Well intentioned though he may be, America’s ambassador to Guyana, Mr Brent Hardt, is sufficiently experienced as a diplomat, as well as familiar enough with this country’s political, cultural and communications landscape to have made the kind of unfortunate intervention he did at a reception at his official residence last week to mark ‘World Press Freedom Day’.
In particular, the US envoy should have exercised some restraint in relation to his comments on the controversy over the government’s allocation of radio licences, an issue currently before the court as a consequence of claims by sections of the local media and the political opposition.
Whatever the comparative inadequacies there may be, ambassador Hardt has been in Guyana long enough, after previously serving in a similar capacity in Barbados, to know that when it comes to the vital issue of press freedom, it is simply laughable, to say the least, for anyone, diplomat or else, to seriously contend that this IS a problem in our nation.
Even among local professional media practitioners, there has long been the cynical perception — others may say practise — about the growth of a “wild west” electronic media in Guyana, during and after the death President Forbes Burnham, even though some new electronic media initiatives were encouraged by the late President Desmond Hoyte.
However, to deal with the current scenario in relation to the opposition-instigated acrimonious squabbles (including slanderous accusations against former President Bharrat Jagdeo) about allocation of radio licences, the Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandall, has already made a spirited intervention relating to remarks made by Ambassador Hardt on ‘World Press Freedom Day’.
Having a regulated media environment should NOT be confused or, worse, be viewed as synonymous with denial of press freedom. Examples abound in both rich and developed, as well as poor and undeveloped nations of the terrible consequences for humanity where media owners and practitioners have exploited lack of an enlightened media environment to foster divisions and commit horrible crimes. Ambassador Hardt would, we feel, be aware of such examples.
Attorney-General Nandlall has thought it necessary to reference a very relevant observation by a distinguished judge of India’s Supreme Court to underscore his argument in favour of a regulated media environment: “Intellectual paralysis,” said the judge, “creeps over any society that denies, in however subtle form, freedom of expression to its citizens…”
For his part, President Donald Ramotar had earlier in the week thought it necessary to express strong reservations about what he described as the “public lecturing” out of the USA to Guyana on press freedom.
The President, in pointing to examples of serious shortcomings on the part of the USA in relation to media and judicial freedoms, stressed that those who seek to lecture Guyana on human rights issues should first “clean up their own house…”
Not just Guyana, but other CARICOM partner states would share such a sentiment, even if expressed differently.
In particular, the US envoy should have exercised some restraint in relation to his comments on the controversy over the government’s allocation of radio licences, an issue currently before the court as a consequence of claims by sections of the local media and the political opposition.
Whatever the comparative inadequacies there may be, ambassador Hardt has been in Guyana long enough, after previously serving in a similar capacity in Barbados, to know that when it comes to the vital issue of press freedom, it is simply laughable, to say the least, for anyone, diplomat or else, to seriously contend that this IS a problem in our nation.
Even among local professional media practitioners, there has long been the cynical perception — others may say practise — about the growth of a “wild west” electronic media in Guyana, during and after the death President Forbes Burnham, even though some new electronic media initiatives were encouraged by the late President Desmond Hoyte.
However, to deal with the current scenario in relation to the opposition-instigated acrimonious squabbles (including slanderous accusations against former President Bharrat Jagdeo) about allocation of radio licences, the Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandall, has already made a spirited intervention relating to remarks made by Ambassador Hardt on ‘World Press Freedom Day’.
Having a regulated media environment should NOT be confused or, worse, be viewed as synonymous with denial of press freedom. Examples abound in both rich and developed, as well as poor and undeveloped nations of the terrible consequences for humanity where media owners and practitioners have exploited lack of an enlightened media environment to foster divisions and commit horrible crimes. Ambassador Hardt would, we feel, be aware of such examples.
Attorney-General Nandlall has thought it necessary to reference a very relevant observation by a distinguished judge of India’s Supreme Court to underscore his argument in favour of a regulated media environment: “Intellectual paralysis,” said the judge, “creeps over any society that denies, in however subtle form, freedom of expression to its citizens…”
For his part, President Donald Ramotar had earlier in the week thought it necessary to express strong reservations about what he described as the “public lecturing” out of the USA to Guyana on press freedom.
The President, in pointing to examples of serious shortcomings on the part of the USA in relation to media and judicial freedoms, stressed that those who seek to lecture Guyana on human rights issues should first “clean up their own house…”
Not just Guyana, but other CARICOM partner states would share such a sentiment, even if expressed differently.
