During the 2006 election campaign, the ruling PPP/C placed no advertisements with the Stabroek News (SN) but advertised heavily with the state newspaper, the Guyana Chronicle (GC), and the privately-owned Kaieteur News (KN). That was the PPP/C's democratic right and SN uttered not a word about it. Moreover in keeping with its policy of fairness, SN provided wide coverage to all political parties during that campaign - including the PPP/C - and was consistently recognised by the elections commission's media monitoring unit as providing exemplary balance in its reporting on political parties. It seems, however, that politicos entrenched in the Office of the President had observed the PPP/C's approach on advertising and decided that state advertising should go the same way.
There is a world of difference in how the advertisements from a private entity and those funded by taxpayers of this country can be apportioned. Using the PPP/C as an example it can decide on the placement of newspaper ads on the basis of circulation strength, who gives it more glowing coverage or who has the better looking front page. It can do almost as it pleases. The government, on the other hand, cannot. The government cannot take taxpayers' money and distribute it in a manner that is patently discriminatory and intended to punish some and reward its media friends. The government, as custodian of the state's resources, must distribute these in a manner that would approximate closely to the interests of the entire population of the country. It must not import the PPP/C's particular interest into the way it distributes its business or awards contracts etc.
And this is where the PPP/C government has shown its hand. The arbitrary cut-off of 100% of ministry ads since November last year is clear evidence of the government's intention to suppress the newspaper. No right-thinking member of the public will believe the tall tale that GINA - under an acting head, Dr Prem Misir - took the decision all on its own. It was no doubt acting as the conduit for instructions from the Office of the President. What clearly gave the game away was GINA's unprofessional silence since November of 2006 despite repeated enquiries by the Advertising Manager of this newspaper for the reasons behind the cessation. Surely if GINA had formulated a new policy for the placement of ads or arrived at a momentous decision on the old policy it would have immediately transmitted this to the advertising manager and issued a press release similar to the ones it churns out on a daily basis? There was nothing of the sort. Surely GINA would also have corresponded with each ministry to advise them of the change considering that they were accustomed to their ads appearing in SN. There was none of that either. When written to formally by SN GINA provided anodyne answers that bordered on the bizarre but again without saying anything about value for money and circulation figures. It was only upon the newspaper's issuance of a press release in January that GINA presented a trumped up rationale for which, up to now, it has not had the courtesy to supply supporting information so that the public could judge its case. It seemed that GINA believed that in the same manner that SN had not bothered about the PPP/C's ads it would simply ignore the GINA decision. How wrong it was.
As a major newspaper with a 20-year history of battling injustice and excesses SN is entitled to a portion of government advertising and will fight unremittingly until it is restored. This fight is not only about fairness in distribution of state resources and press freedom; it is also about rooting out the unmistakable signs of dictatorial tendencies and arbitrariness. Otherwise, it could well lead to the return of some of the worst excesses of the dictatorship which the PPP and others fought heroically against.
This danger is written all across the sudden decision by the Guyana Sugar Corporation and the Guyana Power and Light to cease advertising with Stabroek News. It defies probability that these two corporations could have separately undertaken independent assessments of the media maze and arrived at the exact unfounded position as GINA has and at the same time. It was more likely one of two things. An instruction was passed from the Office of the President or someone with influence in these two entities is simply following the pattern set by the state in a bid to toe the perceived line. Either way, this is a startling development that reeks of the bad old days.
Which brings us to the letter sent by Permanent Secretary in the Office of the President, Dr N.K. Gopaul on February 8 on behalf of President Jagdeo to several international organizations which have objected to the cessation of advertising. In his letter Dr Gopaul asserts that because of "limited financial resources" the government traditionally advertised in two newspapers: the state paper and one private daily and placed a limited number of advertisements in a weekly paper. Dr Gopaul and his government will have a hard time explaining how SN has been completely left out of the equation that gives advertising to the GC and the Mirror newspaper particularly since many government ads relate to procurement and vacancies and would find a natural home in Stabroek News because of its strong business reporting.
Dr Gopaul also says categorically that the switch to KN was "determined independently" based on "the number of newspapers published (which are available to us)". Well, first of all, Dr Gopaul should be aware that there is a big difference between the numbers of newspapers published (printed) and the numbers sold. Real circulation is determined by the latter. Taxpayers and members of the public would also like to see the basis for GINA's `independent determination' and not be fed with more nebulous statements like GINA's claim that there were "huge responses" to ads in KN and GC.
Furthermore, Dr Gopaul makes the extravagant assertion that SN wants to "retain a monopoly on state advertisements". SN never had this luxury and doesn't want it. It wants the share of state advertising that it is entitled to. Simple.
The outpouring of local and regional condemnation of the government's action against Stabroek News has been telling. There has been no support for the government's action and the withdrawal of the ads has been quite properly seen as an attack on press freedom. There was a feeble attempt in Friday's KN to rally support for the government. Sadly, the one media owner who apparently instigated the report did not seem to have the confidence or the conviction to put a name to the comment. What could this media owner be afraid of?
This debacle makes a cogent case for advertising by the government to be placed on a fair and professional footing. GINA, which is essentially the government's information agency and is traditionally headed by political appointees and politicos, should not be entrusted with the task of deciding where ads should go. That should be left to one or more professional advertising agencies. The government would then be unburdened of the temptation to apply political considerations in the awarding of ads and the attendant risk of attacking press freedoms.