I do not know how Dennis Wiggins concluded the Peeper was of the view that the government has a right to advertise wherever its wants. In none of my articles have I ever implied this.
Neither do I accept that the government has an obligation to ensure that all stakeholders have a share of ads, incidentally this is a view held by the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA). I therefore resent being told that my criticisms are lacking in journalistic integrity and solidarity.
I am glad however that Wiggins makes the point about integrity and solidarity because as I intend to show, my columns about the Stabroek News and State ads revolved around the question of integrity and solidarity, but certainly not about the Peeper's integrity and solidarity.
Before doing so I wish to clarify an important issue. Wiggins may not be au fait with developments in Guyana . There is no withdrawal of State advertisements from the Stabroek News. That newspaper continues to enjoy advertisements from government corporations and agencies.
I have been listing the advertisements that the Stabroek News has been receiving over the past week and to that list I can add that last Sunday, the Stabroek News carried ads from the Guyana Revenue Authority, the University of Guyana, Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation, Central Housing and Planning Authority, SIMAP, Bank of Guyana, National Insurance Scheme, Guyana Power and Light Company and the Guyana Sugar Corporation, many of which were not placed in the Kaieteur News.
The issue is therefore not about withdrawal of State advertisements, but rather a withdrawal of advertisements from government ministries. The issue is therefore not one of the Stabroek News not getting State ads but rather whether that newspaper is entitled to hog State advertisements.
Judging from its protestations one would believe that the Stabroek News believes that it enjoys a special status that obligates the government to ensure that it receives ads from ministries.
Should the Kaieteur News, the newspaper with the largest circulation in the country not also argue that? Kaieteur News too should be entitled to those ads which we are not presently receiving but which are being placed in the Stabroek News. Is Kaieteur News not entitled to a greater share of the ads placed by some government corporations which favour Stabroek News? Should we also complain that the failure of certain government offices to subscribe to our newspaper constitutes an attack on press freedom? Or is Stabroek News the sacred cow by which standards of freedom of the press is judged.
Let us, however, return to the question of integrity and solidarity. Where was the journalistic integrity and solidarity when for ten years this newspaper did not receive a single advertisement from the government? How was it that the Stabroek News did not feel that the Kaieteur News was being slighted or punished by the government?
Where was the journalistic solidarity when the former PNCR leader Desmond Hoyte called for a boycott of the Guyana Chronicle? Was the PNCR right in calling for a boycott of the Chronicle because it found the Chronicle to be lop-sided in its reporting but the government is now wrong for revising its policies in respect to government ads to the Stabroek News?
Where was the integrity and solidarity when knowing fully well about that boycott call, the Stabroek News rubbed salt into the open wounds of the Guyana Chronicle by publishing the figures of its (Stabroek News') circulation, knowing fully well the effect this would have on the advertisers to the Guyana Chronicle?
Why did the Stabroek News and the GHRA and Dennis Wiggins not come out and condemn the government for not ensuring that Kaieteur News receive ads during the first ten years of its operations? Even when it was clear that Kaieteur News enjoyed the largest circulation in the country, where were the voices of integrity and solidarity urging that State ads be given to this newspaper?
I do not accept that the government has an obligation to simply give out advertising revenue to all stakeholders. And no, the government does not have the right to advertise where it pleases. Its advertising policies should be guided by marketing and financial considerations. Full stop.
Integrity is about being consistent and faithful to one's beliefs, and to the opinions shaped by those beliefs. The Peeper is of the opinion that the placing of State advertisements must be guided by financial and marketing considerations. I do not accept any policy which obligates a government to support the private media through ads simply for support sake, or simply because one newspaper believes it is the symbol of press freedom.
Solidarity is about giving support to others whenever values that you hold dear are violated or whenever the need arises to reinforce those values. However, one of the values dear to the Peeper is that issues must be deserving and worthy of solidarity.
From a financial point of view, the government has to decide whether it makes sense to advertise in three newspapers when by advertising in one alone it can reach its target audience.
From a marketing point of view, if the government wants to reach PPP supporters it could, if it wishes, choose to advertise in the Mirror. If it wants to reach PNCR supporters, it may feel that it can achieve this by advertising on Channel 9 and if it wants to reach the most people in the country it should advertise in the paper that has the widest coverage and largest circulation; it should choose Kaieteur News.
Of course, if the government wishes to reach the support-base of the Working Peoples Alliance, it need not advertise at all.
It would be far cheaper to make phone calls to the approximately fifty odd supporters than remain in solidarity with a dying cause.