KAIETEUR NEWS TOOK A STAND BASED ON PRINCIPLE

May 20, 2010 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

In the reporting and commentary on the distribution of State advertisements, there have been some inaccurate and misleading statements about the position adopted by this newspaper in the wake of the reduction of advertisements suffered by the Stabroek News.
It has been suggested that this newspaper supported the withdrawal of the ads from the Stabroek News and that it refused to offer solidarity to that newspaper.
These are misinformed assessments which are being made and do not in any way reflect the position adopted by this newspaper.
Before delving into the position adopted by this newspaper, it must be pointed out that certain assessments about the motive of the government in reducing ads to the Stabroek News have been made as a result of the benefit of hindsight.
Given the reversals that have taken place in respect to the official policy on the placements of advertisements, and the fact that this reversal coincided with the formation of the Guyana Times, there is now reason to believe that the reduction of State advertising was linked to plan this formation.
At the time of the reduction of advertisements to the Stabroek News there was nothing to suggest that a new newspaper was being formed and that it would have been pro government.
Even the Stabroek News did not at the time of the withdrawal make the linkage between the withdrawal and the motive for supporting the Guyana Times.
Stabroek News found other reasons for the government’s actions. It saw the move as one targeting the newspaper for its editorial policy and therefore it argued that the withdrawal amounted to an abuse of press freedom.
It internationalized its case and sought the intervention of press operatives within the region. The campaign was not successful in causing the government to reverse its policy.
It was only after the emergence of the Guyana Times that the government knowing that it would have needed to find a way of eventually placing ads in that newspaper, was a decision taken to restore the ads.
When the Stabroek News first indicated that there was steep reduction in the volume of advertisements it received, the government explained that its policy as regards the placement of ads were in part guided by economic prescriptions and in part by a policy which involved it advertising in the government owned newspaper and one private daily, along with other newspapers, such as the Mirror, with niche markets.
The government justified the reduction of ads to the Stabroek News on the basis on an existing policy, which had seen it advertize in one private daily, along with the State-owned newspaper; as well as the marketing considerations.
This newspaper adopted a position of principle since at the time there was no indication that the Stabroek News was being penalized for its editorial policy.
In fact, this newspaper pointed to the fact that its columnists were harsher on the government than the editorials of the Stabroek News and therefore if the withdrawal were a means of punishing a newspaper for its content then this newspaper would have suffered a withdrawal. Its columnists were more critical of the government that the Stabroek News.
In addition, the policy of the government was one, which had for the first ten years of the existence of this newspaper denied it ads.
This newspaper has always held to the view that marketing and business considerations should guide the placement of ads.
We have always held that responses to ads, value for money and circulation are elements that should guide the placement of ads.
Since this newspaper was the largest circulated newspaper in Guyana, we felt that the ads we received were justified.
This was the principle that guided this newspaper’s response to the withdrawal. The question of solidarity did not arise because this newspaper supported the position that marketing considerations should guide the placement of ads, and this was the justification which was being offered by the government along with its stated policy in advertising in the State-owned newspaper and one private daily.
Perhaps we misread the real motive of the government. But if we did, then so did the main victim, Stabroek News, which assumed that it was being punished for its editorial policy.
This newspaper has in recent months seen its share of government ads reduced. We have also seen the disproportionate placements of ads in the Guyana Times which has negligible circulation.
And thus we believe that the government is not consistent in its advertisement policy since there is no way that it can justify the volume of ads placed in the Guyana Times.
This newspaper, however, is not interested in being a cry baby. It is not interested in going down the route taken by Stabroek News. It is fully aware of the threats that have been made against this newspaper and where these threats emanated.
When these threats were brought to our attention, we immediately alerted our readership.
It is in this readership that the Kaieteur News rests its fate. A decision was taken to reduce our vulnerability by taking steps to reduce our dependency on government ads so just in case someone decides to fully withdraw all ads from this newspaper, then this newspaper must be prepared to survive.
This is why the decision was taken to increase the price of the newspaper by $20. It was done so as to reduce this newspaper dependence on government ads and allow it to continue to report fearlessly and independently as it has always done.

---

---