The private media is also professionally-challenged

May 14, 2011 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The idea that placing the media in private hands makes it freer than under state control may have some merit. The overall record has been that where the state has a monopoly on the media, it has generally been less free and more susceptible to manipulation.
We need not venture too far to know about this. Under the PNC there was a long period when the private media was non-existent, and it was during this period that the gravest excesses of press freedom and other human rights abuses occurred.
The problem for Guyana is that the mere presence of private media houses does not necessarily translate to higher levels of professionalism. The private media in Guyana has had a notorious record in this regard. Sections of it were responsible for stirring a great deal of problems because of their biased, one-sided and at times excitable coverage and commentaries.
While there are many private media houses which have been professional and balanced, there are still a few who seem to have little regard for these sacrosanct principles.
The PNCR which today finds itself in the unenviable situation of having to call for an abolition of state-ownership of the media in Guyana, was itself a victim of political extremism. It was the work of political extremists who found a medium within sections of the private electronic media that caused problems for the PNCR since the cart began leading the horse.
The PNCR has learnt its lessons. It lost considerable support because it could not effectively assert itself against those pushing the party’s supporters in the wrong direction. But it will take some time and require continuing insulation from political extremism if the PNCR is to regain the ground it ceded.
The leadership of the party has unfortunately faced the wrath of the frustration caused by the loss of elections in 1992, 1997, 2001 and 2006. That frustration has been unkindly vented against the leadership of the party when in fact there were things happening outside of the party and within sections of the private media that were pushing the supporters of the PNCR in the wrong direction.
In moving in a new direction, however, the PNCR must make a careful assessment of its policy choices, especially its position concerning ownership of the media.
Burnham clearly understood that a private media would be a thorn in his side. He pressured them out of existence. The PNCR does not have to follow that road, but it also need not go to the other extreme of doing away with the private media.
The PNCR is proposing the privatization of the state media. But is state ownership the problem? Or is the problem state control?
In both the United States and Britain, the government owns media companies. The BBC and Voice of America are owned by the British and American governments respectively, and the latter is allowed to air at times commentaries reflecting the position of the United States government.
The BBC is one of the more respected media outlets, and is reputed for its independence. But while the station is owned by the government, it is not run by the government. It is run by professionals and is therefore not controlled by the government.
Admittedly that is a model that is difficult to replicate in Guyana because of a highly divided society but it is by no means impossible. There are some private media house in Guyana, especially in the electronic media, who are more biased that the government -owned NCN which itself has set a low standard when it comes to fairness and professionalism.
But there are also some very professional media houses such as the Kaieteur News and the Stabroek News.
A state media is necessary. But this state media does not have to be controlled by the government. A state media run by individuals who are allowed to be professional- and such a model can be established- would serve a useful purpose in a country in which the state is still the most dominant economic force.
We may have a free economy but the state is still by far the most influential force, and therefore there has to be a role for a state media. However, that state media does not have to be like it was under the PNC nor how it is now under the PPP.
Privatizing the state media will not address the substantive issue of press freedom relating to the diversity of views which ought to be transmitted. There are serious problems of professionalism within the private media which collectively is no paragon of professionalism.
Privatizing the state media will not solve the challenge of finding a model of a professional state media.
The PNCR can by no means be suggesting that a state-owned media cannot be professional. For the PNCR to imply that would suggest a significant shift in its ideological thinking and set in further apart from both Burnham and Hoyte.
The BBC model can be tried. The BBC is an excellent model because had it not been state owned, its programming would have been commercialized and would have lost that special content for which it is known.
The PNCR must not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The state media is in a mess but privatizing it is not the way to make it clean and fresh.

---

---