Much interest has been generated in Georgetown , across the Caribbean and further afield by segments of a heated debate in the Media following a decision by the Government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana to discontinue its advertising in the privately-owned Stabroek News and Sunday Stabroek newspapers.
The issue, it seems, is being fairly rapidly internationalized on the basis that the action by the Government is tantamount to a stab against freedom of the press, and by extension a threat to freedom of expression generally.
Those who wish to be excessively critical in this matter might contend that with regard to politics in the CROG, the more things change, the more they remain the same; which is to say the fundamentals of the exercise of political power in the state have not really changed significantly – though the internationally supervised conduct of post-1991 elections would fly in their faces.
The government has quickly responded to those criticisms, and on the surface there seems merit in its argument. Previously, it explained, state advertising was allocated proportionately between the state-owned media and the Stabroek publications, with no other private sector entity benefiting under the allocation.
The good reason given was that Stabroek over the years had been assessed as having the widest circulation/distribution among the private sector Media.
The government has argued further that at no stage during the period in which it was the beneficiary of preferential treatment for government advertisements did Stabroek raise objections or seek to make a case for some sharing by other private sector media.
It would seem, therefore, that there is not only precedent, based on whatever statistics (from wheresoever) the government has on newspaper circulation in the country, but it would also make financial/economic sense to seek the now wider advertising exposure in the new front-runner Kaieteur News.
The rationality that appears to lie in the official explanation is seldom the style of Third World politicians. Beyond the good reason, there is most times a real reason.
Indeed, the more things change, the more they remain the same; and so a Burnhamism has been applied, in the sense that Ok, if you want to engage us, we're going to show you that squeezing balls is not only a technique of tennis players or merely a therapeutic hand exercise for arthritic patients.
However, the most important question is still to be answered: Does the government's action in discontinuing advertisements to Stabroek constitute an attack on freedom of the press or a denial of the rights of the newspaper?
The simple answer is that although the real reason may be clear (that the government has found a means of pressuring an irritating publication that too often behaves like a political opposition), does the government not have the right to apportion its advertising however it chooses?
Advertising is a convenient mechanism to advance one's own interests, whether that ‘one' is a business corporation aiming to present its products in the best light, for pecuniary gain or a government compelled by statutory regulations to advertise specific matters, or in other cases by its own volition in order to present a favourable political face.
Any person, entity, institution or government has the right under the Guyana Constitution to determine how and where its interests would be served best for the resources being expended. Even if a government so wished, it would likely violate no law (but would suffer severe public censure) by allocating 95% of its advertising budget to the state-owned Media and share the remaining five per cent among ‘others'.
Vindictiveness might be alleged, for in politics too often that becomes the order of the day; but vindictiveness by itself is not an illegality.
There are times when breaches of the law can occur, depending on the manner in which vindictiveness is translated into action. However, such does not seem to be the case in this matter of advertising flows in Guyana . If it were, I would think that principals of Stabroek will know how to protect their interests in the courts of law.
One question that might be asked is whether Stabroek has a right to any percentage of paid advertisements from government departments, agencies, institutions, etc?
No. No such right is explicit to any newspaper or Media system under Chapter 2, Article 3 of the Guyana Constitution, neither in the 1966 version at Independence , nor subsequent amended versions in 1973 and 1980 (the Article which addresses the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual).
Overall, it seems the battle has now been joined, but Shakespeare's pen might caution Stabroek “methinks thou doth protest too much”... for a declared independent newspaper would be in a parlous state indeed if it has to depend on government favour – advertising lineage or otherwise – for its viability, its sustenance, and its survival.