There was no front page declarations of an ‘attack on press freedom’ or international lobbying efforts to have more advertisements directed to that newspaper. Why is this situation any different?
Yours faithfully,
Jason Hinds
Editor’s note
The writer appears to deliberately ignore our repeated statements that this decision has nothing to do with economic calculations but is based on a political directive. Everything else is a red herring.
