By Reporters Without Borders,Stabroek News

Copyright stabroeknews

Dear Editor,

I am writing in response to the letter published on September 16, titled “Reporters Without Borders statement misrepresents the state of press freedom in this country.” The author wrote a defense of the government’s conduct towards the press. Unfortunately, the author misses the forest for the trees, as I will demonstrate.

Freedom of expression is the umbrella principle that creates the framework for democratic engagement under which a government and a press can engage openly. A free press is one that has the ability to scrutinize elected officials. Whether those inquiries or reported narratives are justified or truthful is for the public to decide. A diligent public would be able to discern truth-values from the ever-expanding dissemination of falsities. The author would agree that if a government official feels a piece of reporting is inaccurate, unjust, or false, then it warrants a matter for the courts to decide. However, when the highest levels of government engage in sustained personal attacks against reporters, or threaten to undermine their freedom of expression, it creates a chilling effect that intimidates other journalists into silence; that is to say, it would instill an awareness that certain criticisms or expressions can come with dire consequences. This sort of approach does not create a healthy environment for discourse nor is it conducive to assuring press freedom.

Reporters Without Borders assert that when executive power is extensive, it puts press freedom at risk. Therefore, protecting the media from government interference or acts of intimidation is essential for maintaining the free press. The author downplayed the relevance of the concerns raised by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) about the President’s power to appoint the GNBA board. While examples were given regarding the appointment process from other nations, what is distinct in Guyana is that the executive holds significant leverage to make those appointments.

In a small and politically polarized nation such as Guyana, such power poses a genuine risk to regulatory independence. A free press cannot operate effectively under a system where the government it is meant to scrutinize also holds the power to take away its privileges and license to operate, whether directly or indirectly. While the author spends quality time presenting the executive arm as a victim of an overly critical media, they fail to grasp an obvious but critical distinction between the executive and the press. The executive wields power over all institutions. The reach of the executive is not equivalent to the reach of the press. Indeed, the President can seek legal adjudication to settle claims of falsehoods or libel, but the laws and its institutions are not tailored to provide an appropriate defense to the one who has no real power, specifically journalists.

Finally, attempting to discredit the Guyana Press Association by citing the past employment of two of its members is an ad hominem that is repugnant. A press association’s duty is to defend freedom of the media, regardless of who is in power. To portray the GPA as leaning partisan is to poison the reputation of the Association itself. However, that same sense of partisan taint is what the author conveniently neglects to apply to public institutions that the government is responsible for overseeing.

I conclude that the issues raised by RSF are valid and point to an environment where hostility from public officials and the potential for regulatory overreach threaten the press’s ability to hold power accountable without fear.

Ferlin Pedro