Since successive political administrations in Guyana have – to varying degrees − used ownership and control of some media houses and the suppression of others to retard the democratic process, the new government, we expect, will understand that its attitude to media and media freedom will be used as a barometer for measuring the sincerity of its commitment to raising standards of democratic behaviour.
It would, of course, be precipitate to seek to determine the likely posture of the Granger administration in the matter of media freedom, though, however well-intentioned the new government might be, it is best to err on the side of caution by setting down some expectations in the matter of the nexus between media freedom and democratic government.
Our political leaders have demonstrated an enduring discomfort with media criticism. and successive governments have not only owned and/or completely controlled large swathes of the country’s most influential media and used them as instruments for the consolidation of control, but have also sought, through various means, to neutralise those media houses that have been critical of their administrations and their officials. In short, they have been intolerant of criticism which is the same thing as saying that they have sought to stifle an important expression of democratic behaviour.
The new political administration can expect, therefore, that its commitment to the strengthening of democracy in Guyana will be measured, in large part, by its attitude to media freedom which, of necessity, will include the extent of its tolerance of dissenting opinion and its preparedness not only to leave media houses to function without official interference but also to allow for the infusion of a far greater measure of balance and fairness into the reporting of the state-run media.
As an aside, it is apposite to point out that we must avoid the danger of the state-owned media slipping quietly and comfortably from serving as the mouthpiece of the previous administration to performing the identical function for the present one. It is not just the privately-owned media houses but the publicly-owned ones as well that must be driven by the virtues of balance, objectivity and fairness.
On a related issue it is by no means unlikely that once the matter of media freedom comes up for public and political discourse in the period ahead, the issue as to whether state ownership of media houses should not become a thing of the past will inevitably arise. A cursory review of the previous governments’ attitude to media ownership reveals that while under both the Hoyte administration and its successor there occurred an infusion of privately-owned media houses, the issue of government relinquishing control of state-run media was never on the cards. In fact, over the past almost a quarter of a century the state media have enjoyed greater space, reach and influence across the political landscape, though it can be argued that their proclivity for unrelenting bias and often nauseating propaganda have meant that they had become less and less believable.
During the prior period, the Burnham era, that is, government not only sought to run a ‘tight ship’ as far as the state media were concerned but also set about suppressing privately-owned media to the point of seriously undermining their ability to function normally. Here, one recalls developments like the denial of access by privately-owned media to newsprint and the intimidation of journalists known or believed to be hostile to the Burnham administration.
Those political administrations that followed have also frowned on the notion of media freedom and its concomitant dissemination of views that have challenged their own, whilst high officials have had little appetite for being held up to public scrutiny.
Just a matter of weeks ago the previous administration’s reluctance to grant ‘campaign time’ to the opposition political parties in the run-up to the May 11 polls had become the subject of high-profile political controversy. The same issue arose in the period leading up to general elections in 1992.
The new government, we believe, has an obligation to undo a long-standing culture which dictates that the state-owned media answer to the wishes of government of the day rather than to the dictates of fair and objective reporting. Here, a distinction must be made between a state-run bureaucracy like GINA that is responsible for disseminating official information and state-run or controlled media entities whose sole preoccupation is with ‘spin’ and deception designed to distort facts and alter realities.
In this context the point should be re-stated that it is unacceptable that the state-run media houses simply proceed to change hats, switching to the role of unapologetic mouthpieces for the new political administration. There are also going to have to be changes in editorial attitude to take account of the new, higher standards of ethical behaviour to which, hopefully, we now aspire.
All of this is not to say that we have not made some gains over the years as far as media freedom is concerned. There has been a significant expansion of the private media landscape so that there is greater room for privately-owned media and, by extension, for the dissemination of information that not only plays a greater role in holding government’s feet to the fire but also in offering more robust challenges, where appropriate, to official pronouncements and/or versions of events. That being said, there is still much more ground left to cover.
Here, there is an important role for journalists working with privately-owned media houses and for the media houses themselves. They must become even more assertive advocates of media freedom and must lead the way in engaging government on issues that have to do with embracing democratic norms as far as the media is concerned. That agenda should, of necessity, include issues like the future of state ownership of the media, bureaucratic hindrances to the free flow of information, the timely release of state information on matters of national importance and the continued unhindered growth of the privately-owned mass media industry in Guyana.
Over time, political division has compelled media operatives from the state-owned media houses to embrace ‘official policy’ as far as media freedom is concerned. This, among other things, has resulted in the persistence of a weak and ineffective local Press Association. The truth of the matter is that the GPA has never really been able to function as a game-changer as far as media freedom is concerned. Its failure to offer media professionals cohesive leadership derives from the fact that as far as media freedom is concerned state-employed media workers and media workers employed by private media houses have, for years, danced to different tunes.
Equally important, the GPA has never earnestly sought to ramp up the level of influence and respect which media practitioners and the profession as a whole enjoy in Guyana. That has to end.
This is as good a time as any for the media, as a professional body, to engage government on what one might call ‘the rules of the game’ as far as media freedom as a component of democratic behaviour is concerned. In this regard we must aim to end the long-standing condition in which media freedom has been subsumed beneath the paramountcy of the wishes of the government of the day. We must arrive – and sooner rather than later – at a place where media are concerned principally with truth and objectivity rather than with satisfying the dictates of the powers that be. In other words, government must grow accustomed to being accountable.
