Dear Editor,
PPP General Secretary Mr Clement Rohee recently (February) condemned the independent media as being anti-government and having an anti-PPP, pro-opposition political agenda. The General Secretary singled out the Stabroek News and cited statistics compiled by Freedom House to support his claims of media bias.
Given the fact that the PPP compiled the statistics cited, it would be reasonable to conclude that such data may be less than neutral, perhaps even cooked-up. As such, scepticism may be more than justified. In other words Mr Rohee, in attacking Stabroek News, did not derive his so-called evidence from any reputable, independent source. Instead, his party, the PPP, manufactured the statistics used in support of his assertion. As any schoolchild knows, such ‘evidence’ is intrinsically unreliable, invariably biased and extremely unlikely to reflect the true state of affairs. As such, Mr Rohee’s assertion and ‘evidence’ lack any semblance of credibility.
On the other hand, there is overwhelming, independently gathered and analysed evidence that the PPP/C government enjoys unfair, disproportionate and unfettered access to media outlets, much to the detriment of the political opposition and indeed, all Guyanese. Moreover, many of these pro-PPP/C media houses, specifically, the state media, are funded by Guyanese taxpayers. So, the PPP/C have effectively hijacked the state-owned media and unfairly converted the people’s property to the PPP/C’s private use and benefit.
This most recent attack on the independent press is but one in a litany of assaults against press freedom, designed to intimidate journalists and drive fear into the minds of those who may oppose the administration’s shenanigans.
In October 2013, Mr Rohee announced that the ruling PPP/C regime wants a special body to oversee the operations of the local media. No doubt, the PPP/C want to create a media-monitoring body loaded with PPP/C cronies and sycophants, to muzzle the few remaining independent voices brave enough to operate in the hostile environment created by the ruling oligarchy.
This is not mere speculation; there is overwhelming evidence of the PPP/C’s intentions. Prior to the 2006 elections the Media Monitoring Unit (MMU) was established and given a mandate to monitor the media. The MMU operated under the autonomous Guyana Elections Commission and funded by agencies under the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The independent MMU submitted a report each month.
In each and every MMU report the PPP/C controlled state media were heavily criticised for bias. For example, in November 2011 the MMU reported on media activity during the general election campaign. Among the findings: The state-owned NCN radio, TV and Chronicle were heavily biased in favour of the PPP/C at a staggering ratio of 176:1 (176 reports favourable to the PPP/C for every 1 report favourable to another party). The MMC found that the Chronicle’s editorials favoured the PPP/C at a ratio of 188:1. Also, Channel 65, owned by a PPP/C minister and relative of Bharrat Jagdeo was pro-PPP/C at a rate of 52:1. The Guyana Times owned by Dr Bobby Ramroop’s company carried no negative reports of the PPP/C and no positive reports on APNU. If this is not conclusive evidence of PPP/C domination of the media, what is?
The PPP/C, under former President Jagdeo eventually disbanded it in 2010. Apparently, the independent MMU was not to be tolerated by this authoritarian regime. And now, the current administration wants to set up a PPP/C controlled media oversight body to perpetuate the campaign of fear and intimidation.
The evidence of the PPP/C’s penchant for clamping down on free expression is not limited to shutting down the MMU. We can recall that in July 2008, the President, angered by the outspoken Capitol News journalist Gordon Moseley, arbitrarily banned him from media events at the Office of the President and State House.
We can recall President Jagdeo insultingly labelling the independent media, “the new opposition,” in July, 2008.
We remember that in November, 2006, advertising was withdrawn from the Stabroek News in a transparent attempt to financially strangle the newspaper and beat the publication into submission.
We recall the harassment of CNS TV and the station’s owner, C N Sharma. His licence was summarily suspended by the President in July 2010, along with that of HBTV, another independent station.
I will not even mention the giveaway of broadcast and cable licences to friends and relatives of Mr Jagdeo. This intention to totally control the minds of Guyanese has been extensively covered and condemned by local and international bodies.
International bodies have been outspoken in their criticism of the PPP/C’s heavy-handed attitude towards the press. The Organisation of American States (OAS) said that the disparity and lack of opposition access to state media is an area of deep concern. The International Press Institute (IPI), which sent observers to Guyana in April 2013 were dismayed by the media situation. The IPI noted extreme inequalities in the distribution of state advertisements with the Chronicle and PPP owned Mirror receiving more than four times the ads compared with Kaieteur News (KN) and Stabroek News (SN). This, despite the fact that KN has more than double the readership of the Chronicle, and the Mirror has a negligible number of readers. The regime’s claim that the disparity in ad placements was a business decision was therefore thoroughly debunked.
The IPI made several recommendations following the Guyana visit, among them: Revise the laws which allow government officials to intimidate reporters using the legal system; encourage transparency; transform the state media into public media, serving the interests of all Guyanese and not just the government. Ensure that the office of the Commissioner of Information is independent; distribute government ads fairly, among others.
Given the facts, it is no surprise that Guyana ranked a deplorable 67th out of 180 countries in the most recent, Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index.
This PPP/C regime may have also violated numerous laws including Section 146 (1) of the constitution which guarantees the right to free speech, holding opinions and receiving information; Principle 7 of the Declaration of Chapúltepec which prohibits discrimination against journalists because of what they write or say (Guyana signed the declaration on May 24, 2002), among other international conventions.
In light of these facts, the real evidence is overwhelming: the ruling PPP/C regime has a huge advantage in access to the media including the ability to use money from the public treasury to spread partisan propaganda, and the regime continues to use this advantage to silence dissent. They now want to make their stranglehold absolute by attacking the few remaining independent media houses.
The ruling PPP/C often claims that opposition parties can use the independent press to get their message out. What the PPP/C does not mention is that the opposition must pay for such exposure. Unlike the ruling party, the opposition has no access to state funds and state-owned broadcast facilities.
In conclusion: Freedom of the press is a basic tenet of democratic governance; democracy simply does not exist in the absence of a free press; democracy cannot exist in an atmosphere of fear.
In this case it is easy to separate reality from fabrication, the truth from the lies. Who should we believe: the findings of reputable, respected local and international bodies with no vested interest, or the PPP with their concocted statistics and obvious agenda of intimidation?
Yours faithfully,
Mark DaCosta
