In its inaugural report on coverage of the 2015 elections campaign, the Media Monitoring Unit (MMU) of the Guyana Elections Commission has flayed the state-owned Guyana Chronicle for two “blatantly inflammatory” editorials and it also took aim at items in two other newspapers and a programme on CNS TV.
Reintroduced for the May 11th general election the MMU’s March report released on Tuesday lauded the performance of electronic medium I-NEWS and held it up as an exemplar.
In its commentary on the Guyana Chronicle, the MMU cited its editorial of March 10, 2015, captioned, `Make the right decisions on May 11’.
“The MMU takes issue with the editorial department of the newspaper for the general tone of the editorial, the unsubstantiated allegations made therein, and its unmistakably inflammatory nature.
“For starters, it did not miss our attention that in a somewhat devious ploy to justify what came after, the editorial started off by making specious and unsubstantiated allegations of a violent nature against the opposition political parties, namely APNU and AFC. The writer then goes on to conjure up a frightening sanguinary portent of the nation’s future should the aforementioned two opposition political parties accede to government after the forthcoming elections. This prediction by the writer is evident from the following chilling and wholly ill-conceived remarks (para. 4): `Cry a river of blood for our country, and for the annihilation of hope for peace in the nation as headlines scream the death-knell of the nations flowers while fountains of champagne celebrate the death of the innocents, because man’s inhumanity to man knows no boundaries, nor loyalties to kith, kin, or country; but only to the id and the ego – and the egomaniacs proliferate; and history resounds with the cries of their victims’”, the report said.
The MMU argued that the author of the editorial left no doubt in the minds of readers as to who are the supposed perpetrators of this imaginary Guyanese pogrom as in the preceding paragraph to one quoted above, it is clearly stated that, “The celebrations and toasts to the coalition’s victory herald a frightening scenario…..”
The MMU said that taken in its entirety or by sections, the editorial is in clear breach of Section B 2(C) of the Media Code of Conduct (MCC) which says in part that, “Gratuitous publication of…inflammatory language for sensational purposes is unacceptable”.
The MMU report further added that the editorial was “politically extremist and telegraphed a pernicious and sinister intent to create unnecessary fear, tension and insecurity in the country. In every respect also, it was antithetical to good order, peace and stability – the pre-requisites for a smooth and trouble-free elections process.”
The MMU then addressed the Guyana Chronicle editorial of March 14, 2015, captioned, “Participatory leadership”.
The MMU said that the writer touched on a number of issues which for the most part were scathingly critical of the PNC and AFC and full of praise for former president, Dr Cheddi Jagan and the PPP/C. Finding no fault with that, the MMU said that the final paragraph was problematic.
That paragraph said “The hardcore veterans whose charter includes utilization of all the Machiavellian strategies contained in the diabolical X-13 Plan are making the nation cry rivers of blood while the voice of reason has been silenced in the thunder of the canons that devastate the nation’s hope for a brighter future.”
Said the MMU: “In vain we tried to figure out the connecting thread between the preceding paragraphs in the editorial and the gist of the final one as quoted above. For us, the last paragraph represented a quantum shift by the writer, from keeping within the bounds of propriety to bizarrely nose-diving into the pits of the unsubstantiated and inflammatory.
“Moreover, quite disturbingly, the language used in the final paragraph is expressed in the present tense, giving the impression as it is, that the country is currently in some kind of dystopian state of internal upheaval spawned by bloodletting (“…the nation cry rivers of blood…”), when, in fact, such a scenario is far removed from reality”.
The MMU said that there was an uncanny similarity between the final paragraph of the editorial and the “Cry river of blood” theme in the newspaper’s March 10, 2015 editorial.
“It gives one the ineluctable impression that the newspaper’s editorial writer(s) has/have a fiendish fascination, nay, obsession, with extolling narratives of societal mayhem and gore, unmindful of the potential negative consequences of such indelicate penmanship. And in light of this observation, we asked ourselves the question: What does the management of the Guyana Chronicle Newspaper hope to gain by sanctioning the publication of editorial views/opinions intended to drive fear of a violent kind into the minds of citizens?”, the MMU stated.
The MMU concluded that the highlighted part of the editorial was spurious, unsubstantiated, and inflammatory, and should have been excised from the leader in keeping with Section B 2(C) and E (2) of the MCC.
Guyana Times
Also on the MMU radar was an article published in the Guyana Times on Monday, March 6, 2015, captioned `Granger pushes envelope on incitement’ (pg.14).
That article alleged that the leader of APNU+AFC, told a rally in Linden on Saturday, March 14, 2015 that it was the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) that had killed ex-soldier, Courtney Crum-Ewing.
The MMU said that after carefully going through the article in its entirety it found three instances where Granger was directly quoted by the newspaper. The first and second quotes stated: “I feel hurt. I feel wounded… Courtney was the first to fall” and “He was killed because he had a bullhorn in his hand…was executing his constitutional rights and was silenced.” The third quote read: Granger said he was deeply hurt over Crum-Ewing’s murder and pointed fingers directly at the governing party for the man’s execution as he told the persons gathered that he was convinced Crum-Ewing’s death was the result of the actions of the “rulers of darkness.” [Emphasis MMU].
“The Unit found in the above evidence that the reporter who wrote the article fallaciously construed the term “rulers of darkness” allegedly used by Mr. Granger to mean the PPP/C, because nowhere in the article is Mr. Granger quoted as saying in direct language that the PPP/C killed Courtney Crum-Ewing.
“Based on all that has been outlined, the Unit’s conclusion is that the headline of the article was deliberately sensationalist, misleading and inflammatory. Further, it was obvious that in the accompanying story, Mr. Granger’s remarks were ingeniously distorted to fit the agenda of the article, which to all intents and purposes, was to deceive from the ‘get-go’”, the MMU said.
It said that the publication of this article by the Guyana Times violated Section I of the MCC, which states that, “The media acknowledge that the deliberate distortion of reality so as to lead the public to a particular understanding of events and issues, without regard for reality, can poison the processes of democracy and therefore should not be done.”
Kaieteur News
The MMU also took issue with the banner headline on the front page of the Tuesday, March 10, 2015 edition of the Kaieteur News, captioned `Rohee endorses Jagdeo statement that PPP is a ‘coolie people’ party.’
The MMU said that at first glance, the headline conveyed the impression that former president, Bharrat Jagdeo made a statement that the PPP is a ‘coolie people’ party. It said that this impression is further bolstered by the third paragraph of the article, which stated that, “Jagdeo made this statement on Sunday when he spoke at the memorial service held in honour of former President and founder member of the PPP, the late Dr. Cheddi Jagan at Babu Jaan, Corentyne, Berbice.”
The MMU said that after replaying the speech it did not hear anywhere in Jagdeo’s speech the comments attributed to him by the newspaper.
It noted that Jagdeo did say that in the last elections, people in African villages were urged to vote and throw out the ‘coolie people’ but never that the PPP was a `coolie people’ party
The MMU found that the KN headline as prominently displayed on the front page of the newspaper, was “sensationalist, deliberately deceptive, and racially divisive. The Unit also found that there was a glaring disconnect between the caption of the story and the supporting content, which suggests that it was the overriding intention of the newspaper to misrepresent and distort.
“Also, what was most troubling was the obvious agenda of the headline, which to all intents and purposes was crafted and tailored to generate feelings of racial alienation, disgust, and ill-will amongst Guyanese towards the PPP, and to generally sow further ethnic discord in the society”.
It found that the newspaper had violated Sections B (1), E (3), H, and I of the Code.
“… we take this opportunity to advise the management of Kaieteur News Newspaper to in future desist from engaging in such racially divisive actions, which have the potential to derail genuine national efforts aimed at forging peaceful social relationships between and amongst all ethnic/racial groupings in the country, especially so, in this period of electioneering, when the issue of race historically tends to predominate political and social discourses in the public domain.
“Apropos, it is our informed view that the issue of race, at this time, has to be treated with editorial caution and utmost sensitivity, since, as we all know, public discussions on the topic shapes and influences to a large extent, voters’ opinions, and ultimately, the choices they make on elections day”, the MMU said.
The MMU did not comment negatively on any content in Stabroek News over the period monitored.
CNS Channel Six
The MMU said it was very concerned about some comments aired on the live call-in segment of the Voice of the People programme, broadcast on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 and hosted by Jaipaul Sharma.
The MMU referred to two exchanges that took place between the host and two separate callers to the programme. The verbatim written transcripts of these exchanges are as follows:
(1) Caller: “…I want them to know Mr. Sharma we are prepared for them, we are ex-soldiers and we will prepare for them…”
Host (J.S):“Okay, good, thank you!”
(2) Caller: “…If the East Indian people pay attention to the arrogance of Bharrat Jagdeo, Ramotar, and these people they would ketch sense. I join with the other caller that say we are ex-soldiers, we are ready for them, we waiting on them, you understand. This election will not be like the last few elections in Guyana. We waiting on them Mr. Sharma…”
Host (J.S): “Good, thank you!”
The MMU said that on both occasions the callers explicitly identified themselves as ex-soldiers, and in both instances their comments formed implicit threats against “them”.
“It is our view that when both comments are taken within the context in which they were made (relative to the coming elections), anyone, even a simpleton for that matter, would recognize “them” to be either the government or the ruling PPP/C, or both.
“More so, in following the trend of the two conversations, the Unit found that the host acted irresponsibly in not attempting to curtail the remarks immediately upon sensing the territory into which the callers were going with their outbursts. Alternatively, it is also our view, that if perchance the host’s cognitive reflexes did not allow at the said time for the early interception and possible truncation of the callers’ remarks, at a minimum, as a responsible host, he should have cautioned or upbraided both callers during or at the end of the calls, especially in light of the nature of the threats made, which undoubtedly have implications for national security”, the MMU said.
It concluded that the programme contravened Section B (1) of the MCC, which states inter alia that the media should refrain from “…broadcasting any matter with the potential for, or likelihood of promoting or causing public disorder, posing or becoming a threat to the security of the state…”
