–Answering a Trinidad Express editorial
THIS publication is not in the business of attacking other media houses. Nor are we oblivious to the right of the media to exist in a state of freedom from attacks by governments. A free media is indispensable to a free and democratic society.

But such freedom comes with a responsibility of the media to maintain a balance between reporting the news and avoiding sensationalism and intentional untruth. We also respect the right of media entities in the larger Caribbean family to comment on, and cover, issues in Guyana. But such comment and coverage must be grounded in a true grasp of the issues at hand, and should avoid regurgitating one side of a story as truth. It is against the background of the latter that we take issue with an editorial that appeared in one of the newspapers in Trinidad and Tobago.

The Daily Express, one of Trinidad and Tobago’s daily newspapers, in its November 14 edition inserted itself in the issue between the government of Guyana and the Stabroek News over government advertisements to the newspaper. Its editorial launched an attack on the government of Guyana for what it suggests is a violation of press freedom. It singles out for particular attention comments made by President Granger on Kaieteur News radio about fairness in coverage.

According to the Daily Express, “Guyana’s independent newspaper, the Stabroek News, has become the latest Caribbean casualty of an apparent State-orchestrated advertising boycott designed to bring the media to heel.” It went on to spin the President’s comments to suit its narrative: ” ‘During an interview on Radio Kaieteur, President Granger defended the use of State advertising for political purposes, saying ‘We believe that advertisements should be directed to the media houses, based on their willingness to disseminate news fairly.’”

The editorial then went on to proffer what it deems a solution, but what is in fact an attempt to lecture the government on the meaning of press freedom: “Before this situation escalates into an international issue, this newspaper urges the Granger administration to reconsider its actions, and to demonstrate its commitment to press freedom through its own act of fairness towards Stabroek News…”

The editorial represents a clear case of inventing a crime and then charging someone for it. It is also an instance of sensationalism, in that it is blowing a relatively small issue out of proportion. Further, the editorial cannot be deemed fair comment, as it pays scant attention to the government side of the issue. In so doing, it runs the risk of inciting negative feelings against the government among the Trinidad populace which may not be familiar with the root cause of the issue at hand.

The circumstances surrounding the decrease of advertisements to the Stabroek News has been ventilated in the Guyanese media. It is obvious that the business arrangement between Stabroek News and the Department of Public Information hit a snag after the newspaper suspended credit to the government pending payments of arrears owed to it. The government duly settled its debt, but in the meantime placed its advertisements in other media entities.

When the Stabroek News was ready to resume the arrangement exactly as it was before the interruption, it was told that this was obviously not possible, as government had in the interim broadened its pool to include the non-traditional media.

How on earth could this be deemed discrimination? In fact, the government has corrected discrimination against the non-traditional media. **All media outlets are entitled to State advertisements, but no entity has an entitlement to a fixed portion of it. It is the right of government to determine fairness in the distribution of advertisements, as the President intimated in the Kaieteur Radio interview. Further, the government, like any other advertiser, has the right to determine where its advertisements would likely earn the best returns.

The charge, therefore, that the government has singled out the Stabroek News for special discrimination is baseless. If the government were into a campaign of discrimination, then it would be targetting large sections of the media which have been openly hostile to it. But that is not the way of this administration. The Stabroek News would have to look elsewhere to level such charges. Indeed, one leader of a party which Stabroek News now gives disproportionately more positive coverage to is on record as admitting that when in government, he intentionally withheld advertisements from that newspaper.

The Daily Express editorial has taken its lead from the Stabroek News, and seeks to cast the President’s comments on fair media coverage in bad light. The President was giving an opinion on the relationship between fair coverage and receipt of government advertisements. What is wrong with such an opinion? The media does have a responsibility to ensure fair coverage.

The Stabroek News and the Daily Express have both intimated that the President cannot determine what is fair coverage. We ask, who makes that determination? It seems to us that if the government is spending money on advertisements in the media, it must have some say as to what it thinks is fair coverage. Of course, its conclusions must be based on accepted norms of fairness.

Not only has the Daily Express questioned the President’s right to offer an opinion on guidelines for placing government’s advertisements, but they suggest that the President said that such guidelines were at play in the impasse between the DPI and Stabroek News. The President never made such a connection; that is the work of first the Stabroek News and its sympathisers and now the Daily Express. This manipulation of the President’s words to serve their narrow ends is very unbecoming, and should be withdrawn.