The taping, posting on social media and sharing of a video of schoolchildren involved in sex acts is to be condemned in the strongest language possible. Not only is it criminal, since the public dissemination of pornographic material contravenes the laws of this country, but if the children are under age—and they might very well be—then it’s a double whammy.
The comments, many of which condemned the children in the video, revealed a lack of empathy and an absence of understanding and sensibility to the fact that what was portrayed points to a much bigger problem that desperately needs to be addressed. The level of crassness and crudeness indicate the pits to which we have sunk as a people. But then we already knew this. We have presidents and government officials who see nothing wrong with performing lewd dances in public and who seem surprised when eyebrows are raised at this. The rot began at the top.
To add to the already appalling events surrounding the issue, the Guyana Chronicle, a state-owned media house, saw it fit to not only describe the acts in detail—twice already—but thought it necessary to publish a still photo from the video on its front page and then again inside.
That the Chronicle issued a public apology the next day, in the face of a firestorm of condemnation does nothing to take away from the fact that it crossed every line and violated every known code of journalistic practice and professionalism and then some. It cannot withdraw, erase or remove the now permanent printed record of October 7, 2014.
The 105-year-old Society of Professional Journalists, which has long advocated for freedom of the press highlights that with freedom comes responsibility, something that every journalist should know and practise. As in any other profession there is a code of ethics that governs journalism. It exhorts journalists and their editors to first of all seek to do no harm in their pursuit, writing and publishing of stories and photographs. Though this tenet is mostly attributed to the workings of the medical profession, if it is practised in journalism it will prevent errors in judgement, that could be perceived to be intentional, malicious, sensational and which tend to tar not just the media house in question but the entire fraternity.
Credible newspapers the world over practise restraint; they do not publish everything they know and not just because of the libel laws that still persist in various places, but because they recognise the need to weigh their role in the provision of public information against the potential for harm. They adhere to codes of ethics that remain in place even though staff—editors, journalists and photographers—may come and go. They refuse to sacrifice their credibility on the altar of expediency or in the name of sales or profits.
But even in cases where media houses do not have such a code, there are strict guidelines in place for reportage involving children that have been drawn up by international bodies such as UNESCO and UNICEF and media organisations such as the BBC, the Poynter Institute and the International Centre for Journalists. These include but are not limited to: “Consider carefully the consequences of publication of any material concerning children and minimise harm to children”; “Avoid the use of stereotypes and sensational presentation to promote journalistic material involving children”; and “Avoid the use of sexualised images of children.”
The major media houses in Guyana have been exposed to training involving these principles umpteen times. There could be no excuse for the pandering to salaciousness and the resulting harm done in the instant case.
