On Wednesday, Guyana observed “World Press Freedom Day” under the theme, “Critical Minds for Critical Times: Media’s role in advancing peaceful, just and inclusive societies”. Utilising criteria based on constraints and pressures placed on media by the Government, on the World Press Freedom Index, issued by “Reporters without Borders” (RSF), Guyana’s ranking slid three places downwards.
The RSF noted, “Although Guyana’s Constitution guarantees free speech and the right to information, officials often use its defamation laws, which provide for fines and up to two years in jail, to silence Opposition journalists. The members of the media regulatory authority are appointed directly by the President. This restricts the freedom of certain media outlets which are denied licences. Journalists are subjected to harassment that takes the form of prosecutions, suspensions and intimidation.”
But in addition to the negative pressures on media, governments in a democracy have an affirmative duty to encourage the freest possible dissemination of information to the people so that they may make informed choices in governance under the principle: “rule of the people, for the people and by the people”. Under “Public Interest Theory”, State ownership of the media is justified under the contention that private media may only represent the interests of the ruling strata in general, and their owners, in particular.
The State media, then, is supposed to represent those citizens who are excluded by the private media: they should provide “a voice to the voiceless” against all forces that would seek to ignore them in the articulation of what should constitute “national” interests. From this perspective, the State is acknowledging that the right to be heard is an inalienable right of the people and it is the State’s responsibility to facilitate this right. These are the reasons proffered, for instance, by the BBC in Britain for their role as a media group owned by the State.
In Guyana, however, the State went into the media business under a totally different premise: “Development Support Communications”, in which the State media was part and parcel of the Government’s developmental thrust. Its primary function was to have the media disseminate what the Government decided ought to be published. Burnham informed a UNESCO conference in 1974 in Georgetown: the Government “has the right to own sections of the media and the Government has the right, has a right as a final arbiter of things national, to formulate a policy for the media so that the media can play a much more important part than it has played in the past in mobilising the people for the development of the country.”
In reality, however, State media became an arm of the Executive and took warmly to its role in viciously attacking the Opposition and any citizen who may have disagreed with the policies or actions of the Government. This orientation for the State media has remained more or less intact since, and contrary to the protestations of those presently in Government, the State media is still used as an arm of the Government.
The Prime Minister, who is in charge of the media, infamously berated a reporter of the State newspaper for his article on a Budget debate that explained the Government “blundered”. Since this concerned a matter that most intimately involved the public – spending of their taxes – it illustrated the misapprehension the Government suffers under about the proper role of the State media. Most recently, the State media was also used to attack members of the Judiciary, which remains the sole bulwark against authoritarian governance, on behalf of the Executive.
In the State media, the Government receives an inordinate amount of coverage at the expense of the Opposition – even though this was a source of bitter criticism in the past. The Prime Minister also has appointed his chief spokesperson as the Chairman of the Board of the State newspaper.
In Guyana, positive press freedom is curtailed by the Government’s misuse of the State media.
