Comments and Responses

by Mr. Robert Persaud
INFORMATION LIAISON TO THE PRESIDENT

Media Access
-Weekly viewpoint by Robert Persaud

Today, there is a proliferation of media outlets, print and electronic, in Guyana . About 23 television stations (only one is state-owned), three daily newspapers (here, too, only one state-owned), two weekend newspapers and a plethora of journals and other publications. These outlets are located across the country's ten administrative regions, including the hinterland areas. The blossoming that has taken place is of revolutionary proportion when compared with where Guyana was just over a decade ago. In those days, the State maintained a tight and oppressive grip on media activities. The small private media, then, were an endangered species.

Guyana has moved from a situation from when the State nearly totally dominated the media landscape to where it now accounts for less than about 10% of the total media capacity in the country. The private media continue to grow at an aggressive pace without any hindrance from the State. The PPP/C oversaw the dismantling of a mammoth State media presence and has given way to a behemoth private media apparatus. This represents a commitment to a free media.

Any democracy depends on people having access to the media to express their opinions and concerns on various subjects. This includes Government, Opposition and the wider society, including a sugar worker or a gold miner. The media no longer, as obtained during the pre-1992 era, have to be afraid to carry the views of the Opposition.

On many of the television stations, there are numerous talk-show and call-in programmes with active viewer participation. There are about a dozen newscasts which cover events, issues and views of all shades.  Even an opposition party leader has his own television station. The newspapers all have letter pages and opinion columns. Access to the media today is unprecedented.

Recently, there have been the renewed, unfounded claims of the main opposition party of not having access to the State-owned media outlets - NCN and the Guyana Chronicle. This, the opposition contends, conflicts with the agreement reached between President Bharrat Jagdeo and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Robert Corbin. Those in the Opposition have been deliberately misrepresenting the situation from two angles.

Falsehood Number 1 - No access to the state media: Any reader or viewer of either the Guyana Chronicle or NCN would confirm the frequent appearances of the PNCR and its leaders in/on these outlets. For example, Mr. Corbin himself over the past week made several lengthy television appearances on NCN. But in addition to this, the main opposition has easier and wider access to the private media than the Government in some instances. This is no exaggeration. HBTV 9, VCT, CNS 6, HGTV and WRHM are either owned or operated by individuals who do not mask their support for the main opposition and their resentment of the PPP/C administration. And the opposition's easy access to the other electronic media houses can be viewed daily. The PNCR is treated, in many instances, better than the Government in terms of length and prominence of coverage in the private daily newspapers. If there is anyone disadvantaged by lack of access to the media, it is the Government and the PPP. The opposition PNCR has no grounds to stand on when it claims lack of access to the state media or the media as a whole.

Falsehood Number 2 - There is an agreement for the PNCR and Government to have equal access to the State media . The May 6, 2003 communiqué signed between the President and the Leader of the Opposition is pellucid on the issue: Equitable access (based on Parliamentary representation) to the state-owned media by all Parliamentary parties (as distinct from Government) would be instituted without undue delay). And on September 17, 2003, the Follow-Up Statement issued in the wake of discussions between the President and the Leader of the Opposition stated: The representatives of the President and the Leader of the Opposition will meet on Wednesday 2003 September 17 to consider both their proposals for giving effect to the commitment for equitable access by political parties (as distinct from Government) to the State media. Any agreement on access to the State media would be for the Parliamentary parties, meaning the PPP would receive an allocation and so too would the PNCR, TUF, GAP-WPA and ROAR. Further, the amount of time would be based on parliamentary representation: the PPP would receive the largest time slot, followed by the PNCR, GAP-WPA and TUF and ROAR. Time allocated would not be in ratio to what the Government uses on the State media to further national policies, programmes and projects. It must be pointed out that at the time when the PNCR aborted the constructive engagement process there was NO agreement on the allocation of time. But even in the absence of an agreement, the opposition parliamentary parties have had access to the State media. Also, there have been instances when invitations sent to the Opposition by the State media, for participation in discussions on important public policy issues, were ignored.

With the impending restart of political dialogue between the Government and the Opposition, it serves no good purpose for any side to misrepresent the letter and spirit of discussions and agreements previously reached between the two sides. And according to the President's new proposed format for the dialogue shifting it to the National Assembly there will be less room for distortions and warped analyses of these very important deliberations.