Dear Editor,
Can Governments in democratic societies use the `power of the purse’ to attack an independent newspaper, if they disagree with its editorial policy – and possibly threaten the paper’s survival?
And does this event, if proven, not constitute an attack on the free press rights of the newspaper?
I have been agitated by this controversy, Stabroek News vs. the Jagdeo Administration ever since it broke several weeks ago. I have been an activist for Guyanese political causes in New York for many years and out of this experience I have developed strong convictions about certain issues, the Free Press being one of them.
As far back as 1974 I had been joining groups carrying out picketing demonstrations for FFE outside the Guyana Consulate in New York. That’s where I first met Arjune Karshan (now the Ambassador to Surinam), Chuck Mohan, Mel Carpen. In 1978 I participated in weekly demonstrations outside the Consulate with two groups, Karshan’s ACG group and WPA’s Lincoln and Naraine; in the Spring of 1979 I joined Jagdeshwar Lall’s and Karshan’s groups to mount a picketing exercise against Kit Nascimento’s appearance at Fordham University. The University at the last moment called Nascimento and told him not to bother to show up. In 1979 and 1980 I participated with these same groups regularly at lunch time outside the United Nations. One day in 1979 while we walked in circles shouting anti-Burnham and FFE slogans outside the UN, a Guyanese man named Sanders in suit and tie walked up to us and said: “Did you guys hear what happened last night, Vincent Teekah was shot and killed”. The news had a chilling effect on many of us but we were undaunted about our cause. In 1990-1992 I participated in scores of these picketing demonstrations outside the UN under a new umbrella group called World Union of Guyanese for Democracy. In this latter group I met Roopnarine Persaud, Vishnu Bisram, Ravi Dev, Ramharack, Ramesh Kalicharran, Joe Ragnath, Dr. Leslie Ramsammy and his group of followers, and scores of other Guyanese activists committed to Free and Fair Elections. In May 1990 we mounted a 5-day Fast and Vigil outside the UN under the leadership of Arjune Baichu and Roop Persaud. One of our early slogan cries was: `Free the Mirror’. On the telephone with Nascimento, he accused Fordham Univ. of not upholding academic freedom; I accused him of not upholding the Free Press in Guyana.
The question I have asked myself is this: Can a hard case be made that withdrawal of ads from the SN amounts to an attack on press freedom? And, if it is, can activists of today remain silent?
Fact 1.
In small developing countries like Guyana (population 750,000; per capita income USD$1,500) governments have a potentially powerful tool in the arbitrary and discriminatory use of their Ad budget to influence and compromise the independence of independent newspapers and in some cases threaten the economic viability of the paper. Newspapers in New York are not so subject or so vulnerable to the power of the purse of State or City governments. Here, in developed capitalist economies, thousands of businesses with large advertising budgets minimize the power of governments’ Ad budgets to influence editorial policies of papers and newspapers, have no such dependency on state-owned corporations and governments as in Guyana.
The acting head of GINA, Prem Misir’s argument, making a comparison of Guyana’s newspaper environment with that of New York’s is a false one. He is comparing apples with oranges.
Fact 2
Two seemingly contradictory issues:
(1) The power of the purse when exercised in a discriminatory fashion has the potential to force an independent paper to toe the line, become less critical of government, and fear to expose corruption etc. thus weakening the paper economically so as to achieve its desired result. And, this begs the question: Is this not interfering with the Free Press rights of the constitution in democratic societies? (Kaie-teur News will inevitably become so compromised being baited with government’s favours that it may no longer be considered an independent newspaper).
(2) Does the government not have the right to advertise in newspapers where it gets the best results for its advertising dollars?
Almost everyone with whom I spoke these last two weeks (doctors, lawyers, teachers, store operators etc) answer yes to both questions. They see no contradiction.
And, indeed this controversy can be resolved without any contradiction arising, if the government would only agree to submit its case to an accredited agency to evaluate its claim that its decision was a purely commercial one.
Moses Nagamooto’s booklet (published in the late 1980s) detailed the struggles of the Mirror newspaper to obtain its Free Press Rights from the High Court. (Imagine how difficult this must have been under dictatorial rule and from a judi- ciary whose independence was compromised!) The government. refused to release foreign exchange to the Mirror to pay for imported newsprint. Then when the Mirror obtained a gift of newsprint from abroad, the government still refused to grant the import licence. It took a very courageous judge, Justice Vieira, to recognize the facts and rule that a denial of newsprint was tantamount to a denial of the Free Press Rights of the Mirror.
Government executing a plan to punish a newspaper for its independent editorial policy will always deny its political motive and advance a false pretext: In the Mirror’s case it was lack of foreign exchange and then a brazen refusal to grant an import licence. In the current SN’s case it is `best bang for the buck’. Most courts may find the `best bang for the buck’ rationale a legitimate one. The problem is the government’s claim that it obtains the best bang from Kaieteur News may not hold up to a court scrutiny. And most courts will order an evaluation by an accredited agency.
There is a deeply rooted perception among the public that the government’s claim is bogus. No facts whatsoever to establish their claim. (1) Which paper has the biggest paid circulation? (2) Biggest readership, including online readership? (3) Which paper reaches the target audience for government ads.? It has been predicted by many observers that the government will never agree to submit its claim for an independent evaluation.
What is the governmet selling? Cheaper-priced clothing, boots, and cosmetics? Then you would advertise in the NY Post, or in Guyana, the tabloid Kaieteur News.
Inviting tenders to bid for government contracts to build roads, sewers, sea defences; Inviting banks, insurance companies and mutual funds to purchase government treasury bonds, publicizing information on a new tax regime called VAT? Then you would advertise in the New York Times, or in Guyana, the Stabroek News.
These two newspapers, Stabroek News and Kaieteur News have significantly different readerships and given what the government has to sell, it may be scientifically proven by surveys and tests that government would get the best bang for its buck by advertising in the SN. The government’s claim that it gets the best bang from KN is an unproven claim and the public perceives this claim as a palpably false one.
If the government continues to refuse to submit its claim to an accredited body for market testing and analysis, I would predict this case could become a long drawn-out struggle between the SN and the government. Mr. Vishnu Bisram who seems to have an inside track on the government’s thinking has said the government will not back down. I predict Guyanese activists in New York who have struggled for twenty years for Free and Fair Elections will see this attack on the Stabroek News for what it is: An Attack on the Free Press Rights of the SN and will begin picketing and protesting outside the Guyana Consulate in New York very soon.
Yours faithfully,
Mike Persaud
New York
