Readers, citizens will be aware of numerous charges and allegations of favouritism and outright, studied, discrimination by this government, its agencies and its officials with decision- making authority.
It is claimed that both clever sweet-heart deals and the deft manoeuvreings side-tracking lawful procedures, favour friends and supporters where the award of public contracts, appointments as Agency Heads and CEOs diplomatic postings, appointments to Commissions and such benefits are concerned.
At the political level of course, much concern, anxiety or outrage is expressed over the numerous alleged violations by the government and its parent – the PPP/C — in terms of human rights abuses, electoral advantages, suppression of broadcast freedom, even suspected links to drug dons.
Now, the issue of the placement of government advertisements in the private media – two newspapers especially – has been propelled to the forefront of public discussion. This is because the government has activated its electronics website to carry all its advertisements, thus lessening or denying all such ads to the two privately-owned papers. I think that those ads will also not be sent to the Guyana Times and the Chronicle newspapers, though I’m not certain about the latter.
This issue, of course, is a sensitive one because today’s newspapers depend on advertising revenues for their survival; the money the government spends is the taxpayers’\readers’ money but the elected government claims it has the responsibility and authority to spend the people’s money wisely; the government’s choice of media however should be open to scrutiny and constructive criticism by the same people whose money is being spent.
The two private’ papers have prosecuted their own case to show how significantly their own circulation outstrips the Chronicle and Times. The Kaieteur and Stabroek also accurately point out that Guyanese are not yet that electronically savvy, and communication Dinosaurs like me would hardly see government ads on computers we don’t have.
Any effective response?
Over our usual stress-relief drinks for afternoons ago my friends were considering how best the newspapers and other entities and individuals could respond to government’s discrimination – real or perceived.
Well we’ve seen the Kaieteur’s move: to carry the official ads free of cost. (It claims the people need to know government’s business from a proven popular medium and I agree). One pal opined that it was a reasonable move though there was no need for Kaieteur to invite the government to respond when all they had to do was to carry the ads and news from the government’s website. I suppose Kaieteur was/is entitled to their grandstanding in the circumstances.
Then, the political party, Alliance for Change took their charges and case to the Americans the other day. This aroused the ire of the administration. No need to wonder why. I suspect that more of that would have important effects.
The aggrieved protesters should always consider the impact foreign sanctions would have on the poor populace, even though those implications are what many governments hid behind and survive on.
There has been debate with respect to the wisdom and/or effectiveness of the more physical dramatic street protests and demonstrations. My own view is that the constitution allows peaceful expression and protest and those aggrieved should feel free to picket constantly to keep their issue in the public eye and consciousness. International support should be courted always if the discrimination could be proven.
Boycotts vs. Responsibility
But one of the fellows at my table proposed a mildly radical response. His argument went like this: If government says that it gets value for money in that its own friendly newspapers and stations are popular and well supported, let the private papers and stations all boycott all government events and conferences.
Impose a boycott/blackout on government business and points-or-view which it wants the people to know. Let the government friendly media alone attend to government doings.
Big discussion followed! Some thought definitely that should be done to prove a point for a while. Others pointed out that one senior journalist and correspondent had tried “to boycott Dr Ramsammy” but the exercise soon faltered because “de media din hold one head”.
But the one “matured view” also held that the responsible media owe it to the public to let citizens know the good and the mischief the government is doing in their name.
Hence boycotts might not be the way to go. There are other methods to employ. Foremost could be international lobbying. Even international advertising and financial support (!?).
My take on this ads-as-a-weapon strategy, frankly speaking, is this: as general elections loom government will continue to be impervious to the voices of reason which doesn’t belong to its camp. It will garrison itself with even more of its own media (techniques) and perhaps “enjoy” the opposition outrage. Remember, I’ve experienced this type of political behaviour some thirty years ago!
Ponder….
So does the Kaieteur News publisher still have the President’s cell phone number? (What!? Still great to carry the ads free. Who knows?) .
Who are the Heads of the EPA? The New GMC? The NARI? The Hydromet Department? Civil Aviation Authority? The Civil Defence Commission? The TSC?
Who is the longest serving mayor of the city in the region? Which party will our capital’s mayor support in next year’s elections – PNC or GGG? Or both?
‘Til Next Week!
