Dear Editor,

I HUMBLY request space in the letter column of your highly regarded publication to express my views on commentators to the “letters page.” There is a certain type of commentator in Guyana who believes that loud talk and long words automatically translate into credibility.

Week after week they unleash dramatic columns attacking the government — and especially the Vice President — yet when you sift through all the noise, you find nothing but empty assertions. Plenty storytelling, lil’ proof. That is the trademark.

These writers fling accusations like they in a confetti parade: corruption, conspiracy, secret deals, destruction of democracy — everything under the sun. But when you ask them to produce one solid fact, one document, one piece of evidence that stands up to scrutiny, the whole show collapses.

Instead of supporting their claims, they shift the goalposts, twist the narrative, and pretend that their imagination is the same as truth. That is not public accountability; that is political mischief with a thesaurus. They also lean heavily on overblown imagery and dramatic comparisons. A routine decision becomes a national crisis.

A disagreement becomes a dictatorship. A budget line turns into an apocalypse. Every critique is dressed in exaggerated language designed to stir panic. As we say in Guyana, ‘some people love to bruk down a lil’ fence and call it the fall of Rome’. This kind of melodrama attracts attention, yes — but it destroys credibility.

Another convenient tactic is the selective morality. Many of these critics once served in public institutions, benefitted from them, or stayed silent during issues they now pretend to care deeply about. Yet they present themselves as solitary heroes battling corruption from on top a moral mountain. But if you want to preach purity, you must first clean your own doorstep. Guyanese people are not foolish; they know when someone trying to play clean after years of dipping their cups.

Most telling is how these commentators treat any legitimate government response. The moment the government corrects false claims or calls out inaccuracies, these critics start hollering about “harassment of the press” and “attacks on press freedom.” So, in their world, they can say anything — no matter how baseless — but the government must remain silent? Accountability suddenly becomes “intimidation,” simply because their narrative cannot survive factual correction.

That is not press freedom, that is press immunity, and no democracy functions like that. And predictably, they ignore every measurable success the country is experiencing. Roads, hospitals, jobs, investments, growth numbers envied across the region — all dismissed or twisted to maintain a permanent gloom-and-doom storyline. Their obsession with attacking the Vice President — always without proof — says more about their political agenda than about national

interest.

Guyana deserves serious commentary grounded in facts, fairness, and genuine patriotism. What we often get instead are inflated ego, recycled bitterness and a kind of performative outrage that crumbles the second you ask: “Boss, where is your evidence?”

Until that question can be answered honestly, their commentary remains exactly what it is — noise, not nation-building.

Regards,

Walter Blair