The behaviour of the government over the budget cuts leads one to believe that only the hurt of it and its supporters’ matters and that the government is completely blame free of any action that has caused similar hurt to sections of the Guyanese community. Both propositions are completely fallacious. The suspension of CNS Channel Six by the previous government on several occasions is a case in point.
It must be one of the supreme ironies in local, contemporary media history that the same GINA that has fallen victim to the opposition’s pruning is the same one that helmed the PPP/C government’s savage campaign against Stabroek News in 2006 when all government advertisements were withdrawn from the newspaper for 17 months and public corporations were prevailed upon not to advertise with it. GINA, of course, had only been operating on the instructions of sanctimonious, high functionaries in the office of the President. That campaign was the quintessential attack on press freedom, freedom of expression and the livelihoods of over 100 workers. The government lopped off a significant chunk of SN’s revenues without any concern whatsoever for the impact of this unfair decision on the livelihoods of the publishing company’s employees and even though as a well-established and reputable media entity SN was entitled to a fair portion of the taxpayers’ money spent on government advertising. That act severely damaged the press freedom credentials of the government and the blemish remains.
This was a trifling matter for all in the PPP and its government except for the late, former President, Mrs Janet Jagan who called clearly for an end to the advertising boycott to no avail. Then General Secretary and now President, Mr Donald Ramotar was conspicuous by his silence as were many others in the party hierarchy. Thankfully, SN was able to survive that period due to the perseverance of its employees, loyalty of its customers and unstinting support to the company from friends of the newspaper. In effect, what the Jagdeo administration had tried to do via GINA was to cut off an important revenue source for SN with the expectation that this would cause the paper to collapse and clear the way for a new journal friendly to the government. Press freedom won out and the former president’s machinations and the aspiration for a third term in office were defeated.
Governments are properly entitled to have information on their programmes and activities disseminated to all of the public in a manner that is neutral and straightforward. GINA unfortunately was anything but this. The government mercilessly commandeered its employees on cheerleading expeditions in every nook and cranny of this country. Its activities in the last three months before the November 28 general election are eloquent evidence of this. GINA in effect was used by the government for electioneering purposes amid the broader, naked abuse of state resources by the Jagdeo administration. It is in this context that the opposition vote against the GINA allocation should be seen.
The government has at least two reasonable options before it. The GINA information officers can be redeployed to ministries and government departments that require dissemination of information. Ministries traditionally have their own information functions and there is no reason why each of the GINA officers couldn’t be seconded to them and other agencies such as the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority.
Second, in light of the commendable commitment of President Ramotar to continued dialogue with the opposition there is every prospect that if the government sat down with the two opposition parties they can agree a way forward for GINA. This should refer to the actual substance of what its work is and the limiting of the demeaning photo opportunities of ministers handing over taxpayers-funded equipment to toshaos, NDCs and the like. There are Caribbean examples of government information services that could provide pointers on the way ahead.
NCN has also been utilised by the PPP/C to preserve it in office. This smokescreen about it being a “private entity” is so ludicrous that it could be immediately discounted. NCN’s privacy ended exactly at the point that it became state property. Has it been divested by the state?
Media monitoring reports and local assessments have indicated clearly the flagrant and rampant bias in NCN’s reportage and its precious attempt to distinguish between coverage of government activities and PPP/C activities. It has also refused to allocate sufficient coverage to the activities of the opposition parties in Parliament. In the Jagdeo period, in particular, it would be a rare news broadcast that didn’t begin with and probably end with `President Jagdeo…’ or `Minister’ this or that. It needs to represent the interests of all stakeholders.
Its behaviour had come on the radar as far back as the Jagdeo/Hoyte dialogue which failed for the lack of good faith negotiating. NCN’s board of directors must be reconstituted and made representative of the stakeholders of the country. Further, it must be imbued with the essential truth that it is not the public relations arm of the PPP/C or its government. The same manner in which government ministers have appeared on NCN to defend their ministries and denounce the budget cuts, APNU and the AFC should be similarly permitted to explain their positions.
Again, there should be dialogue among the government and the opposition to hammer out an accord on the way forward for NCN.
No media worker in any part of the country should have his or her job jeopardized because of the exercise of political power. By the same token, no media worker must be exploited in a manner that reduces their professionalism and makes them vulnerable to changing political tides.
