…on Granger’s dictatorial bent
In five years, we can count the number of times Granger has faced the independent media corps on one hand – which only has five fingers!! But we can now understand his reluctance after the revelations that emerge even when he consents to packaged, pre-arranged soft-ball interviews. Just listen to how he responded to one deferentially posed question as to how he views his DPI’s yanking of ads from the SN over the past few months.
The DPI had “explained” its action was precipitated by the newspaper insisting that they won’t accept any new ads unless their mounting arrears were cleared up. But this was patently and blatantly a lie, and this newspaper conclusively knew this. While the SN had pointed out that the Guyana Times had also suffered the same fate, the latter hadn’t made the same demand!! But even though the SN didn’t know this, they came to the inescapable conclusion that they were being punished because they’d been highlighting the high-handed actions of the PNC government in the wake of the NCM. This, of course, was also the “sin” of the Times!!
The PNC was reverting to its old posture on the free press: they were to be dealt with “condignly”, to use Burnham’s pet phrase! Back in the day, it was by banning the importation of newsprint, since at that time the Government didn’t even CONSIDER giving any ads to any but the state newspaper! Since there was no “carrot”, the “stick” it was! Which was Burnham’s preferred method in any case!
But back to Granger’s response: he blurted out that the ads were cut or stopped because the SN wasn’t reporting news about the Government “fairly”!!
Imagine that!! The specific “unfair” reportage he cited was the SN’s non-reporting of Granger’s speech at one of the events commemorating QC’s 175th anniversary!! It was an unforgivable sin of omission!! The Editor-in-Chief, ironically himself a Queen’s “old boy”, pointed out that there were any number of reasons why the event wasn’t covered, like the mundane ones of not having a reporter available at the time. Again, he couldn’t have known that Granger had to be full of bloviating hot air, since he admitted G/Times had covered the event but they had suffered the same fate of “off with their ads”!!
Granger was clearly disingenuous, of course, since his excuse of SN blanking his speech was ex-post facto to the original DPI’s decision!! But, more fundamentally, even if we accept the criterion of “fairness” for newspapers to get Government ads (paid for by the taxpayers of Guyana) who determines what is fair?? The Government?
Was it fair for the state media to blank Opposition events for five years??
…on Granger’s journalistic betrayal
Granger has violated journalistic standards set by international agreements that Guyana has signed on to. The Inter-American “Declaration of Chapultepec” on press freedom categorically prohibits the use of Government advertising for the rewarding or punishment of news media. No carrot-and- stick approach allowed!! Principle 7 of the Declaration insists: “…the granting or withdrawal of government advertising may not be used to reward or punish the media or individual journalists.”
While Principle 10 couldn’t be more explicit: “No news medium nor journalist may be punished for publishing the truth or criticising or denouncing the government”.
But this shouldn’t be surprising to any of us: this man has consistently violated the highest law of his land – the Constitution – which he’s explicitly sworn to uphold and defend! But Granger’s trampling on press freedom cannot be excused for another reason: he was the recipient of a US Government Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship to attend the University of Maryland’s Journalism School in 1993!
He should be stripped of his diploma!! He’s a disgrace to the US programme.
…Granger’s lack of integrity
Granger introduced the phrase “fit and proper” into the popular Guyanese lexicon. Ironically, he’s proven to be most “unfit and improper” as President of Guyana, for lacking its fundamental requirement: Integrity!