The state media is evolving. It was first established in a closed society where the Forbes Burnham administration saw its role as that of a conduit between the people in promoting its philosophy. Later, with the society opened under the Desmond Hoyte administration, private media were added to the landscape even as the state media continued its role of advancing government’s agenda. Under successive PPP governments, the Guyana Chronicle also operated in service to the administration of the day. It would not be untruthful to say from the inception of state media there has been reservation about its ownership and government using same in furtherance of partisan political interest.
On December 7th December 2015 in an editorial entitled ‘Role of the State media: a new era,’ it was made known that, “This newspaper is an arm of the State and will give primacy to the government’s agenda, inclusive of the views of members of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. Fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, such as the right to be heard, including dissent and response, will be held in high esteem.” This newspaper still holds steadfastly to this position.
With that being said, within recent days the papers has been accused of being an instrument of dictatorship and engaging in censorship. Ironically the view was expressed in this newspaper by Dr. David Hinds, a columnist and contributor. Such allegation is worthy of examination given this newspaper is owned by the people and is in service to the people. The commitment to frank, open and honest discourse about the past and present, in an environment where ethical standards are upheld is reiterated.
The right to freedom of expression does not operate in media in abstention of editorial judgment based on the paper’s policies, propriety and decorum the society is known for, may have lost, and is striving to regain. In effect, non-censorship is not unbridled, it carries with it responsibility on all sides. In our historically polarised and fractured society, the state media brings with it a duty of welding the people together in keeping with our motto, ‘One People, One Nation, One Destiny’ and as far as possible eschewing internecine conflicts.
There is no interest in litigating a past that readers in this Information Age can access easily and at their convenience engage in comparative content analyses among the different political administration. Suffice to say the change in management in 2015 has seen concerted efforts to earn the citizenry and readership respect, and be the newspaper of choice. As the papers continue to evolve it is the first time in its history contributors are allowed access to criticise the government of the day, in columns, news and editorial sections. This is borne out in evidence.
For instance, less than a year ago some who today grace our pages could not have had access, much less be critical of any act by the government. The new thrust of this newspapers allow for diverse views, voices and interests are to be expressed. This is done in furtherance of making the newspaper reflective of the society, regardless of the challenges that exist, professional and environmental.
Obviously navigating our role in a diverse, complex and divisive climate will not be seamless. In this climate, media professionalism faces daily challenges of competing interests of those who desire their views and recount of history be the dominant interpretation and acceptance of reality. Political forces both from the government and opposition are jostling to drive the media’s agenda and define its role, and civil society and individuals competing for their voices to be heard. The above are the realities that exist but to say the present newspaper is operating as a dictatorship and turning against the people is a statement not grounded in facts.