Questions for Media Monitors
Editorial
IF OUR understanding of the terms of reference for the Independent Media Monitoring and Referring Panel is correct, it is most surprising to learn that the panel has moved into the area of governmental policy on media ownership. A serious question arises over last Thursday's report in the Stabroek News of the panel's report - which, incidentally, was not made available simultaneously to the Chronicle. The two experienced journalists, who comprise the panel, may be advised to pay more attention to their specific terms of reference and not be misguided, well intentioned as we think they are.
Inquiries by the Chronicle revealed that the report by panellists, Dwight Whylie and Harry Mayers, revealed that their report was originally forwarded to the Elections Commission to be distributed to the media. Whatever happened in the process, we do not know, but we had to make a direct request for the report.
By some strange coincidence, there was also the unfortunate previous experience when a report from the Media Monitoring Unit of the Elections Commission first appeared in the Stabroek News and we had to seek an explanation.
Journalistic initiatives are always to be applauded. We would, however, like to remind both the Independent Media Monitoring Panel and the Elections Commission's Media Monitoring Unit of their own responsibility in the distribution of their reports.
That is, as a matter of policy, their respective reports ought to be simultaneously delivered to all sections of the print and electronic media for consideration and action as the media consider appropriate in accordance with the Media Code of Conduct they signed.
Ownership Issue
Neither the Media Code of Conduct, nor the relevant terms of reference as they pertain to media coverage for the March 19 elections, has anything to do with divestment of state ownership of the media.
If, as claimed, the members of the Media Monitoring Panel were informed that both major parties, the PPP/Civic and the PNC/Reform, "now promise that in government they would end state ownership of the media", then we are certainly not privy to such a commitment.
We are aware of declarations of intent from time to time to review the state's involvement in media ownership. But it is news to us that either the PPP/Civic or the PNC/Reform has decided to "end state ownership of the media" once in government following the upcoming March 19 poll.
But why should this become a matter of importance at this time for Mr. Whylie and Mr. Mayers that they feel constrained to "respectfully recommend that these promises be honoured"?
Surely these experienced journalists must know that state involvement in the region's media is not a peculiarity to Guano. So why make it an issue when it is out of their terms of reference?
There is also the surprising issue of their recommendation that GTV should cease its `This Week with the President' programme because it gives the PPP/Civic's incumbent "an unfair advantage over rival presidential candidates". Really?
This is a matter for the management of GTV. But all contesting parties, their followers, the Elections Commission and all institutions and agencies in this country are aware that `This Week with the President' is a programme instituted following the 1992 elections and has been a regular feature of information on government's policies and programmes.
It was not suspended for the 1997 elections and should not be confused with party political broadcasts for elections. We would readily join in objecting if the party political broadcasts, yet to be settled, were designed to give an unfair advantage to any party over others based on the established criteria.
As a matter of interest, where in the Caribbean Community is there precedent for an incumbent head of government to be requested to cease making broadcasts on matters of national interest because the country is in an election phase.
Even before the two-member media monitoring panel became operational, we had drawn attention to attempts to focus more on the state sector media than the privately owned media, and to make some criticisms of the latter as if to convey the impression of "balance".
We do not think that the panel of Whylie and Mayers will want to be part of any such behaviour. They have a lot to do, according to their terms of reference, to monitor, review and analyse the output of the print and electronic media; further, to receive complaints and commendations on the performance of the media; and to obtain relevant documentation relating to any complaint formally submitted for consideration. The emphasis on responding to "complaints" to determine their justification within the context of the signed Media Code of Conduct is quite clear.
There is much goodwill for the independent media monitors as well as the Media Monitoring Unit of the Elections Commission. We stand ready to cooperate with them, as we monitor the monitors and report, as necessary, on their reports.
 Follow the goings-on in Guyana  If you do not see the 'Guyana: Land of Six Peoples' drop-down menu on the left then please click here to enter through the front door which will give you additional options and information.
|