THE STATE MEDIA SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT THE TRIAL

Aug 08, 2009 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Not all questions carry a straightforward answer.  Thus when this columnist was asked why the Guyana Times and the Guyana Chronicle newspapers carried such limited coverage of the proceedings in the trial of Robert Simels, it was not easy to provide an explanation.
In Guyana there is too often a tendency to condemn and criticise. If we are to build the political and institutional climate that would allow for the evolution of an ordered society, there is a need to show greater understanding and appreciation of the actions of others before jumping to conclusions.
Who knows, those newspapers may have shared the concerns of the government about Uncle Enrico and may have been disinclined to take their feed based on his reports. Or simply they may have not been offered the reports.
There were indeed serious gaps in the overall coverage of the trial of Robert Simels and this can be attributed to the lack of more local reporters in New York to bring a more comprehensive report of what was taking place.
While the courtroom may be filled, and while the trial may have evinced interest within the legal community in New York, this is by no means an international trial that is being covered by the established networks.  The trial does however hold a great deal of significance for Guyanese who are very much interested in what is emerging there.
When the trial first emerged, most of the reports in the electronic and print media in Guyana were from Uncle Enrico. Of course, he has been involved with the Roger Khan saga from day one and judging from the information that he was bringing out even before this trial got underway, he does have some valuable contacts and sources within the diplomatic community and within US law enforcement. He has been a good source of information.
But given the way he is perceived by the government and given the track record of media personalities in Guyana, there was bound to be scepticism about his objectivity and selectivity in reporting on this trial. In fact, immediately after the trial began, the government expressed concern about the source of the reports coming from New York.
Almost by impulse the Guyana Press Association jumped to the defence of Uncle Enrico, claiming that the criticisms by the government were an attack on press freedom, a criticism that is somewhat overdone.
The Guyana Press Association, more than any other organisation ought to be aware  of the divisive nature of the media in Guyana and how various media houses and media personalities are perceived by the public and how much these media houses and media personalities go out of their way to live up to this billing.
The government may therefore have had just reason to be concerned about selective reporting on the trial. In a sense all reporting is selective since not every aspect of an incident can be covered and thus a reporter always has to select those elements which he feels would be of concern to his readership. However, there is much greater responsibility to be objective and thus when reporting on trials there is an obligation to be just as balanced when it comes to reporting on testimony led by a witness as it is when it comes to the reporting of the cross examination of the same witness.
In light of the fact that public impressions may be formed by virtue of the nature of the reporting, is equally the obligation of any reporter in a trial to be comprehensive as possible so as to provide a full picture of the evidence led.
Readers will agree that there were serious gaps in the local coverage of the Robert Simels trial. Key aspects of the star witness were not carried even though these have a bearing on the credibility of the witness and will be important in the final verdict.
There were also things brought out in Julia Johnson’s coverage that did not feature in Uncle Enrico’s coverage. And this is why it is important that if the government has concerns about the sources of the reports reaching the local public, it ought to have arranged to have a reporter from the State media, who could have appropriately doubled for the Guyana Times, to report on what was taking place in the trial.
The State has been known in the past to have reporters from the private media accompany the President on trips overseas. If the government can do this in order to ensure coverage for the President, why couldn’t the government have sent its own reporters to cover the Simels trial so as to prevent what it deemed as selective coverage?
A few nights ago, there was a panel discussion of local television in which this newspaper’s reporting on drainage and irrigation projects was taken to task. Instead, however, of that eminent panel casting aspersions on this newspaper, the Ministry of Agriculture instead of rationing the information, which was being requested, should have been more forthright and provided, in a far timelier basis, the information requested.
The government is aware of the importance of the trial. It is also aware that reports can always be manipulated in one way or the other. It is aware of the deep divisions within the media and public perceptions of these divisions.
It should have had a State-media reporter cover the trial, rather than simply complaining about selective reporting.

---

---