Dear Editor,
The Stabroek News is having a field day as the official newspaper of the opposition in Guyana. A cursory glance at the last few days completely reveals Stabroek News as the official carrier of the opposition lines and positions, especially those of the AFC. This is apart from the numerous other occasions on which the newspaper has faithfully and consistently followed the opposition scripts.

One just needs to examine the presentation of the 2010 Budget as one of the most striking examples of the Stabroek News jumping on the opposition bandwagon. The newspaper has followed the exact theme of the AFC that the budget was uninspiring and visionless. Recall that the AFC criticisms of the 2010 budget came long before its presentation to Parliament.

In examining the newspaper’s page 3 article in the edition of February 16 titled, ‘Murray pillories unexciting budget -slams silence on tax reform, investment plan,’ one recognizes immediately it was deliberately constructed to give the opposition an advantage in the 2010 Budget debate. There are 12 paragraphs with Winston Murray while Prime Minister Sam Hinds’s arguments are captured in only six paragraphs of the entire article.

The Stabroek News report focuses primarily and extensively on Murray’s arguments, failing to provide the balance in reporting by excluding salient arguments by the Prime Minister that addresses those points raised by the opposition Member of Parliament.

The Stabroek News has now become unapologetic about its role as the opposition public relations arm. While we are aware the Kaieteur News is an extension of the opposition, the Stabroek News tries to hide under the veil as a newspaper that observes and practises professional journalism.

There could be no coincidence that the Stabroek News will on so many occasions develop similar positions to those of the AFC on this and other issues.

This vulgarity must stop.

Yours faithfully,
Baldeo Mathura

Editor’s note

There is a distinction between reportage and editorializing which Mr Mathura does not appear to appreciate.  Our editorial views are reflected in our leader columns, not on the pages which carry reports of events. Dr Ashni Singh received very full coverage of his budget speech in this newspaper, and in the interests of balanced reporting we are obliged to carry the statements of the lead opposition speaker responding to it when the budget debate opened. (Mr Winston Murray speaks for the PNCR, not the AFC, as Mr Mathura might seem to believe.) Furthermore, in the very edition of this newspaper Mr Mathura cites (February 16) there is more coverage of what government speakers said, than what the opposition said. We would like to draw his attention to the only other budget-related stories in that issue, viz, ‘Gov’t tackling public service corruption -Westford’; and ‘High Court to go digital…’ – a report from Dr Ashni

Singh’s budget.