THE Opposition PPP has formally and through the media complained of inadequate coverage in three of the daily newspapers – Stabroek News, Guyana Chronicle and Kaieteur News.The party contended that of 30 press statements issued between June and August, less than half was carried by each of the three newspapers. We endorse the explanation given by our two sister papers that the primary criterion for determining coverage is the newsworthiness of the story rather than its author.
Of course, such decisions are mostly subjective to the paper’s editorial direction and are left to the discretion of the editor or editorial team. Hence there is bound to be some degree of bias for or against carrying a particular story.
We are satisfied that we have been as fair as possible to the PPP both in terms of the volume and breath of coverage afforded to that party. In addition to carrying some of its press releases, we have given ample coverage to the PPP’s weekly press conference, mostly hosted by its General Secretary.
Sometimes we have not carried the press releases, precisely because the issues therein were covered at the press conference. Further, we gave equal coverage to the PPP Members’ contributions to the recently concluded Budget Debate. And critically, we have covered the PPP without editorialising in the news stories. We are glad to have rid ourselves of this habit which had taken root under the PPP. Maybe we deserve some kudos from the Opposition party on this score – it is not subjected to the ills it inflicted on others.
As a newspaper operated by the Government on behalf of the State, we have an added burden which the private media does not necessarily have – to ensure political balance in our coverage. As was manifested through the comments by journalists and political commentators over the Government’s role in running the State media on behalf of the State, this is a thorny issue.
We maintain that the Government of the day is the primary manager of State assets, including the public media; it exercises ownership on behalf of the State, but the key is that it must be accountable. The issue, then, is less about what is meant by ownership of the State media, but more about whether, in fact, those media are inclusive in both their general thrust and day-to-day coverage.
This is what we have strived to do since the new Government has taken office and signaled that it had no desire to oversee the paper in a partisan way. We took that signal seriously and has strived to assert our editorial independence. This is an element which the critics overlook.
The Government is made up of people who in our one-party form of governance reflect a particular set of political values and aspirations which, most often than not, are not shared by the Opposition party. That cannot be wished away. One cannot expect the media to solve a problem that the people and their parties have failed to solve or may not regard as a problem at all. If we evolve to a National Government, inclusive of all our parties, the anxiety over the State-media may well be lessened.
Having said the above, we do believe that the State media have to be held to a higher standard on the issue of fairness of coverage. The PPP and other Opposition voices must be given equal coverage. Our media entities’ news coverage must not be reduced to simply what the Government and its Ministers say and do. They must be covered, but that must be balanced by coverage of the Opposition, Civil Society and our Community Organisations. Our editorial page, inclusive of editorials and op-eds, must uphold that sacred duty of the media to be critical of Government and Opposition alike when the need arises. There are no two ways about this. In our case, such self-criticism is vital to democratic renewal. But ours should not be the role of destabiliser, under-miner and saboteur of Government.
Ultimately, like the Government, the State-owned media coverage must reflect a balance of the various contending interests in the society. There is no other way. We must advance a balanced coverage of the interests of the Government and the Opposition, of male and female perspectives, of the worlds of the rich and the poor and the views of those in country and town. That’s where we stand.