Dear Editor,
In seeking resolution to any issue, the facts have to be identified and the truth has to prevail. Let me from the outset make known that no government should be using state advertisements (ads) to muzzle any media house.
In the issue of what is being touted as a withdrawal of ads by the Department of Public Information (DPI), a Government of Guyana agency, efforts have to be made in identifying the facts towards finding a resolution.
In the specific case of Stabroek News (SN) where it is being alleged that the government is denying the papers ads for political purposes such must be examined and laid to rest.
The nation was told that the present impasse emanated from non-payment by DPI for ads published by SN. It is in the public space where it is established that SN had said to the DPI it would not carry any ad for the agency until the debt is cleared.
It should be said in normal business arrangements one of the first steps that would have been taken was engagement between the parties and a payment plan agreed upon which the customer would be expected to honour. At the same time, it is being noted that there was stated skepticism by SN of the debt being honoured in the no-confidence environment and should there be a change in government.
In the meantime, the DPI wanting to continue its work found alternative avenues to advertise as it sought to honour its debt which the nation was told has since been cleared.
No government has the right to get involved in the internal affairs of employers’ organisations, be it newspaper, manufacturing or any non-governmental business, for the right to non-interference is protected under international conventions. In this specific case, it is a business transaction between two parties that created an impasse and it has to be dealt with using the tools in negotiating normalcy but taking the facts on board.
The facts in the public domain are:-
i) The contract between the two parties was severed/put on hold by SN when it refused to publish any more ads until the outstanding debt was cleared;
ii) The DPI in the intervening period took its business elsewhere;
iii) When the debt was cleared the DPI was advised by SN it could resume the placement of ads, which is a return to the status quo;
iv) The DPI to date, based on its (non)placement of ads in SN, has signalled a disinclination to renew the relationship on term(s) set solely by SN.
There existed a contract, written or unwritten, for the newspaper to publish ads and the intervening incidents have created an atmosphere of loss confidence between the parties.
The issue of state ads is not a right but what needs to be considered is the environment within which we live. It is for this reason the parties need to sit down and have the matter resolved.
As an aside, on the issues of fair and accurate reporting, the media as the fourth estate shoulders a responsibility to always strive for the truth. This responsibility in our polarised society is particularly needed if we are to prosper, live in peace and harmony; and it is not unfair to state that since the no-confidence vote some sections of the media have made it a trying time for the society in deciphering fact from fiction, lies from truth doing more harm than good to the body politics. Correspondingly, where government or anyone feels there is inaccurate or unfair reporting on any given issue, civic duty necessitates a response to set the record straight. The responsibility goes both ways.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
Editor-in-Chief’s note: Several of Mr Lewis’ statements need to be responded to. First, DPI for a number of months refused to provide any assurance to SN about the extinguishing of the debt some of which pertained to 2018 and therefore no deal could be worked out. No well-run business would entertain such recalcitrance.
Second, the DPI claim of having found alternative sources to advertise is nonsense. The type of ads in question are in the main custom-made for newspapers and these continue to be placed with the Guyana Chronicle and Kaieteur News.
Third, while state ads are not assigned as a right, they constitute taxpayers’ money and such money has to be spent in a manner that is prudent, efficient and void of any political machinations. As a 33-year-old media house with an unparalleled reputation for integrity and credible reportage we are sure that Mr Lewis would agree that zero ads for the month of October should be considered an abomination.
Fourth, the government and DPI have created different reasons for the ads cutoff. DPI’s position is that it was for commercial reasons and that it found other avenues to advertise. President Granger has interjected the concept of `fairness’ with him and his government apparently being the sole arbiters of such. All of these developments point darkly to political motivations for the cutoff.
Fifth, Mr Lewis no doubt apprehends the importance of observing international conventions and declarations. In this instance the Inter-American Declaration of Chapultepec is being flagrantly violated by the government.
Sixth, it had been very easy for many in society in 2006 to quite properly condemn the Jagdeo administration for a blatant assault on press freedom when ads were withdrawn from Stabroek News. Presented with the same circumstances today, many of these personages now seem to have a great difficulty in recognising the unvarnished assault on press freedom by the Granger administration.
