Dear Editor,

THE 2025 World Press Freedom Index, released a few days ago by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), shows Guyana improving slightly this year, moving from 77 in 2024 to 73 out of 180 countries. Considering the threats faced by media workers in neighbouring Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, both of which outperformed Guyana, my curiosity was piqued.

RSF defines press freedom as: “The ability of journalists as individuals and collectives to select, produce, and disseminate news in the public interest, independent of political, economic, legal, and social interference, and in the absence of threats to their physical and mental safety.”

I must express my disagreement with Stabroek News, which recently claimed that the rankings are determined on the basis of “the organisation’s independent assessment.” Permit me to explain why I believe this assertion is deeply flawed.

For context, the Index assigns each country or territory a score ranging from 0 to 100, with 100 representing the highest possible level of press freedom. This score is derived from two components: a quantitative assessment of abuses committed against media personnel and a qualitative analysis based on responses from press-freedom specialists. These contributors include journalists, researchers, academics, and human rights defenders, all of whom complete an RSF questionnaire.

The quantitative element relies on data concerning abuses such as the number of journalists killed, detained, missing, or assaulted. It also includes instances of censorship, such as the forced closure of media outlets. I will not dwell on the quantitative aspect, as there are virtually no reports in Guyana of media workers being detained, abducted, physically assaulted, or killed.

The qualitative analysis, however, is more opaque. It is based on data drawn from a questionnaire distributed among selected local media professionals, researchers, and human rights experts.

This questionnaire is not widely accessible to the broader Guyanese public, including the academic community; it is circulated only among those with privileged access. I personally participated in the survey between 2015 and 2020. The questionnaire covers five key domains: the legal framework; economic context; political context; sociocultural context; and safety.

Legal Framework: Guyana’s legislative environment concerning press freedom has remained largely unchanged over the past five years. Notably, in 2018, RSF improved Guyana’s ranking from 60 (in 2017) to 55, even though the APNU+AFC government had tabled its Cybercrime Bill, which contained a draconian sedition clause.

RSF’s North America Director, Margaux Ewen, publicly expressed concern that the proposed legislation “could have a serious, chilling effect on press freedom in Guyana.” Yet RSF nonetheless awarded Guyana a higher rating that same year.

Economic Context: This indicator assesses economic influences on journalism, including media ownership concentration, the use of government advertising as leverage, and the financial sustainability of independent outlets. It is fair to state that both public and private media in Guyana enjoy equitable access to government advertising. Furthermore, there are no restrictions on media ownership. Print and online media entities do not require licences, and radio and television licences are granted by the Guyana National Broadcasting Authority (GNBA).

Sociocultural Context: This dimension considers social norms and cultural pressures, including gender-based discrimination and self-censorship driven by religion, ethnicity, or societal taboos. While journalists in Guyana may not enjoy the same prestige as their regional counterparts, they are generally respected. Ours is not a society that is inherently hostile to media practitioners. Admittedly, women in the media may occasionally face harassment, but such behaviour is symptomatic of deeper, entrenched societal attitudes towards women, rather than indicative of the media environment per se.

Political Context: Criticisms have been levelled at successive governments for their control over state media – a practice consistent across political administrations. Given that this state of affairs has remained unchanged for decades, it should not influence fluctuations in the press freedom ranking. It is worth noting that fewer than 10% of all media outlets in Guyana are state-owned or controlled, leaving approximately 90% insulated from direct political interference. Media freedom extends to the extent that certain outlets regularly refer to senior government officials, including the President and Vice President, in derogatory terms without fear of legal or other repercussions.

Safety: As previously mentioned, there are no credible reports of journalists in Guyana being detained, assaulted, or killed. However, depending on their affiliation, media workers may occasionally face verbal abuse, particularly in highly charged political environments – a situation not unique to Guyana.

Editor, it is difficult to reconcile the fact that from 2015 to 2025, Guyana has dropped 24 places in the Index, despite the operational conditions for media personnel remaining largely stable, if not improved.

It becomes even more perplexing when one considers Jamaica’s 2025 ranking (26), especially given that its qualitative indicators are arguably comparable to Guyana’s, while its quantitative indicators are demonstrably worse. For instance: on May 8, 2024, a female journalist in Jamaica was threatened with rape by a supporter of the People’s National Party (PNP); in 2024, the RJR Gleaner Group faced a public campaign accusing it of political bias, with calls for boycotts by prominent politicians; and in September 2023, the offices of Nationwide News Network were attacked in a shooting incident.

It is, therefore, evident that the scores and rankings of this Index are not the result of an “independent assessment” by RSF in the conventional sense, as the organisation does not deploy field researchers to conduct empirical assessments. Rather, the Index relies heavily on the subjective opinions of individuals – most of whom seem intent on misrepresenting the reality of press freedom in Guyana.

Yours faithfully,

Ravin Singh

Former Journalist