Permanent Secretary in the Office of the President Dr Nanda Gopaul has instructed the Government Information Agency (GINA) to withdraw advertisements from the Stabroek News, in an attack on the free press, this newspaper has said.
And Editor in Chief of the Stabroek News last night rejected a claim by the Government of Guyana that the withdrawal of all advertising for government ministries was a commercial decision.
In a press release issued yesterday de Caires said the withdrawal of advertising constitutes an apparent reversal of government’s policy of respect for freedom of expression and an attack on the free press.
Meanwhile, President of the Guyana Press Association (GPA) Denis Chabrol noted the association’s deep concern over the issue and urged the government, as a signatory to the Declaration of Chapultepec, to take every necessary step to revisit its position.
It was after numerous calls to Gopaul and Director of GINA Dr Prem Misir for a response that a release was issued yesterday evening, which said that the government placement of its advertisements “pertains to economics and impact maximization of its advertisements.”
In the Stabroek News release de Caires said that since the beginning of November 2006, Advertising Manager Patricia Cumbermack had reported a significant reduction in the booking of advertisements from GINA which handles all the advertisements of government ministries.
She later advised that except for advertisements from the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) dealing with the impending Value Added Tax (VAT) no other bookings were being received from GINA.
Several efforts were made to contact Misir to discuss this matter but he did not accept nor return any telephone calls.
On January 3, 2007 de Caires wrote to Misir referring to the cessation of advertisements which he said had resulted directly from a political directive from Gopaul and stated that this was a direct attack on the newspaper for political reasons and was completely unacceptable.
He noted that President Bharrat Jagdeo had signed the declaration of Chapultepec, a famous declaration of free press principles adopted by the Inter American Press Association (IAPA) in Mexico City on March 11, 1994. Clause 7 of that declaration states explicitly that “the granting or withdrawal of government advertising may not be used to reward or punish the media or individual journalists”.
De Caires asked Misir to “urgently review this new discriminatory policy and that you let me have your written assurance that you will not persist with it.”
On January 9, 2007, Coordinator of GINA’s Advertising Unit Karen Persaud, in a reply which referred to the letter, said “the issues raised have been acknowledged and have now been presented to the relevant department for review”. No other explanation was provided.
On January 10, 2007, de Caires responded as follows: “Your statement that ‘the issues raised have been acknowledged and have now been presented to the relevant department for review’ is unclear and unsatisfactory. We must assume it to mean that Dr Gopaul’s directive to cut off all ministry ads from our newspaper has been withdrawn and that we will now receive an appropriate proportion of these advertisements. We will monitor the situation for the next week and in the meantime, have withheld the press release which we had planned to issue today.”
However, no ministry advertisements were received from GINA though several have appeared in the other newspapers.
De Caires expressed regret that this government, which had, when in opposition, suffered from restrictions on press freedom, had seen it fit to behave in this manner.
He said copies of the Stabroek News release were being be sent to all the local media, the Caribbean newspapers and the International Press Institute (IPI), the Commonwealth Press Union (CPU) and the Inter American Press Association (IAPA), three organizations dedicated to the preservation of press freedom and of which Stabroek News is a member.
In its response last evening issued through GINA, the government said: “Mr David de Caires and his Stabroek News have no monopoly on acquiring advertisements. Stabroek News no longer has the largest circulation, and is not the largest private newspaper in Guyana.”
It said the basis for the placement of advertisement in the media was linked to the public’s response to such advertisements and that huge responses to government’s advertisements came from the Kaieteur News and the Guyana Chronicle.
“Kaieteur News today is the largest private newspaper in this country and therefore attracts a disproportionately greater number of government’s advertisements. An added advantage with releasing numerous advertisements to Kaieteur News has to do with its wider dissemination not only nationally but also internationally within the Guyanese diaspora in New York City,” the release said.
It added that when Kaieteur News was in its embryonic stage and rarely received government’s advertisements, Stabroek News never declared on behalf of that newspaper that press freedom was violated.
It said also that Stabroek News has no monopoly over disseminating releases to the local media, the Caribbean newspapers, IPI, CPU, and IAPA and that the government’s response was going to be distributed to all of these agencies as well.
The release said the government was fully committed to the Declaration of Chapultepec and believed that freedom of expression was a fundamental right recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
But de Caires said the government’s explanation was “contrived and fictitious”. He emphasised that government’s action was “a direct political intervention which follows the recent numerous attacks on Stabroek News by the President. It has nothing to do with a commercial evaluation based on circulation and everything to do with political victimisation.”
De Caires said the circulation of Kaieteur News has never been audited or published unlike that of Stabroek News. “Moreover the circulation of the Chronicle is not published and is widely believed to be extremely low,” he said. The Stabroek News online edition, he said, attracts well over 10,000 visitors a day.
De Caires also said that the Stabroek News emphasises in its news coverage business and other such issues which the other newspapers hardly ever touch.
He argued that for this reason the advertisements placed by the ministries, which often deal with issues like tendering for contracts, are much more likely to evoke a response if published in the Stabroek News.
De Caires said the decision has tarnished the democratic credentials of the government and added that, “the explanation is manufactured and will deceive no one.”
He also noted that in the recent election campaign, the PPP/C had placed numerous ads in the media but not one in the Stabroek News.
Meanwhile, commenting on the withdrawal of the advertisements, the GPA President said it was rather unfortunate that the government has taken such a course of action particularly in the light of government’s criticisms that were levelled against the newspaper in recent months not only in terms of straight news stories but on the editorial position the paper took in a number of areas.
“The decision by the government, based on the Stabroek News release,” he said, “would really be hurting freedom of the press in this country. It is a clear example of the government using state funds as a weapon against its critics.”
Describing the action as a “dastardly” one given the fact that the government was a signatory to the declaration of Chapultepec, Chabrol said that the GPA would be taking a firm stand on the issue and has already informed the Association of Caribbean Media (ACM) of which it is a member. He said the Stabroek News statement and the GPA’s initial reaction have also been sent to Reporters San Frontiers (Reporters Without Borders).
Rec
alling that this was not the fist time that the government had withdrawn advertisements from the Stabroek News, Chabrol said the GPA at this time could only urge the government to revisit its position and that the issue be resolved amicably.
The GPA said having regard to the pre-1992 situation when the then administration had severely curtailed access not only to the state media by its critics but suffocated the importation of newsprint by newspapers that it had considered “enemies of the state”, it was mindful of similar acts of discrimination when they emerge.
