Dear Editor,
The cut in government advertisements to Stabroek News must be condemned. The response from government suggesting that SN does not want to assume continued debt for ads is unacceptable. The government should have paid its debts already at $22M. Money had been budgeted and available for ads. That government had continued to place ads without clearing the debt suggests the debt was not the issue.
Clearly, withholding ads is an attempt to muzzle the free press for (critical) reporting and commenting (critiquing) the government. It is very troubling that government has moved to suppress (unfriendly) speech against it. Not all unfriendly speech is unwelcomed or is bad speech. One US Chief Justice had ruled many years ago that bad press is better than no press. I assailed the last government for punishing SN for its right to criticize the government and I am equally against this government for reducing ads to SN as an act of punishment for its strong position on violations of democratic norms. Reduction of government ads is a threat to speech critical of government and must be condemned by all advocates of democracy. We must defend and sustain freedom of speech regardless of which party is in government. Why are the voices of David Hinds, Lincoln Lewis, Nigel Westmaas, among others, silent?
No government or public figure likes bad press but most, if not all of it, is their own doing. Government has not been following the law on a variety of issues. It seems like a repeat of Burnhamism. Instead of seeking to penalize the media by withdrawing ads for critical appraisals, government should welcome critiques that will help it to improve its performance and delivery of service and to embrace democratic governance.
I remember a decade ago, another government sought to stifle SN and Sharma TV for similar reasons. Those who now seek to silence SN were critical of that government. But they turn out to be no different or even worse. SN has been in the forefront of institutionalizing the free media post-Burnhamism. It is because of SN, there is a free speech culture that has been institutionalized in the country. And those who were critical of the previous government for penalizing SN with ads reduction are the ones who have withdrawn from SN. Isn’t this hypocrisy of the highest order? I don’t think President Granger gave the order to reduce ads to SN. But to think that Moses Nagamootoo, the champion of the free press during the Burnham era and when he was Information Minister, has responsibility for placement of ads and it is under his watch that SN has been penalized. The PM must urgently move to restore the normal amount of ads to SN.
Using ads to punish the media for its stance against government behaviour is unacceptable. It must not be allowed to continue or else it will pose a threat to a democratic press.
Yours faithfully,
Dr. Vishnu Bisram
