THE STATE-OWNED MEDIA

Sep 24, 2011 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

 

There is no distinction in communist and socialist countries between state control of the media and control of the media by the vanguard party.
The ruling party controls the ruling ideas and therefore the ruling class does not recognize anything like the independence of the media. The media is expected to be partial towards the ruling party and towards the ruling class.
In fact, one of the criticisms of liberal democracy made by communists and socialists is that there is no such thing as the independence of the media. The communists and the socialist argue that the media, in the west, represents the interests of the ruling classes in that part of the world. As such they feel that the western media is controlled by capitalists and defends the interests of that class.
No wonder, they contend that during the invasion of Iraq, more attention was paid to American losses during combat than to the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians that were killed during the “shock and awe” bombing raids by the invaders.
In Guyana, the government has operated the state-owned media as if it is its own to do as it pleases. The state-owned media has shut out, just like the PNC did when it was in power, the views of the opposition. The news is slanted against the opposition and NCN radio newscasts have now undertaken the role of substituting commentary for news. The state-owned media, today, is no different than it was under the dictatorship.
There is now obviously a larger and more vibrant private media and thus the opposition has avenues for ventilating their views. This makes press freedom less restricted than it was in the past, but when it comes to the state-owned media, there has been very little attempt to try to accommodate the views of the opposition.
And this is unfortunate because the government is more than capable of dealing with criticisms by the opposition and therefore does not need to deny them a voice in the state-controlled media.
By denying the opposition a chance to have their opinions aired on state-owned media, the government is not doing itself a favor because the same views are going to find exposure in the private media and in the new media such as blogs and on websites on the internet.
If on the other hand, the government facilitated the views of the opposition in the state-owned media and responded to these views, it would have the benefit of being fair while discrediting the opposition.
The opposition should be allowed access to the state-owned media. The government cannot continue to monopolize the news and commentary content within the state-owned media without discrediting its record of greater freedoms for the press. As such, the newscasts should provide much greater coverage of news and opinions of opposition figures.
The state-owned media is not the media of the ruling party. With elections around the corner, the opposition parties should be given air time and should be able to have their views aired on newscasts without being tainted by biased comments.
Sections of the state-owned media must desist from pursuing a partisan agenda.
The opposition parties must be free to advertise their political rallies on state radio and television and must enjoy rates no less favorable than that which is enjoyed by the ruling party. A system of auditing must be put in place to ensure that all ads aired are paid for.
Since there have been problems in the past with certain opposition parties settling their indebtedness to the state-owned media, then there should be a rule that all ads have to be paid for upfront. No party should be given any credit because at the end of the day a party can rack up a huge bill and then not pay.
The observer groups observing the elections should pay attention to the coverage afforded to the opposition parties. There must be a commitment to free and fair elections. Free elections can be delivered by GECOM and the election-day staff, but a fair election requires that all opposition parties have access to the state-owned media.
The private media must also set a good example. The opposition is misguided into believing that privatization of the state-owned media will ensue greater independence of the media.
Our history has shown, however, that the private media in Guyana can be just as divided, one-sided and lopsided as the state-owned media and many in fact are. Selling out the state-owned media is a cop out from professionalizing the state media. Placing it in the hands of the private sector does not guarantee that it will be independent or balanced since it is the owners who decide on the slant that these private media houses can take, as if so evident in so many instances in Guyana today.

---

---