By Miranda La Rose
The media came in for heavy criticism of their parliamentary coverage, or lack of it and their scant highlighting of the work being done by Members of Parliament (MPs) in their geographic constituencies.
As the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association-sponsored parliament and media workshop continued at the Grand Coastal Inn yesterday, it was suggested that training of journalists in parliamentary coverage could help to improve their work, which would in turn educate and better inform the citizenry to make informed choices and add to the debate on issues that affect their well-being.
During the morning session, MPs pounded away at the lack of knowledge of journalists in parliamentary procedures and lack of understanding of the issues debated in the House. Acknowledging the need for training, President of the Guyana Press Association, Denis Chabrol noted that with few exceptions most media houses could not afford to employ reporters to cover only one beat or specialize in only one area because of, among other factors, economic considerations. Often, he said, priority had to be given to areas considered important, taking into account the economic side of the media house which in itself was a business entity.
One media manager suggested that the 2 pm convening of Parliament be changed to the morning hours since a parliamentary session could go late into the night. Given news desks deadlines, this placed a limit on what could be covered, with the exception of course of breaking stories from Parliament.
Much of the focus was on how journalists should do their work, what they should cover and what they should not do, with little focus on what MPs could do or how they should relate to the media.
‘Geographic’ MPs, especially those in the hinterland and riverain regions, such as PPP/C MP Norman Whittaker felt that their presentations in Parliament and work they did in their constituencies were not given any coverage so it would appear that they did not represent their constituencies effectively.
Bermuda’s MP John Barritt, who was once a reporter, lawyer and now politician, felt that no journalist wanted a politician to tell him/her how to do his/her job and no politician wanted to be told by a reporter what was important enough for coverage.
Barritt, along with his colleague MP of Bermuda, Dame Jennifer Smith, felt that the Guyana Parliament was more open to media scrutiny compared to Bermuda’s. They noted that apart from the activities of the National Assembly being open to journalists, the parliamentary sectoral committees were also open to the media but this privilege was yet to be taken full advantage of locally. In Bermuda, the parliamentary sectoral committees are not open to the media.
Meanwhile, there was some criticism by the local media representatives about the lack of balance in the presenters, all of whom were drawn from outside Guyana and were mainly politicians, with an exception or two who were regional media workers.
Some media workers, including this reporter, felt that there was senior local expertise that could have been tapped into.
There was a suggestion, too, that the Guyana Parliament should set up a press or public information unit to liaise with the media and the public in general as has been done in neighbouring Trinidad and Tobago (T&T). In T&T, there was the Parliament Channel 11, dedicated to broadcasting parliamentary debates and other related parliamentary issues to cable subscribers.
There is also live broadcasting on radio frequency 105.5 FM while work is ongoing to allow the T&T Parliament to transmit via free to air television in T&T.
Chabrol and other participants on the floor noted that a press or public information unit in Parliament could be instrumental in the establishment of a parliamentary radio channel which would have greater reach than other media outlets.
He suggested the reactivation of the channel which hosted Radio Roraima in the past for such a purpose.
It was also suggested that the operation and management of such a channel be paid for by the state.
Speaker of the National Assembly Ralph Ramkarran noted that the Parliament Office had plans to appoint a press officer and the position was advertised. However, he said that the response to date has not been good owing to the fact that the remuneration was not attractive enough.
Opposition MPs noted that while there might be live or delayed broadcasts on NCN television, only government MPs were aired during the peak hours while opposition MPs presentations were aired during the “graveyard hours.” The opposition MPs continued their argument about lack of access to the state-owned media.
Noting that politicians were often suspicious of the press and there sometimes existed a lack of trust, Barritt said there could never be a situation in which the politicians and the media were in partnership especially when the media’s focus was on ensuring transparency and accountability on the part of the politicians.
“Maybe that is all part of the checks and balances,” that lead to improved conduct of politicians, he said.
He added that that freedom of expression was a guaranteed right but that right could be abused and many times MPs and public figures were unfairly libelled.
Fighting a libel case, he said was an expensive procedure and as such he felt that parliaments needed to ensure that people had easier access to the courts.
