Marginalisation in the ownership of radio and print media

Nov 03, 2009 Letters

Dear Editor,
When we read of black clothed law enforcement breaking down the door of a citizen to search for information disseminating equipment we do not associate that kind of judicial force with democracies.
We do not relate that kind of judicial force with information disseminating in a state where freedom of information is sacrosanct.
When last have there been reports of this kind of intrusion in our region, on our continent, except in states where democracies are under assault?

The shutting down of CNS, the cancellation of ads in the SN, and now this Gestapo like invasion of the residence of Mark Benschop, all linked together by each being vocal in their critique of policies and actions of the current regime, represent a distinctive pattern that is far more recognizable and visible than any pattern of linkage in the fires that destroyed businesses of the Hamids.
The attitude of the Government of Guyana when it comes to media and information is indicative of an alarming level of covetousness. They have, in a partisan political manner, virtually converted the publicly owned media apparatus into a PPP information colony, marginalising the views of large segments of the population whose taxes contribute to its operating cost.
They enjoy a favourable level of coverage from the majority of television stations that are owned and controlled by members of the PPP constituency.
Despite this overwhelming advantage over the opposition, the regime still demand that they be given equal time in the pages of the two independent dailies, and as a result enjoy the partisan spin from three or more anonymous columnist supplied with the space to do just that.
Sticking out like a sore thumb is the fact that there is no such opinion facility accorded to the opposition. And to crown all of this off, almost as if to wipe the noses of the marginalised in this exhibition of absolute power, the regime grants a media operating licence to a close associate of the ruling party, thus skewing media ownership and control in Guyana to a proportion worse than what obtained in Southern America during the Jim Crowe era.
The silence over the marginalisation of a particular group when it comes to media ownership and information access in Guyana is atrocious. Guyana is a very diverse society, in terms of ethnic and cultural origins, and in terms of political and social views.

The state of media ownership and thus the capacity to tell one’s side of the story is being calculatingly manipulated by the regime in power with the view of allowing resonation of some voices, and silencing others. Yes, we must never swerve from the ideal of being One Nation of People bounded together by a common Destiny. But that ideal becomes a ludicrous notion of symbolism when it is observed that citizens from ancient communities like Ithaca, like Victoria, like Ann’s Grove, and yes, like Linden, are clearly being marginalised in the opportunity to own and control radio, television and print media in Guyana.
In order for there to be a diverse and eclectic flow of information throughout the 83,000 square miles of Guyana, media ownership has to be representative of our diversity.
I love to hear my neighbour’s story, my neighbour’s history. I enjoy and love to share in the cultural traditions of my neighbours.
But our social interaction will always be one sided when they have the facilities to present and share what identifies and connects them with their past and present, and I do not.
Over the past several years we have been lectured about the need to balance the disciplined and public service. The ethnic imbalances in these areas that have been traditional economic niches for one segment of the population has come under attack from many on one side of the political equation.
That there are profound ethnic imbalances in other economic niches, i.e. agriculture and commerce, and in other theatres of social and administrative power, most blatantly, in the ownership and control of media apparatus, never seem to weigh as heavily on the conscience of these critics. Neither does it seem to generate a sufficiency of moral and ethical repugnance to create a blip on the radar of fairness and balance they apply to other areas.

It certainly does not require any great pondering to understand why. More and more Guyana is exhibiting the pattern of a nation in which one group is equal and the other is less equal.
Martin Luther King opined that, “…..An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect of the law…..”.
Whatever laws that exist on the books of Guyana regarding the granting of permission to own and operate radio and print media is rendered ethically obsolete by the discriminatory pattern employed in the dispensation of such permission. No regime, especially one that is as demonstrably politically partisan as the one that is existent in Guyana today, is a dependable source of information, or a fair and balanced arbitrator when it comes to media ownership and operation.
It is clear that the policy of the ruling regime is to solidify its hold on power by keeping people backward and uninformed. In that state they are least likely to classify comments that describe torture as “roughing up”, or attempts to explain such allegations away with deficient expressions of wisdom, as the asinine revelations they in fact represent.
Robin Williams