Dear Editor,
This is what I hope to be my sole intervention on the recent controversy surrounding the management of the state media. In a fledgling democracy such as ours, (and I count from 2011, not 1966 nor 1992) the rationale for a state media managed in trust for the benefit of the citizens of Guyana is a necessity. While private media run by private interests are critical to free expression, private interests can be capricious and compromised in the way that a responsible state media managed by competent people cannot.
Guyanese have a fundamental, constitutionally stipulated right to transmit and receive information and it is my belief that until such time that our media policy and infrastructure environment evolves to the point where there is truly equitable access to media, the facilitation of this fundamental right is the primary duty and obligation of the state media. The question that many seem to have a problem with is precisely who or what constitutes the state.
If there is anyone in the corridors of power who believes (and I have no doubt that there are several) that the primary purpose of the state media is to be a PR agency for the executive, that person possesses at best a poor understanding of what constitutes democracy in general and the role of the state media (where it is necessary for it to exist in the first place) in that democratic ecosystem.
The core purpose of the state is to deliver a good life to its citizens. It follows from this that the first duty of the institutions of any democratic state is equitably delivered service to its citizens: just as the public health infrastructure cannot tailor its distribution of medicine based on political interests, the state media should not tailor its distribution of information to the citizens of Guyana based upon narrow political interests. This is a position that President David Granger has made pellucid time and time again.
That however is the abstraction. We are where we are, mired in this imbroglio, because there are several concrete realities which impact upon executing a programme in keeping with that abstraction.
The primary reality is that the government has from the inception had a general communication crisis on its hands partly due to the general paucity of communication skills in Guyana, partly because of the poor infrastructure left in place by its predecessor, and partly due to the challenges of cohesion that necessarily plague such a new coalition. While education and training are sufficient to tackle the former, it is time that at a senior level the hard-nosed decision is taken to clean house, and put in place a strong government communications framework that treats the state media fundamentally no differently from the private media, as opposed to a PR outlet for government agencies.
When it comes to the Chronicle itself, there have been inexcusable blunders even as there has been tremendous improvement from the nadir to which the former administration brought it. As a member of what I believe to be in sum a competent, reputable board, the prevailing challenge at GNNL is that the very principle of non-interference presents the Board from descending into the editorial decision-making process and making direct interventions into what particular column or article or letter gets published. I can say with confidence that the Board of GNNL has never directed interference in content for political reasons, particularly to paint the current executive government in an unduly favourable light. Indeed, when one such clumsy attempt was done, a process of inquiry was followed subsequent to which the person responsible was sanctioned.
On the other hand, it cannot be ignored that the PM’s Office has not directly responded to claims of interference – this is unfortunate. If there are direct meetings as a matter of policy with state media editorial department heads, these should cease. The board of a state media entity exists primarily to provide a buffer between the executive and the management of that entity, a function rendered practically useless if there is any mechanism which, whatever the premise, circumvents the board and engages editorial directly.
Another challenge of course is that for the state media to achieve balance, particularly in the field of political reporting, there has to be a political opposition with some modicum of integrity, and there is none. When the board was first constituted, we were adamant that the PPP had to be represented in the paper as a matter of policy and it was left to the editorial department to reach out to the party in this regard. The offer was never taken up but I will say publicly that it still stands.
As expected, in the wake of what I would say is justifiable attention being placed on the state media, we have an opportunistic release by the PPP, hiding as it does behind anonymity, waxing righteous about press freedom. This is the party under whose administration saw attacks on CN Sharma and suspension of his television station, targeting of Freddie Kissoon from his employment to physical attacks on his person, the banning of Gordon Moseley from the Office of the President, and the killing of Ronald Waddell. This is the party under which the state apparatus was thrown at Glen Lall and which Attorney-General was recorded hinting at deadly consequences for Kaieteur News’ exposés on corruption.
It is the party of Robeson Benn who walked into NCN and ordered the winning national calypso to be taken off air, and when there was a public outcry, the only response was to ban all calypsos. This is the party of the cartoonishly indecent Gail Teixeira who threatened to take independent journalists before the UN for telling the truth about her administration, and the party of Bharrat Jagdeo, who not only oversaw the withholding of state ads from Stabroek News, but referred to journalists as vultures and carrion crows. This is the party that saw racist letters being routinely published in the Guyana Chronicle followed by two racist editorials under the Presidency of Donald Ramotar, who ignored every exhortation to censure the persons responsible, including one call by the Guyana Bar Association.
When I accepted the invitation to be a member of the board of Guyana National Newspapers Limited, it was due to my belief as a journalist and a former employee, that it was possible for the state media, the newspaper in particular, to rise to its obligations to the citizens of Guyana. There may, and should, come a day when there is absolutely no need for a state media which charge is the dissemination of accurate, responsible, useful content for the benefit of the citizens of Guyana – that day however has not come yet and the great challenge is to ensure that we build the infrastructure of government accountability and participatory citizenship to take us there.
Yours faithfully,
Ruel Johnson
Board member
Guyana National
Newspapers Limited
