Dear Editor,
Since the announced closure of SN almost a week ago, I engaged Guyanese in Guyana and the diaspora for their views on this historic development. Everyone, regardless of political affiliation and past critical views of SN, expressed sadness and discomfort that the paper will be no more, that they will no longer be able to access credible, independent, professional news reporting or coverage and balanced commentary. Even those most critical of SN, and most loyal to one or the other political parties, are at a loss of words that the paper is closing. They say they will miss the paper and don’t want it to leave the scene. Like me, they feel it is a deep loss to outstanding reporting and holding politicians as well as government and opposition accountable. Regardless of how public feel about SN, it provided credible coverage for which it is lauded.
SN has had a history of devotion to accurate reporting, apologizing when it erred. It is a paper that is not personality driven, attacking critics or opponents as unprofessionally featured in other publications. Some are shedding crocodile tears. There are a few who are in glee, including one columnist featured in another paper, that SN is going down under; he was never short in views critical of the paper’s founder Mr. de Caires, his wife Doreen, daughter Isabelle and Editor-in-Chief Anand Persaud. We are all responsible for SN closing shop. Only a few of us came out in defense of the paper when on the ropes battling for press freedom. A benefiting public did not come out strongly enough to protect the paper and those associated with it. They did not appeal enough to the international community and ABCE countries in particular to come to the paper’s defense when attacked by politicians.
I will cite a few comments obtained from tributes in a KN editorial (Feb 19) and Peeping Tom (Feb 15) and that also reflect my views of SN. “The editors and reporters and other contributors at SN stood in lockstep to produce a quality paper on a consistent basis… a paper that was respected, and which will be spoken of with fond feelings long after its last edition… there is joy in recognising (SN as) a champion presence, a courageous contributor to democracy, a free press, and free speech in Guyana. Nation and citizens are better for it… (We) long for the best in integrity and accountability in government, and the truths when such is not the case, weigh (our) loss with the departure of SN. Would news be presented in the form of official half-truths, exaggerations, propaganda, and the general deviousness that led to SN leaving the scene? There has never been any doubt about SN dedication to good governance, honest leadership, and what is best for all Guyanese… Can the void created by SN leaving the national media space be filled? Managing the void in the most professional and ethical manner, and through a commitment to the highest journalistic standards, would be best… SN has served the people of Guyana well, by holding one government after another to the highest standards of accountability… This stood as a symbol of press freedom and independent journalism in our country”.
The Peeper tribute correctly blamed the public in Guyana and the diaspora for SN’s closure.[1] SN started as a weekly in November 1986 under very challenging times. The Hoyte dictatorship granted a permit to publish but denied the paper newsprint or foreign currency to purchase print or pay for printing in Trinidad. Soon, “It became flag bearer of press freedom in Guyana… it stood firm (against government) … challenged governments when necessary, exposed wrongdoing, gave voice to the voiceless, provided space for debate, including through its letter pages, and became a guardian of democratic values… extremely painful to see it go… It cost only $100 a weekday issue, less than the price of many everyday items people buy without hesitation. Yet many chose not to support it. They turned instead to “free” news on social media—often unverified, unreliable, and driven by rumour. They preferred the illusion of freeness, without considering the cost to our democracy. Guyanese diaspora must also reflect on its role. … (They) follow events back home, debate politics on social media, comment on developments, express strong views about governance and democracy. Yet many did not enroll in paid digital subscriptions that could have provided a steady stream of revenue for SN… many relied on shared articles or free snippets online. In doing so, they too helped to put the final nail in the newspaper’s coffin. Support from abroad could have made a meaningful difference, but that support did not materialise in sufficient numbers”.
Businesses could have saved the paper or at a minimum extend its life if they had taken ads or multiple subscriptions. Fearing victimization, businesses avoided advertisements or association with SN and the independent press. Peeper added: “SN did not close because Guyanese lacked money. It closed because too many lacked commitment. There was a moral obligation to defend press freedom because we all know that when press freedom goes what happens”. Who has forgotten what happened in Guyana from 1968 when press freedom was curtailed? As Peeper assailed us, “a mere $100 per weekday and $150 on Sundays” by more Guyanese would have rescued the paper. Its closure is “a serious blow to press freedom. It narrows the space for independent thought. It weakens accountability. It diminishes public debate”. Peeper adds: “Democracy demands participation. Supporting independent journalism is one such form of participation. History will record that SN fought many battles. But in its final battle for survival, it stood largely alone. And that is also applicable to the small handful of us who fought for democracy (1968 onwards) only to be victimized because we refused to support wrongdoings by one government or the other.