Hinds should have spoken out against censorship from the inception

Dear Editor,

Mr David Hinds protests the censoring of his views in columns in the Chronicle (‘There is need for major intervention at the Chronicle …’ SN, Apr 22). But Mr Hinds was silent when his party, the APNU+AFC, replaced columnists, journalists, editors and managers at media houses after it replaced the PPP government last May.

Where was his voice when others were discriminated against and censored.  Didn’t he see anything wrong when so many writers were censored and/or terminated? The APNU+AFC coalition had promised during the campaign and even right after it was sworn into office that  there would be no recrimination and victimization of those hired by or sympathetic to the PPP. Those turned out to be empty words. None of the so-called free press advocates voiced a word of protest against the new government action. And now Mr Hinds, himself, seems to be a victim of deliberate attempts to censor independent thinkers and writers.

Editor, I was a soldier of the struggle for a free press during the 1970s to 1992 and the restoration of democratic rule. I became a columnist at the Chronicle in 1993 after the free press was restored. After a few columns, then editor Sharief Khan informed me that he received heat from the government about my columns, and asked me to soften my position on certain issues.  I opted to resign from the columns rather than compromise my values; unlike other columnists I didn’t compromise my integrity and independence and I don’t grovel for supper. Newspapers should not censor views, especially when supported by facts.

When Rickey Singh, the most respected journalist in the Caribbean and described as the dean of Caribbean journalists, had his columns censored and then terminated at the Chronicle right after the coalition took over, Mr Hinds did not protest. Also, I and several other independent minded commentators had occasional letters in the Chronicle during the PPP reign. But when the current government took charge of the state media, our submissions to the Chronicle were no longer published. Even non-political reports I penned about activities in the diaspora were no longer considered worthy of being in the paper. The state media have become the mouthpiece and voice of only the government. Mr Hinds should have spoken out against censorship from the inception rather than wait till he himself became a victim.

Also, Mr Hinds’ protests against the Chronicle come across as though he is an outsider and a victim of management of the state media when in fact he is part and parcel of the government media. I agree with him that there is need for intervention to set the state media in the right direction, but he needs to take a stronger position on the issue. There should be freedom (not abuse) of the press. Government and opposition should be given equitable coverage in all arms of the state media. But that is far from being the case.

Since last May, the Chronicle has only pro-government columnists. There needs to be a balance, and objective commentaries should appear in the paper. There must be opposition and independent views. The state media must be duty bound to cover opposition and independent groups as was the case when Dr Jagan and Mrs Jagan were Presidents, and Moses Nagamootoo was Minister of Information.

Yours faithfully,

Vishnu Bisram