I HAVE continuously argued on this page that it is eerie beyond comprehension that despicable things occur in this country outside of the sphere of governmental behaviour, and these aberrations threaten the very foundation of democracy, yet critics of the government are silent.
The very foundation of society is threatened when the media, religious institutions, business companies, civil groups, the legal, medical and professional communities fall down badly but those who are obsessed with criticising the government remain silent.
On Thursday, I published a column in which I look at the vacuum in knowledge in which those who offer daily condemnations of the government refuse to offer analyses of social and political dimensions that could add to the knowledge of the young population of Guyana. I offered two examples.
One — Professor Clive Thomas is yet to offer an analytical comment on the nature of the APNU+AFC government that he served and what were the positives and negatives of that administration. I am one hundred percent convinced that Guyanese would like to hear Professor Thomas’ take on the performance of that government in which he served in a substantial capacity.

Two— Eric Philips bemoaned the type of governments Guyana gets when the administration is not backed by multi-racial constituencies. I responded and asked him if the APNU+AFC was one such type of regime. He is yet to answer my direct question although he responded to me and got personal. I firmly believe that given Phillip’s stature in ACDA and the high level position he held in the APNU+AFC regime that Guyanese would be interested in his interpretation.
On the day of the publication of my column, I received several emails requesting that I provide more examples of my essential argument that knowledge is being withheld because anti-government critics have adamantly refused to comment on any blunder once it is outside the sphere of government action.
How can a society have intellectual stimulation when there is no intellectual debate? I once wrote on this page that I will not refuse to attend any media interview by any organisation whether government or anti-government because I think people that believe in me would want to hear what I have to say. And I will say what I have to say without hesitation about the correctness of my position.
So here in this column I will point once more to an egregious action from outside the arena of governmental behaviour and hope that we see some reaction from those who, everyday, point to all that they see wrong in the Government of Guyana. Here we go. The British Guardian newspaper did a piece on the importance of oil in Guyana.

In its interview, it reported one man, one solitary figure that said he will have to migrate because of the cost-of-living. The Kaieteur News read what this one person said and carried a headline that exclaimed: “Guyanese contemplating running from oil-rich country over high cost-of-living.” The article went on to add: “The Guardian, a UK based media house recently reported that citizens of oil-rich Guyana are contemplating to leave the country as the cost of food soars, making it difficult to feed their families.”
There is absolutely no such reporting in the article done not by a Western reporter from one of the mainstream media houses but a Brazilian journalist. And it was not a dismissal of the importance of the oil industry to Guyana.
The Guardian did not state that Guyanese are thinking of migrating because of the economy. This is not only dishonest journalism, this is not only fictionalisation in the reporting of news, it is barefaced politicisation of journalism which we have seen since 2020.
I continue to lament the politicisation of journalism of the two private media houses and where it will lead this country. Take one name intimately associated with the Kaieteur News – Mr. Christopher Ram.

As a fierce critic of the government, can Mr. Ram look people in the eyes and refuse to comment on what Kaieteur News has done. Let us repeat for emphasis how this paper has violated the basic tenets of professional journalism.
The paper took a comment from one person who thinks he may migrate because of the economy and broaden it to a national contemplation of Guyanese running from Guyana because of the cost-of-living.
So if a newspaper speaks to commuters on the new harbour bridge and one person says he does not like the design, Kaieteur News will report that Guyanese reject the shape of the new bridge. I will have much more to say and in the process provide knowledge to Guyanese, on my time at Kaieteur News.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.