One can only marvel at the government’s predilection for adding to its problems with seeming abandon. Has it completely lost touch with the real world, one wonders, or doesn’t it care about consequences any longer? Or then again, is it perhaps hoping that the media will behave like a bee confronted with too many blossoms – alighting here, then there, then somewhere else, without ever pausing long enough to extract the full quantum of nectar from a single floret. But whatever the reason – indifference or lack of judgement or an intention to distract from other issues – the administration’s latest salvo directed against a private media house can find no justification in any normal democratic state.
The current instalment in the now long-running saga of the government versus the independent media began last week, when Capitol News senior reporter and producer Mr Gordon Moseley was informed first by a security guard outside the Office of the President (OP) and then by way of a letter signed by GINA head Mr Neaz Subhan, that he was persona non grata at State House and OP. The reason, he was informed, was because of “disparaging and disrespectful” remarks contained in a letter to this newspaper which subsequently appeared in the Kaieteur News as well. Mr Subhan went on to say that GINA would be “inclined to review the decision providing that you issue an apology…” Mr Moseley subsequently told the media that he had no intention of doing any such thing.
Some days later in a letter published in this newspaper as well as in the state-owned Chronicle, Dr Prem Misir, writing in his capacity as Head of the OP’s Press & Public Affairs Unit, said that Mr Moseley could continue to provide coverage of the President “at events external to the Office of the President and State House premises…” and he also repeated what had been said in the first instance, namely that the ban did not affect other Capitol News personnel.
The letter which has so disconcerted GINA officials and by extension the head of state, since he has not seen fit to overturn the ban, constituted a response to President Jagdeo’s statements to the regional media at a press conference where he was reported to have identified Mr Moseley as a hostile reporter, among other things. What appears to have irked Mr Jagdeo was a report filed by Mr Moseley concerning a meeting the President had had with Guyanese residents in Antigua. The head of state was said to have accused the Capitol News reporter of filing a negative report despite all the “positive things” at the meeting. GINA officials have since been at pains to emphasize that it was not the original report which caused Mr Moseley to be excluded from the OP and State House, but the letter he wrote to the press – as if that makes any real difference.
So what was in the letter which was so problematic? Mr Moseley did describe himself as “truly fed up” with the constant attacks of the President and his office on the private media in general and on Capitol News in particular, and cited another instance some months ago where “unsubstantiated” claims had been made both against him and Capitol News in the newspapers. That, of course, is simply an expression of his state of mind. He did refer to Mr Jagdeo’s “wild and uninformed ramblings about the media” – a perspective not without some foundation, it might be added – but that was about as uninhibited as he got. Pretty tame stuff really, and certainly no reason for declaring him persona non grata.
Mr Moseley did reproduce a transcript of his broadcast at the end of his letter, but since GINA insists that the Antigua report is not an issue, it can be dismissed as a contributory factor to the decision. What one can say is that if Prime Minister Gordon Brown, for example, were to apply the same principles as President Jagdeo to the British press corps, there would hardly be a reporter who would qualify to cross the threshold of Downing Street.
President Jagdeo has acquired a reputation for intemperate outbursts in public, and some of his targets have been individuals in the media. It has been observed before in these columns that it is always better for a President to stand above the fray and avoid ad hominem attacks, but since the Guyanese head of state has elected not to follow this path, he is hardly in a position to demand that those he castigates or insults in public must never respond to his contumely. Contrary to the impression the government sometimes conveys, Guyana is not one glorified kindergarten with its citizens playing the part of nursery school children who have to listen to teacher and not answer back. This is a democracy where people have a constitutional right to express their views, and above all else that includes views on those who govern them. In fact those in public life must expect that they will be the subject of criticism, whether fair or unfair; it simply goes with the turf. In addition, it should hardly be necessary to point out that the media would not be doing its job if all it did was engage in hagiography and peddle government propaganda.
In the case of a head of state, of course, one would expect comments about him not to fall into the category of the vituperative – which they certainly didn’t in this instance. So what we are left with is a gross overreaction to a letter which under normal circumstances would have slipped quietly into the background of the public consciousness fairly quickly, given all that is going on in the Co-operative Republic at the present time. Instead, however, GINA has now afforded the letter great publicity, and it has also given currency to the impression – whether intended or not – that the government believes it has the right to decide which members of the private media can cover official events. That, as the executive surely knows, is unacceptable in a democracy. In the words of Mr Enrico Woolford, Managing Director of Capitol News, it should be directing its efforts to “trying to run the country rather than trying to run the media.” GINA’s decision too lacks coherence. What is the difference between Mr Moseley asking the President a question within the walls of OP, as opposed to two steps outside the OP’s gate? What is the rationale for excluding him from one venue in the case of a public assignment, but not another? It really doesn’t make too much sense.
As it is GINA has now set up the executive for condemnation by international media bodies such as the Association of Caribbean Media Workers and Reporters without Borders. Given the context of the withdrawal of state advertisements from Stabroek News for over a year, the suspension of the licence of CNS Channel 6, the administration’s reluctance to enact Freedom of Information legislation and the continuing government monopoly on radio, this latest act will only serve to raise the suspicions of the international community further that the governing party is really not committed to a free media. And that is surely not a reputation that this government in particular, should be anxious to attract.
The Guyana Press Association has staged protest action in relation to Mr Moseley’s ban, and the President has responded by calling it the “new opposition in Guyana.” Shrill rhetoric, however, is not the answer, and we should seek to return to the status quo ante, whereby Mr Moseley is allowed to do the job he is employed to do without qualifications on venue, and the government gets direct coverage of its press conferences and the like in the private media and not just the state media. The people of Guyana deserve no less.
