SOME LOCAL media entities, especially the Kaieteur News, Stabroek News, Prime News and Capitol News, have clearly established themselves as mouthpieces of the Opposition. Their efforts are complemented by some commentators attached to television stations and some blog sites with a common ideology. Their expunctions and slavish articulations confuse as to their classification as media operatives or politicians. What is not masked in any semblance of confusion is their sustained attempts to malign and disparage the Administration. Given their records and predictable utterances, no studious effort is needed to script their tirades had a similar situation occurred here as seen recently with regards to the riots in the United Kingdom. From what is known, based on reports from the various international news agencies, the unrest stemmed from an alleged questionable police killing. Current reports are suggesting that austerity measures and seeming lack of opportunities for the youths there were the catalyst.

Regardless of its genesis, such disorder must not be condoned. Law and order must be respected, and solutions amicably achieved. While the focus here is not the UK riots, aspects of it will be examined in the context of government-bashing here. Had it been a situation whereby local police were involved in the questionable killing of a resident, immediately, the wrath of the various facets of the Opposition media would have been brought upon the government. There would have been no end to their branding the Administration as inhumane, insensitive to people’s needs, and totally responsible for the incident.

Had such unrest erupted here, the Freddie Kissoons and his cohorts in the Opposition and its controlled media puppets would have spared no effort to let the world believe that the government was to be blamed for such uncivil behaviour. They would have basked in the gratification of seeing the wanton destruction of property and the maiming of innocent civilians. Very often, some of these same media operatives, columnists and Opposition politicians have openly articulated for civil unrest. Their seditious calls for such ‘revolution’, as seen in parts of the Arab world and the current unrest in the UK, have not gone unnoticed.

In the past, when such riots were staged at the behest of the Opposition who were unwilling to accept the free will of the Guyanese people at the ballot box, businesses were burnt and looted, and many unsuspecting Guyanese severely injured, with some paying with their lives. Guyanese are still waiting for the moment when such actions would be condemned by the Opposition and its media cronies. A similar situation exists when merciless bandits would invade the sanctity of people’s homes and kill a hapless father or son. No sense of sympathy is exuded for the victims.

When the police, through their diligent work, capture the bandits, they are accused of ill-treating the prisoners. If a bandit is killed following a shootout with the police, the welfare of the bandit takes precedence over police injury or the suffering of the victims. This seems to be the established modus operandi of this section of the private media alluded to. Their sense of responsibility is being sacrificed for political allegiance. They have become totally immune from the sensitivity of the people. They willingly contribute to instilling fear whenever the opportunity arises.
The scars of seeing an escaped criminal brandishing an AK-47 while being interviewed by a known Opposition activist is still fresh in the minds of those who suffered firsthand. The woeful irresponsibility shown by the television station that broadcast such chilling images can never be forgotten. The blatant bias shown by these media entities for criminal elements and their wellbeing is mindboggling. These alliances, with their treasonable overtones, are shamelessly exhibited, with no regards to journalistic ethics and professionalism.

The media contingent of this marriage is never hesitant to expound and articulate the machinations of its political bosses, despite possible consequences. Some media entities which transgressed the standards of what is considered acceptable broadcast have forced the hand of the authorities in an effort to maintain civility; the authorities have this responsibility to the vast majority. While the message has been clear that incitement would not be condoned, some are unrelenting in their efforts to incite.

Only last Thursday, the Mayor said vehemently on Channel 6: “…that is why the people (here) may have to take the streets as you see in Chile, London and in the Middle East.” His sentiments were clearly in the context of beckoning for civil disobedience. This is just an inkling of such treasonous utterances that are freely ventilated in this now free nation. He, as representative of others, is free to express his irresponsible tirades, and the TV station free to air. This is used as an excuse for freedom of expression. However, if consequences are meted out for treasonable reasons, the cry will be the suppression of freedom.

They should be reminded that the freedom of expression is not absolute; it is not a freedom to incite and be irresponsible. Like those in London, who are not free to loot and burn, the Opposition media here is not free to encourage same. Prime Minister David Cameron has cracked down on the unrest, and rightly so. Maybe by its lessons, the local Opposition media here must realise they do not operate in a vacuum; here, they would have used such incidents to call for an international boycott of Guyana, and to keep it in the light of disrepute.

Would Freddie and his media and political ‘siblings’ call for same in the UK? Don’t be optimistic. Here it would be automatic for their convenience, since these sections of the media are merged with the Opposition for the elections, and try shamelessly to be disguised in the alliance.