THE STABROEK News’ editorial of 11.3.13, exemplifies the cardinal problem with the private media, particularly those that propagate the views of the political opposition. This publishing house, once known for its objectivity and balanced style of reporting has since the death of its late publisher, departed from this sacred, professional hallmark.
This is epitomised very clearly in its editorial piece captioned: “The President’s speech at Port Mourant”, in which it roundly criticised President Ramotar’s speech, describing same as

“wrong, offensive and beneath his status as President and Head of State”. There were also opinions made on his performance thus far in the presidency. However, for the purpose of this letter, focus is on the comment as stated.
No media house, representative of either print or electronic, can be said to honestly represent the public’s view, if it reports events in a selective, convenient, biased, and prejudiced manner. For it must be reminded on those entities, that representing the public means representing ALL sides of any event and incident, regardless as to how controversial.
It has been the unfortunate and very deliberate act of the private print dailies to pounce on every detail emanating from the Executive, as Stabroek News has once again shown with the Babu John reporting. Most of those reported stories have often been the subject of special pieces such as editorials. Has this print ever accorded such special treatment to inflammatory remarks from the opposition?
Sometime ago, Alliance For Change chairman Nigel Hughes made the following public remarks that by all means were bad in taste, with the ultimate intention to incite or foment public unrest.
“I’m not calling for peace … I’m calling for us to be calm, considerate and calculating. It was Peter Tosh that said everyone cries out for justice but none cries out for equal rights and justice. All I want is equal rights and justice. I don’t care how we get it but we must get it.” Was there any specific treatment from the Stabroek News of this comment which was really a call to violence?
Sometime after, this very party leader made a similar, even more threatening statement that could be interpreted as giving the government an ultimatum. It was this very threat that many observers concluded, led to violence on the Agricola public road that for a while threatened the public peace. Again, no specific comment on what Hughes said, from this media house.
The readership must judge as to the realities of the private dailies selective manner of reporting, and the inherent political purpose of such a strategy. For this is the manner in which media with  political agendas, report.