Dear Editor,
In the SN dated November 1, 2009 there is an article captioned `Media ownership and the ideology of a free press’. (Eds note: This was an excerpt of a presentation made by SN’s late Editor-in-Chief David de Caires at a Media Association of Trinidad and Tobago symposium on April 12, 1996).
Some time ago I wrote in a letter to the Editor of SN about the lack of knowledge on the part of journalists and even editors with regards the concept of ideology and also the lack of information and understanding of the tenets of various ideologies. I also spoke about those individuals who seem to feel that somehow they are free from ideologies having an open mind that precludes ideological biases.
This particular caption and piece seems to assume that the concept, Free Press, is an ideology in its own right. Is this view a correct classification of what an ideology is?
Do we consider at the same time that the Free Press represents and defend a particular ideology and what may that ideology be? Do we believe that the free press is free of ideology? While the BBC may be regarded as objective, does it reflect and represent an ideological interest in the final analysis.
After reading the article I went on line to see what I might read with regards to ideology and I am wondering if the editor of the letter column, after I criticized journalists and editors of having little knowledge of ideologies, utilized any of his/her time to seek some information or clarification of the issue.
Editors sometimes attach responses to letters and I am wondering whether the editor could have attached a response saying I was wrong, or a little right. Is the role of the free press also to educate, to advance the perspectives of readers, to open the mind of readers?
It’s interesting to note that in the US as elsewhere, a consequence of the cold war propaganda fed and nurtured by the so called “free press” owned and controlled by the capitalist class, people are warned away from ideology. Ideology is associated with the enemies, with the socialists and the communists. “We do not have ideology which is supposed to be mindless and soul-less; we are free thinkers”.
There is a view that in the US the people do have ideology. Here and everywhere also. The information I gleaned from the net seems to conclude that ideology is concerned with more fundamental things, and concludes that in the US there are ideologies “depending upon how the concept is defined” such as “socialists, fascists, libertarians, and communists”.
The net mentions a “‘World view’ and a call to action”. The questions are asked: “How do we see the world”?
How do we think it should be”? What is wrong with our world? And I add, “How did we get to this point of our history?” recognizing that in the methodology I have adopted, all phenomena are processes of coming into being, changing and transforming.
Is the level of poverty too high? Should we use our collective resources to fix it? Ideology in this sense is not just any set of views but deals with more fundamental issues.
Ideology is about a particular understanding of the world and this shapes our attitude to it. It’s about understanding the world and whether we should change it and how? It’s about interests and controls and forces of progress and retrogression; it’s about understanding how we view the world as opposed to other views of the said world; it’s about appreciating how we may have come about accepting and thinking within the particular ideology that we may have adopted; it’s about so many other questions.
Ideology is not unrelated to philosophy and has a connection to and is informed by one or the other. I remember this famous quote by one philosopher. I do not have it exactly, “Philosophers have interpreted the world, the problem however is to change it” and this is where ideology comes in. But lest we forget, particular ideologies teach us it cannot be changed or we should not attempt to change it.
So today the questions remain: “Is the free press free of ideological bias?”, “Are reporters and editors free of ideological bias?”, “Can state owned press have ideological biases that coincide with the free press?”, “Does ideology reflect class interests?”, “Do you belong to a particular class and what ideology may reflect your specific class interests?”, “Who will teach you this, the ‘free press’?”. “How many media houses are owned and controlled by workers?”
Finally if you recognize that you do have an ideology put your hands up and then tell us what it is.
Yours faithfully,
Rajendra Bisessar
Bissessar, No the free press is not free of ideological bias. you have written in one, apply the analysis and compare pre-1992 and now and you get the answer. Simple maths
What’s yours? The intention is to facilitate debate. The unconscious bias is worse than the conscious. Do we need to view the situation in a historical way as opposed to within an ideology generated by the present system? Do we need to recognise that society, the books we read, the press, and our cultural environment will reinforce our present views. Rodney felt the present system is not working.
You can start by saying I disagree with you. You are wrong or we can commence a realistic discussion to understand the other perspective. Many of us that think somewhat different from you have been where you were but not many have moved over to where we are.
What methodology can and should be used to make the analysis. The way we debate is important. Are you right because you feel you are right. Then go ahead. But appreciate your views and understand its origin and possibly the interest it serves.
Just bear in mind that there are type of economic systems, forms of government and method of rule. Do not think for instance that capitalism is synonymous with democracy an idea we have been bombarded with. In the same way we have been bombarded with the ides that the capitalist press is synonymous with the free press.
The big issue is how we develop an open mind. Do we need to come to real grips, real understanding of alternative perspective in order for us to have real intellectual choices?
Reddy can you understand what this guys is talking about?
Can you? The whole idea is to generate interaction to facilitate discussion.
Rajendra,
I like your letter. You have raised some important questions. But the question remains – how are the workers going to find the wealth and means to own the media houses and own properties? And specifically what did the so-called working class party do to uplift the welfare of the masses of workers since 1992? My contention is the workers alone cannot do it. You also need a vibrant capitalist class with a social purpose.
TK. I do not disagree with you. I am just hoping that we can commence a real examination of the issue without becoming immersed in party issue. Suffice to say from the time I commenced writing my column in the Kaieteur news I was critical of the policies of the present government. And in my recent appearance on spotlight and on the AFC television and some recent letters to the press, I made some critical comments with regards the functioning of this government. I want to suggest however that that debate could be separate.
Many support the PPP government because they still feel it’s ideologically left of center. Many in their haste to criticize the PPP government call it communist thus reinforcing this belief. The supporter of the PPP has to be educated to understand the drift away from the legacy.
I am not opposed to the capitalist class as persons. But within a structure it’s good to understand the results of having it as the only class that should invest and appropriate profits. Whether it results in deep rooted contradictions.
We have been taught to develop a strong abhorrence to the state’s involvement in investments and productive enterprise thinking that it cannot be efficient, that only the private sector can be efficient. But it might be interesting to discuss how efficiency is understood. Is it simply a question of the amount of profits?
These are issues that should be discussed not in a way that suggests we know and we know what we know is right but with a mind more open to ideas. Should be discussed in a more interpersonal manner.
We, in the process of discussion need to appreciate the role of the capitalist owned and controlled news paper, media houses, publishing houses and the film industry. This result in it having great contol and influence over our mind and we should be cognissant of this as we move to defend and or support the ideas we have in our minds.
Personal attacks should be excluded in this process.
Bisessar, very interesting piece my friend, however the problem is buying into any specific ideology totally at the expense of time and change as it applies to new information, new applications, new approaches and new principles to say the least. Rigid intolerance and inflexibility to changing concepts or new theories, in other words pragmatism, make the ideologue irrelevant and outdated.
As a child I vividly remember, the popular slang of the day “hold on bhai things gan change”…we used to mock each other during play. And yes my friend, things always change to a point where original positions, understandings and beliefs must be adjusted for growth and relevance. Bisessar, my quarrel here is not with any specific ideology per se but rather, it is the ideologue(person) who is the one to be feared especially when they command life and death authority over others. The ideologue retards growth by controlling the speed of change.
For example, the PPP was birthed primarily as a Communist/Socialist organization some decades ago when British Guiana, still in its infancy was struggling for a political identity for governance as an independent country. Today the PPP is still using the same outdated Communist/Socialist manifesto to govern a 21st century polity. Guyana is slowly dying of old age from the antiquated ideology of paramountcy and the gov’t need to be the chief cook and bottle washer all of the time.
And one more thing Bisessar, the PPP allowing a small privilege few party supporters to fly free of Gov’t restraints and prosper beyond imagination is not free market ideology but friend market instead. A Free market economy would be open to all investors. Therefore, if you are no longer flying free like the others my friend then I’m afraid that you’ve lost favor with the in crowd. The PPP haven’t changed their position on anything, they are just not into you and Moses anymore….
I agree with you with regards the PPP. But could we please attempt to deal with this discussion and have a separate discussion with regards the PPP past and present. Do you feel that today the PPP is carrying out socialist/communist policies. Write a letter on this and we would or should have a lively and relevant discussion on this instead of who stole library books seventeen years ago.
Cochore
I am inclined to support Moses if he decides to contest as President of Guyana. What do you think.
“Is the free press free of ideological bias?” NO.
“Are reporters and editors free of ideological bias?” NO.
“Can state owned press have ideological biases that coincide with the free press?” YES & NO.
“Does ideology reflect class interests?” YES.
“Do you belong to a particular class and what ideology may reflect your specific class interests?” YES. Blah, blah, blah, etc. etc. etc.
“Who will teach you this, the ‘free press’?” MY BRAIN.
“How many media houses are owned and controlled by workers?” DON’T KNOW.
Good. And how was your brain taught? Did it generate the ideas you have like the liver produce bile? I guess your brain gave you absolute free will.
Do you think we should discuss these issues? Should the private sector be the only engine of growth? Does this lead to gross inequalities and structural contradictions? can these contradictions be resolved and how?
What has your brain generated with regards these issues?
“And how was your brain taught?” By other brains.
“Did it generate the ideas you have like the liver produce bile?” Yes.
“I guess your brain gave you absolute free will.” No.
“Do you think we should discuss these issues?” Yes.
“Should the private sector be the only engine of growth?”No.
” Does this lead to gross inequalities and structural contradictions?” Yes.
“Can these contradictions be resolved and how?” Yes, complex.
“What has your brain generated with regards these issues?” Complex.
I appreciate your answers. maybe it would lead readers to adopt a less dogmatic views of the ideas we have. Maybe we would begin to look at the historical development of the ideas that we have. Sort of the epistemology of our personal knowledge and place it within the context of the epistemology of ideas in the world at large and see how it corresponds.
Do you believe we should have an absolutely free market policy and leave the investment and growth of the economy soly to the private sector. Should we stop the sterilisation of the guyana dollar? Should we stop the fiscal austerity and move to pay better wages?
Should the government utilise some of the money to invest in the economy and to create jobs? It seems that the private sector is not up to it. Foreign investment is not automatic there is a lot of competition world wide.
The banks are usurous should we continue to have the banks and subsequently social savings soley in the hanfs of the private sector?
These may be pertinent questions for our society to commence discussion on.
The press of third world countries if there is any patriotic blood in it should move to facilitate this discussion.
It would be funny if it was not such a tragedy that those who control the state media have not moved to facilitate such discussions such education.
The CEO of NCN is the person in charge of RED house should utilise the station to educate people with regards Jagans legacy but from the programmes it can be seen that he does not recognise the need.
Rajendra Bisessar, good letter and good response to it by fellow bloggers but it seems you are looking for answers to you many questions and it doesn’t matter which angle a blogger takes you keep asking for discussion, however, all along i thought that is what they provided. I would assume since it is becoming standard procedure to moderate your blog(when your letter appears in the papers) then you should debate each blogger on the angle taken in response to your letter that is the only way i feel that you can generate the needed response or discussion your are searching for.
Thank you for refusing to decend into the sewer with some of these negative know-it alls.
Your piece was interesting and I loved your unbias responses.
Keep on writing and commenting.
Sol says
Some of the responses are interesting. If indeed we do not generate ideas like the liver produce bile and we appreciate the forces of acculturation, the ideas of socialisation and indoctrination then we would appreciate that even the questions we ask are to some extent influenced and therefore we need to ask other questions leaning towards more information and clarification.
We have a habit of asking question to bore holes in what the other party says or to reinforce that we are correct with regards the views we have.
Initially I am hoping readers would be more ready to question what they have accepted to be true as they move to examine ideas posited that may be opposed that may be different From those that they have accepted.
RAJENDRA: “many support the PPP government because they still feel it’s ideologically left of center. Many in their haste to criticize the PPP government call it communist thus reinforcing this belief. The supporter of the PPP has to be educated to understand the drift away from the legacy.”
MY COMMENTS:
The PPP on paper has an ideology. The paper ideology is not merely left of center but far left. However, since 1992 the PPP, in my opinion, has opportunistically pursued certain policies that conflict with the far left ideology. That is, it refused to think for itself and allowed the IMF and WB to fully articulate policy in Guyana. That was because it pursued a strategy of aid-financed development that has not worked in the third world. The PPP, in my reading, felt the IMF/WB is the lesser evil than foreign investors (I see neither as evil). In addition, the PPP wanted to be independent of the opposition and it used aid and grant financing to circumvent the need for reforms and suggestions emanating from the opposition.
Moreover, the PPP government policy opportunism and misdirection has led to a serious mess today. There was never a long-term strategy and part of it came from the ideological cogitative dissonance of being far left on the one hand and policy opportunism on the other. Take for instance the re-emergence of 1980s-type blackouts. Only a long-term energy strategy could solve the blackout problem as diesel generators and the distribution network will deteriorate.
Here is a government, which is known for its mendicancy, has chosen to refuse British help to reform and professionalize the police force. In other words, the mendicant government – as illustrated by the CARIOCOM building, the grant financing element for the cricket stadium, the convention centre and the PRSP – has suddenly invoked nationalism and pride to turn down the most crucial piece of aid Guyana could ever need.
Here again
generally I do not disagree with you. I will add that if the right persons are greased then such investments would be given the green light and facilitated. Or the big chibbat would have to be OK with it personally. The problem is nobody makes decisions because of the method of rule exercised by the President.
Your point about ideological dissonance is well taken. If you decide as a policy that the private sector is going to be the main engine of growth then all actions have to be directed and decisions taken towards this end. But this did not happen. Is it the ideology of the party? I think not. The party has not too much influence.
The president always had the position of private sector coupled with taxation was the way long before the PPP took power. There is no ideological conflict here. It has to do with knowledge and understanding and appreciation of proposals. The president has surounded himself with yes-men, friends to whom he listens, or whom listens to him and says good idea.
Olall is a prime example. We would recall that Olall was pushing the idea of hydro power and other alternative forms of energy for so long. We all know that his termination was wronglul and unfair.
And Here Bharrat listened to the party that attempted to represent Olall and dismissed any overtures from them. They do not have a voice.
The problem lies with personality, pettiness and vindictiveness. It lies with an inability to comprehend the policies of the IMF and the repercussions. It comes with the fact that no one was brought in, from the opposition, the trade unions and the private sector to participate in the negotiations with the IMF or to even discuss the issues.
There was no national debate on the IMF. Unfortunately none of the political parties and the trade unions saw it fit to open such discussions in the national arena.
The legacy I was talking about is the trisectoral economy Jagan and the PPP advocated.
Too many however have suucumbed to the idea that the state is inefficient and should not invest capital and get into business. That the private sector is the only way to prosperity. and that is why I choose to commence an ideological debate to appreciate this issue and why I suggest we separate it from party politics.
I suggest, you in letter form propose the views you have stated here with regards investment etc and facilitate a discussion on the issue.
No press for that matter is free of any bias.Individuals with an agenda of their own are normally in control of all the news.They decide for you. What you will read.Not what you should.And so,are constantly involved in ‘gatekeeping.’ Pushing out the news they want the public to read about and withholding real news to the newsstarved public.Another ploy is to put a spin on the news to either make someone look good or bad.Called masking.This changes how the reader or viewer digests an article even before the article is finished.Another press gimmick is feeding.Constantly stoking an article that is valueless as news to the society, but generates the big news scoop.Sells newspapers.All about the money.Politics, presidential gaffes,etc.Studies found that a flock of migratory birds are given no bias by the press, however squatters are looked at in a different light.