The Government Information Agency (GINA) says that contrary to a report which appeared in yesterday’s Stabroek News (SN) the decision to review the placement of government advertisements in SN was a “GINA policy decision and was in no way influenced by the directive of any senior government official” and it also says that the government will continue to monitor the situation.
GINA’s cut-off of ads to Stabroek News had resulted in the paper’s Editor-in-Chief David de Caires describing the move as an attack on the free press.
The GINA statement yesterday reiterated that the placement of advertisements is linked to the public’s response to such advertisements and as such “the government reserves the right to seek maximum returns on its advertising dollar”.
Stabroek News Editor Anand Persaud yesterday said that the newspaper stood by the position that the cut-off was politically motivated. He said that it was clear that the cessation of ads came as a result of the hostility exuded by President Bharrat Jagdeo to Stabroek News beginning with the launch of the party’s 2006 election campaign in Berbice when an extraordinary attack was directed against the newspaper’s Editor-in-Chief. This continued throughout the campaign and was underscored by the fact that the ruling PPP did not place a single advertisement with the Stabroek News during the election campaign. While that was the PPP’s democratic right Persaud said state advertising could not be used as a discretionary tool by the Office of the President to reward its friends and to punish those it perceived not to be in that category. He pointed out that this was a clear violation of the Declaration of Chapultepec to which President Jagdeo was a signatory.
Persaud said that despite the attempt in yesterday’s GINA statement to deny that the cut-off was politically motivated, the newspaper was reliably informed that the instruction to cease ads came from the Permanent Secretary in the Office of the President, Dr Nanda K Gopaul.
The Editor noted that Dr Gopaul’s involvement had not been denied by GINA in the correspondence with de Caires earlier this month which would have been the most appropriate time to do so. Persaud expressed shock that Dr Gopaul would be associated with a decision to withdraw ads from Stabroek News as Dr Gopaul had had ready access to the pages of the newspaper during the pre and post 1992 days in his various roles as labour leader, human rights activist and politician.
Furthermore, Persaud said GINA’s contention that the cut-off of the ads was a GINA policy decision was not credible and cast doubt on the professionalism of the agency. Persaud said that if indeed it had been a GINA policy decision this surely would have been immediately communicated upon the first enquiry in November by the Stabroek News Advertising Manager, Patricia Cumbermack, after she noticed that ads had been stopped.
The Editor said that GINA was mute for weeks and if such a policy decision had been arrived at the courteous and professional thing to do would have been to communicate this properly to the advertising manager. It was only on the newspaper’s publicizing of the cessation of ads that GINA first referred to a contrived policy.
Persaud added that the GINA Director Dr Prem Misir will still have to explain to the public how exactly he concluded that there had been “huge responses” to GINA’s ads in the Kaieteur News and Guyana Chronicle.
Further, the Editor said Dr Misir would also have to declare what information he relied upon to arrive at the conclusion that the Kaieteur News had a higher circulation than the Stabroek News and had a “wider dissemination not only nationally but also internationally within the Guyanese Diaspora in New York City”. Persaud said it was strange that only New York City was mentioned as the diaspora is spread far and wide and there are large concentrations in Canada, the UK and the Caribbean.
Persaud pointed out that Stabroek News’ circulation figures are audited by a firm of chartered accountants and its website is also visited daily by a large number of persons.
He also noted that there was never previously a policy to apportion GINA ads on the basis of circulation. He said if this were so several of the current recipients of GINA ads might not be entitled to any.
Meanwhile, GINA also criticized the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) for a statement it issued condemning the cessation of ads by the state information agency. GINA called on the GHRA to “substantiate claims that the agency is `being used as an instrument to sustain confrontational politics by persistent intemperate attacks on the political opposition and other perceived enemies of the state'”
GINA contended that the government has consistently respected and supported press freedom.
“Government will continue to monitor and review the placement of its advertisements to all media houses to ensure that appropriate responses are achieved and that the economics of the situation is feasible”, GINA added.
