Unesco’s World Press Freedom Day is to be celebrated here on May 3 and 4. The DPI has announced that it will consist of a national conference and symposium which will focus on this year’s global theme, ‘Journalism under surveillance’, as well as Guyana’s sub-theme, ‘Part-nerships in Communication for Development’. In addition, said the DPI, the “ground-breaking” Guyana Media and Communication Aca-demy will be “unveiled” during the conference ceremony.
The academy was referred to by Minister Kwame McCoy in his Budget address earlier this year, and was also the subject of a press release from the Prime Minister’s Office. It is the product of a partnership with the online media platform Coursera, and according to the prime ministerial statement is intended to upgrade the skills and further professionalise the local industry in what is a fast-changing socio-economic environment. It will be open to public and private practitioners in the media industry and will enable them to acquire world-class certifications.
There is one small question which arises out of this in the first instance, and that is what happened to the proposed National Broadcasting Academy which was announced by Minister McCoy during his previous Budget presentation of 2021? Has that idea been abandoned, or is this institution still to be set up alongside the new academy? Unlike the latter, the Broadcast-ing Academy was intended only for the state media, and Mr McCoy said at the time that among other things, it would offer a “wide-ranging scholarship programme at certificate, bachelor’s and master’s degree levels…” Where this aspect of the proposal is concerned, it would appear on the face of it to be a case of duplication if it is to go ahead. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the situation.
When he spoke during the Budget debate in February this year, Mr McCoy told the House that through the Media and Communication Academy’s courses media operatives would be able to raise their professional profiles to become accredited specialists or expert practitioners. He described this as a “game-changer”, allowing the media to evolve into the digital future and become more responsive in line with the government’s national development agenda.
Exactly what was meant by this was suggested by what he said next: “Guyana can ill afford rampant wild-west misinformation schisms and schemers running on leaded opposition gasoline, seeking to derail progress, divide our fragile society and destabilise our fledgling democracy. The public affairs of this country must be managed in a way that safeguards citizens’ fundamental freedoms.”
No one could deny that there is some very irresponsible journalism in this country, and that some outlets have not shown themselves to be above inflammatory or inciteful language, and certainly not beyond misrepresenting the facts. While training is an undoubted prerequisite to greater professionalism, in a politicised environment such as this it will not on its own prevent extremist reportage finding space in the public domain. That is particularly the case where social media are concerned.
Furthermore, PPP/C governments have never been altogether easy with a genuinely liberal media environment. The government still clings to a state radio channel, a state newspaper and a state TV channel, none of which allows room for opposition viewpoints or critical viewpoints in general. Recent critical comments of the administration by members of civil society, for example, produced a decided overreaction, in which the criticisms were in most cases not answered, although the critics were roundly attacked ad hominem style. It might be remarked that in a society such as this, there is little point in filling column inches with purely pro-government material, since only supporters will read it anyway; nearly everyone else will categorise it as propaganda. While the government seeks to professionalise state media journalists, which is laudable, it will make little difference if their bosses are afflicted by a dogmatic political rather than a professional attitude to what is written or broadcast.
The communication industry is not about development as the government conceives it, although certainly one of its functions is to clearly transmit to the public information on government projects and policies, as well as accurately report government perceptions of situations and the like. But if the sub-theme for the press freedom day conference ‘Partnerships in Communication for Development’ is intended to reflect an approach that the media should be partnering to assist in government defined development, then it is misconceived. What constitutes development in any given instance may be a matter for dispute, and the media has an obligation to report on the negative views as much as the positive ones, and to assess each issue on its merits in its opinion pieces.
The late Editor-in-Chief of this newspaper, David de Caires, once said “I do not share the view of the English editor who said that relations with the government were bad and getting worse and must on no account be allowed to improve. On the other hand I do believe that the relationship between the independent media and the government is necessarily adversarial. It is not possible to have a cosy or perhaps even a cordial relationship with the government without being in danger of becoming a toothless poodle instead of a watchdog.”
And that is the point: the development of a country is assisted if the media is allowed to operate unimpeded as a watchdog, albeit a responsible one. It hardly needs saying that a government which restricts, or even worse, suppresses criticism, is not a democratic one. In the DPI release it was stated that, “The PPP/C Administration values its extensive record in and out of office, of advancing and preserving the freedoms enjoyed by the local press and the wider media fraternity, while addressing issues of concern whenever and wherever they arise.” This is not altogether accurate. While in general the PPP/C has tolerated a free press, there have been slippages. It seems to have forgotten that it had barely acceded to office following the first free and fair election in 24 years when Bank of Guyana advertisements were withdrawn from this paper on the grounds of economising on costs, although they were still placed in the party paper, the Mirror. That situation was eventually resolved.
There was a far more serious lapse when state advertisements were withheld from Stabroek News for 17 months, with the unacknowledged objective of clearing the field for the launch of a paper sympathetic to the government. This was despite the fact that President Bharrat Jagdeo had signed the Declaration of Chapúltepec which states in Article 7 that the granting or withdrawal of government advertising cannot be used to either reward or punish the media. The ads were restored without any warning or explanation, but were subsequently withdrawn from all the independent media. Governments everywhere do not like criticism, but in an open society avenues for the expression of dissent are essential.
The government clearly recognises the challenge that the social media world represents, and sees the need for digital training for media professionals. However, it has infinitely less control over social media than it has over broadcasting or hard copy. One suspects that even in this country where mobile phones abound, most younger people, at least, derive their news from the former rather than the latter. Perhaps when it comes to discussing the sub-theme at the conference, the government representatives need to put their minds to more sophisticated responses to matters related to information; control is no longer an option.
