ACM Releases

Lennox Grant and Wyvolyn Gager were appointed Independent Media Referees to oversee compliance with the Media Code of Conduct signed by the Guyanese media in January 2006.

Between April and the August 28 general elections, Grant, former Editor-in-Chief of the Trinidad Guardian, a career journalist with some experience in TV and radio broadcasting, now a media consultant, and Gager, former Editor-in-Chief of the Jamaica Gleaner, a leading media consultant in Jamaica, were engaged in assessing the performance of the Guyanese media under terms of the Code of Conduct..

keeping watch on media behaviour, pointing out violations of the Code of Conduct and responding to complaints.

Their report, “Public Advocacy, Private Diplomacy” covers their activities on this assignment and their recommendations for continuing self-regulation by the Guyanese media.

Thanks to the donor community in general, and the UNDP in particular, for providing essential back-up for the Referees including office facilities and access to communication resources.

Without the excellent co-operation and positive attitude of the UNDP staff, the work would have been much more difficult.

The referees were impressed by Tim Neale’s efficiency and grateful for his guidance.

We must also thank GECOM in particular, chairman Dr.Steve Surjubally, for the many courtesies extended to us.

The Media Monitoring Unit staffers were especially co-operative and they complemented the work of the Referees.

To our media colleagues for the confidence they reposed in us and for generously sharing their time with us. They were forthright and assisted us greatly in our understanding of the political, and the media landscape. But they saved the best for the last, and on Wednesday, September 6, they absolutely surprised the Referees with a fabulous party. Spirits were high and commendations were passed all around.

From early April 2006, when members of the Panel first arrived on our mission to oversee the Code for the election campaign, Guyana appeared so consumed by distractions as to cause us to doubt this was indeed an election year. Our in-country engagement had been set in accordance with the constitutional due date for national and regional elections. From our earliest consultations, however, we received advice to expect that, in Guyana, events may or may not unfold in accordance with constitutional or legal requirements, including timetables.

Will the elections be held on due date, and if not, when, if at all? Further, if held, would the results be found acceptable? And, given Guyana's troubled election history, what then?

These questions remained up in the air, even as the Guyana Elections Commission, with international support, was proceeding with preparations. Meanwhile, GECOM was fighting off opposition challenges to its integrity, competence, and credibility.

Most of the challenges directed at GECOM arose from suspicions of the "voters' list" or apprehensions about the Official List of Electors to be used on voting day. Dissatisfaction with GECOM's electoral preparations came largely from parties and organisations identified with the political opposition, speaking for Afro-Guyanese who make up just over 30 per cent of the population. On behalf of this sector, sentiments ranged from those of the African Cultural and Development Association calling for a boycott to press for enactment of agreed constitutional reforms. Less extreme, the People's National Congress Reform-One Guyana, the parliamentary opposition, demanded pre-election, nationwide, house-to-house verification of electors toward compilation of an acceptable, updated voter's list.

The ruling People's Progressive Party Civic, based on the majority Indo-Guyanese population segment, stood against delays and in support of the work by GECOM to deliver elections by the due date or as soon as possible thereafter. Guyana appeared dangerously divided over the basic means of giving effect to its democracy.

From one side was heard a more or less radical rejection of the arrangements for democratic self-government. Moreover, the rejectionist stance extended past the electoral system to target governmental practice that was seen to entrench exclusivity in the exercise of power and the "domination" of one ethnic group over another.

The other side--the ruling party and its adherents-- saw itself as having played and won by the rules, thereby earning the entitlement to govern by its own lights. It denounced calls for election delays and voters'-list verification as political intrigues to gain a share in power not won through the ballot box, and it associated the opposition with the threat of violent change and terror tactics.

Media: Actors and acted upon

Right up to Election Day, uncertainties prevailed, as unpredictability became the Guyanese norm. The Panellists, undertaking the equivalent of a crash course in Guyanese realities, endeavoured to get up to speed with a fascinating variety of political and social developments. We took up the challenge to "read" media reports, analyses, reflections and commentaries not only for the light they shed on this background but also for how the media affected and, in turn, were affected by the developments.

Especially in the newspapers, editorials and commentaries frequently took all sides to task. On July 19, a Stabroek News editorial voiced impatience over the setting of a date for once-delayed elections, and the continuing contestation over verification by then even reaching the courts. It expressed doubt that such errors as might exist on the voters' list could be sufficient to sway the election outcome.

"...Good taxpayers' money," it continued, "had flooded down the drain unnecessarily while the (GECOM) commissioners and other stakeholders avoided settling troublesome issues like residency." And then the paper pointedly addressed the role in the election-delay controversies of the opposition PNCR: "It is the ultimate irony that a party which blatantly rigged elections from 1968 to 1985 and never made public amends for this would be parroting charges that the stage is being set for rigging and multiple voting."

Two days later, on July 21, the President, having been notified by GECOM of its readiness to proceed, announced the election date. Shortly after that, the PNCR-One Guyana announced intention to contest the election, even while withholding trust from GECOM-supervised arrangements.

By Nomination Day, the excitement and energy of the campaign were overflowing into the streets, and the media covered the colour and historic meaning of the moment. The media themselves became part of the story: at least ten media personnel were listed as party candidates. Among them were signatories to the Code of Conduct under which they had pledged themselves and/or their media houses to "hold themselves independent and free of any or all control and direction from any of the political parties officially registered to contest the elections."

Running as candidates for parties clearly offends against the undertaking by media to "hold themselves independent and free" from those very parties. But the Code elsewhere anticipates need, in the Guyana context, for a nuanced position that puts a burden of self-regulation on those media practitioners staying on the job while running for office. It enjoins them against using their programmes or publications for political purposes and to "make clear what is news and what is political comment."

In the real world of media practice, the burden of self-regulation for one performing simultaneously as journalist and politician may well be insupportable. Nor is discharge of that obligation readily susceptible to oversight by an Independent Referee.

The erstwhile journalist is unlikely, overnight, to become so filled with sympathies for a political party as to become an electoral standard bearer. Surely, the Nomination Day declaration calls into question the bona fides of previous reporting or commentary. The latter-day full disclosure of political alignment prompts queries about whether, and for how long, the media practitioner, ostensibly committed to free and independent journalism, might actually have been a "sleeper" asset for the party of choice. The ultimate consequence is the accrual of cynical distrust for media protestations of unattached professionalism. It turns out that the exercise by some media people of their constitutional freedom of (political) association incurs a cost in credibility to other media people, and to the institution of the media.

The electoral preparations and exercises proceeded against a background of suggestions that the act of voting by itself, if that ever took place, would change little or nothing in Guyana.
Much public discourse alluded to the existence of another process underway, beyond the confines of the electoral contest but potentially more decisive for the future of the country. On August 23 Kaieteur News counted 26 violent deaths in 22 days.

These included the five pressmen whom assailants had shot dead one night at the News printing plant.

The Kaieteur killings drove home a jolting realization that, amid blood-stained rivalries afoot in the land, the media enjoyed no sanctuary. Such rivalries or vendettas found expression in three multiple murders in five months, including of a Cabinet minister, and the shooting death of one broadcaster. To all these, no political connection or motive was adduced, nor in most cases, were the alleged culprits held.

Nevertheless, and forgoing correctness of expression, the media tended to call these killings "executions," unintentionally purveying a connotation that the "executors" were carrying out dictates of some persons or groups presuming authority or claiming a political justification or purpose. In any event, it was arguably clear that fearsome firepower combined with murderous intent were available for use, or awaiting leadership. Other pieces of the puzzle included the spiriting away (and only partial recovery after six months) of 30 assault rifles from the Guyana Defence Force headquarters. Again, evidence suggested that the vast Guyanese "back-track" hinterland was proving hospitable to relatively long-term occupation by well-supplied armed groups.

The resources for as yet extra-political and extra-legal interventions looked to be in place. The security forces appeared to be mostly be out of step, when not in retreat.

While a mystery threat remained "out there," a kind of political rationale was being offered in the media. Some commentators argued that the alienation of Afro-Guyanese from an allegedly uncaring or hostile Indo-Guyanese government was having a radicalising effect. Deadly hit-and-run strikes by gunmen were portrayed as actions by an "Afro-Guyanese armed resistance," as one commentator called them. The government, this commentator proposed, should recognise the "resistance" for what it is and, presumably conceding the justice of their cause, seek a truce.

Such thinking found expression in the media, but certainly not endorsement by such a pillar of the media establishment as the Stabroek News. In an editorial that reviewed the mystery threat to the mainstream way of life and conventional practices, the paper called it "this new type of semi-insurgency." It is evident, the paper said, that "banditry and piracy have already become endemic in certain parts of the country."

Guyana was days away from participation in free and fair elections bespeaking commitment to world-recognised democratic practice, when one moderate and influential newspaper in its capital pointed to the existence of a "semi-insurgency. " So far from crying wolf, this finding captured a public sentiment of dread for the unknown forces known to be somewhere out there.

By the immediately pre-election days, security reinforcements, boarding up, panic buying of supplies, the early closing of shops and the absence of shoppers were identifiable signs of public apprehension surviving what had been a quiet campaign. "We stagger around in the dark realm of crime and in the fear-ridden land of the insecure," wrote GHK Lall to the Guyana Chronicle on August 21.

The security forces had by then struck back hard, after the simultaneous robbery of two banks in Berbice, by a gang described as operating with military precision, planning and ruthlessness, and meeting an obviously expansive need for large sums of cash. Within nine days, the forces shot eight suspected bank robbers in the Berbice backlands, and recovered eight of the army's stolen assault rifles and bags of cash. Photos of the dead men were displayed in the media, as the President and National Security Minister extended congratulations to the Joint Services. Police had also arrested and charged three suspects with the Kaieteur News killings.

Two weeks before the voting, and days after the Kaieteur News killings and the Berbice bank robberies, Ravi Dev, former MP and Prime Ministerial candidate for GAP-Roar, argued that Guyana was rapidly approaching "failed-state" status. "The state of Guyana is bleeding to death today." From since 1964, he wrote in a Kaieteur News commentary, the State had been denied the popular consensus of its "legitimacy." And now, "such (is the ) lack of overall legitimacy,... that terrorism has been allowed to continue."

As the gunsmoke lifted, the elections took place, and the public took no chances with their safety. All sides accepted the results and congratulations were exchanged. But for the media the big story of the elections was momentarily in danger of becoming a sideshow.

As yet, the Guyana context contains threats of "terrorism", of a "semi-insurgency", and of armed gangs in various backlands or garrison communities, directed by people unknown and with missions yet to be accomplished. While the media's appetite for the really big stories remains to be satisfied, the media's capacity for adequate coverage of such stories remains equally to be upgraded.

The media context

The Guyanese media reflect, with identifiable local peculiarities, what is recognised elsewhere in the Caribbean as the energetic striving for free expression in a liberalised, free-market context. Like elsewhere in the region, expansionism has characterised the Guyanese media which have attracted entrepreneurial investment in plant and equipment and mobilised human resources.

At any public or "news" event, the swarming presence of camera operators and microphones has come to be taken for granted. The familiar picture is of media representatives caught up in a competitive hustle and bustle to find content for their outlets.

Since the Final Report of the Independent Media Monitoring and Refereeing Panel following the 2001 elections, the existence of what was then described as "a multiplicity of private television stations" has remained a constant. Some 22 "stations" or outlets comprise the TV market. Radio remains a state monopoly. The Media Monitoring Unit has regularly scrutinised the output of those which broadcast political or public affairs broadcasts. The MMU's report for August 6-12, 2006, for example, covers eight TV stations, one (state-owned) radio station, and three daily newspapers. From two daily newspapers in 2001--Guyana Chronicle and Stabroek News--the daily print sector now comprises three titles with Kaieteur News having established itself in the market.

High aspirations vs underdevelopment

Guyanese media output is marked by a familiar Caribbean disparity between aspirations and strivings for quality performance, and the inevitable moorings in underdevelopment. In the newspapers, graphic presentation and reproduction are uneven, drab, and sometimes wretched to the extent of unreadability. Meeting adequate professional standards is a challenge met with equal unevenness in broadcast, with regular shortcomings in the quality of sound and pictures and failures to synchronise the two as necessary.

In the absence of media market research, it is difficult to assess how titles and entities are rewarded or otherwise on the basis of content quality. Apart from notices and observations in the monthly Guyana Review, little independent critical attention of media performance can be discovered.

Highs and lows: commentary and news

Newspapers in Guyana have a long history. In 1796, the Essequebo en Demerary Gazette started a more than 200-year tradition of unbroken newspaper publication. Guyanese newspapers are especially marked for continuing a tradition of serious-minded, literate and sophisticated commentary, analysis and debate. Some of the best editorials in Stabroek News will hold their own in any international company. Kaieteur News has retained commentators to write daily columns that, at their best, are spirited, well-informed, well-written and provocative. All the newspapers produce concerned and sometimes penetrative editorials. They also attract letters and contributions from public affairs writers who, with the newspapers, comprise a community engaging, at a respectable level of literacy and expression, in passionate and concentrated discourse on public affairs.

The country is less well served by the news reporting that fills much of the rest of the media output. Where the (newspaper) commentary and editorialising, at their best, bid for world-class recognition, the news reporting is frequently stodgy, lacking in penetration or investigative interest, and discursive rather than pointed.

It appears that, for commentary, the newspapers can draw upon resources not of their own development but residing in an intellectual community that retains vigour and vibrancy and a related interest in contributing quality material. News reporting, and copy and photo editing, and design, reflect a neglect of training and development.

Training and development shortcomings

Responses to our queries have confirmed the deficiencies in training and development. A self-perpetuating set of circumstances results in the media being undersupplied with suitably prepared human resources for reporting and editing.

Low pay is cited as one factor. For their part, TV broadcast executives cite the general shortfalls in revenue from advertising as determinants of ability to pay staff. Competition among the many stations results in depressed advertising rates. Moreover, TV operations which benefit from the free content made possible by lax or no copyright regulation can so keep costs down as to survive with low advertising rates. A further consequence of the enjoyment of free, pirated, content is the discouragement of local production.

Low revenues, low pay, result in high staff turnover. Able or promising people fail to be attracted to media career prospects and migrate out of the industry and, many of them, out of the country. Many media people keep a constant eye on career openings elsewhere in the Caribbean.

High turnover has discouraged managements from investing in training. According to one informant, at NCN, the state broadcasting network, the largest and best-resourced in the business, policy can be described as "zero tolerance" for training of staff at the University of Guyana's Centre for Communication Studies. Corroborating existence of this policy, the UG Centre reports that NCN's support of the programme is restricted to the hiring of interns. Staff opting for training on their own initiative can expect no time off.

More than 60 students are pursuing degree and diploma courses at the UG Centre. But the most common post-graduation pattern identified by the outgoing Co-ordinator is that of migration to the US and to the Caribbean islands. The result is that most practising media people in Guyana are without formal professional training.

One sore deficiency in radio training at UG results from the government's refusal to grant the university a radio licence. Students thus gain no actual in-studio training experience of broadcasting. For a way around this difficulty, the Centre has been exploring possibilities in Internet webcasting.

Training needs came up in an August 17 workshop put on in Georgetown by the Association of Caribbean Media Workers. The Kaieteur News publisher declared his willingness to contribute to training exercises for more journalists than just his own staff. ACM officials reported discussions with international organisations for training assistance. The workshop, however, heard what was described as the latest approach: "The new mantra is: Journalist, train thyself."

The professional environment

Apart from pay and training, the circumstances conducive to effective and fulfilling media practice include a facilitative environment for the spread of information and the conduct of discourse on public affairs. The value of freedom-of-information legislation has been recognised as an enforcement of the public's right to know, utilisable by journalists. A private member's FOI bill has been drafted, but its parliamentary fate of course remains to be seen.

Such a law, in the view of Julia Johnson, president of the Guyana Press Association, should improve the unhelpful conditions she described in the following terms: "No interviews granted. No call backs. Instead, media houses are seeing answers to queries they made in the form of releases from the government information agency."

Adequate circulation of information must coexist with a generalised enjoyment of free thinking and free expression together with readiness to defend those rights. Guyanese observers have doubts about the viability of this part of the media environment.

Freddie Kissoon, a Kaieteur News columnist, has argued: "In a country like Guyana...an independent observer is an endangered species. No one in this country sees the intellectual value in nurturing a generation that must be watchdogs so the future of the country can be safeguarded...". He counted media people among such potential "watchdogs." But the Co-ordinator of the UG Centre for Communication Studies bluntly stated, "I don't believe we have freedom of the press. You can be sent home for taking a certain angle on a story. There is a lack of analytical reporting. People operate in an environment of fear. You can't stand up."

The climate of fear may explain, for example, the frequent lack of bylines on newspaper stories. Fearing possibly adverse consequences, many reporters, it appears, prefer not to be identified by name with their reports.

Even in unbylined stories, however, much of the reporting is attributed to unnamed sources. Passive-voice formulations such as "it is reported", "it is said", "it is believed," and expressions such as "reportedly", proliferate.

The state of the State

The 2001 Panellists, Harry Mayers and the late Dwight Whylie, reported that, by 1992, Guyana had experienced more than 20 years of state control of the media. Control having since receded to ownership of one daily newspaper, considerable TV assets and a nationwide monopoly of radio, the state presence in the media remains substantial and casts a correspondingly long shadow. State ownership is still largely unquestioned in principle, though much criticized in practice.

Cultural understandings ingrained over decades prepare the public to expect as inevitable that state-owned media will be beholden to the interest of the party that runs the state. The appointment of a board including non-government representatives has not resulted in the National Communications Network enjoying an arm's length relationship from the governing political directorate.

NCN and GINA, the Government Information Agency, occupy the same or adjacent premises. This location of two nominally and operationally separate outfits, might have been intended to facilitate sharing, and co-operation if not collaboration. Both entities are signatories to the Media Code of Conduct, but the content of NCN has been monitored by the MMU alongside that of private TV outlets. As the MMU has noted, much of GINA's output of state information, often taking the form of ruling party political propaganda, is broadcast by NCN. The result is that, in the MMU's evaluations, NCN achieves some balance in its news coverage, but its overall political broadcasting is overwhelmingly in favour of the ruling party.

Scandal was created on July 30 at the PPP/C's first big rally in Berbice, when some GINA staff showed up wearing campaign apparel. Some things have hardly changed. In a pre-election statement in December 1997, Electoral Assistance Board criticized the then Government Information Service for bias toward ruling party. After the Berbice rally, similar criticism was again voiced. "There for all to see," Kaieteur News editorialised, "were some employees of the state media sporting jerseys and caps proclaiming their support for and loyalty to the ruling party." The Independent Referee, who also witnessed the demonstration of party loyalty, issued appropriate strictures against the practice. (See Appendix 4 ).

In its July report, the Media Monitoring Unit listed The President's Diary, The Fact, Weekly Digest, and GINA Features as four GINA programmes with "clearly political contentŠand elements of partisan political campaigning in the guise of government business". As the campaign proceeded to election day, content analysis of NCN/GINA by the MMU found increasing imbalance favouring the ruling party over the opposition, reaching 20 to one on VOG radio. In response to whistle-blowing by the Refereeing Panel, the Information Liaison to the President claimed in a press conference that GINA was simply carrying out its mandate. Upon requesting a copy of this "mandate", we received a document that detailed "GINA's Policy Statements", outlining its Vision and Mission. (See Appendix 3). No objective reading of the Vision and the 16 items of the Mission could contemplate the agency's use as a vehicle for partisan political statement, including direct attacks on the opposition.

On NCN, in the last breathless days before the election, the boosted volume of paid PPP/C political advertising appeared to overwhelm news and features and to appear as inserts in special broadcasts such as cricket, and even movies. The result was a seamless projection of the party's message. In seven minutes between 6.17 and 6.24 during the August 14 Six o'clock News, the President appeared twice, and in other stories the Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister both had speaking parts, with a party ad closing the sequence.

In keeping with its commitments under the Media Code of Conduct, NCN did, however, succeed in giving some exposure to opposition candidates. Rival presidential candidates appeared on Platform Issues, Close Up and Let's Talk. The Network also offered free time to political parties, but reported a poor response to its offer. Further, NCN, after some pressure, restricted its rate hike for campaign advertising to a minimal amount, thus ensuring that advertising on the state-owned network would not be a forbidding challenge for less well-funded parties.

A High Court ruling is awaited on the constitutionality of the state's denial of licences to private radio broadcasters. In the week before the election, the Head of the Presidential Secretariat called the attention of foreign observers to the emergence of an unlicensed radio transmission, allegedly broadcasting opposition campaign material and music. Such is the impatience with the government's preservation of its radio monopoly that popular reaction, and one editorial, was marked by expressions of surprise it had taken so long for a radio signal to go on air unlicensed. The matter of liberalizing radio enjoyed no high profile in the election campaign; it merited no mention in the manifestoes of the leading parties. In a newspaper interview, however, the PNCR-One Guyana leader said: "In the first 100 days in government we would open the state media to equitable access to all parties, including the PPP/C, and we would immediately approve licences for private radio stations in Guyana."

The winning party's silence on this question, however, signals that the resolution of the issues of state ownership of media, and state monopoly of radio will await a national discussion or a court decision, whichever comes first.

The Model of Media Oversight 2006

Self-regulation: The unhappy past

Recollections of Guyana's election-related disturbances had prepared two former editors of Caribbean newspaper to expect civil strife, or a tendency toward it.

That the media there had voted for two non-Guyanese as "referees" in local quarrels was initially surprising to those not sufficiently aware of reports linking the media to those disturbances.

But a peculiar condition of this continental Caricom sister was that the Guyanese media enjoyed a bad press. For their behaviour, the media were not to be particularly distinguished from the political actors, with the cast of thousands in the streets, taking part in the republic's destabilizing dramas. After the 2001 elections, a Commonwealth report had said:

"The behaviour of the media has been a powerful factor in recent elections in Guyana and has had a major impact on the electoral process. There is a case for action to regulate the media in general."

Upon arrival for the first visit of their 2006 mission, the Referees were greeted with the wry cheerfulness of an official who said, "Welcome to the Wild West of journalism!" The estimation that the media were unacceptably untamed and unregulated seemed to define the scope of the challenge to which the recruited Referees had been called as another election campaign loomed.

But the fact that we had been called by the media themselves, after having sworn to uphold a Code of Conduct, confirmed the mission to be one of playing a role in an exercise of self-regulation. We were aware this had been tried before. For the 2001 elections, another pair of Caribbean journalists, Harry Mayers and the late Dwight Whylie, had been accredited as Guyana's "Independent Media Monitors and Refereeing Panel." They had documented their experience in a report which concluded:

"The self-regulation which the Media Code of Conduct represents failed dismally during the election campaign. It was ignored or violated far more than it was complied with."

Self-regulation second time around

Still, the Guyanese media had kept enough faith in the model of self-regulation as to give it another try five years later. In the interim, the Code of Conduct had gone through a rewrite in a collaborative process moderated by Commonwealth adviser Tim Neale. By April 2006, the new Independent Refereeing Panellists were able to salute the result as "an admirable and highly respectable document."

We hailed it as representing "a collective pledge to pursue excellence-not in soaring abstract terms or generalities-but in purposeful specifics that translate into do's and don'ts, and informed exhortations toward better and best practice."

The Code of Conduct read like a resolution unanimously passed in favour of rethinking, reforming and re-engineering media practice. It was thus further resolved that a media monitoring activity be undertaken, and that an Independent Refereeing Panel of suitable Caribbean journalists be constituted. The Panel would be tasked with answering the question that would arise from the monitoring: "What is to be done?"

Refereeing Panel takes to the field

Under self-regulation 2006, no new powers were given to the Refereeing Panel. Using the then-timely analogy of World Cup football, we reported for duty without expectation of being provided with yellow cards and red cards. But we did provide ourselves with a whistle to call time-outs for consultation and, in extreme cases, to rule offside plays and fouls. We came with minds as open as could be and, as far as possible for veteran journalists, without cynicism, hoping only to make a difference.

From early we recognized that what was called for demanded selectivity, judgment, and a refined discretion. We have cited the inspiration of an old injunction to "See everything, overlook a lot, correct a little.

Though terms of reference existed, the role had not been scripted. It obviously called for working with people, for seeking and making alliances for the purposes of co-operation.

Two Independent Referees were being called into play on a field involving three daily newspapers, 22 TV outlets, with the state TV and radio players constituting a special case, maybe even a pathology.

We thus relied on the 18-member Media Monitoring Unit coached by Tim Neale, and were kept informed by the big picture captured by their wide-angle lens. From the MMU, we received monthly reports and videotapes for reviewing.

The first challenge was to understand. We needed to find for ourselves, and to weigh, the interpretations and guidance of old or older hands in Georgetown. To understand the country, the society, how things work here, how, and where they do not work. And to appraise the concerns, attitudes, fears, hopes.

This is a vast place by Caribbean standards but our mandate focused on the media, an essentially urban phenomenon, limited our scope to the coastal plain, in particular, the capital area, the heartland of action in the sphere of national public affairs.

Public advocacy, private diplomacy

The approach that evolved may be described as a mixture of public advocacy and private diplomacy.

In our first act of public advocacy on April 4, we introduced ourselves to the Guyanese media in the following terms:

"We see ourselves as facilitating the work towards betterment, toward realization of the objectives so nobly invoked in the Code, for it would be impractical to expect that the objectives of the Code could be reached for just the well-defined period of an election campaign, and that media will resume business as usual immediately after reporting polling results."

The three emphases of our first declaration were facilitation, flag-waving in promotion of the Code, and working for better and sustainable future performance. Later, we added a proactive element by organizing activities aimed at promoting adoption of more effective efforts toward meeting the goals of the Code.

One month later, optimism had been challenged. Atrocious murders had taken place, including of a Cabinet minister and relatives.

We came, we saw, and we concluded, on a note of continuing optimism, that it was going to be all right.

"The Guyanese media," we reported, "with some exceptions, held steady despite the shock effect of the horrific killing of Minister Satyadeow Sawh and family members."

Before coming to this conclusion, we had ourselves walked the talk, visiting newsrooms, leaders of media and reviewing media output. Encouraged by the aspirations toward professionalism, independence and responsibility we picked up in discussions with media people, we were "reasonably satisfied that media people here want to report fully, fairly and fearlessly, and to foster free expression and frank discourse of public affairs."

In June, we made TV appearances on the widely -watched CN Sharma channel and on the Royston King talk show aired on state-owned National Communications Network. We took the opportunity to practise more public advocacy but also private diplomacy.

As Referees, seeking to be even-handed, and daring to be fearless, we have both have given credit where credit was due, and condemned or questioned them when real or apparent violations have taken place.

In July, our first act was to give credit. The credit went to a paper that, so it turned out, would once again come under heavy assault from the ruling party.

As we told the Stabroek News: "We have been most impressed by the decision to achieve greater balance on your letters' page (through) the practice of offering persons who have been criticized an opportunity to air their side.”

"As the Independent Refereeing Panel we are not only concerned with the treatment of news and features but we also want to encourage ethical decision-making in presenting opinion and letters. While the first obligation of accuracy lies with the creator of the item, the media are ultimately responsible for ensuring that readers, listeners and viewers are given the facts."

Soon, however, we found ourselves assailing that same Stabroek News for "reckless" journalism, as a major row broke over a report suggesting someone had been paid to take part in PPP/C rally.

We were not the only assailants. The President and the ruling party Secretary General went ballistic, to the end almost of character assassination of the publisher. We denounced that too.

Proactive and reactive

By then, our plate was filling up. We held a media seminar, which was attended by 29 media people, including one newspaper publisher. Then we put on a "town hall meeting" to call attention of the public, civil society and political parties to the opportunities provided in the Code of Conduct by which they could hold the media to account.
We issued guidelines and tips for elections coverage. The guidelines included advice on what soon became the vexed question of estimating the size of crowds. (Appendix )

In further public advocacy, we took position against media people running for elections while continuing to be active practitioners. We also called "scandal" against the appearance of GINA staffers in PPP/C campaign apparel, a statement that drew an immediate sharp response from the ruling party.

After reports that media people had been harassed and assaulted in a campaign rally, we called on all the parties to take steps to prevent anything of the sort from happening again. (Appendix )

Hardly had the echoes of that public advocacy faded, when the ultimate in harassment occurred. Five press room workers at Kaieteur News were shot dead in a single attack.

As the shock went around the world, we joined in the expressions of horror, identifying and denouncing this heinous attack on press freedom. Also, we saluted the heroic response of Kaieteur News management and staff, in bringing out a historic next-morning edition, literally with the blood of near and dear colleagues still on the floor. (See Appendix )

In between, such high-drama activities, we engaged in private diplomacy and applying pressure tactics by taking on NCN for refusing to run political ads before Nomination Day, and for threatening to hike its ad rates high after Nomination Day.

We pursued complaints that some media had not been giving space to the parties as required by the Code, and crossed swords with one private TV station which had raised its campaign advertising rates by nearly 400 per cent such that only the ruling party could afford to advertise with it!

We also took issue with that same price-gouging station for a character-assassination broadcast against a Presidential candidate. (See case study.)

In public advocacy, we deplored NCN's decision not to cover PNCR rallies because of attacks on its crew, but also appealed to the parties for steps to prevent such attacks on the media.

In the campaign's final days, a TV advertising "air war" got underway, with the parties resorting to attack and counter-attack ads. As referees under the Code of Conduct, we were obliged to pass judgment on attack ads that had set tongues wagging such as "The Great Pretender" by the ruling party, and "You Know That You Lie", "Six Corruption Scams" and "Amerindian Bloodline" run by opposition parties. We upheld complaints against two of those four.

Just before election weekend, the Refereeing Panel called attention to the clause in the Media Code of Conduct proscribing campaign-type broadcasts and publications in the 36-hour period from before Election Day to the end of polling. Compliance was uneven. Some stations claimed to have been unaware of that provision of the Code. For better compliance in future campaigns, either earlier warning or prior revision and amendment of that provision will be necessary. Two complaints came about election-day broadcasts: one about the campaign-type "President's Diary" show on NCN; and another about the Prime Newscast. One complaint was upheld.

Conclusion: Measurable Improvement

The election campaign and Election Day passed in a climate of uncertainty, even foreboding. In the end, however, neither did the streets erupt nor did the media run riot. Compared to previous elections, Guyana in 2006 had been a model of comportment.

It was evident to the 2006 Independent Refereeing Panel that our approach of public advocacy and private diplomacy had helped raise the profile of an active agency in the business of self-regulation. As numerous references in the newspapers and other media confirmed, the public and political and social actors recognized there were real, accessible, people invoking moral authority of non-partisanship and a media community mandate, to whom they could turn for redress, clarification, or use as a point of reference.

Three days before the election, a tense moment arose when the Refereeing Panel, having reviewed the content of "The Great Pretender" TV ad run by PPP/C, deemed it to be in violation of the Code of Conduct and, in response to a query, upheld the right of stations to reject it. In a reaction that equally captured the headlines, the ruling party accused the Refereeing Panel of seeking to dictate its campaign and of siding with the opposition and, inexplicably, called on the Guyana Elections Commission to discipline or restrain us. The issue quickly subsided, however, as later in the same day, an official from the ruling party telephoned us to say that the ad would be withdrawn after that night.

Thus did the clearest expression of hostility to the Referees and to the self-regulation process prove to be short-lived. And the pattern of cordiality and mutual respect that marked relations and interactions between the Referees and all political actors and media house and media practitioners remained undisturbed.

Our own experiences and observations lead to a conclusion consistent with findings of the Media Monitoring Unit's report which was widely covered in the media on the days immediately preceding the August 28 poll. Assessing compliance with the Code, the MMU found "a welcome improvement compared with the scene as reported by the MMU in 2001and by the Independent Media Refereeing Panel in 2001 (Mayers and Whylie)."

Over five years, measurable improvement, rather than dramatic transformation in media behaviour, is as much as realistically could be expected. And the challenge facing Guyana and its media today is to maintain the momentum of improvement.

Building on the gains of 2006

Media representatives found occasion to review the 2006 election and to ponder the challenge of the future in a "Wrap-up Session" organized by the Referees, with USAID support, on September 5.

The session heard general concurrence with the finding of improved media performance in 2006. Media practitioners attributed it to two factors: a) the absence from the broadcast media for different reasons of at least two talk show hosts whose activities had proved disruptive and uncontrollable in 2001; and b) the work of the Independent Referees and the Media Monitoring Unit. As the president of the Guyana Press Association told the meeting, the media now have a foundation to build on and, if they were to succeed in continuing improved performance, there should be no need for an Independent Refereeing Panel at the next elections.

The success of the Refereeing Panel, then, could be measured by the degree to which it has helped to make its own existence unnecessary in future.

An earlier assessment of the 2006 model of self-regulation had come in the August 17 forum on "The Media, Democracy and Elections" put on in Georgetown by the Association of Caribbean Media Workers. In a paper making "the case for self-regulation," the ACM general secretary said: "I believe we have in the (Guyana) Media Code the origins of a way forwardŠ In short, through universal acceptance of the Code and the professional and independent conduct of the Panel, we find most of the necessary conditions for the development of a permanent mechanism for the administration of a system of self-regulation."

"What happens after the Media Code expires?"

At the September 5 "Wrap-up" and elsewhere, Guyanese media people have expressed hope for some successor operation to fill the vacuum created by the absence of the monitoring and refereeing activities which had been put in place for the duration of the 2006 campaign. In Kaieteur News on September 2, the columnist writing daily as "Peeping Tom," voiced a widely shared concern: "What happens after the Media Code of Conduct expires?"
The columnist expressed both appreciation of what self-regulation had achieved in 2006, blunt fear of the return of the bad old days without it:

"The overriding concern is what happens when the media monitors are disbanded and the Panel returns home. Surely, there is need for a system of continuous monitoring of the media and for a refereeing panel’s. We are all aware of the dire consequences to this nation caused by recklessness within the media."

Media practitioners at the "Wrap-up Session" voiced support in principle for the idea of a permanent Guyana Press Council to continue the work of the 2006 Refereeing Panel. We have recommended the reconvening of group of the 41 media representatives who signed the Media Code of Conduct on January 7, 2006 for the purpose of adopting and advancing the proposal of a permanent Guyana Press Council.

Thanks to the donor community in general, and the UNDP in particular, for providing essential back-up for the Referees including office facilities and access to communication resources.

Without the excellent cooperation and positive attitude of the UNDP staff, the work would have been much more difficult.

The referees were impressed by Tim Neale’s efficiency and grateful for his guidance.

We must also thank GECOM in particular, Dr. Surjubally for the many courtesies extended to us.

The Media Monitoring Unit was particularly cooperative and they complimented the work of the referees.

Both cases featured are from television. Television is notoriously weak on self-criticism, there are no “letters to the editor” correction or clarification page. It is therefore of paramount importance that television news and commentary exhibit the responsibility of balance and fairness which are articulated in the Media Code of Conduct.

Chandra Narine Sharma popularly known as CN, was by miles the most colourful presidential candidate in the 2006 elections. A refrigeration technician, he has been described as a hitchhiker on the credibility of journalism via his Channel six Television network.

However, Sharma serves a very useful purpose in the Guyana context, because he gives a voice to scores of voiceless people who are beset by myriad social problems. Giving a voice to the voiceless and holding those in authority accountable are two of the noble ideals of journalism.

August 18, 2006, NTN has breaking news featuring a distraught, incoherent woman complaining that she had been evicted from a house where she lived rent-free. The house belonged to CN Sharma, she claimed.

Then shamefully a four year-old child said to be Sharma’s son is paraded in front of the cameras. If a presidential candidate gets embroiled in a domestic dispute which leads to eviction and controversy that it is a legitimate story. In this case, however, there was no attempt to bring coherence to the story – the account was fragmented and the viewer did not hear Sharma’s side of the story.

Just when one thought that NTN had sunk to the lowest depth, it got worse. A few nights later NTN has the same woman in their Brickdam studios making new allegations. She claimed that Sharma abused her 11 year-old daughter. There was no supporting information from the police, the doctor or even Sharma to help the audience make sense of what was going on.

Apart from technical flaws, like poor sound, erratic camera work and an off-camera interviewer this piece of television was a flagrant violation of the Media Code of Conduct.

The Panel decided it was time to talk with Mr. Bharma Persuad of NTN. When it was pointed out to him that the broadcast contravened aspects of the Media Code, specifically “Balance or impartiality, requires the presentation of all the main points of interpretations of an event or an issue, regardless of whether the journalist, reporter broadcaster, editor or audience agrees with these views, enabling voters to make an informed choice” he said although he had signed the Code he did not know what it entailed. He was not able to find his copy.

Mr. Persaud attempted to justify the treatment of the story by likening it to the report of a robbery where witnesses tell one side but the robbers are not interviewed.

Anthony Veira’s commentary titled “Casting Pearls before Swines” aired on July 18, 2006, represents the rant of a bitter man whose anger was palpable. He clearly has unsettled business in the courts and one can understand his frustration for “justice delayed is justice denied.”

However, calling a public servant carrying out his job “a criminal” and an “arrogant little twerp” must be seen as violations of the Media Code of Conduct for its potential or likelihood of promoting bias and contempt.

Arguing that his only weapon against a justice system that has failed him is his commentary Mr.Vieira’s rant kept growing throughout the broadcast, even though the persons being attacked had been given no right of reply.

He can surely defend himself against executive lawlessness as he puts it, without being offensive and he has every right to question an ineffective judiciary.

On his comments about Gecom and its Chairman Dr. Steve Surujbally, while it is quite appropriate to criticize the management of the electoral process and apportion blame where it is due, alleging “criminal negligence” goes beyond the pale.

The broadcast is fraught with slander. In a way Mr. Vieira could only get away with these malicious statements because of a ponderous justice system, which ironically has failed him in other ways.

The single purpose of journalism is to take information held by a few and place it into the hands of many. The Media Code of Conduct obliges the media to the ideal of issue-focused reporting to enhance public understanding of electoral matters, ballot issues and candidate choices. How well did the Guyanese media fare in meeting this commitment? One must judge output against the challenges of the media in producing innovative stories without diverting resources from core coverage areas. And while the 2006 campaign is behind us, let’s look at a few examples of how coverage could have been more informative, interactive and useful.

Political insiders estimate that more than US$25 million was spent on the 2006 elections. But who is really auditing this expenditure? How much was spent and how did the parties raise these funds? What do the voters think about this expenditure? Can this money be justified by a poor country? What is the impact of money on political campaigns?

A substantial amount of the campaign budget would have been dedicated to advertising in print and electronic media. But beyond the money spent – what about the creative talent employed in making these ads. Who produced the Great Pretender ad? Which ad voters think was most effective? Which was the most memorable ad of the 2006 campaign?

The amount of media coverage party leaders receive during an election campaign has a great impact on undecided voters, political scientists have found.

“In the period after Nomination Day, the media agree to make available an equal amount of free space and time for all political parties that have met the legal criteria for contesting the election. This would amount to a minimum equal allocation of time/space per party of 5 minutes per week in the case of radio and TV and 200 words per week in the case of print.”

If the voters were relying on the media to help them make election decisions then they were left in the lurch by some media entities that failed to comply with this provision of the Code. Self-regulation will only work when all the parties are committed to it.

One learns by the way, of election petitions from previous elections that appear to be stuck in the judicial system. Are the media watchdogs of political accountability? Why doesn’t a story like that get covered?

Some industrious reporter should have combed through the promises made by the PPP/C Party during the 2001 campaign to see how many of them were kept. At the same time some presidential candidates made unrealistic promises and a reality check would have been welcome.

The group First Born was the featured band at various rallies. Here was one group that spanned the political divide. A feature on the band would have made good reading or viewing. Further, what motivated the parties to choose their theme songs? Who selects the music for a rally? Is entertainment a drawing card? Why did the PNCR-1G sponsor a gospel concert? What made it a success – gospel music or the PNCR-1G?

Little attempt was made to speak with first- time voters. What are the issues affecting the youth? Do they discuss politics at home? Are their electoral decisions based on what their parents say? Is there apathy among the youth?

Is there a law prohibiting the operation of rum shops on Election Day? How old is this law and is it being upheld by shop owners? Are there other laws which dictate how citizens should behave on Election Day?

Largely forgotten in the election coverage was the influence of Guyanese citizens in the Diaspora. How many of them returned to vote? What role did they play in fund-raising? How has the Internet changed the way they get election news? How many hits did online newspapers get during that period? Who monitored the web sites of political parties?

Someone is making good money producing party tee-shirts, banners, towels and other symbols which are commonly associated with the campaign season. Who are the designers? How many new hires resulted from activities associated with the election.

Freedom of Information Act

There is a general right of access to information held by public bodies. However, in some countries such information is tightly held under the cloak of an Official Secrets Act. In many countries this right is exercised through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). At the heart of the FOIA is the notion that citizens living in a democracy have the right to know what their governments are doing and why. In countries where the FOIA has been established journalists have praised it as a useful instrument that is essential to democracy. The Guyanese media should lobby for the passage of such an Act especially since Hansard – the official transcript of parliamentary proceedings – is not kept current.

The cause of democracy would be greatly advanced if the media were to succeed in opening government’s filing cabinets to the public.

Liberalising Radio licences

There needs to be a revolution in radio in Guyana. One would not however, advocate the unregulated environment which exists in the case of television. Radio has the greatest reach and there is every indication that citizens do not feel they are being well served by State-owned radio. The general view is that radio exists as government propaganda tool.

At the least the University of Guyana should be given a radio licence so it can fulfill its mission to establish a “centre of excellence for communication”. It is not possible for students to learn radio journalism without being exposed to the nuances of sound and the aesthetics of mixing and editing. There should be an urgent lobby of media, private sector, labour and other stakeholders to bring about liberalisation of radio.

Independent Press Council

The 40 media practitioners who came together on January 7, 2006 to agree on a Code of Conduct should reconvene to work for the establishment of an Independent Press Council or Complaints Commission that would advance the work of the Independent Refereeing Panel. There are many countries where such bodies exist and they carry out two roles – looking after the freedom and responsibility of the media. In that context, they deal with complaints about ethical performance of the media. Press Council membership includes owners, journalists and representatives from the public. Having no powers of sanction, Press Councils sometimes try to reach compromise with disputing parties, but the main weapon is to publish the cases they have adjudicated.

Regulations re political advertising

Television viewers have harshly criticized the bombardment of political advertising especially during the final weeks of the 2006 campaign. This also featured as one of the negatives of the 2001 campaign. The frequency and length of these ads while boosting station revenues left a bitter taste in the mouth of the viewing public. Political parties with deep pockets dominated the airways and prevented stations from bringing to the forefront key issues which affect voter’s lives. In future it is desirable to devise regulation for allocating paid political advertisement as is done in many other countries. One way of doing it is for television stations to come together and decide on the total air time to be purchased during the campaign period and allocate this time to the parties. This way both the frequency and the length of ads are kept within acceptable broadcast limits.

Training – University of Guyana, Centre for Communication Studies

The Government and private media houses should partner to deliver financial resources to upgrade the University of Guyana communications programme so it can adequately satisfy the nation’s need for media training. Such support should enhance its staffing, equipment and facilities to transform the Communications Centre into a regionally respected training centre capable of attracting overseas students. Infused with vitality, this programme has the potential for self-sustaining growth.

Let GINA be GINA

GINA should revisit its vision and mission statement which clearly dedicates the agency to meeting the government’s information needs. These needs must be so defined as to exclude any seeking partisan political mileage. GINA staff are entitled to their political views, but the management should ensure that political passion does not carry over into the agency’s output and into unseemly public display by staffers.

Make the State media truly the people’s media

To keep an arm’s length relationship between the government and the management of the State-owned media, establish a truly independent board, free of all party political delegates. A strong board should adopt and ensure implementation of policies aimed at making NCN provide excellence in unbiased and fearless broadcasting.

Divest Guyana Chronicle

Evaluated against the privately-owned dailies, The Guyana Chronicle held its own in maintaining standards of balance and fairness in coverage of the election campaign. That the Media Monitoring Unit findings support a conclusion that, on the basis of content, the Chronicle should perform better in terms of circulation and advertising revenue. Only through divestment, however, will the paper shed the unfavourable image of being a government mouthpiece, and gain a better chance to achieve circulation growth and commercial gains.

Infuse new life into the Guyana Press Association

The Guyana media need a broadly-based community organization dedicated to furthering the interests of the media, preserving freedoms, defending rights, and upholding professional standards, especially through expanded and sustainable educational and training activities. The GPA should embark on a membership drive, aimed at recruiting the majority of the corps of media practitioners, and opening up associate membership to civil society and others who endorse the values of free expression and support the advance of professionalism in media.

The Government Information Agency (GINA) was established by a decision made by Cabinet on October 1, 2001 (Ref: CP (2001) 7:5: P, captioned “Restructuring of the Government Information Sector”); signed by the Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr. Roger F. Luncheon.

The agency, replaces the defunct Ministry of Information. All assets of the Ministry were transferred to the Office of the President.