Decades of varying degrees of state control of the media in Guyana has retarded the growth of a culture of unhindered two-way information flow between government and governed, a condition customarily associated with democratic behaviour. Government has always sought, in one way or another, to interfere with the message, the media, or both, particularly in matters of a nationally important nature, one of the objectives being to condition the public response. It has done so in various ways including direct ownership and/or indirect control of media houses, interfering in various ways with the ability of independent media houses to function effectively and exerting administrative controls over whether and when official information comes to public attention and the manner in which this occurs.
Admittedly, these days, the extent of state control of media and of official information flows is not what it used to be thirty or forty years ago. Government can, arguably, take some measure of credit for what is now a more liberalized media environment. On the other hand it has to be said that the evolution of the means of public communication in the information technology age has served to place considerable limits on the ability of the state to control either the media or the message. Mass media, as we understand them, have not only become far more accessible, they possess the ability to disseminate information quickly, over vast spaces and to large audiences. In a sense, therefore, the decline in official control has been in part the result of an altered global technological environment.
Government, nonetheless, continues to demonstrate – in various ways – an undiminished desire to control information flow. It has, for example, shown little if any inclination to relinquish ownership of influential state-owned media houses that possess significant national reach. Concerns in some quarters over state ownership of media houses – newspaper, radio, television – notwithstanding, state proprietorship of media houses that compete with their privately owned counterparts for public attention has become a fait accompli.
Unsurprisingly, it is in the realm of ‘managing’ the dissemination of official information that government continues to be most effective. Over time the presence of state-run institutions like the GIS, GNA and, currently, GINA, have served as centres for the distillation of dissemination of official information. The ‘free flow’ is further inhibited by official edicts that forbid public servants other than the most senior, from talking directly with the media, the intention being not just to ensure consistency in what is said publicly (though this objective is frequently not accomplished) but also to satisfy the requirement of ‘spin.’
Interestingly, in recent times, there appears to have been a more significant departure from the practice of centralising the dissemination of government information under GINA with the advent of public information/public relations departments in government ministries and departments. Here the Offices of the President and the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Public Works come to mind. One might argue that the recruitment by government entities of greater numbers of media-trained personnel to deal directly with information dissemination is a sign that the respective state entities are becoming much more mindful of the edict that image is everything, though that is not necessarily a comment on the effectiveness of the current approach. Indeed, there have also been indications that the resort by state agencies to their own internal public information specialists points to a continued determination to micro-manage the control of such information as reaches the public rather than move in the direction of a more liberalised dissemination culture.
Over the years, state control of the media has had its own pitfalls from which government appears not to have learnt. For a start it has led to the growth in public cynicism regarding the trustworthiness of official information. Officially disseminated information has long been regarded as being synonymous with propaganda and that perception has not changed much over the years. Accordingly, in so many instances, it is simply not taken seriously, a circumstance that speaks to its invariably counterproductive nature. The other problem that government has faced with a regime of ‘managed’ information dissemination is that the recruitment of specialists to handle information management has failed to prevent frequent and spectacular errors of judgment. Here one might point to official handling of the fallout from government’s decision to increase the salaries of ministers last year, a circumstance which was not helped by the manner in which the public information aspect of the exercise was handled. A more recent example is the incident where Guyana Defence Force Sergeant Robert Pyle, his wife Stacy and canter driver Linden Eastman lost their lives. In this latter instance and for reasons which are far from clear the authorities at the outset chose not to make a public pronouncement on the fact that the dead soldier was on duty during the high-speed chase which ended in tragedy, and still have not come clean on the full circumstances of the case, leaving room for much speculation.
The fact that opposition political parties now have much greater access to mass audiences through the media, is, arguably, the most significant positive step in the quest for a more democratic mass communications culture in Guyana. This has been due, primarily, to the proliferation of privately-owned media houses, beginning with the advent of Stabroek News in 1986, through to the emergence of a number of television stations (licences for private radio stations were given to those with government connections) in the period leading to the end of the PPP/C’s tenure in office last year. Again, the growth of information technology has also allowed for reducing official control over those resources associated with information dissemination.
There is still, however, a considerable road to travel on the road to a qualitatively enhanced information flow environment. The disposition of assertiveness in their news-gathering pursuits which is now more apparent must be continually intensified whilst public officials, particularly ministers of government must grow accustomed (through orientation) to engaging a more assertive media corps. Perhaps above everything else, however, it is government that must demonstrably commit itself to the further liberalization of the environment if the incremental steps that have so far been taken towards a more liberalized media environment are to continue.
