Guyana gov't really threatening freedom of press?

I've sat back for a while now and watched the debate about whether or not the government of Guyana is actually threatening the freedom of the press. I was on the fence leaning towards the 'yes it is' side until about 2 minutes ago.

Firstly, I'd like to ask what freedom of the press entails. Freedom of the press is freedom from whom or what? A state's governing body has the legal monopoly on the use of coercive force. If the government is one of your newspaper's larger clients, does that increase or diminish your freedom to publish what you want? I can think of arguments that could go both ways.

A safe assumption may be that if government is no longer a client of a publication, the publication would have more liberty to publish material that is critical of the government.

Likewise it is helpful to examine the government the way one would a self-interested individual. Who in his right mind would choose to fund another entity that is highly critical of it? It's counterintuitive to bankroll the exposure of one's own impropriety. The government is a consumer of advertising. It should be expected to react to the same incentives a company might. Would Banks DIH buy advertising in the same medium that also writes exposes of its executives?

It's fallacious to deal with government while expecting it to act on a higher plane when in fact it will usually act like everyone else, or worse.

It seems to me that Stabroek News doesn't view government ad revenues in this light. My guess is that it sees them as a tax rebate or as a subsidy. A newspaper that gets handouts like that from government can hardly be expected to continue to play the important role of an independent medium. Stabroek News can better serve the public by doing what it can to execute a successful business model without government ad revenue. Businesses that would like to support the newspaper in this new endeavour will do well to continue to purchase ad space.