Dear Editor,
I refer to a section of the article ‘Media slammed over ‘poor’ parliament coverage’ written by Ms Miranda La Rose which appeared in the edition of May 29. That section reported on opposition MPs claiming that “only government MP’s presentations were aired during peak periods while opposition MP’s presentations were aired during the ‘graveyard’ hours.”
NCN is of the firm opinion that the news report wittingly or unwittingly used statements by the opposition to tarnish the image of the company. I would be bold enough to suggest also that the reporter did not apply professional journalistic practice in presenting a balanced report. A simple call to me would have revealed that the assertions by the MPs are exactly what they are: assertions and mischievous.
The truth is that broadcasts were done in the order of the respective contributions in parliament. The last budget debate is a typical example of our policy. Broadcasts began at about 21:30h each evening and on almost every day, it started with an opposition member. It is true that the broadcasts went into early the next day and this is simply because on most days there were in excess of 8 hours of debate and presentations. Our broadcast hours are not unlimited, and as such some speakers on both sides of the House would have their contributions aired during the “graveyard hours.” In most cases, it was an opposition speaker followed by a government one. Those who made those statements at the conference are not honest and the reporter either fell prey or was simply too lazy to verify the accuracy of statements. Incidentally, I was at one of the sessions at the conference yesterday when a presenter lamented the laziness of some reporters to produce a balanced and accurate story. In the very paragraph also opposition MPs were complaining a lack of access while at the same time acknowledging that broadcasts were indeed done on NCN.
Yours faithfully,
Martin Goolsarran
