No one, therefore, will dispute the urgency for the establishment of a broadcasting authority. Meanwhile, the warlords of the broadcast media, on a daily basis, are excessively wreaking havoc to the point where the mayhem may now be profusely exuding from their ‘pores’. Inflicting this havoc may have now become integral to some broadcasting personnel’s personality.

They continuously violate the terms and conditions for use of the electromagnetic spectrum. The licensee, invariably the owner of the television station, agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of the spectrum. The spectrum is issued under license by the National Frequency Management Unit (NFMU).

Terms & conditions of the spectrum
The licensee
1. will ensure that programs do not offend good taste or decency, or likely to incite racial hatred and crime, creating public disorder, or distasteful to public feeling;

2. will ensure that programs are presented with accuracy and impartiality;

3. will ensure that impartiality is sustained on matters of political or industrial disagreement or pertaining to public policy;

4. will ensure that responsibility is exercised with regard to religious content and that no derogatory treatment of religious beliefs and views entertained;

5. will ensure programs have a high standard;

6. will ensure that opportunities are available to the public with regard to exposure to multiple views on matters of public interest;

7. will ensure that the television broadcasting station operates only

on the frequencies assigned by the NFMU and for which the license is issued, and only with the approved technical equipment.

Talk show hosts’ main purpose of presenting an opinion or commentary is to inform the public and help them to make judgments on the issues of the day.

Talk show hosts’ opinions and commentaries must be held to the same standards of accuracy with regard to facts as news reports.

The Representation of the People’s Amendment Bill, No. 1 of 2001 was introduced ‘to prohibit person/political parties to incite racial or ethnic violence or hatred’. Yet, everyday, we see a few talk-show hosts

Heaping mountains of verbal assaults on persons and groups, assaults that may Be construed as racist, or as incitement to ethnic violence. Responsible reporting requires accuracy, balance, and fundamental fairness, and a compliance with the principles and ethics of journalism. In this vein, the first Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Media Monitoring Project prior to the 2001 election, was strategically timed to vitiate the lunacy that passes for journalism in Guyana. But problems ensued in how the monitoring was effected, in an honorably latent effort to eliminate this lunacy.

Lessons from GECOM Media Monitoring
The GECOM Media Monitoring Unit (GMMU) Reports prior to the 2001 election, while an important first step to correct deficiencies in the broadcasting world, seemed to have engaged, perhaps unwittingly, in methodological adventurism.

The GMMU’s mandate was to inform citizens in a pre-election environment about the behavior of the media and to inform the media themselves about their own behavior. This being the case, then, GECOM had a serious responsibility to present valid and reliable information. Validity and reliability to ascertain scientific integrity of GMMU cannot be determined merely by visiting GECOM’s offices, as was presumed during the monitoring process.

The GMMU reports presented for public dissemination, in their own right, also must have details substantiating their own scientific integrity.

A guided tour of GECOM’s offices should not be a prerequisite for determining scientific integrity.

The objective in evaluating the GMMU Reports was to assess their worth based on the validity of the projects as reported. The relevant literature, as related to the Caribbean and Guyana, was not presented. The authors of these Reports, also, should have synthesized the literature, related theoretical models, their experiences, and their perceptions of the problem.

This synthesis is required, so as to provide a rationale and a basis for interpreting the findings.

In future, GMMU’s methodology should draw from several disciplines.

Future Reports emanating from GMMU must contain an appropriate methodology section, and not merely a laundry list of definitions styled as ‘methodology’, as shown in previous reports. Providing mere definitions by themselves does not constitute ‘research methodology’.

The consequence is that many methodological questions would remain unanswered. For instance, in relation to the previous GMMU reports, I am not convinced that the coding used in the content analysis included the logic of conceptualization and operationalization. Also, if a monitor examined all news stories within a particular period, then the monitor would need to give us a sample of them, so that we can assess the appropriateness of the coding utilized.

GMMU needed to present all news items reviewed, perhaps, appendicized, so we could have ascertained whether they objectively pertain to the three categories used: political parties, GECOM, or Government. The Reports did not provide this information, essential for assessing and evaluating the monitoring project.

In addition, we need to have a general working agreement on the use of These terms. GMMU also needs to indicate the operations utilized to measure These specific concepts. Further, the Methods section, also, should indicate The standards used to classify news items into ‘positive’, ‘neutral’, and ‘negative’.

The Reports acknowledged relying on methods used by media professionals in many monitoring projects worldwide. The GMMU Reports may have very well done that, but these methods were vaguely presented.

In any case, it is simplistic to conclude that because GMMU’s method was previously applied in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, it necessarily follows that such a method can be fully utilized here. We constantly have to refine and modify research methods to ensure that our research design is appropriate for a new society. The previous GMMU Reports did not demonstrate that this procedure was followed. This research protocol must be applied in the future.

The GMMU Project in the 2001 election was based on a reactive approach whereby the monitoring process was driven daily by political party platforms and events, rather than the concerns of voters. The information, therefore, generated in this process, did not enable the voter to make an informed choice. The information should have been grounded in voters’ concerns and issues.

The use of ‘Government’ with regard to election-related matters in the news coverage, constituted another problem. Outside of its legislative mandate, the Government has no business in dabbling with election matters. The Government does not contest an election, a political party does.

GMMU used ‘Government’ as a category in the media monitoring process in Guyana. In fact, reputable media monitoring bodies do not use ‘Government’ in democracies as a category.

Let me now address the state media in Guyana. Unlike many countries experiencing transitional democracy, Guyana is one of the few that has an abundance of private media interspersed with the state media. Every day, the private media attempt to evaluate the Government’s performance, and this evaluation does not always comply with the norms of objectivity and fundamental fairness. The state media in this context have to continue to promote nation-building projects.

Again, for the state media, no distinction was made between reports on Governmental programs and projects, and election-related items. Given This blurred distinction, the GMMU erroneously suggested that the state Media provided a high positive coverage for the Government. This coverage for Government seemed to include both facts for Governmental projects mixed with election-related matters.

Media monitors need to understand the salient role of the state media In Guyana, as they were the targets of disparagement by previous GMMU Reports.

The Voice of America, Radio Marti, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, all funded by the U.S. Congress, promote foreign policy positions of U.S. Administrations. These are some of the U.S. state media that collectively are a mouthpiece for U.S. foreign policy. The Guyana state media are not that different. The Guyana state media promote, among other functions, the nation building policies, programs, and projects of Government.

Monitoring of the media during an election campaign in Guyana, with a history of rigged elections, is a politically sensitive activity. In order to apportion credibility and integrity to this type of media project, it is absolutely necessary, therefore, inter alia, to summarize the parameters of the training program used, and to publicize the staff profiles of the monitoring unit.

Culture of broadcast anarchy the Canadian Government, prior to the 2001 election, has given enormous support for media development in Guyana where it shored up the media and election code of conduct roundtables and radio production training.