Chronicle GM fears for safety of staff –following Roopnarine’s boycott, ‘bonfire’ call

GUYANA National Newspapers Limited (GNNL) General Manager, Mr Michael Gordon has very grave concerns about a recent call by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Member of Parliament, Dr Rupert Roopnarine.

Speaking at an APNU rally last Friday at the Square of the Revolution, Roopnarine started off by urging attendees, “Do not buy the Chronicle or the Guyana Times; and when you see Channel 11 come on, change it.”
What was cause for alarm, however, was when he took things up a notch, saying: “Within a very short time, we will have to arrange a ceremony at the Square of the Revolution where we can make an enormous bonfire of the Chronicle and the Guyana Times.”
Asked yesterday what he thought of Dr Roopnarine’s inflammatory declaration, given his Party’s wont to rail at the Government for its perceived attack on Press Freedom, Mr Gordon said:
“It is a sad day in Guyana when an individual, moreso a political leader, believes that a media entity does not represent his views; and as a consequence, he sees it fit to rile the masses against the news entity.”

Dr Rupert Roopnarine

He went on to say: “I think the frivolity of Dr Rupert Roopnarine’s comments borders on the irresponsible. The fact that Dr. Roopnarine has threatened to burn the physical paper itself is cause for concern; I’m now left to wonder whether such threats could be transcended into other spheres; I am now even more concerned than ever about the safety of my staff.”
Recalling the incident that may have incurred Dr Roopnarine’s wrath, Mr Gordon said: “One must note that Dr. Roopnarine’s comments follow, within 72-hours, the publication of comments from him by Guyana Chronicle on the issue of Parliament’s prorogation.”
This brings us to the Declaration of Chapultepec, which addresses the protection and defence of Freedom of the Press. “I do not believe that the Declaration of Chapultepec, to which Guyana is a signatory, speaks only to the Executive Branch of Government,” Mr Gordon said.
Having said that, he expressed the hope that “right-thinking” colleagues of Dr. Roopnarine will “spew scorn” on his unfortunate statements “in the interest of democracy and press freedom.”
Mr. Gordon was also emphatic that the Guyana Chronicle remains committed to the principles of journalism. “The Guyana Chronicle remains committed to upholding the fundamental tenets of journalism, and to providing fair and balanced information, including Dr. Roopnarine’s views, to the general public,” he said.

PRESS FREEDOM NOT SELECTIVE
Asked the same question we did of Mr Gordon, Attorney-General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs, Mr Anil Nandlall, said:
“That is a most unfortunate statement for a seasoned and elder politician to make; one would expect a much more responsible statement from Dr. Roopnarine. His remarks constitute nothing less than an assault on the constitutionally guaranteed right of Freedom of the Press and the right of the Guyanese citizens to receive information.
“I do not expect the Opposition to be supportive of these News Agencies, but at a minimum, they should respect their right to publish, and the right of the Guyanese people to receive that which is published.”
What is even more disappointing, Mr Nandlall said, is the fact that this attack has been extended beyond State media agencies and now includes media operatives who are perceived to be friendly with the Government.
“The attack has now been extended beyond the State media to include private media perceived to be friendly to the Government,” he said.
He made no bones about the fact that the State has a responsibility to ensure that accurate and objective information about the State’s business is disseminated, and that journalists working with the State, as well as in every media house, must not be subjected to any form of pressure in the discharge of their functions.
He said, “I hope that the persons and organisations who came out so stridently in defence of Press Freedom recently will now come out in full force on this matter. Their silence will lend itself as tacit support for Dr. Roopnarine’s obvious thinking that only information that is one-sided; that attacks the Government; and that is biased in a particular direction must permeate the airwaves and the print media.”
To date, there has been a deafening silence on this matter; there’s been not a word from either the APNU or AFC, censuring Dr Roopnarine for making such an inflammatory statement, in clear violation of the very Press Freedom they profess to hold so very dear; nor has there been any move by the Guyana Press Association (GPA) to address the issue in the same vein as it does other matters.
State media agencies have, over the years, been challenged by the disposition of members of Opposition Parties, as well as the attitudes of their supporters whom they influence. Dr. Roopnarine’s comment, in the current political climate, is expected to exacerbate this challenge.