LAST week, President Dr. Mohamed Irfaan Ali invited the local, regional and international media and special guests in Guyana to a brunch in honour of World Press Freedom Day.
He was also accompanied by the Prime Minister, Retired Brigadier Mark Phillips, Minister within the Office of the Prime Minister with Responsibility for Information and Public Affairs, Kwame McCoy, to the brunch held at the Baridi Benab, State House, Georgetown.
During the event, President Ali set the mood for the media brunch with a series of thought-provoking questions that needed to be answered appropriately about the changing dynamics and environment in which the media operates today. The president spoke of information, communication, and media landscapes, and the role that Artificial Intelligence (AI) could play in democracies like ours, stating that, regardless, the government wants to promote more balanced, truth-based, non-biased and responsible journalism here.
President Ali was adamant that countries need to analyse AI and its media use because of the consequences associated with the flow of bad, skewed, and false information, apart from its countless other benefits. The head of state said at the media brunch that Guyana must have a well-defined framework for artificial intelligence and digitisation.
He then committed that Guyana would produce, in 12 months, “a clearly defined framework for AI and digitisation in every sphere of national life… Because it is going to drive national and public life in ways that we have never seen before.” According to President Ali, he would be presenting the framework to other CARICOM countries at the meeting because he wanted to “develop on the evolving definition of the media.”
There was a sense of goodwill and good faith that prevailed at the media brunch during and after the President’s presentation.
Now, days later, the Guyana Press Association (GPA) has sought to criticise the president’s remarks in the most feral manner. While it is not clear at all what the GPA was harping loudly about, it said that aspects of the president’s speech were “regrettable, rather unfortunate and absolutely incorrect.” The GPA then accused the president and government of using the WPFD theme as “an entry point to signal your government’s intention to pass legislation or regulations to curb press freedom.” The GPA said it was “disappointed” with the president’s remarks.
Firstly, no one interpreted the president’s speech as an attack on press freedom or the media. No objective media personnel or representative exhibited discomfort at the media brunch or later in the press letter column, news, social media, and new media.
The head of state simply expressed his thoughts while stating the facts surrounding the theme “Reporting in the Brave New World: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Press Freedom and the Media.” He is entitled to his opinion and perspective.
The president’s views should not be mixed with the government’s policy direction. They are two different yet similar sets of things. So, President Ali should not be criticised or ostracised for offering a perspective. He did nothing wrong or untoward by stating the situation in Guyana with the media and how they operate as it is, and how he views it through his experienced lens. What the president did was exercise freedom of expression. Isn’t that what society is promoting? He is right!
The president’s speech was a brisk call to action. It offered many operating in journalistic realms here food for thought. He urged all present to be forward-thinking and transformative in the manner in which they use the AI technology, always considering the ethics and journalistic principles.
Instead of criticising the plan to share a clearly defined framework for AI and digitisation in every sphere of national life with other CARICOM countries, the group of Guyanese should welcome such a forward-thinking move. They should wait until the framework is available to criticise it and look at its real and hidden motives.
And the media is evolving. The media is dynamic and constantly changing. The media can be redefined in the age of AI. What is wrong with the president expressing this week with his colleagues in CARICOM? What is wrong with the Executive, if it wants to, express objective views on what that definition should be? Is that not freedom of expression? Inclusivity?
The president is not seeking to redefine media in Guyana or control the media or how information is relayed to the public. President Ali is not trying to censor or direct the flow of news and information, but rather has some ideas about the framework that could be drafted to allow a better flow of responsible, accurate, and true information from the media to the public. What is wrong here? Nothing.
Self-regularisation of the media is always best, but is failing in this modern age because gatekeepers are sleeping. AI and digitisation present the opportunity for a national conversation to take place about the newly and vastly changing nature of the traditional, social and new media, and its impacts now, and in the future, on the information landscape not only in Guyana but the wider field.
Secondly, the GPA must explain what it meant by releasing such a badly worded, confusing and vexing statement. Apart from its poor construction and verbose nature, the statement was a whole lot of nothingness. It was confusing and appeared very hostile to the president. The words disappointing and unfortunate describe the content of that ‘cuss down’ and ‘cuss out’ statement.
It should have taken on a more respectful tone and nature. This statement is riddled with speculations, generalisations and errors. It ventures into political adventurism. Could the GPA explain, in short order, how does “evolving” definition of media equates to licensing, authoritarianism, and other threats to media freedom? Where is the link?
The GPA speaks of intimidation and harassment, but members of its executive are known to attack or incite others to attack media workers. The GPA must explain what led it or its members to release this crass statement. It is clear that GPA is not acting in favour of the media it says it represents. To respond to spurious claims and misinformation released to the public is to give them relevance and space.
Simply put, there is nothing to respond to because the public’s perception of the GPA and its selective outrage is known. The GPA is very hostile, bold and exhibits a type of ‘scrape-head mentality’ when dealing with the People Progressive Party both in and out of office over the past decade. Just look at the last four statements released by the GPA, and the public can be the judge.
The GPA must conduct a long-overdue process of introspection. It must examine ways it could evolve in this free environment if it wants to hold itself as the bastion of media ethics. If it wants to be a self-appointed arbiter of good governance, it has to rectify its constitution and violations of processes. There is yet to be a reform of its constitution.
The GPA has taken a hostile approach to the current administration as observed in several of its previous “cuss out” statements. This is not a body any right-thinking, upstanding and objective journalist or journalistic entity would want to be a part of, much less represent their views on World Press Freedom Day nationally.
Thirdly, the GPA has opened itself to attacks from the wider public and its own membership, which played no role in approving that statement. The journalistic corps in Guyana is side-eyeing the GPA and will boycott it once it continues to spiral out of control, and goes down the line with these unnecessary, empty, and useless statements. Nobody ain’t knocking the GPA, but the GPA is hurt and crying wolf? No, seriously, the GPA has a growing tendency to arrogate to itself a misplaced sense of authority. Perhaps, it is getting back in campaign mode.
Finally, the GPA was invited to attend that State House event, but chose deliberately not to. The conversation would have been different today had it shown maturity, objectivity, and independence. It would have been different had the actors and officers been different and properly in place. It would have been different if it had not turned into a political arm of opposition, and had been apolitical.
The GPA must start to act like an adult. It must show its intellectual ability and mature intelligence when it seeks to confront the government on matters of media, harassment of its members and media freedom. Only by being a responsible stakeholder can it join in any conversation about the evolving media landscape, threats to the media here, and representation of the menu of concerns about existing and draft legislation.
The government seems not to be the GPA’s enemy. It has softened its approach in the last four years towards the media, but the GPA sees it as a threat, as opposed to a developmental partner that could make the reform it wants become a reality.