The Government Information Agency (GINA), having noted the Kaieteur News front page headline, “GINA pays for ‘distasteful’ ad campaign to smear PNC,” in the May 15, 2014 edition, wishes to state that it is another attempt by the newspaper to deliberately mislead, and is demonstrative of its engrained proclivity to sensationalise. GINA is not unmindful of the overt intentions of the Kaieteur News in its quest to besmirch the agency. That said, GINA wishes to state categorically that the placement of the advertisements was never intended for the purpose as articulated by the Kaieteur News and resolutely rejects the newspaper’s reckless assertions.
GINA is cognisant of its ethical and constitutional responsibility on behalf of the government and the State of Guyana to disseminate information in an objective, accurate and fair manner, and to avoid at all cost the incitement of racial, ethnic and other hostilities.
It must be made pellucidly clear that the content of the advertisements was not fabricated but was derived from what was said for public consumption during the hearings of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) into the death of Dr. Walter Rodney. The media, including the Kaieteur News, weeks before the placement of the advertisements, reported many related and revealing stories.
It is therefore mind-boggling that the Kaieteur News, having reported previously on the revelations of the said COI, would now sensationally state that GINA is trying to smear the PNC and promote racial violence based on the same information emanating from the hearings.
In the Wednesday, April 30, 2014, edition of the Kaieteur News, the paper carried a front-page headline, “PNC Govt. killed Rodney-Karen De Souza,” with the details on page 15. A quote, as carried in this said article, constituted an advertisement in the Tuesday, May 13, 2014, edition of the Kaieteur News.
In the same edition of the Kaieteur News, a page three story, “Brother testifies alleged killer linked to ‘House of Israel’ cult-claimed Police turned a blind eye to acts of intimidation, beatings,” contained details of testimony given by Mr. Lawrence Rodney. The said article alluded to some of the intimidatory tactics used as explained by Mr. Lawrence Rodney and of which a part was used as a quote that constituted the advertisement placed in the Kaieteur News on Tuesday, May 13, 2014.
The Kaieteur News published at least eight stories related to the Rodney COI including Ralph Seeram’s column captioned, “Rodney COI opening a ‘can of worms’ for the PNC,” on page 53 of the May 04, 2014 edition. The question must be asked, how is it that when the Kaieteur News reported on the said issue of the COI with related columns, its editors and publisher did not consider those articles as smearing the PNC?

If it is that the Kaieteur News since having received the order to place the advertisements and having grave concern over what it considers as “smearing” the PNC, professionally it could have sought clarification from GINA. Further, if the Kaieteur News believes that the advertisements were inciting, then what’s its editorial policy for allowing the publishing of such material? This clearly must bring into question the newspaper’s professionalism through responsible reporting.
It should be noted that Mr. Gary Eleazar of the Kaieteur News called the Director of GINA, seeking an “off the record” comment, not necessarily pertaining to the actual advertisements in question, but regarding who was the “architect” of the process since he (Eleazar) believed it was not initiated by the Agency. If the expression of his sentiments were to be believed, then it is incomprehensible in the realms of professional journalistic ethics that the caption mentioned in the opening paragraph would even be contemplated.
With regard to the claim that the placement order was not signed by the GINA Advertisement Coordinator, the Kaieteur News would best be informed to check with its own advertising department. The practice as dictated to GINA by the Kaieteur News advertising department is for orders to be e-mailed. As such the need for a signature is not prerequisite.