Dear Editor,
In 2009, Anoush Begoyan, a member of the international NGO ‘Article 19’, wrote: “The availability of information and its accessibility is central to the functioning of contemporary democracies and in modern economies and societies in general. It is vital to the ability of constituencies to make informed political and economic decisions during voting and when making economic decisions. Much information is provided by the media, including newspapers, television and radio, which collect information and disseminate it to the public.”
Any regime must therefore find it desirable to control the information by which the constituencies make their voting decisions.
In 1968, the Burnham administration acquired the shares in the Guyana Broadcasting Service, one of two radio stations in Guyana. In 1971, the Burnham administration acquired the shares in the Chronicle newspaper. In 1979, the administration acquired control of the second radio station, Radio Demerara, and merged it with the GBS (later the ‘Voice of Guyana’). In Birth of Stabroek News, Ms A Benjamin opines that Burnham regarded the state-owned press as “a propaganda tool.” There is little doubt about the correctness of that opinion.
Of course, to effectively control the media, it is also necessary to curtail private media houses. Burnham’s approach was to ensure that newsprint and paper were unavailable to the Mirror and Catholic Standard, the independent newspapers of the time.
Other methods of control and censorship exist. In 2012, at a meeting of the International Press Institute, Julio Munoz, executive director or the Inter-American Press Association, examined methods adopted by governments to control independent media, and listed among them the revocation of media licences, the control of the issue of licences, and advertising only in media houses deemed to be pro-government.
In 1986, the Hoyte administration relaxed the restraints on independent media. The new dispensation saw the birth of Stabroek News. However, Hoyte did not divest the state-owned media during his tenure, and the successive PPP administrations have retained control of the Chronicle and NCN (radio and television Channel 11).
“State-owned media means misinformation to the public,” affirms Munoz.
“Journalists working in state-owned media must be loyal to government and therefore the full picture is never given.” Under the Hoyte administration, the Chronicle and VOG were high in praise of the PNC, and stinging in their criticism of the opposition PPP. This was immediately reversed after 1992 and the state media today remains an ardent advocate of the government, and a virulent critic of the opposition APNU and AFC.
Further, in the present run-up to elections no genuine coverage has been given by the state media houses to the campaigns of the opposition parties. Instead, the public has been inundated with ‘news’ of the good deeds of the government. Cricket coverage by NCN has been interspersed with political items which can only be called propaganda, but no air time could be found for AFC ads. The recent criticism by the Media Monitoring Unit of the ridiculous Chronicle editorials (‘rivers of blood’) is fresh in our minds. But this is not a new phenomenon; the MMU also condemned NCN radio for electioneering during the last elections in 2011.
Of course, by compromising on the impartiality and therefore the quality of its journalism, a state-owned media house runs the risk of losing business. Munoz says, “When people go to buy a newspaper they always have a choice. But they will pick up the one with the highest credibility.” So the public will not buy a compromised newspaper, and a wise advertiser will not pay for advertising space in a paper which the public is not buying. But a state-run media house can be subsidized; profit is not as important as it would be for an independent media entity. And NCN in Guyana operates at a loss. It is heavily subsidized and provision is made yearly in the national budget to keep it afloat. When this provision was refused by the opposition last year, the state media houses protested loudly against the perceived infringement of their right to free speech.
(The Chronicle is kept afloat not by circulation revenue which is low, but by advertising, particularly state advertising.)
And yet, although it appears that public confidence in NCN and the Chronicle are low, the view apparently prevails that it is necessary to retain a state-owned media apparatus, and to control the independent media where possible. The removal of advertising by the administration from your newspaper for fifteen months, and subsequent to that from the all independent print media, and the last minute (just before he demitted office) allocation of radio licences by former President Jagdeo only to party faithful were exactly the types of control warned of by Munoz.
I would therefore like to hear from the political parties:
- Are you in favour of maintaining state media houses? Do you propose to retain or to divest the state media apparatus?
- Do you approve the policy that taxpayers should subsidize a media house operated by the government?
- Should such a media house be permitted to compete with independent media houses which do not have the benefit of such subsidies?
- Are you satisfied that the independence of the press is not interfered with by government? Do you believe that the independent press should be controlled?
- If you advocate press freedom, what steps have been taken to ensure non-interference? Have those steps been successful? What further steps do you propose?
- Are you satisfied with the method of issuing broadcasting licences and that the system is transparent and impartial? What steps have been taken to ensure such transparency and impartiality? Have these steps been successful? If not, what further do you propose needs to be done?
Yours faithfully,
Timothy M Jonas
