Dear Editor,
Following the historic election in October 1992, today, Guyana’s media ranks among the freest in the world, where freedom of expression is guaranteed, with the private media, inclusive of Stabroek News, hosting some of the fiercest critics of the government in their daily columns. Of course, the administration understood from its inception in office, even up to now, that such comes with the democratic turf, and that freedom of expression exercised in a responsible manner was an absolute, if the nation were to be transformed into the democracy envisaged.
The late editor-in-chief of Stabroek News was known as a passionate subscriber to and defender of a free press and its role in a democratic society. No doubt he was pleased when the then President Bharrat Jagdeo, signed the Declaration of Chapúltepec, which supports freedom of the press and freedom of expression, as the indispensable bedrock for a democratic society.
But then, in 2006, events surrounding the withdrawal of advertisements from this newspaper resulted in the beginning of differences between this media house and the government as they related to the question of rights and preferences to such ads. Though the government was at pains to explain that the withdrawal was solely based on a business decision, the newspaper accused the administration of essentially threatening its very existence and survivability with the revocation of these ads, contending in the process that it had a right to a fair portion of the taxpayers’ money spent on government advertising.
It is this very argument that Stabroek News has again resurrected in a recent editorial (April 30), in which among other points, it supported the APNU and AFC budgetary cuts against GINA and NCN, insisting that the removed subventions in both instances were justified, especially with regard to GINA, that it has erroneously accused of “cheerleading” for the government.
Surely, this media house, a mouthpiece of class interests and the political opposition, the AFC particularly, has again announced its true class prejudices. More so, it has contradicted itself on this issue.
The great irony here is that SN found refuge in the Declaration of Chapúltepec in defence of its case in 2006, but, in almost similar circumstances where GINA’s subvention has been removed, it has conveniently omitted this consideration in its recent arguments against the granting of this similar dispensation to GINA. This is despite the fact it is aware that this agency functions to highlight the state’s developmental policies, a purely legitimate undertaking within the bounds of freedom of expression, and one which warrants state financial support, in the same way as what was claimed as a right by SN.
The late de Caires was prepared to shout ‘discrimination‘ and ‘threats to media freedom‘ in 2006, and those who have succeeded him must have remembered that. Therefore, if they have any conscience and human decency, they will also reason that they stand in the dock facing those very accusations.
Notwithstanding what may be this publishing house’s particular political affiliation/sympathies, to which, like every other media house, it has a right, there is also the moral responsibility to lead an intelligent, rational and objective national discourse on an issue that threatens not only to undermine press freedom, but also the right to work by a group of young professionals.
This is indeed a serious contradiction and lays bare this print medium’s deep-seated anti-government biases. What is even more troubling for a publishing house that ought to know better, is that it has joined the coterie of undemocratic forces.
Yours faithfully,
Ramesh Sukhdeo
