“The free press is as vital to a country as the air we breathe”

May 14, 2014 News

---

…any attempt to muzzle it must be resisted – Nagamootoo

“The free press is as vital to a country as the air we breathe and any attempt to muzzle it must be resisted.”
This notion was expressed yesterday by Vice Chairman of the Alliance for Change (AFC), Moses Nagamootoo, as he weighed in on the recent statement made by Attorney General Anil Nandlall with regards to the regulating of the media.

Nandlall is quoted in a number of reports as saying that the media demands accountability from all, “but to whom do they account to, who watches the watchdog…The media cannot be rotating in an unregulated atmosphere; there must be rules that are known, and rules to which we can hold them accountable must be promulgated.”
According to Nagamootoo, while in Trinidad and Tobago the Freedom of the Press is enshrined in their Constitution, in Guyana, freedom of expression and the freedom to receive information is enshrined in the Guyana Constitution.
He noted that there are a number of prior censorship measures already in place and pointed to the laws of Guyana that address defamation in the context of the press.
He also reminded that in the context of electronic media, they operate under a licence which is issued with conditions, and if breached, can see that licence being withdrawn.
Journalists, he said, in such an environment work under a Code of Conduct, and any attempt to put special rules of bodies in place to regulate the media must be resisted.
The AFC Vice Chair said that “save and except for the existing parameters of the defamation laws, any attempt to muzzle the independent press must be resisted.”
“Nandlall is obsessed with state control of the media and muzzling free expression,” Nagamootoo said.
The Former Secretary of the Guyana Union of Journalists and former Vice Chair of the International Organisation of Journalists was adamant that “the media cannot be treated like a wayward child that you intend to bring standards to and tell it how to behave.”
According to Nagamootoo, the constitution protects free speech and any attempt to regulate free speech is unacceptable.
The Former Minister of Information was adamant that there are enough parameters in place, citing as example the Broadcast Act, in relation to the broadcast of pornography, nudity and obscenity and such likes.
He did concede that while the Broadcast Act is not a perfect law and has many flaws, there are broad guidelines.
According to Nagamootoo, the press is such an important feature of any country that it is recognized as the Fourth Estate and critical to the development and viability of any country.
Nagamootoo told this publication that “as far as I know you cannot issue regulations for journalists.”
Nagamootoo’s comment comes on the heels of a similar advocacy for self regulation of the media by President of the Guyana Press Association (GPA), Gordon Moseley.
The GPA President, when responding to Nandlall, pointed to the fact that it is this very Administration that had in the past attempted to muzzle the local media.
He reminded of the withdrawal of Government advertisements as well as the banning of reporters from covering certain assignments.
Moseley said that Nandlall is a part of the same Administration that disbanded the Media Monitoring Unit (MMU) which had operated under the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), particularly during elections period.

Moseley reminded that it is also the same Government that dissuaded the donor agencies when they had attempted to fund the MMU beyond just the monitoring of the media during elections.
The GPA President added too that this very Administration prevents the members of the state media from joining the Guyana Press Association.
He said too that the Administration also prevents the members of the state media from attending any of the training programmes hosted by the GPA.
Recently, too, in observing World Press Freedom Day, US Ambassador to Guyana, D. Brent Hardt was critical of the State as it relates to press freedom in Guyana.
The envoy reminded that the International Press Institute (IPI) had raised an issue he has long found perplexing – the use of the term “opposition media” to describe any media institution that is not controlled by the government.
“This is indeed a demeaning term that fails to do justice to the vital role that an independent media must play in a modern, democratic society,” the Ambassador had asserted.
He noted that the use of the appellation was also inaccurate.
“Anyone who reads or watches independent media in Guyana will see that there are letters to the editor supportive of the government, columns that advocate government positions and generally balanced reporting on actions of government,” Hardt noted.
By contrast, he said that in the state-owned and state-run media, which should hold itself up to an even higher standard of balance by virtue of being funded by taxpayers, one hardly ever sees a letter to the editor or a column supportive of the opposition or critical of the government.
“In fact, the public reads about instructions being passed by the government to state-run television criticizing staff for airing statements by an opposition party directly after the government’s position was presented, and indicating that such presentations were only to be aired late at night when viewership was lowest,” the Ambassador had stated.

---

---