The usual anti-Government crowd, often referred to as the usual suspects, have really been scraping the barrel for their anti-Government narratives. The latest flimsy excuse for attacking the Government is that the Irfaan Ali-led PPP Government has put freedom of speech under assault. It is not a new attack. The latest reasons for accusing the PPP Government of being hostile to the media and freedom of speech emanate from two separate incidents. The first one was a few minutes of spirited exchange between President Irfaan Ali and Travis Chase. The second one was the allegation that the Government barred some accredited journalists from a presidential press conference.
The particular exchange between the President and Chase followed a recount exercise of 468 boxes from Regions Four and Five requested by the PNC-led APNU and a similar call for a recount by Azruddin Mohamed’s WIN after the declaration of results from all ten electoral districts. President Ali was visiting PPP activists who were engaged in the recounts. In the exchange, Chase was aggressively hurling questions at the President and clearly treating the President with a level of disdain. At one point, he addressed the President as Irfaan Ali. An agitated President pointed out to him that he is the President of Guyana.
It would be the height of hypocrisy for anyone in Guyana to categorise Travis Chase as a journalist committed to presenting a fair story when it comes to the PPP and any PPP Government. Any and all of Chase’s stories involving a PPP Government up to this time have been stories that reflect badly on the Government. It is fair to say that either Chase is anti-Government or chooses to focus only on stories reflecting badly on Government. Whichever characterisation one chooses, one should not think that Government officials, including the President, will always be charitable to any journalist that chooses to be one-sided to promote his or her anti-Government narrative or that chooses to focus only on negative stories involving Government officials. When journalists deliberately choose an aggressive posture towards Government officials, they must not expect angels as their targets. Those in the anti-Government crowd clearly must be desperate to find evidence for promoting their anti-Government narratives if this is an example to paint the Government as hostile to the media and press freedom.
The allegation that journalists were barred from a press conference as further evidence that the Irfaan Ali-led Government is hostile to press freedom is really scraping the barrel for evidence to buttress a flawed proposition. The fact that the President convened a press conference at short notice and that his media officials made oral invitations to accredited journalists is not unusual and is something that occurs frequently around the world.
If this is the quality of the allegations that proponents put forward as their evidence that the Government has placed freedom of speech under assault, then the anti-Government crowd is really scraping the barrel.
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press cannot and must not be a one-way street. It is incumbent on all of us to create an environment that nurtures and fosters a milieu that empowers freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Government has a major responsibility to create an environment that contributes positively to freedom of speech and freedom of the media. But the media also has a responsibility to be fair and honest.
In Guyana, there are four daily printed newspapers. The Guyana Chronicle is a Government-owned newspaper, and its mission is clearly to present a Government-focused narrative. The ideological debate about a Government-owned newspaper providing a Government-focused narrative is not new and is not unique to Guyana. The other three print-version newspapers are privately owned. The Guyana Times tries to be neutral, even if one views it as friendly to the PPP and the PPP Government. Both the Kaieteur News and the Stabroek News are independent newspapers. But it is sheer hypocrisy for anyone to categorise these newspapers as impartial. Their focus is not purely holding Government accountable. Their focus clearly is one that is highly critical of the Government and slants every story in a manner that is anti-Government. Within this milieu, one cannot argue that the Guyana Chronicle – the Government-owned newspaper – has sought to or has been able to limit the freedom of these newspapers to conduct their business in the way they see fit.
In terms of television, one can be pardoned for not knowing how many TV stations operate in Guyana. There are multiple stations, and all of them carry newscasts. While NCN can be fairly described as Government-friendly, and while there are several other TV stations that can also be described as Government-friendly, there are multiple TV channels that exist almost solely to promote anti-Government propaganda.
There is also a similar landscape when it comes to online news and broadcasts. Some are clearly friendly to the Government, but many more are anti-Government. The social media, in fact, is disproportionately in favour of the anti-Government narrative.
There is no justification for the anti-Government crowd and any of the international watchdogs to characterise Guyana as a country where freedom of speech or freedom of the media is limited. Guyana, in fact, is a country where such fundamental freedom flourishes to the extent that we must question whether freedom of speech and freedom of the media are not being abused.
The irony of all of this is that the anti-Government crowd is totally visible, and their rants dominate both the printed, voiced and visual TV media and social media. In the same breath that they loudly scream their anti-Government venom, they also claim victimisation. Guyana is a country where freedom of speech lives on fertile ground.