I have noticed that much of their criticism consists of personal and uninformed opinions. At no point have I seen any published content analysis or empirical evidence provided to support their stance, even by those who claim to be academic authorities. In these days of social media freedom and easy access to writing platforms, it is easy to write using impressive-sounding words. However, much of the criticism lacks substance and demonstrates little understanding of newspaper journalism.

This reminds me of a discussion I once had with the late writer Balkrishna Naipaul, nephew of the late Nobel Prize winner Sir Vidia Naipaul. Balkrishna had gone to the United Kingdom to study and, as a young writer, he told me he sought help from his uncle. One day, Balkrishna submitted about fifteen pages of writing for Sir Vidia to review. “Bal, you don’t have anything here,” was Sir Vidia’s response. I dare say that many of these critics similarly have nothing in their ramblings.

I wonder whether critics of the newspaper understand basic concepts such as what constitutes news, what is considered hard news, and the inverted pyramid style. I doubt whether they even examine the structure of a newspaper to see how hard news, features, commentaries, and editorials differ in format and style. More importantly, they should accept that every newspaper owner and editor has a point of view, as expressed in editorial columns. If the editorials of the Stabroek News reflect views contrary to those of the government, that is their democratic right.

With a proper understanding of newspaper journalism, content can be intelligently analyzed and objective criticism derived.

Sincerely,
Dhanraj Bhagwandin
Journalist and Writer