ON Monday October 13, 2025, during a call-in programme on the Freddie Kissoon Show, a caller made a brief swipe at the government for being hostile to certain media houses in Guyana. That caller was referring to a September 5 exchange between President Ali and a journalist and a subsequent statement by the Guyana Press Association which accused the government of “hostile and dismissive … callous treatment” of media workers.
The caller claimed government bias and lack of press freedom. Freddie chimed in with a comment, that the Stabroek News more than any other paper embraces an insane level of anti-government bias. He opined that the Chief Editor is taking the paper down irredeemable paths that can only lead to its demise because the majority of the consuming public are fair-minded, decent people who expect fair and balanced coverage. I then chimed in by advocating for a rebalancing of ads share based on viewership/readership and browsing analytics.
The following day, I was at the studio and ran into Guyanese Critic. I asked him how much government ad revenue his social media channel gets given its popularity, he said none. He wanted to know why I asked. I said it was time we opened a discussion about the fair distribution of government ads based on share of eyeballs.
Two days later, the Vice-President spoke pointedly on the subject at his press conference. He made mention that a significant share of government ads was going disproportionately to some print mediums with falling readership. He expressed a commitment to review the system, in that, the government would place ads where it will demonstrably reach more people.
In the world of superstition, when the 13th of any month falls on Friday, that day is considered an unlucky, ominous day associated with bad luck called a Black Day or Black Friday, distinct from the American traditional shopping day. Friday the 13th of February, 2026, was a Black Friday for Stabroek News (SN). We learned that the news outlet will wind down business and shut down the publication.
SN was born at a time when Guyana yearned for an independent newsprint. The newspaper had its journalistic ups and downs but for the most part we respected the outlet as being independent and balanced. We could observe threads of anti-PPP orientation in its choice of columnists but, this was moderated by the quality and orientation of the hard news.
So, readers looked to the columns for an alternative to government framing on issues. For example, SN gave free column space to small parties, especially the AFC, whose messages may have otherwise not been given the light of day. The fact-based nature of the hard-news section was generally reliable, so SN was considered the most credible newspaper in Guyana for a long time.
However, when the PPP was returned to office under the presidency of Dr Ali, something changed at SN. Its columnists and editorials became savagely anti-government in dimensions never seen before. Even the hard news section was framed with strong tendencies towards aggressive anti-government, anti-PPP reporting. Freddie Kissoon has a sociological explanation for the direction SN took. His theory is that the owners of SN are part of a Mulato progeny who are anti dark-skinned and anti-working-class, and at the deep philosophical level, they believe the dark-skinned and working-class “country boo boo” upbringing of Dr Ali falls outside the entitlement coterie.
SN began a rapid post-2020 slide in circulation and several reasons are attributable. First, SN failed to reform its business model. It hardly made a foray into the social media space; it chose to hold on to an online subscription format not consistent with Guyanese preference, a format most readers were not interested in.
Many news outlets provide almost instant coverage of events via various online platforms, while readers have to wait till the next day to get anything from SN. In the modern media world, that turnover timeline is fatal and the outfit became an old news outlet. People only consulted SN to see what their perspective was, having already digested the coverage of the news from 1,000 angles almost instantly.
Further, as mentioned above, SN could no longer be relied upon for balance and independence as their themes became a bland anti-government predictability. Once this was their operating environment, the mystical Aramaic phrase “mene mene tekel upharsin” was bound to appear on their storyboard.
In their announcement, SN hinted that declining revenue from government placements was a major factor in their decision to end publication. This cannot be true, even though SN has not proven its circulation in the public space, SN received the second highest proportion of government ads after the Chronicle, simply because the government used historical data from a decade ago when SN was more respected. It is being noised around that the government owes SN for about five months’ worth of ads. SN also said that late payments were a deliberate act to single out and frustrate its business cash flow. Then it was revealed that government owes all media houses hefty sums, so it couldn’t be that SN was targeted for disfavour.
SN also claimed that it attempted to diversify into radio and was repeatedly refused a radio licence. This is absolutely inaccurate. While I was Chairman of the GNBA, upon assuming the position, I was asked by then Prime Minister for details on the SN application since the government of the day had keen interest in granting a radio licence to SN. I requested their file and found that the application was defective and/or incomplete. At the time a simultaneous application to the National Frequency and Management Unit was also required. From the information gathered, that too was defective. I invited the general manager of SN, Ms Khan, to a meeting to discuss the defects in their application and stated my willingness to provide any assistance the GNBA could provide to rectify the defects and omissions.
Up to the time of leaving, in November 2016, SN made no effort known to the GNBA to fulfil the legal requirements for a full and complete application. I am unable to vouch for what occurred after I left, but I did make cursory enquiries in early 2020 and the information received indicated that SN still did not have a full and complete application for a radio licence. Therefore, the claims of denial of a radio licence to SN has to be nothing short of bull crap and scapegoating.
No doubt SN made positive contributions to this dear land. There were good years, hundreds of employees, contributions to private-sector development, SN pioneered private media in the post-1980 era and acted as a good corporate citizen. A debt of gratitude to its founders and managers. God speed!