Dear Editor,
I write in response to Mr. Eusi Kwayana’s observation in his letter titled “Citizens should take note of Jagdeo’s singling out of the GPA” (SN, 5/16/2023). Kwayana’s letter deserves attention because he has joined a lengthy list of critics who regularly and unfairly target General Secretary of the PPP, Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo.
There are things that Mr. Kwayana does not know regarding press freedom in Guyana. I can tell you Sir, that the freedom of the press is lopsided in favour of critics of the government. Let me prove it to you.
Two of Guyana’s most widely read newspapers regularly publish pieces that will never, I repeat never make it into the pages of any respectable broadsheet. I doubt for instance that the letter under the title “Guyana is a tale of a sad country messed up by PPPC” (KN, 5/14/2023) would ever have made it in the pages of say, the Jamaica Gleaner. Just think about nonsensical points like the following made it into a national newspaper – (1) “May- Embarrassment: lack of information. Today, after a failed attempt to save May, the PS, Guyanese are still left in the dark” (2) “Interference with the Media: it is sad to see how the government is the invisible but direct hand in causing disruption in the media election. As an arm of government, the media should always be impartial. This doesn’t happened (sic) in Guyana. Newsroom parrots, DPI. DPI parrots Guyana Times and the list goes on” (3) “Parliament: Dominated by PPPC, hence no space for proper accountability.”
The sentences above would no doubt receive a grade of “F” for tortured grammar outrageous content, and sheer lack of any meaningful contribution to public discourse. Yet it makes it into a national newspaper. The only reason I can imagine is that it attacks the PPP/C.
Mr. Kwayana should know that, by contrast, Stabroek News has rejected about 70-80 per cent of my submissions, and Kaieteur News has done the same for about 50 per cent. More than that, Stabroek News has cut as much as 75 per cent of some of my letters. These cuts were not to save space, but to alter the meaning of the latter. And further still, the few letters of mine that Stabroek News has published were placed at the back of the paper. I know many letters are placed around page twenty-five, but letters in support of the current administration are more likely to be placed there.
I was told that SN does not tolerate ad hominem pieces. Yet no less than Hon. MP Annette Ferguson labeled me an “attack dog.” Yes, that made it quite easily in SN. My reply to that missive by Hon. Annette Ferguson was not only cut by about 80 per cent but was made to appear that I agreed with the points made by Ms. Ferguson.
I want to say to Mr. Kwayana that had the GPA been an even-handed organization that caters to the protection of press freedom, I would have approached them for advice. I have not done that because not a single individual I have raised the matter with expressed confidence that I would receive a fair hearing. I assure you that I did not only consult PPP folks.
Editor, please allow me to comment on General Secretary Jagdeo’s concerns about media bias and the GPA. I should tell you that I have sat in several of his press conferences and, accordingly, my views are based on direct observation. I can say with absolute confidence that Dr. Jagdeo treats the journalists with absolute respect. In my own view, he tends to be too tolerant of some questions which are so poorly framed, that he (Jagdeo) must help the journalist ask their own questions. Now, for the GPA to make statements about ill treatment of journalists is based solely on anti-PPP politics. The GPA in my view, much like another national institution with significant public influence, is controlled by anti-PPP operatives.
Mr. Kwayana has reached a stage in a long and storied political career where what he says matters. It would be useful if his perspective on press freedom were to reflect the national interest, rather than the customary anti-PPP slant.
Editor, if you do not mind a bit of humour, I commend the following brilliant insights from the letter published by KN noted above — “Nothing is free from the shackles of PPP/ C.” “Today, we are worst off under PPP/C as we were under British rule. All institutions are dominated by people.” GECOM: This is sacked (sic) by individuals who where (sic) nominated and supported by PPPC Commissioners.”
Sincerely,
Dr. Randolph Persaud
