On Sunday, Head of State, President David Granger, hosted media operatives at the annual Media Brunch held at State House in Georgetown. The President spoke eloquently about the need for the media to discipline their members who were out of line and were constantly breaching the ethics and standards which govern their profession.
President Granger lectured to the media operatives his concern over the broadcast and publication of ‘fake news’. The President also implored the newly elected executives of the Guyana Press Association to do more to ensure that their members were trained and schooled on the art of professional journalism and reporting, as he underscored its importance in a modern democracy, where objectivity in reporting was key.
While the President’s comments were on point, and appeared to be relevant given the dynamics in which the current media corps operates in Guyana, they must be taken with a bit of salt because of Mr Granger’s own track record since assuming the Presidency in May 2015.
Of particular importance are his comments related to “fake news”. Media operatives should be insulted by such an assertion by Mr Granger, as he is insinuating that some media houses here are deliberately publishing false or fake news. If anyone is familiar with the media corps in Guyana, they would know that it has most times demonstrated balance, accuracy, and truthfulness in its reportage of current affairs, politics, and human interest stories.
While the media here can be sensational and sometimes irresponsible, depending on a media house’s agenda, they do not publish fake news. Almost 90 per cent of the stories covered or reported by media houses here are based on truth or fact. Sometimes, those facts are twisted for political and personal purposes, but that is the situation across the world.
President Granger should therefore have cited instances when there was deliberate publication of “fake” stories or something which never occurred, or has no truth or bearing. Had he done this, it would have been easy to digest his lecture on both media ethics and “fake news”.
On the other hand, any right-thinking and politically-aware citizen would understand why Mr Granger is concerned about the quality of news that is published and broadcast. When Mr Granger’s administration came to power in May 2015, it benefited from positive coverage from most of the media houses here, which turned a blind eye to many of its transgressions. Some media houses had even gone to the extent of justifying the wrongdoings and illegalities of this administration by pointing out that the Government was new, inexperienced, and still enjoying its honeymoon period.
As expected, Mr Granger’s concerns developed after those media houses could no longer justify his Government’s actions and transgressions, because they were being made too often and had become glaring by February 2016. Obviously, they had to change gear if they were interested in putting the country’s interest above their own personal agendas. As a result, the amount of negative coverage doubled, with all media houses reporting concern over the clandestine, secrecy, and lack of accountability as well as transparency that had by now become characteristic of Mr Granger’s government.
The media itself reassumed its rightful position as the watchdog for the nation, and continued each week with stories that exposed not only the political immaturity of the coalition Government, but its missteps when it came to policy formulation, articulation, implementation and evaluation.
Mr Granger’s administration, despite its establishment of the Department of Public Information and its recruitment of public relations as well as social media gurus, has not been able to change the media’s narrative by coercion, or the release of “alternative facts”. His Government is still being criticised for its underground politics and double standards, as well as corruption — especially in the procurement and awarding of contracts for the provision of goods and services.
In short, the media here have censored themselves, and have returned to a point where they prefer to stand on the side of the people, as opposed to a Government that clearly demonstrates incompetence at the drop of a hat.
Media operatives therefore must guard themselves whenever they are part of events like those organised by political parties and presidents. They run the risk of becoming compromised whenever they do not understand the connotative and denotative meanings of the subliminal messages that politicians send, especially when the politicians’ rhetoric appear to be on point. They must reject politicians who seek to influence them for their own personal gain, and stand firmly behind the stories that they write and report daily, as they are the Fourth Estate and they know that they are defending the public’s interest. Without a responsible and professional media, the public cannot make informed decisions and hold their leaders responsible.
President Granger, who has held fewer press engagements than any President in Guyana’s history, has his own agenda with his rhetoric about “fake news”. He simply cannot secure a re-election if the media continues to expose the wrongs and failing of his coalition Government.
