Dear Editor,
I refer to your extensive editorial note following the publication of the letter by the CEO of NCN captioned “Our departments are headed by senior media personnel” (08.02.22). The issue raised in that letter was one of “suppressing facts and suggesting falsehoods” as stated in your editorial of 08.02.14, rather than “the tendency of state media to purvey information which is favourable to the administration”.
In the same Media Monitoring Report (MMR) you quoted, the coverage of “Stabroek News share of all political coverage” shows that your paper gave a greater share of favourable coverage to the PPP/C, this is an established fact which you have not chosen to publish, but you took great pleasure in revealing NCN’s “64% of positive political coverage”. The report also shows that NCN TV gave some negative coverage to the PPP/C and PNCR1G as well and no negative coverage to TUF, GAP/ROAR, JFA and the AFC, another fact which you fail to mention. This is what can be considered suppression of facts.
In view of your paper’s numerous critiques of the PPP/C and the Government and your public statements clearly identifying the paper with the emergence of a Third Force, it is possible that the PPP/C were doing a considerable amount of positive things during that period. How else can you explain your own record of “purveying information favourable to the administration?” Here again, this can be construed as an attempt to “suggest a falsehood” as in an environment of positive action it would not be unusual for a unit to provide positive coverage.
At no time does the Report mention any example of false reporting or suppressing of facts on the part of NCN as claimed by your editor. As a matter of policy and standard journalistic practice, NCN does not report on issues under the cover of “reliable sources
