BITTEN BY ITS OWN BUG

Jan 30, 2009 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Can you imagine what it would have been like for the people of Linden had the PNCR motion been passed to allow for NCN to broadcast live and unedited the proceedings of the National Assembly?
Already the people of Linden are fed up with the fact that the only station which they receive is NCN.
To have had them endure as part of that continuing coverage, the proceedings of our parliament would have been too much.
Why did the PNCR motion only insist on NCN? Why did it not, for example, propose that other private TV channels, share in the broadcasts?
There has been a suggestion – one that I reject entirely – which states that a possible solution to the problem would be to insist that as a condition of being issued a broadcast license, that private television owners should be required to broadcast coverage of the proceedings in the National Assembly. I am thoroughly opposed to this suggestion since I believe it violates the rights of television owners to determine the content of their own stations.
It was perfectly legitimate for the PNCR to have called for increased and more balanced coverage of the proceedings of the National Assembly.
Depending on which station you are watching there is always a slant in terms of the balance afforded audiences.
Pro-government stations tend to emphasise the government’s presentations while pro-opposition stations tend to highlight more the opposing viewpoints.
The PNCR motion of live and unedited coverage was misconceived. There is no private television station that would be willing to carry such coverage because it would impact on that station’s earnings and viewership.
So why should the PNCR demand that this be done by NCN? While the State media has an obligation to report on issues of national concern, one should not expect that the State media should be driven into bankruptcy simply to satisfy live and unedited coverage of the proceedings of the National Assembly, even if such coverage is simply by radio.
Parliament is known to go on for hours, and of recent, some sessions have gone late into the night. Can you imagine the disruptions that will be caused to programming of radio or television if NCN was forced to carry live and unedited coverage of these sessions.
There is another reason why live and unedited coverage cannot be provided. Members of Parliament enjoy immunity from slander for things said in the National Assembly.
However, the television and radio stations do not enjoy this immunity and therefore it is impossible for them to guarantee unedited coverage.
One possible option would have been to have a specific station dedicated to the coverage of parliament, but with provision for delayed broadcasts. However, the cost element has to be considered here, and the government has forcibly argued that this venture would be much too costly.
The PNCR motion was therefore ill-conceived and ill-timed. The PNCR motion could not be approved because of the practical considerations alluded to above.
The PNCR however should not be unduly worried because the private print media, including this newspaper, have generally done a fair job in reporting on what takes place in parliament and has generally done so in a fair and balanced manner.
It is the lack of fairness and balance in the State-owned media’s coverage of the proceedings of the National Assembly which must have instigated this motion. It is unfortunate that sixteen years after the return to democracy, the PPP is still afraid of the free press and afraid of offering a fair opportunity to be heard to the opposition parties in this country.
It was disgraceful to have watched a recent television show on NCN castigating the opposition over the position adopted in respect to the Integrity legislation, and yet not had the opposition represented on the panel or to be given a chance on the same NCN for a response.
It is shocking and disgraceful to have learnt that the government is not relenting on the prohibition order denying Gordon Moseley, a reporter with Capitol News, access to State House or the Office of the President.
This matter should now attract a stinging rebuke by the Guyana Press Association and should now be internationalised with a call for international journalists to offer solidarity and to press the government to withdraw this gross violation of press freedom.
If this were not bad enough, we now have high-tech comedy in sections of the State media which for the first time in a long time have been unable to carry a statement issued by the President, in response to allegations made by his wife.
Sections of the State media have been unable in a timely manner to carry the statement because it did not carry the original statement from the former First Lady which led to the response. They have been bitten by their own bug.

---

---