Media monitoring panel
Editorial
The independent media monitoring and refereeing panel is in place and will accept complaints from members of the public that media houses and members of the media have not complied with the media code and guidelines that were agreed at roundtable discussions held late last year by owners of television stations, newspapers, and the state owned radio station and journalists. The members of the panel are two experienced and prestigious media persons from the Caribbean, Mr Dwight Whylie and Mr Harry Mayers. In addition to accepting complaints the panel will itself monitor and analyse the content of newspapers and radio and television programmes to determine if they comply with the Code and the Guidelines. Media owners have agreed to prominently publish and broadcast its findings on any issue. The panel will have access to the monitoring mechanisms already established by the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Media Monitoring Project whereby tapes are being made of all relevant radio and television programmes. In most countries, of course, radio and television stations are required by law to make such tapes themselves and to have them available for production when required in court proceedings or otherwise but that is not the practice here. The panel will have its hands full. Though the quality of news reporting on the radio and television stations and in the newspapers often leaves something to be desired and may on some occasions offend the media code and guidelines the journalistic atrocities are being routinely committed on the talk shows. Though as the GECOM Media Monitoring Project noted in its first report such programmes cannot be held to the "same standards as programmes that purport to transmit unbiased information in the form of news" yet they require some level of responsibility "and should certainly comply with the provisions of the Media Code of Conduct".
At present on these talk shows callers are allowed to make the most libellous and inflammatory accusations, the hosts frequently make no effort to intervene and correct them, indeed they themselves often fan the flames by accepting what is said as gospel truth and building on it. Facts are never checked, the programmes thrive in a sordid milieu of rumourmongering, personal vilification and racial accusations of one kind or another. Ministers are said to be thieves, judges to be in the pockets of politicians, guns are said to have been brought in for a political party and the most alarming statements are made with no evidence being produced and no effort ever being made to seek a comment from those alleged to have perpetrated the various misdeeds. The hosts do not recognise, or implicitly reject, the most basic principle of journalism. There must be some respect for the facts. Otherwise, anything goes. Any rumour or malicious invention can be put into currency, anything can be alleged however fictitious, imaginary or malicious. One ends up dealing in fantasies, in a veritable underworld of lies, half truths and conjecture. There is no proper basis for discussion as facts are never established or refuted. And there is a bottom line, of course, in terms of the damage done and the hatred fanned by the misinformation spread. And the thing feeds on itself. Hosts also do not have any delay mechanism to allow callers to be checked for sanity and credibility before putting them on air and to monitoring what they say when on. This is surely a necessary development to avoid obscenities and gross libels. Mr Hugh Cholmondeley has made the crucial point that ultimately it is the station owners who must take some responsibility for what is going on. So far, there is no evidence of this. By adopting the code and guidelines the media have made a commendable effort to improve their professional standards, particularly in this sensitive elections period. We welcome the panel and look forward to them getting involved.
 Follow the goings-on in Guyana
|