DR. DAVID HINDS, a contributor and columnist in the Guyana Chronicle, is aggrieved with the paper. In his column, ‘Hinds Sight with Dr. Hinds’, on 9th April, in commentary entitled “Many peoples, one nation, one destiny: Identity, the state media and our cricket identity”, he identified what is seen as four areas of contention. These are: (i) “state-owned media is not a party plantation, and for 50 years, that section of the media was turned against the people, the real owners, in vicious ways; (ii) Chronicle has a duty to uphold the principles of fairness and inclusion. Its pages must not be turned into manifestations of cheer-leading; (iii) critique of the Government must be an integral part of the coverage; and (iv) Chronicle has historically been an instrument of dictatorship, and we cannot continue like this. This present Government came to power as a change agent, and the state-owned media must reflect that promise. Censorship must be eradicated.”

Our editorial of 20th April, entitled ‘The State newspapers’, addressed the stated areas through the following facts: (i) the Chronicle is evolving, having being established as a state newspaper in the 1970s in a closed (socialist) society to pursue the philosophy of the government of the day, (ii) it later functioned in an open (free market) society and was used by successive governments to pursue their respective philosophy; and (iii) it was rebranded in December 2015.

Attention was drawn to the paper’s rebranding principle: that as an arm of the State, primacy will be given to the Government’s agenda, inclusive of the views of members of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. Fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, such as the right to be heard, including dissent and response, will be held in high esteem.
Out of recognition that a contributor sees the paper differently, readers who have become part of the discussions were urged to verify the claim through comparative content analyses of governments, which is easily accessible in the Information Age.

It is unfortunate that Dr Hinds’s letter to the media of 22nd April interpreted such encouragement to mean that it is said that he “was guilty of sowing racial discord.”

This paper reiterates that the right to freedom of expression does not operate in media in abstention of editorial judgment based on the paper’s policies; propriety; and decorum the society is known for, may have lost, and is striving to regain. In effect, non-censorship is not unbridled, it carries with it responsibility on all sides.

And whereas Dr Hinds mentioned separately, though not unrelatedly, that the Prime Minister’s Office should have sought to do an “investigation” before responding to his public statement, corresponding responsibility allows for him to make his views known through the normal internal channels, which could have attracted explanation and/or investigation.

It is hard to fathom this contributor’s claim in respect to censorship, given his prominent role in the paper. He has editorialized on Dr. Walter Rodney; the WPA, its leaders and philosophy; offered critical review of government’s actions; direction on issues; and nudged the administration in particular directions. The Hinds’ column shows a similar pattern.

Given this background position: “[his] personal view is that there is need for a major intervention at the Chronicle by the leaders of the government”, it must be recalled that when governments intervened in the past, it was called dictatorship and censorship.

The policy under which the present management covers news, opinions, events, time and places allows for expression of various individuals and groups, irrespective of their political interest; and this was made known in editorial ‘Role of the State media: a new era’ (7th December 2015). Such did not find disfavour with our Board.

Dr. Hinds is assured that his rights and freedoms will be respected in this paper equally as the paper’s policy.

It has been acknowledged that in our evolving role mistakes will or can be made, but our commitment is to address same as the people’s paper, and our desire to be their preferred choice of reading. If it is believed that a mistake was made, Dr Hinds is invited to meet with the editorial team and have his concern(s) addressed. After now, the paper will not be dealing with this matter publicly.