In times when it has become altogether commonplace for even some of the most seemingly inconsequential occurrences to become deluged by an avalanche of public speculation, we cannot honestly feign surprise over the surfeit of public chatter that has attended the events that occurred at State House early last Thursday morning.
The fact of the matter is that the dissemination of information no longer sits and waits on either the ‘primitive’ tool of word of mouth or on what used to be termed the contemporary tools of mass communication. Technology has placed at our disposal what are now vastly upgraded tools that facilitate our ability, as individuals, to acquire and widely disseminate information, though, as we continue to discover, frequently to our considerable discomfort, there can be a disturbing downside to the outcomes of the manner in which those tools are used.
Two entirely different but equally critical points were made recently, arising out of the events that occurred within the confines of the area housing State House last Thursday morning. What the occurrence did, perhaps above everything else, was to make the point, not for the first time, that technology now offers us communication tools that enable both a speed and a randomness in the dissemination of information. Those tools, worryingly, allow for what, frequently, are questionable versions of events to become reliable accounts. The dangers that inhere in such circumstances can and frequently are, considerable.
In the instance of the Thursday State House occurrence, it was, for quite a while, difficult to ascertain what the facts were. Perhaps more to the point, ‘sources’ not necessarily possessed of the noblest of motives, became purveyors of ‘the facts’ of the matter.
The dangers that inhere in a circumstance in which we all (or at least most of us) become purveyors of information on issues of the greatest sensitivity and importance are immeasurable. The power to disseminate and more importantly, to ‘shape’ public opinion can be awesome, particularly given the speed and the reach of the contemporary communication tools at our disposal.
Our own experiences here in Guyana have thrown up numerous examples of the use of the aforementioned communication tools to deliver distortions by proffering degrees of ‘spin’ which, through ‘colouring’ and exaggeration, can quickly metamorphose into ‘facts.’
The effectiveness of distortion and spin and the appeal that these offer consumers of information, (particularly in matters of national importance) becomes significantly enhanced in a political environment like ours, where the state, frequently, displays a marked deficiency in terms of both speed and reliability, in the dissemination of information on matters of particular public importance. Over time, concoction and concealment have been embraced as two of the state’s favoured means of ‘managing’ the dissemination of information. These propensities, frequently, are pressed into service by official functionaries many of whom really know little about the various ways in which people process and respond to information which reaches them. In our circumstance what has, unquestionably been proven, is that recipients of state-disseminated information become ‘infected’ by the malady of skepticism that eventually becomes ingrained into their psyche. They emerge with a mindset that says that whatever is disseminated by a political administration must be subjected to the most mindful scrutiny.
What the various state-appointed ‘communication specialists’ appear, frequently, not to take account of, however, is the cultivation by consumers of news of the habit of selective attention. It is a tool acquired over time and arises, frequently, out of the misfortune of repetitively being fed ‘tall tales.’ What it does is to help enable the separation fact from spin and fiction.
We in Guyana, have long arrived at a point where our experiences have now completely shaped the manner in which we see and treat with the media. Over time, official accounts of events are, all too often, regarded as possessing the least credibility, which is precisely why the search for ‘accuracy and credibility,’ all too often, takes ‘consumers’ to sources that are distant from official accounts though, frequently, no less ‘infected’ by their own purpose-driven motives.
We must begin by acknowledging that the developments that occurred on the premises of the President’s residence on Carmichael Street, early on Thursday morning, cannot, by their very nature, be subject to a free for all as far as the dissemination of information is concerned. In saying this, however, there is always the risk of officialdom coming to the conclusion that discretion and care in the dissemination of information can be equated with information ‘lockdowns,’ that the state often appears to favour.
The incident on Thursday now requires far more information from the Head of the Presidential Guard, the Guyana Police Force, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Government on what transpired and what will now be done to ensure no recurrence. The stabbing of a presidential guard, the disarming of another and a shootout – all involving one person – present a dire picture of security at State House.
The public must also be provided with as much information as possible on the assailant, when he first entered the country, his purpose for being here and the various permits he applied for and which were granted or denied.
