The possible return of an old weapon - Kaieteur News (2024)

Sep 01, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

Kaieteur News – There exists a weapon more insidious than the outright banning of dissenting voices. That weapon involves the strangulation of financial sustenance through the withholding or rationing of state advertisem*nts to media houses. In Guyana, the deployment of this weapon has a long and troubled history.

The spectre of a possible return of this policy hovers over Guyana’s independent media like a ghostly apparition. It is never quite visible but always ever-present. It serves as a sober reminder, to those who dare to question the government that the policy is not out of sight or out of mind.

To understand the depth of this threat, one needs to look no further than the battle fought by the late David De Caires of the Stabroek News in 2007 and 2008. De Caires waged a campaign against what he perceived as the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPPC)’s attempts to suffocate his newspaper into oblivion.

The official line was that state advertisem*nts were distributed based on the circulation and reach of the newspapers. It was a seemingly logical justification, wrapped in the language of market economics. After all, the state argued, why shouldn’t advertisem*nts go to the papers with the largest audience?

At the height of this policy’s enforcement, Kaieteur News was the leading newspaper in Guyana, boasting the highest circulation. State ads flowed to it and to the state-owned newspaper which the government felt it had an obligation to support even though its circulation was believed to be the poorest of all newspapers.

But for Stabroek News, there was no such lifeline. State ads were withheld. The newspaper did not take it sitting down. It rallied support from regional allies, its plight making headlines in newspapers across the Caribbean. The Jamaica Gleaner denounced the state ads policy of the PPPC government as an attempt to “strangulate” the independent newspaper, calling it “a vulgar and unworthy act of reprisal for presumed political wrongs.”

The Trinidad Express raised questions about the government’s rationale, while the Barbados Nation viewed the move as a threat to press freedom that reverberated across the CARICOM community. Regional outrage mounted, but the PPPC stood firm, unyielding in its resolve.

The US State Department Human Rights Report said the following: “The government attempted to censor or restrict content; the government sought indirectly to censor the print media by controlling advertising.”

And then, as if by some magical realignment of principles, the policy was reversed. It was a coincidence, noted by many, that this change came shortly after the launch of the Guyana Times—a newspaper believed to be close to a certain person in the ruling party. The timing was not lost on Stabroek News, which viewed the policy reversal as less a concession to press freedom and more a cynical ploy to reward a more sympathetic voice.

It is in this historical context that we must view the present situation. The government’s old grievances with the media have resurfaced. The recent rumblings against Stabroek News and Kaieteur News suggest a dissatisfaction brewing within the halls of power. The very newspapers that stood by the PPPC in its battle against electoral rigging in 2020 now find themselves on the receiving end of the government’s ire. How quickly the heroes of yesterday become the enemies of today.

It would be naïve to assume that the PPPC would hesitate to redeploy its old tactics. The government’s rationale for controlling the flow of state advertisem*nts could be dressed up in the familiar garb of fairness, efficiency, economic grounds, and even reach. But beneath these justifications lies a stark truth: the policy of withholding ads is a form of economic censorship, a way to bend the media to its will.

Imagine, if you will, a scenario where the government, feeling the heat of critical reporting, decides that certain narratives are no longer acceptable. By selectively choking off the flow of state ads, it can send a message that is both clear and chilling: toe the line, or pay the price.

In Guyana, newspapers remain a crucial source of information for the public. They set the agenda, shape public discourse, and hold the government to account. To cripple them financially is to cripple democratic engagement. The possibility that the government could return to its old ways of rationing or withholding state advertisem*nts should alarm anyone who values press freedom. It is a policy that, if re-implemented, would not just be a step backward; it would be a leap into a darker past where dissent was stifled, and compliance was coerced.

As the nation stands on the brink of another electoral cycle, the media must remain vigilant. The government’s past actions are a blueprint for what could come. If the PPPC reverts to its controversial ad policies, it will not be out of necessity but out of desire—a desire to silence.

The press must brace itself, for the battle for its independence is far from over. The weapon of advertisem*nt withholding is still sharp, still ready to be wielded, and its shadow looms large over the future of press freedom in Guyana.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

Related

• apparition, Guyana, Peeping Tom, voices, weapon