Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Media Monitoring Unit (MMU) Report for the Period: March 1, 2015 – March 31, 2015
Brief: On Tuesday, February 17 and Wednesday, February 18, 2015, at a well-represented forum arranged by GECOM and held at Georgetown Club, executives at the levels of owners, managers, and editors from the print, broadcast, and on-line media, and other important stakeholders involved in media regulation and training activities across the country, met to discuss the formulation of a self-regulatory Media Code of Conduct to guide reporting of political, social, governance and electoral issues, in the run-up to and after the May, 11, 2015 General and Regional Elections. The 2015 Elections Media Code of Conduct (MCC) was the consensus result of the aforementioned deliberations. In essence, this Code is a modified version of the one used during the country’s last elections in November, 2011. However, the current version is more expansive with the inclusion of additional categories of infringements not seen in the previous Code. The current Code also recognizes and takes into consideration the rapid technological advances that are daily re-shaping the country’s media landscape, and, as such, on-line media content, for the first time, is now included within the remit of the document. Another salient input into the current Code, is a Glossary of Terms that provides unambiguous definitions of some of the terms used in the Code, thereby lessening the possibilities for varying understandings and interpretations, as happened before. Significantly, the 2015 MCC was signed-off by twenty-three (23) media-related organizations in the country, inclusive of media houses in Berbice, Demerara (Georgetown), Essequibo, and regulatory and training institutions such as the Guyana National Broadcasting Authority (GNBA), and the Centre for Communications Studies, University of Guyana. Moreover, participants at the forum fully endorsed GECOM’s Media Monitoring Unit (MMU) as the sole entity to superintend the implementation of the Code. Indeed, the MMU’s track record in successfully monitoring local media performance since Guyana’s 2001 elections, says a whole lot about the years of experience the Unit brings to bear in the specialized area of media monitoring. So, even as we again unflinchingly take up the mantle given to us by the country’s media fraternity to implement the 2015 MCC, albeit in an unbiased, objective, and professional manner, we also see in it the opportunity to contribute in a definite way towards enhancing the nation’s democratic processes, of which elections is arguably the major plank.
1
Methodology: Beginning with this Report, the MMU will be employing essentially a similar methodology of media monitoring to that which was successfully used by the Unit during the 2006 and 2011 elections, but with a few minor adjustments, which, in our estimation, are absolutely necessary to improve the efficacy of the monitoring process. Basically, the Unit’s evaluation of the local media’s conformity to the guiding principles of the 2015 MCC is done at two (2) levels: Quantitative and Qualitative. At the quantitative level, quantitative measurements are objectively applied to the tone of coverage given to a political entity, by the print and broadcast media, that is, whether it is positive, negative, or neutral. In the case of the print media, measurements are done in column-inches, whilst, for the broadcast media, it is done in minutes. The process of determining and measuring positive, negative and neutral coverage provided through the print and broadcast media to the political parties, groups, and independents, contesting the forthcoming elections, is based on the kinds of impressions that the average reader (in the case of the print media) or listener/viewer ( in the case of the broadcast media) is most likely to arrive at, after being exposed to information emanating from a newspaper article, or a television/radio program, or specific parts of that article or program. Put simply, the concepts of positive, negative and neutral coverage are premised on how the content and tone of an article/program (or parts thereof) images or portrays a political entity. This aspect of media monitoring- quantitative analysis – takes into consideration the incontrovertible fact that stories (or parts thereof) disseminated through the print and broadcast media, especially during pre- and post-elections periods, are sometimes intentionally or unintentionally shaped in ways that create indubitable positive, negative, or neutral (neither positive nor negative) impressions in the minds of the consuming public about particular political entities contesting the elections. Such media reportage impacts the elections process in the sense that, to a large extent, it influences voter preferences on elections day. However, because such media content is observable, it lends itself to measurement, which is done using the tool of quantitative analysis. Positive and negative media coverage are self-explanatory and easily recognizable from their construct, tone and visualizations. However, neutral media coverage is that kind of coverage which provides information about a political entity that does not convey impressions that are either favourable or unfavourable, but is information given without any trace or hint of subjectivity attached. The Unit feels that the inclusion of a category 2
detailing neutral coverage is important in order to resolve the time-worn issue of media houses being accused by political entities of not receiving coverage. At the qualitative level, media content is assessed for balance, accuracy and fairness – the principal underlying tenets of democratic journalism. Very briefly, the Unit in making determinations on whether media content is balanced, accurate or fair, is guided by the following criteria/ connotative definitions: Balanced Reporting – Reporting that provides citizens (or the electorate)with all sides to an issue. It is the kind of reporting that allows citizens tocompare the programs and policies of contending political parties andcandidates, thereby acquiring varied information that allows for the makingof informed opinions and choices.
Accurate Reporting - Reporting that provides citizens (or the electorate)with verifiable facts; facts that allow for the making of informed opinionsor choices.
Fair Reporting – Reporting that is free of biases, inaccuracies, distortions,unsubstantiated information and all other factors that can underminecitizens’ abilities to make genuine political choices on elections day.
Since qualitative methodology is premised on observations, the Unit is also applying the methodology in observing, assessing and pronouncing on media content which contravene those specific sections of the MCC that forbid ethical violations, such as the publishing/airing of information deemed as: ethnic/racial incitement, inflammatory language, unsubstantiated political allegations, misrepresentation and distortion, just to name a few.
3
Coverage: The MMU Reports – beginning with this one - will present graphic statistical information on the kinds of coverage – positive, negative, neutral – given to the Political Parties in the crucial pre- and post-elections periods. It is also the intention of the Unit from henceforth to produce sequential Reports every four (4) weeks, unless otherwise stated. For ease of reference, the information taken from each media house is presented in two (2) types of configurations: Tables and Charts. The Tables display in raw numbers the amounts of varying coverage – positive, negative, and neutral - given to the Political Parties, whilst, the Pie-Charts depict the corresponding percentages derived from the numbers shown in the Tables. In the interest of clarity, the top-most cells of each Table depict the names of the Political Parties, while the left-most cells provide information highlighting the sections of the medium from where coverage was observed and calculated for the reporting period. The coverage for each Political Party is shown only if the minimum coverage the Party acquired from a particular media house over the reporting period equaled 1 column inch in the case of the print media, or 1minute in the case of the broadcast media. In sum, what this means, is that any positive, negative or neutral coverage given to a Political Party over a stated reporting period, that does not add up to the benchmark limits of 1 column inch or 1 minute, is deemed by the Unit as inconsequential. Moreover, in an effort to simplify and make the Reports reader-friendly, the print media has been segregated into the following categories: News, Editorials, Letters-to-the-Editor, Columns, Cartoons, and Advertisements. Alternately, the categories for the broadcast media read as follows: Newscasts, Talk-Shows/Interviews, Commentaries, Advertisements, and General Programs. Informatively, General Programs are inclusive of, but not limited to: Public Affairs, Magazine, Current Affairs, Documentaries, Sports, etc. A crucial point to note is that political advertisements appearing in the print and broadcast media are not assigned positive, negative or neutral coverage, since it is a given that political parties’ advertisements will predictably either portray the sponsoring party in a favourable light, or, conversely, depict a competitor in a negative way. This is standard fare. As such, the statistical information pertaining to advertisements as they appear in the Charts is intended to provide the reader with the totals in column inches (print media) and minutes (broadcast media) for each
4
competing political entity that was captured from each media house by the Unit. Nevertheless, in keeping with our mandate, we will screen all political advertisements for conformity to the ethical standards set forth in the MCC, and will make comments only if violations are detected.
Structure of Report: This first Report provides information on the coverage given to the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC. In determining which political entities the Unit will focus on for this Report, we were guided by the configuration of the last (10th) Parliament. In that Parliament, the political parties represented were the PPP/C, APNU, and AFC. After the prorogation of the body and just before its dissolution, there was an official merging or coalition on Feb. 14, 2015, between the APNU and AFC into a political entity called the APNU+AFC. Consequently, even though the political parties were separate entities in the 10th Parliament, it is now impossible to observe and apportion media coverage for them separately since their merger, because all their public activities are jointly executed and reported as such. The Unit is quite aware that there are a number of smaller political parties that have signaled their intentions to participate in the upcoming polls. However, it is our strategy, based on experience, not to document our observations of media coverage given to them at this time, but to doso after Nomination Day. The reasons for adopting this course of action are three-fold: some of these political parties tend to form mergers between and amongst themselves just before Nomination Day in order to contest the elections as one slate; some of them do not meet the eligibility criteria on Nomination Day to contest the elections; and, some of them drop out of the race altogether even before Nomination Day. Importantly, Government, as a political entity, though distinctly not a political party within the conventional meaning of the term, is nevertheless conterminously included in the Tables and Charts with the political parties for two reasons: first, it is necessary in the public’s interest, to clearly differentiate between the kinds coverage the Government as a distinct political entity from the ruling party (PPP/C) is receiving from the media, since it is an acknowledged fact that the Government and the PPP/C are generally seen as one and the same, when the reality is that the Government, as presently configured, has within its employ, technocrats who are not card-carrying party members, and who, justifiably, should be recognized as such; secondly, the Unit strongly feels that the Government is indubitably the single most important political actor in the body politic of the country, since the decisions they make and the policies they implement, ultimately affect all the citizens of this country in one way or another, that is, either 5
positively or negatively, hence the very strong and compelling argument for their inclusion in the Unit’s Reports. However, a caveat is in order here, and that is, the Government does not contest elections, only political parties do. In this regard, Government as a political entity will only be featured in the Unit’s Reports up to Nomination Day. In the interest of clarity, for the purposes of reporting, the concept of Government is construed and limited to the actions and activities of Government Ministries and Departments, the President, Prime Minister, Government Ministers, and Officials of Government Ministries, in the performance of their official duties on behalf of the state. It does not include any aspects of these persons’ social lives outside of their official duties.
On-line Monitoring: Unlike in previous elections where the emphasis was focused on the mainstream print and broadcast media only, this time around, the Unit has been tasked by the country’s media fraternity to monitor on-line media content also. We welcome the confidence reposed in us to so do. However, because of resource limitations, we are only for the time being monitoring online content originating from the country’s print media houses, GINA, and those on-line news websites whose principals signed on to the 2015 MCC. Relatedly, the Unit took the decision that it will only be doing qualitative monitoring of on-line content for ethical violations.
Current Report: The following Report documents the Media Monitoring Unit’s (MMU) observations, analyses and conclusions of the performances of the print and broadcast media vis-à-vis the 2015 MCC, for the period 01/03/15 – 31/03/15. Included in this Report for easy referencing, are comparative Tables and Charts showing the total amounts, and kinds of coverage (positive, negative and neutral) the Government and the political parties received over the past month, from the TV Stations, Radio and Newspapers. The Political Entities covered in this Report are: Government, PPP/C, APNU+AFC. 6
Likewise, the broadcast and print media from where the coverage emanated are as follows:
Television Safe Ch. 2, CNS Ch 6, WRHM Ch 7, HBTV Ch 9, NCN Ch 11, TVG Ch 28, MTV Ch 65, HGP Ch. 67, NTN Ch. 69.
Radio NTN Radio 89.1 FM, I-Radio 90.1 LOVE FM, WCR 93.1 FM, NCN Radio 102.5 FM
Newspaper Stabroek News, Kaieteur News, Guyana Chronicle, Guyana Times.
7
TELEVISION COVERAGE FOR THE PERIOD March 1, 2015– March 31, 2015 SAFE TV CH. 2
POLITCAL PARTIES
CATEGORY
(in minutes)
GOVT POS
GINA NEWS CAPSULE TALK SHOWS/INTERVIEWS GENERAL PROGRAMS
NEG
PPP/C NEU
POS
NEU
POS
NEG
NEU
7.8
0
1.9
3.9
0
0
0
1.7
0
0
0
0
0
14.1
1
18.6
0
96.2
33.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TALK SHOWS/INTERVIEWS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
GINA NEWS CAPSULE COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
NEWS, PPP/C POS, 3.9, 26%
NEWS, GOVT NEU, 1.9, 12%
APNU/AFC
NEG
PPP/C NEG 11%
PPP/C NEU 1% APNU+AFC POS 14%
NEWS, APNU+AFC NEG, 1.7, 11% APNU+AFC NEU 74%
NEWS, GOVT POS, 7.8, 51%
GENERAL PROGRAMS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
ADVERTISEMENTS TOTAL MINUTES FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
ADVERTISEME NTS, PPP/C, 2.3
GOVT POS 100%
8
ADVERTISEME NTS, APNU+AFC, 21.6
Observations/ Analysis For the current reporting period, coming out of the GINA News Capsules aired on the Channel, only the Government and the PPP/C gained positive coverage, while the APNU+AFC acquired a relatively minor amount of negative coverage only. Overall, the Government was adorned with twice the amount of positive coverage tallied for the PPP/C. The Channel’s Talk Shows/Interviews provided the PPP/C and APNU+AFC with moderate amounts of negative and positive coverage respectively. The General Programs from which ratings for the 3 entities – Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC – were calculated were all GINA-produced and provided the Government with a fairly reasonable amount of positive coverage only. No ratings of significant value were calculated for either of the political parties.
9
CNS CH 06
POLITCAL PARTIES
CATEGORY
(in minutes)
GOVT POS
GINA NEWS CAPSULE TALK SHOWS/INTERVIEWS GENERAL PROGRAMS
PPP/C
NEG
NEU
NEU
POS
NEG
NEU
0
2.7
4.6
0
0
0
1.5
0
55.8
170.8
9.9
0
186.4
6.7
416.9
4.8
331.8
79.7
0
9.8
10.5
0
0
0
6.3
1.6
TALK SHOWS/INTERVIEWS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
NEWS, GOVT NEU, 2.7, 12% NEWS, PPP/C POS, 4.6, 20% NEWS, APNU+AFC NEG, 1.5, 6% GENERAL PROGRAMS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
GENERAL PROGRAMS, APNU+AFC NEG, 6.3, 22% GENERAL PROGRAMS, PPP/C POS, 10.5, 37%
NEG
14.1
GINA NEWS CAPSULE COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
NEWS, GOVT POS, 14.1, 62%
POS
APNU/AFC
TALK SHOWS, TALK SHOWS, PPP/C NEG, PPP/C NEU, 186.4, 16% 6.7, 1% TALK SHOWS, GOVT NEU, TALK SHOWS, 9.9, 1% GOVT NEG, 170.8, 14%
TALK SHOWS, APNU+AFC TALK SHOWS, NEU, 331.8, GOVT POS, 28% 55.8, 5%
ADVERTISEMENTS TOTAL MINUTES FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
GENERAL PROGRAMS, APNU+AFC NEU, 1.6, 6%
ADVERTISEME NTS, PPP/C, 16.6
GENERAL PROGRAMS, GOVT NEU, 9.8, 35%
10
TALK SHOWS, APNU+AFC POS, 416.9, 35%
ADVERTISEME NTS, APNU+AFC, 59.1
Observations/ Analysis For the period of reporting stated above, the Unit observed that coming out of the accumulated GINA News Capsules, aired on the Channel, the Government received the bulk of positive coverage, whilst the PPP/C was the only political party that gained positive coverage, albeit in a small dosage. Of the 3 entities covered –Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC - only the APNU+AFC attracted a tiny amount of negative coverage. And not unexpectedly, the Government received approximately 3 times more positive coverage than the PPP/C. From the Talk Shows/Interviews aired on Channel during this reporting period, the Government and the APNU+AFC were the only 2 entities that got positive coverage, whilst all 3 entities- Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC- acquired negative ratings. Comparatively, APNU+AFC received approximately 87 times more positive than negative coverage; the PPP/C was almost all negative; whilst, the Government’s negative to positive coverage was exactly 3:1. Significantly, the PPP/C’s negative coverage dwarfed APNU+AFC’s by a ratio of almost 39:1. In the Channel’s General Programs category, the Government scored the most positive coverage. Amongst the 2 political parties, the PPP/C obtained a moderate amount of positive coverage; whilst, the APNU+AFC got a small amount of negative coverage. Overall, the Government garnered over 7 times more positive coverage than the PPP/C.
Comment Voice of the People The MMU is very much concerned about some comments aired on the live call-in segment of the VOICE OF THE PEOPLE program, broadcast on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 and hosted by Mr. Jaipaul Sharma. The Unit refers specifically to two (2) exchanges that took place between the host and two (2) separate callers to the program. The verbatim written transcripts of these exchanges are as follows: (1)
Caller: “…I want them to know Mr. Sharma we are prepared for them, we are ex-soldiers and we will prepare for them…” Host (J.S):“Okay, good, thank you!”
11
(2)
Caller: “…If the East Indian people pay attention to the arrogance of BharratJagdeo, Ramotar, and these people they would ketch sense. I join with the other caller that say we are ex-soldiers, we are ready for them, we waiting on them, you understand. This election will not be like the last few elections in Guyana. We waiting on them Mr. Sharma…” Host (J.S): “Good, thank you!”
The Unit observed that on both occasions the callers explicitly identified themselves as ex-soldiers, and on both occasions their comments constituted implicit threats against “them”. It is our view that when both comments are taken within the context in which they were made (relative to the coming elections), anyone, even a simpleton for that matter, would recognize “them” to be either the government or the ruling PPP/C, or both. Moreso, in following the trend of the two conversations, the Unit found that the host acted irresponsibly in not attempting to curtail the remarks immediately upon sensing the territory into which the callers were going with their outbursts. Alternatively, it is also our view, that if perchancethe host’s cognitive reflexes did not allow at the said time for the early interception and possible truncation of the callers’ remarks, at a minimum, as a responsible host, he should have cautioned or upbraided both callers during or at the end of the calls, especially in light of the nature of the threats made, which undoubtedly have implications for national security. Based on the foregoing, the Unit concluded that the program contravened Section B (1) of the MCC, which states inter alia that the media should refrain from “…broadcasting any matter with the potential for, or likelihood of promoting or causing public disorder, posing or becoming a threat to the security of the state…” The management of CNS CH.6 is advised to (re)read Section B (5) of the MCC, which, in summary, stipulates that proper editorial, presentation and production control skills and techniques should be used to prevent the kind of pitfall observed in this instance, where the host of a call-in program is at the mercy of the public, since he cannot predict who his/her callers would be, and what they will say, which can very well put the station at odds with the law, as has happened before.
12
WRHM CH 07
POLITCAL PARTIES
CATEGORY
(in minutes)
GOVT POS
CAPITOL NEWS
NEG
7.5
PPP/C NEU
10.9
14.1
POS
NEG
5.5
APNU/AFC NEU
10.8
POS
3.3
50.7
NEG
NEU
0
5.4
CAPITOL NEWS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
NEWS, APNU+AFC NEU, 5.4, 5%
NEWS, APNU+AFC POS, 50.7, 47%
NEWS, GOVT POS, 7.5, 7%
NEWS, PPP/C NEU, 3.3, 3%
NEWS, GOVT NEG, 10.9, 10% NEWS, GOVT NEU, 14.1, 13%
NEWS, PPP/C NEWS, PPP/C NEG, 10.8, 10% POS, 5.5, 5%
Observations/ Analysis Due to technical difficulties over the duration of the current reporting period, the Unit was only able to view Capitol News. We were unable to view the programs that would have made up the other categories of programming coming out of the Station. From the viewing of Capitol News, the following timings were observed and calculated for the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC: the Government, the PPP/C and APNU+AFC, all received varying amounts of positive coverage, with the Government and PPP/C gaining relatively small amounts in comparison to the APNU+AFC, which gained a fairly large amount. In fact, the APNU+AFC picked-up 9 times more positive coverage than the PPP/C and just about 7 times more positive coverage than the Government. On the negative side, only the Government and PPP/C attracted relatively modest and almost equal amounts of negative coverage. Comparatively, the APNU+AFC garnered nearly 4 times more positive coverage from the newscast than the Government and PPP/C combined.
13
HBTV CH 09
POLITCAL PARTIES
CATEGORY
(in minutes)
GOVT POS
PRIME NEWS GINA NEWS CAPSULE TALK SHOWS/INTERVIEWS GENERAL PROGRAMS
PRIME NEWS, APNU+AFC NEU, 23.8, 11%
PPP/C
NEG
NEU
POS
NEG
NEU
POS
NEG
NEU
29.3
10.6
32
9.6
21.6
3.8
72.6
5.9
23.8
1.7
0
2
3.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
13.8
1.1
10.8
9.5
20.1
84.4
3.9
59.7
18.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
PRIME NEWS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
PRIME NEWS, GOVT POS, 29.3, PRIME NEWS,14%
GOVT NEG, 10.6, 5% PRIME NEWS, PRIME GOVT NEU, 32, 15% NEWS, PPP/C PRIME NEWS, POS, PPP/C NEG, 21.6, 9.6, 5% 10%
PRIME NEWS, APNU+AFC NEG, PRIME PRIME NEWS, 5.9, 3% NEWS, APNU+AFC POS, PPP/C 72.6, 35% NEU, 3.8, 2%
GINA NEWS CAPSULE COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
Series1, APNU+AFC NEG, 3.9, 2%
Series1, APNU+AFC POS, 84.4, 41%
Series1, APNU+AFC NEU, 59.7, 29% Series1, PPP/C NEU, 20.1, 10% Series1, PPP/C POS, 10.8, 5%
Series1, GOVT NEU, 1.1, 1%
Series1, GOVT NEG, 13.8, 7%
14
GINA NEWS CAPSULE, GOVT POS, 1.7, 24%
GINA NEWS CAPSULE, PPP/C POS, 3.3, 47%
GINA NEWS CAPSULE, GOVT NEU, 2.0, 29%
TALK SHOWS/INTERVIEWS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
Series1, PPP/C NEG, 9.5, 5%
APNU/AFC
GENERAL PROGRAMS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 GENERAL PROGRAMS, APNU+AFC NEU, 2, 10%
GENERAL PROGRAMS, GOVT POS, 18.7, 90%
ADVERTISEMENTS TOTAL MINUTES FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 ADVERTISEME
ADVERTISEME NTS, PPP/C, 6.2
NTS, APNU+AFC, 31.8
Observations/ Analysis For the period under review, the newsteam of Prime News provided coverage for the Government, the PPP/C, and APNU+AFC, as follows: Government received a modest amount of positive coverage; the PPP/C, a small amount; and, the APNU+AFC, a relatively large amount. In the negative columns, the Government was the recipient of a samll amount of negative comments; the PPP/C a relatively modest amount of same; and the APNU+AFC received the least amount of negative coverage. All told, APNU+AFC’s share of positive coverage compared to the PPP/C’s was in a ratio of approximately 7:1, and compared to the Government’s, it was roughly 2:1. On the flip side, the PPP/C’s share of negative publicity compared to APNU+AFC was in the vicinity of 4:1, and compared to the Government, it was exactly 2:1. A closer look at the figures also showed that the Government obtained nearly 3 times more positive than negative coverage; the PPP/C, approximately 2 times more negative than positive; and APNU+AFC, gained approximately 12 times more positive than negative coverage. From the GINA News Capsules aired sporadically on the Channel, relatively small amounts of positive coverage were observed and calculated for the Government and the PPP/C, only.
The Talk Shows/Interviews aired on the Channel, over the past month served to allot the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC as follows: only the PPP/C and APNU+AFC commanded measurable positive coverage. The PPP/C was the recipient of a small amount of positive coverage, while the APNU+AFC gained a relatively large serving of same. Comparatively, APNU+AFC’s positive coverage was nearly 8 times the same coverage calculated for the PPP/C. In the negative columns, all 3 entities –Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC – captured small amounts of negative coverage. However, the PPP/C came in for the most negative profiling, followed by the Government, then APNU+AFC, in that order. The Government’s share of negative coverage was more than 3 times APNU+AFC’s, and the PPP/C’s negative coverage was more than double that which was calculated for APNU+AFC. The Channel’s General Programs section was overwhelmingly populated by GINA programs, from which only the Government received any measurable coverage. This coverage was moderately positive. 15
NCN CH 11
POLITCAL PARTIES
CATEGORY
(in minute)
GOVT POS
NCN NEWS GINA NEWS CAPSULE TALK SHOWS/INTERVIEWS GENERAL PROGRAMS NCN NEWS, APNU+AFC NEG, 124.4, 28%
NEG
TALK SHOWS, APNU+AFC NEG, 199.6, 24%
POS
NEG
NEU
POS
NEG
NEU
1.7
39.8
85.8
6.1
11.8
14.6
124.4
7.6
8.6
0
1.5
4
0
0
0
1.2
0
256.9
4
59
197.1
0
72.5
9.3
199.6
21.5
426.4
4.1
138.5
224.4
0
5.7
1.3
134.2
5.4
NCN NEWS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 NCN NEWS, APNU+AFC NEU, 7.6, 2%
GINA NEWS CAPSULE COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
NCN NEWS, GOVT POS, 160.35, 35% NCN NEWS, PPP/C POS, 85.81, 19%
TALK SHOWS, SHOWS/INTERVIEWS COVERAGEAPNU+AFC IN PERCENTAGES NEU, (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 21.5, 3% 1 – 31. 2015
NEWS, GOVT NEU, 1.5, 10%
TALK SHOWS, PPP/C POS, 197.1, 24%
NEWS, GOVT POS, 8.6, 56% GENERAL PROGRAMS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
TALK SHOWS, GOVT POS, 256.9, 31%
TALK SHOWS, GOVT NEG, 4.0, 1% TALK SHOWS, GOVT NEU, 59.0, 7%
NEWS, APNU+AFC NEG, 1.2, 8%
NEWS, PPP/C POS, 4.0, 26%
NCN NEWS, GOVT NEU, 39.8, 9%
TALK SHOWS, APNU+AFC POS, 9.3, 1% TALK SHOWS, PPP/C NEU, 72.5, 9%
NEU
APNU/AFC
160.4
NCN NEWS, APNU+AFC POS, 14.55, 3% NCN NEWS, PPP/C NEU, 11.8, 3% NCN NEWS, PPP/C NEG, 6.1, 1%
PPP/C
GENERAL PROGRAMS, GOVT NEU, 138.5, 15%
GENERAL PROGRAMS, GOVT POS, 426.4, 46%
16
GENERAL PROGRAMS, PPP/C POS, 224.4, 24% GENERAL PROGRAMS, PPP/C NEU, 5.7, 1% GENERAL PROGRAMS, APNU+AFC NEG, 134.2, 14%
ADVERTISEMENTS TOTAL MINUTES FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 ADVERTISEMEN
TS, PPP/C, 128.1
ADVERTISEMEN TS, APNU+AFC, 10.4
Observations/ Analysis During the current reporting period, the NCN Newsnews team presented the public with news-reports which provided the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC, with the following coverage: all 3 entities were given positive publicity, with the Government attracting the largest share, followed by the PPP/C, and then APNU+AFC, in that order. The Government and the PPP/C’s share of negative coverage were relatively minuscule, compared to the APNU+AFC, which was the recipient of a relatively copious amount of same. The Government was provided with a positive to negative ratio of coverage of approximately 94:1, the PPP/C was given a positive to negative ratio of coverage of exactly 14:1, while the APNU+AFC balance of coverage was in the reverse order showing a negative to positive ratio of around 8:1. In fact, the negative coverage observed and calculated for APNU+AFC was roughly 16 times more than the combined negative coverage calculated for the Government and the PPP/C. Contrastingly, the positive coverage calculated for the Government was almost 2 times more the same coverage calculated for the PPP/C and 11 times the same coverage given to APNU+AFC. The PPP/C also upstaged APNU+AFC for positive coverage, by a margin of almost 6:1. In the GINA News Capsules seen on the Channel, the Government and the PPP/C were given fairly small amounts of positive coverage, and the APNU+AFC, a relatively insubstantial amount of negative coverage only. From the Channel’s Talk Shows/Interviews, the Government and the PPP/C garnered large amounts of positive coverage, while the APNU+AFC got a relatively small quantum. Conversely, the APNU+AFC, was given a large dose of negative publicity, while the Government attracted a relatively small amount, and the PPP/C, nil. In comparative terms, the Government’s positive to negative ratio of coverage was approximately 64:1, the PPP/C’s coverage was all positive, while the APNU+AFC’s coverage was skewed to the negative side in a ratio of approximately 21:1. The positive coverage calculated for the Government as compared to APNU+AFC was somewhere in the vicinity of 28:1, in favour of the Government, whilst the positive coverage calculated for the PPP/C in comparison to APNU+AFC, stood at 21:1. 17
The Channel’s General Programs served to provide the Government, the PPP/C, and the APNU+AFC, with coverage in the following manner: the Government and the PPP/C attracted large amounts of positive coverage, while the APNU+AFC gained a relatively minuscule amount. On the negative side, the Government collected a very small amount of negative coverage, the PPP/C, nil, and the APNU+AFC, a large quantum. Comparatively, the Government’s positive to negative ratio of coverage was 104:1, the PPP/C, as stated earlier did not gain any negative coverage, while the APNU+AFC’s coverage was more negative than positive in a ratio of 103:1. The Government’s positive coverage in comparison to the PPP/C’s was almost 2:1, while in comparison to APNU+AFC, it was 328:1. The PPP/C’s positive coverage relative to that garnered by APNU+AFC was approximately 173:1. Contrastingly, the negative coverage received by APNU+AFC was nearly 33 times more the same coverage calculated for the Government.
18
TVG CH 28
POLITCAL PARTIES
CATEGORY
(in minute)
GOVT POS
EVENING NEWS/ MORNING NEWS GINA NEWS CAPSULE TALK SHOWS/INTERVIEWS GENERAL PROGRAMS
PPP/C
NEG
NEU
POS
POS
NEG
NEU
53.7
57.2
0
25.4
60.8
90.4
32.5
5.5
0
1.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.8
0
1.1
29.8
0
20.1
5.7
4.1
11.5
8.3
0
1
10.2
0
1.9
0
28.4
4.3
GINA NEWS CAPSULE NEWS, GOVT COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD NEU, 1.2, 18% MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
NEWS, GOVT POS, 90.55, 21% NEWS, GOVT NEG, 12.8, 3% NEWS, GOVT NEU, 53.7, NEWS, PPP/C 13% POS, 57.2, 14%
TALK SHOWS, TALK SHOWS/INTERVIEWS TALK SHOWS, TALK SHOWS, NEU, IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE GOVT COVERAGE PERIODPOS, 9.8, APNU+AFC NEG, APNU+AFC 11.5, 14% MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 4.1, 5% 12%
TALK SHOWS, PPP/C NEU, 20.1, 25%
NEU
12.8
EVENING NEWS/ MORNING NEWS
TALK SHOWS, APNU+AFC POS, 5.7, 7%
NEG
90.6
COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD NEWS, MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 APNU+AFC NEU, 32.5, 8% NEWS, APNU+AFC NEG, 90.35, NEWS, 21% APNU+AFC
POS, 60.8, 14% NEWS, PPP/C NEU, 25.4, 6%
APNU/AFC
NEWS, GOVT POS, 5.5, 82% GENERAL PROGRAMS GENERAL COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD PROGRAMS, MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 APNU+AFC NEU, 4.3, 8%
TALK SHOWS, GOVT NEU, 1.1, 1%
TALK SHOWS, PPP/C POS, 29.8, 36%
GENERAL PROGRAMS, APNU+AFC NEG, 28.4, 52%
19
GENERAL PROGRAMS, GOVT POS, 8.3, 15% GENERAL PROGRAMS, GOVT NEU, 1, 2% GENERAL PROGRAMS, PPP/C POS, 10.2, 19% GENERAL PROGRAMS, PPP/C NEU, 1.9, 4%
ADVERTISEMENTS TOTAL MINUTES FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1ADVERTISEME – 31. 2015
NTS, PPP/C, 19.1
Observations/ Analysis The news team of Evening News/ Morning News newscast provided coverage for the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC in the following manner: all 3 entities received large amounts of positive coverage, with the Government attracting the most, followed by APNU+AFC, then PPP/C, in that order. APNU+AFC, was the recipient of the largest amount of negative publicity, followed by the Government with a modest amount. The PPP/C did not attract a measurable amount of negative coverage. All told, the Government’s positive to negative coverage was in a ratio of 7:1; whilst, the APNU+AFC coverage was tilted disproportionately on the negative side. The GINA News Capsules generated just a small amount of positive coverage for the Government. From the Talk Shows/Interviews aired on the Channel over the past month, the Government got a small amount of positive coverage, the PPP/C, a modest amount of same, and the APNU+AFC, a small amount. The PPP/C gained the most positive coverage, followed by the Government, then APNU+AFC, in that order. APNU+AFC was the only entity that obtained negative coverage, albeit, a small amount. Interestingly, all 3 entities – Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC –realised net positive coverage in this category of programming, however, the PPP/C’s positive coverage was doubled the combined positive coverage received by the Government and APNU+AFC. In the General Programs category of the Channel’s programming, the Government and the PPP/C garnered small amounts of positive coverage, while no measurable coverage was registered for APNU+AFC. However, APNU+AFC was the only entity to accumulated negative coverage, receiving a relatively modest amount in the circumstance.
20
MTV CH 65
POLITCAL PARTIES
CATEGORY
(in minute)
GOVT POS
NEWS UPDATE GINA NEWS CAPSULE TALK SHOWS/INTERVIEWS GENERAL PROGRAMS
NEWS, GOVT POS, 120.6, 37%
NEG
NEU
POS
NEG
NEU
POS
NEG
NEU
17.6
48.7
41.5
5.7
8
48.9
17.9
14.8
12.3
0
3.4
2.8
0
0
0
5.2
0
30
0
1.3
77.1
0
0
0
0
0
118.3
17.4
26.6
54.6
0
0
0
18.7
0
GINA NEWS CAPSULE COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
NEWS UPDATE COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
NEWS, GOVT NEG, 17.6, 5%
NEWS, APNU+AFC NEG, 5.2, 22%
NEWS, GOVT NEU, 48.7, 15%
NEWS, NEWS, APNU+AFC NEG, APNU+AFC POS, 17.9, 6% 48.9, 15%
APNU/AFC
120.6
NEWS, APNU+AFC NEU, 14.8, 5%
NEWS, PPP/C NEU, 8, 2%
TALK SHOWS/INTERVIEWS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
TALK SHOWS, PPP/C POS, 77.1, 71%
PPP/C
NEWS, PPP/C POS, 2.8, 12%
NEWS, PPP/C POS, 41.5, 13% NEWS, PPP/C NEG, 5.7, 2% TALK SHOWS, GOVT POS, 30.0, 28%
NEWS, GOVT POS, 12.3, 52%
NEWS, GOVT NEU, 3.4, 14% GENERAL GENERAL PROGRAMS GENERAL PROGRAMS, PPP/C IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD PROGRAMS, COVERAGE POS, 54.6, 23% MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 APNU/AFC NEG, 18.7, 8%
TALK SHOWS, GOVT NEU, 1.3, 1%
GENERAL PROGRAMS, GOVT NEU, 26.6, 11%
21
GENERAL PROGRAMS, GOVT POS, 118.3, 50%
GENERAL PROGRAMS, GOVT NEG, 17.4, 8%
ADVERTISEMENTS TOTAL MINUTES FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
ADVERTISEME NTS, PPP/C, 20.0
ADVERTISEME NTS, APNU+AFC, 4.8
Observations/ Analysis For the period under review, the news team of News Update newscast gave coverage to the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC in the following manner: the Government was covered favorably with a large amount of positive coverage, whilst the PPP/C and APNU+AFC were given modest amounts of positive coverage. The Government and APNU+AFC tallied almost equal amounts of modest negative coverage, while the PPP/C gained a relatively small amount of same. All 3 entities –Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC – gained net positive coverage from the newscast, with the Government’s positive to negative ratio of coverage being almost 7:1, the PPP/C’s ratio roughly the same at around 7:1, and the APNU+AFC ratio at nearly 3:1. Comparatively, the Government’s share of positive coverage was just about 3 times more the same coverage received by the PPP/C, and a little over 2 times the positive coverage allotted to APNU+AFC. The GINA News Capsules gave the Government and the PPP/C small amounts of positive coverage, with the Government receiving the most in a 4:1 ratio. Neither the Government nor the PPP/C captured any negative coverage, however, the APNU+AFC took in a small amount. From the Talk Shows/Interviews aired on the Channel, the Government gained a moderate amount of positive coverage, whilst the PPP/C accumulated a large portion of same. No measurable coverage, whether positive or negative, was observed for APNU+AFC. The PPP/C’s positive coverage dwarfed the Government’s by a margin of over 2:1. The General Programs category churned out figures for the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC, in the following manner: the Government received the largest slice of positive coverage, followed by PPP/C. APNU+AFC did not score any positive coverage. Both the Government and the APNU+AFC came in for negative coverage, with each of them mustering similarly small amounts. The PPP/C did not attract any negative coverage. In this section, the Government’s positive to negative ratio of coverage hovered around 7:1. 22
HGP CH 67
POLITCAL PARTIES
CATEGORY
(in minute)
GOVT POS
NIGHTLY NEWS GINA NEWS CAPSULE TALK SHOWS/INTERVIEWS GENERAL PROGRAMS
NEG
TALK SHOWS, APNU+AFC NEU, 83.0, 35%
TALK SHOWS, APNU+AFC NEG, 7.7, 3%
NEU
NEG
NEU
POS
NEG
NEU
42.1
70
12.3
55.8
21.5
90.9
11.9
33
9
0
2.9
3.8
0
0
0
4
0
0
7.3
0
21.5
9.4
40.2
70.4
7.7
83
0
8.3
0
0
0
0
23.1
0
27.1
NEWS, GOVT POS, 35.4, 10% NEWS, GOVT NEG, 42.1, 11%
NEWS, PPP/C NEG, 55.8, 15%
POS
APNU/AFC
35.4
NIGHTLY NEWS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
NEWS, APNU+AFC NEU, 33, 9% NEWS, APNU+AFC NEG, 11.9, 3% NEWS, APNU+AFC POS, 90.9, 24% NEWS, PPP/C NEU, 21.5, 6%
PPP/C
NEWS, GOVT NEWS, PPP/C NEU, 70, 19% POS, 12.3, 3%
TALK SHOWS, TALK SHOWS, TALKSHOWS/INTERVIEWS GOVT NEG, 7.3, PPP/C POS, 21.5,TALK SHOWS, COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD PPP/C NEG, 9.4, 3% 9% MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 4% TALK SHOWS, PPP/C NEU, 40.2, 17%
NEWS, APNU+AFC NEG, 4.0, 20%
GINA NEWS CAPSULE COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
NEWS, GOVT POS, 9.0, 46%
NEWS, PPP/C POS, 3.8, 19%
NEWS, GOVT NEU, 2.9, 15%
GENERAL PROGRAMS, APNU+AFC NEU, 27.1, 46%
GENERAL PROGRAMS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
GENERAL PROGRAMS, GOVT NEG, 8.3, 14%
GENERAL PROGRAMS, APNU+AFC POS, 23.1, 40%
TALK SHOWS, APNU+AFC POS, 70.4, 29%
23
ADVERTISEMENTS TOTAL MINUTES FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 ADVERTISEM
ADVERTISEM ENTS, PPP/C, 6.0
ENTS, APNU+AFC, 15.0
Observations/ Analysis For the current reporting period, the news team of Nightly News reportage on the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC resulted in the following coverage: the Government received a moderate amount of positive coverage, the PPP/C, a small amount of same, and the APNU+AFC, a relatively large serving. On the negative side, the Government’s share of negative coverage was modest, the PPP/C’s share was large, and the APNU+AFC, relatively small. APNU+AFC received the greatest share of positive coverage given through the news cast, followed by the Government, with the PPP/C trailing in the last position. APNU+AFC received net positive coverage, whilst the Government and PPP/C each acquired net negative coverage. The APNU+AFC’s net positive coverage had a ratio of more than 7:1, while the PPP/C’s net negative coverage carried a ratio of more than 4:1. APNU+AFC’s positive coverage was more than double the positive coverage calculated for the Government, and approximately 7 times the same coverage delivered to the PPP/C. Also, APNU+AFC’s positive coverage was roughly twice the combined positive coverage tallied for the Government and the PPP/C. Contrastingly, the PPP/C’s negative coverage was more than 4 times the same coverage given to APNU+AFC. GINA News Capsules gave the Government and the PPP/C small amounts of positive publicity, with the Government receiving the greater share. APNU+AFC was the only entity that suffered negative coverage, receiving a small amount, in the circumstance. Coming out of the Talk Shows/Interviews broadcast on the Channel, the PPP/C was the recipient of a modest amount of positive coverage, while the APNU+AFC secured a relatively large amount of same. APNU+AFC’s positive coverage minimized the PPP/C’s positive coverage by a margin of 3:1. The Government did not tally any measurable positive coverage. In the negative columns, all 3 entities –Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC – were the recipients of small amounts of negative coverage, with nothing significant separating them in terms of quantity. Comparatively, the Government gained the most, followed by the PPP/C and APNU+AFC, almost in a dead-heat. The Channel’s General Programs yielded a spread of coverage which showed that the Government garnered a small amount of negative coverage only, whilst the APNU+AFC gained a modest amount of positive coverage, only. 24
NTN CH 69
POLITCAL PARTIES
CATEGORY
(in minute)
GOVT POS
FRONTLINE NEWS GINA NEWS CAPSULE TALK SHOWS/INTERVIEWS GENERAL PROGRAMS
PPP/C
NEG
NEU
POS
NEG
POS
NEG
NEU
1.2
8.9
4
0
7.3
4.5
5.1
2.9
5.5 35.1 43.2
0 0 0
1.2 4.6 11.5
0 4.9 74.5
0 0 0
0 3.8 17.5
0 0 0
0 66.9 98.5
0 0 0
FRONTLINE NEWS
GINA NEWS CAPSULE COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
FRONTLINE NEWS, GOVT POS, 9.6, 22% FRONTLINE NEWS, FRONTLINE GOVT NEG, 1.2, 3% GOVT NEWS,
NEWS, GOVT NEU, 1.2, 18%
NEU, 8.85, 20% FRONTLINE NEWS, PPP/C POS, 4, 9%
NEWS, GOVT POS, 5.5, 82%
TALK SHOWS/INTERVIEWS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 TALK SHOWS,
GENERAL PROGRAMS, APNU+AFC NEG, 98.5, 40%
APNU+AFC NEG, 66.9, 58% TALK SHOWS, PPP/C NEU, 3.8, 3%
TALK SHOWS, GOVT NEU, 4.6, 4%
NEU
9.6
FRONTLINE COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD FRONTLINE NEWS, MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 APNU+AFC NEU, NEWS, 2.9, 7% APNU+AFC NEG, 5.05, 12% FRONTLINE NEWS, APNU+AFC POS, 4.5, 10% FRONTLINE NEWS, PPP/C NEU, 7.3, 17%
TALK SHOWS, PPP/C POS, 4.9, 4%
APNU/AFC
GENERAL PROGRAMS, PPP/C NEU, 17.5, 7%
TALK SHOWS, GOVT POS, 35.1, 31%
25
GENERAL PROGRAMS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
GENERAL PROGRAMS, GENERAL GOVT POS, 43.2, PROGRAMS, 18% GOVT NEU, 11.5, 5%
GENERAL PROGRAMS, PPP/C POS, 74.5, 30%
ADVERTISEMENTS TOTAL MINUTES FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
ADVERTISEM ENTS, PPP/C, 43.8
Observations/ Analysis
For the current reporting period, the news team of Frontline News gave coverage to the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC, in the following way: all 3 entities attracted positive coverage in varying small amounts. The Government was given the highest amount of positive coverage, followed by APNU+AFC, then PPP/C. Only the Government and APNU+AFC were covered negatively, with each receiving relatively small amounts of negative coverage. Of the 3 entities, only the APNU+AFC received net negative coverage that was minimum and almost imperceptible. From the GINA News Capsules aired on the Channel, a small amount of positive coverage was calculated for the Government only. The PPP/C nor APNU+AFC did not garner any measurable coverage. The Talk Shows/Interviews broadcast on the Channel provided the Government with a modest amount of positive coverage and the PPP/C with a small amount of same. APNU+AFC was the only entity that attracted negative coverage, and in a large quantum. All told, the Government and the PPP/C gained net positive coverage and the APNU+AFC suffered net negative coverage, from the programs broadcast through the Channel. In the General Programs category, only the Government and the PPP/C were positively portrayed, with the Government attracting a moderated amount of positive coverage, and the PPP/C, a relatively large amount of same. APNU+AFC was the only entity that was negatively portrayed, in the process enduring a disproportionately large amount of negative coverage.
26
RADIO COVERAGE FOR THE PERIOD March 1, 2015– March 31, 2015 NTN RADIO 89.1 AND IRADIO 90.1 LOVE FM
I RADIO 90.1 LOVE FM
NTN RADIO 89.1 (Coverage in minutes)
CATEGORY
GOVT POS
(Coverage in minutes)
PPP/C
NEG
NEU
POS
APNU/AFC
NEG
NEU
POS
NEG
GOVT NE U
POS
PPP/C
NEG
NEU
POS
APNU+AFC
NEG
NEU
POS
NEG
NEU
NTN RADIO NEWS
3.7
0
1
5.5
0
5
0
1.6
2.8
7.9
4.3
15.2
2.5
4.6
6.7
5
5.9
6.6
TALK SHOWS/INTERVIEWS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0
1.7
4.7
5.2
3.4
29.7
19.8
12.1
29.3
0
2.5
0
0
1.4
0
2.8
0
83.7
0
3.2
6.7
0
0
0
3.1
0
GENERAL PROGRAMS
NTN RADIO NEWS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 - 31, 2015 APNU+AFC NEU GOVT POS 14% 19% APNU+AFC NEG 8%
PPP/C NEU 26%
NTN GENERAL PROGRAMS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
100.0
GOVT NEU 5%
PPP/C POS 28%
NTN ADVERTISEMENTS TOTAL MINUTES FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
87.5
50.0
GENERAL PROGRA MS, GOVT POS, 29.3,…
0.0 PPP/C
27
90.1 FM TALK SHOWS/ INTERVIEWS TALK SHOWS, GOVT NEU,COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 TALK SHOWS, 1.7, 2% APNU+AFC NEU, 12.1, 16%
90.1 FM NEWS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
NEWS, APNU+AFC NEWS, NEU, 6.6, 11% APNU+AFC NEG, 5.9, 10% NEWS, APNU+AFC POS, 5, 9% NEWS, PPP/C NEU, 6.7, 11%PPP/C NEWS, NEG, 4.6, 8% GENERAL PROGRAMS, PPP/C POS, GENERAL 6.7, 7% PROGRAMS, GOVT NEU, 3.2, 3%
NEWS, GOVT POS, 7.9, 14% NEWS, GOVT NEG, 4.3, 7%
TALK SHOWS, APNU+AFC NEG, 19.8, 26%
NEWS, GOVT NEU, 15.2, 26%
ADVERTISEMENTS TOTAL MINUTES FOR THE PERIOD ADVERTISEME MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
NTS, PPP/C , 7.5
APNU+AFC NEG, 3.1, 3%
GENERAL PROGRAMS, GOVT POS, 83.7, 87%
28
TALK SHOWS, PPP/C NEU, 3.4, 4%
TALK SHOWS, APNU+AFC POS, 29.7, 39%
NEWS, PPP/C POS, 2.5, 4%
90.1 FM GENERAL PROGRAMS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD GENERAL PROGRAMS, MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
TALK SHOWS, TALK SHOWS, PPP/C POS, PPP/C NEG, 4.7, 6% 5.2, 7%
Observations/ Analysis (89.1 FM)
For the period under review, the News program heard on the Station, provided coverage to the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC in the following manner: the Government and the PPP/C gained essentially small amounts of positive coverage, with the PPP/C acquiring the most. APNU+AFC did not receive any measurable positive coverage. Neither the Government nor the PPP/C came in for any measurable negative coverage, however, the APNU+AFC was profiled with a relatively negligible amount of negative publicity. In the Station’s General Programs, the Government was the recipient of a modest amount of positive publicity, while the PPP/C and APNU+AFC failed to attract any measurable positive coverage. Neither the Government not the PPP/C registered any measurable negative coverage, however, the APNU+AFC got a relatively small amount.
Observations/ Analysis (90.1 Love FM) Coming out from the News aired on the station, all 3 entities –Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC –gained small amounts of positive coverage, with the Government gaining the most, followed by APNU+AFC, then PPP/C. Overall, the Government’s share of positive coverage approximated the combined shares of PPP/C and APNU+AFC. In the negative columns, the Government and the PPP/C received almost the same small amounts of negative publicity, while the APNU+AFC also came in for a small (but somewhat larger) amount of negative coverage. Whilst the Government and the PPP/C got net positive coverage, APNU+AFC’s coverage tilted very slightly to the negative side. The Station’s Talk Shows/Interviews which basically revolved around one program – Hard Talk – yielded figures which showed that only the PPP/C and APNU+AFC came in for measurable positive mentions, with the PPP/C gaining a small amount of positive publicity and APNU+AFC, a relatively moderate amount of same. APNU+AFC share of positive coverage was approximately 6 times that of the PPP/C. In like manner, only the PPP/C, and APNU+AFC came in for negative coverage, with the PPP/C attracting a small amount, and the APNU+AFC attracting a relatively modest amount. APNU+AFC’s share of negative coverage was almost 4 times that of PPP/C. From the General Programs section of the Station’s programming, the Government got a large serving of positive publicity, while the PPP/C took in a relatively small portion of same. The APNU+AFC did not register any measurable positive coverage. Comparatively, the Government’s share of positive coverage was just over 12 times that of the PPP/C. APNU+AFC was the only entity that came in for negative coverage, albeit a relatively small amount
29
93.1 REAL FM AND NCN 102.5 FM
93.1 REAL FM
NCN 102.5 FM
(Coverage in minutes)
(Coverage in minutes)
GOVT
CATEGORY POS
NEWS
1.3
TALK SHOWS GENERAL PROGRAMS
52.1
NEG
PPP/C
NEU
0 -
POS
1 -
0
93.1 REAL FM NEWS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
NEWS, APNU+AF C POS, 1.5, 40%
0 -
7.4
NEWS, GOVT POS, 1.3, 34%
NEG
NEU
0 -
0
APNU/AFC
0 -
0
POS
NEG
1.5
NEU
0
0
GOVT
0
POS
0 -
0
0
NEG
PPP/C
NEU
POS
NEG
POS
NEG
NEU
0
14.7
23.4
0
2.2
4.7
32.4
5.1
22.6
6.1
16.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
50.8
0
15.3
13.6
0
1.2
0
10.5
0
93.1 REAL FM ADVERTISEMENTS TOTAL MINUTES FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 –ADVERTI 31. 2015
SEMENTS , PPP/C, 2.0
GOVT NEU 12%
GOVT POS 88%
30
NEU
66.4
93.1 REAL FM GENERAL PROGRAMS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
NEWS, GOVT NEU, 1, 26%
APNU+AFC
NCN 102.5 FM NEWS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
NEWS, GOVT POS, 66.4, 44%
GENERAL PROGRAMS, GENERAL APNU+AFC PROGRAMS, NEG, 10.5, 12% PPP/C POS, 13.6, 15%
GENERAL PROGRAMS, GOVT NEU, 15.3, 17%
NCN 102.5 FM TALK SHOWS/INTERVIEWS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
TALK SHOWS, GOVT POS, 22.6, 50%
NEWS, GOVT NEU, 14.7, 10%
NEWS, APNU+AFC NEU, 5.1, 3% NEWS, APNU+AFC NEG, 32.4, 22%
TALK SHOWS, GOVT NEU, 16.1, 36%
NEWS, PPP/C POS, 24.6, 16% NEWS, APNU+AFC POS, 4.7, 3%
NEWS, PPP/C NEU, 2.2, 2%
TALK SHOWS, GOVT NEG, 6.1, 14%
NCN 102.5 FM GENERAL PROGRAMS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
NCN 102.5 FM ADVERTISEMENTS TOTAL MINUTES FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
ADVERTISEME NTS, PPP/C, 3.1
GENERAL PROGRAMS, GOVT POS, 50.8, 56%
31
Observations/ Analysis (93.1 REAL FM) The News aired on this Station over the past month, provided only the Government and APNU+AFC with small, and relatively inconsequential amounts of positive coverage. And from the General Programs, only the Government was awarded a moderate amount of positive coverage. Neither the PPP/C nor APNU+AFC gained any measurable coverage in this category of the Station’s programming.
Observations/ Analysis (NCN 102.5 FM) The News disseminated from this Station, provided coverage for the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC in the following manner: the Government was given a large amount of positive coverage, the PPP/C, a modest amount of same, and the APNU+AFC, a relatively small amount. The Government’s share of positive coverage was nearly 3 times that of the PPP/C, and 14 times that given to the APNU+AFC; whilst the PPP/C’s share of positive coverage dwarfed that of the APNU+AFC by a margin of approximately 5:1. Neither the Government nor the PPP/C attracted any measurable negative coverage, however, the APNU+AFC was allotted a moderate amount of negative publicity, which caused the coalition to end up with a negative to positive ratio of coverage of nearly 7:1. The Station’s Talk Shows/Interviews generated measurable coverage for the Government, only. The Government actually gained a modest amount of positive coverage and a relatively small amount of negative publicity. All told, the Government amassed a positive to negative ratio of coverage of over 3:1. From the General Programs category, only the Government and the PPP/C were boosted with positive publicity, with the Government securing a fairly large amount of favorable coverage, while the PPP/C got a small amount of same. The Government’s share of positive coverage was more than 3 times the PPP/C’s acquisition. In this category also, only the APNU+AFC attracted negative publicity, with the coalition being the recipient of a small amount of unfavourable publicity.
32
NEWSPAPERS COVERAGE FOR THE PERIOD March 1, 2015– March 31, 2015 GUYANA CHRONICLE
POLITCAL PARTIES (in column inches)
CATEGORY
GOVT POS
EDITORIALS LETTERS COLUMNS GENERAL NEWS
NEG
COLUMNS, APNU+AFC NEG, 518.7, 57%
NEU
POS
LETTERS, APNU+AFC NEG, 522.8, 62%
NEG
NEU
POS
NEG
NEU
0
1.7
26.3
0
0
1.5
211.9
0
113.9
1.1
8.5
144.8
0
8
12.8
522.8
27
173.8
6
54.6
83.5
0
31.8
0
518.7
49.3
3850.6
9.3
795.6
1457.1
7.5
167.9
430.6
1432.7
252
EDITORIALS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
COLUMNS, GOVT NEG, 6.0, 1%
173.8, 19%
COLUMNS, GOVT NEU, 54.6, 6% COLUMNS,
EDITORIALS, APNU+AFC NEG, 211.91, 79%
COLUMNS, PPP/C POS, PPP/C83.5, NEU,9% 31.8, 3%
LETTERS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 LETTERS,
LETTERS, APNU+AFC NEU, 27.0, 3%
APNU/AFC
27
COLUMNS COLUMNS, COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD GOVT POS, MARCH 1 - 31, 2015
COLUMNS, APNU+AFC NEU, 49.3, 5%
PPP/C
LETTERS, PPP/C NEU, 8.0, 1% GOVT POS, 113.9, 14% LETTERS, GOVT NEU, 8.5, 1% LETTERS, PPP/C POS, 144.8, 17%
GENERAL NEWS
GENERAL COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 NEWS, APNU+AFC NEG, 1432.73, GENERAL 17% NEWS, APNU+AFC GENERAL GENERAL GENERAL POS, 430.6, 5% NEWS, GOVT NEWS, PPP/C NEWS, PPP/C NEU, 795.55, NEU, 167.85, POS, 1457.12, 10% 2% 17%
LETTERS, APNU+AFC POS, 12.8, 2%
33
EDITORIALS, GOVT POS, 26.95, 10% EDITORIALS, GOVT NEU, 1.65, 1% EDITORIALS, PPP/C POS, 26.25, 10% GENERAL NEWS, APNU+AFC NEU, 252.04, 3% GENERAL NEWS, GOVT POS, 3850.61, 46%
ADVERTISEMENTS TOTAL COLUMN INCHES FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
ADVERTISEMEN TS, PPP/C, 818.5
ADVERTISEMEN TS, APNU+AFC, 279.0
Observations/ Analysis During the course of this reporting period, the opinions expressed in the newspaper’s Editorials, profiled the Government and the PPP/C with almost similar modest amounts of positive coverage, and the APNU+AFC with a relatively negligible amount of same. Neither the Government nor the PPP/C came in for any negative comments, however, the APNU+AFC was given a large dosage of negative publicity by the editorial writers. In fact, the APNU+AFC’s negative coverage from the editorials resulted in a disproportionate negative to positive ratio of coverage of 141:1. In the Letters Columns, the Government and the PPP/C received fairly large amounts of positive coverage, with the PPP/C gaining the most: whilst, the APNU+AFC also attracted positive coverage, but in a relatively small amount. The Government’s share of positive coverage compared to APNU+AFC was almost 9:1, while the PPP/C’s share of positive coverage compared to APNU+AFC was 11:1. On the negative side, the Government attracted a relatively minuscule amount of negative coverage, the PPP/C did not attract any, but the APNU+AFCwas smothered with a lopsidedly large accumulation of negative coverage. All told, the APNU+AFC’s negative to positive coverage was almost 41:1. From the newspaper’s Columns, the Government and the PPP/C received large, but varying amounts of positive publicity, while the APNU+AFC did not attract any like measurable coverage. Comparatively, the Government’s positive coverage overwhelmed the positive coverage secured by the PPP/C, by a margin of 2:1. APNU+AFC was the only entity that garnered negative publicity, receiving a significantly large amount of same. APNU+AFC’s negative coverage when compared to the Government’s was calculated at just over 86:1. The General News category threw up figures which showed that the Government, the PPP/C and APNU+AFC all gained large amounts of positive coverage from this section of the newspaper. The Government gained the most positive coverage, followed by the PPP/C, with APNU+AFC bringing up the rear. The Government received in excess of 2 times the positive coverage taken in by the PPP/C and nearly 9 times the same coverage 34
absorbed by APNU+AFC. The PPP/C’s positive coverage was approximately 3 times APNU+AFC’s positive coverage. In the negative columns, the Government and the PPP/C captured comparably small amounts of negative coverage, while the APNU+AFC gained a significantly large amount of like coverage. The APNU+AFC’s negative coverage was almost 157 times more than the Government’s, and 191 times more than the PPP/C. All told, the Government’s positive to negative ratio of coverage was 416: 1; the PPP/C’s positive to negative ratio was 194:1. The APNU+AFC suffered net negative coverage in a negative to positive ratio of just over 3:1.
Comment Editorial Reference is made to the Guyana Chronicle Newspaper editorial of March 10, 2015, captioned, “Make the right decisions on May 11”. The MMU takes issue with the editorial department of the newspaper for the general tone of the editorial, the unsubstantiated allegations made therein, and its unmistakably inflammatory nature. For starters, it did not miss our attention that in a somewhat devious ploy to justify what came after, the editorial started off by making specious and unsubstantiated allegations of a violent nature against the opposition political parties, namely APNU and AFC. The writer then goes on to conjure up a frightening sanguinary portent of the nation’s future should the aforementioned two opposition political parties accede to government after the forthcoming elections. This prediction by the writer is evident from the following chilling and wholly ill-conceived remarks (para. 4): “Cry a river of blood for our country, and for the annihilation of hope for peace in the nation as headlines scream the death-knell of the nations flowers while fountains of champagne celebrate the death of the innocents, because man’s inhumanity to man knows no boundaries, nor loyalties to kith, kin, or country; but only to the id and the ego – and the egomaniacs proliferate; and history resounds with the cries of their victims.” The Unit noted that the writer left no doubt in the minds of readers as to who are the supposed perpetrators of this imaginary Guyanese pogrom, because in the preceding paragraph to one quoted above, it is clearly stated that, “The celebrations and toasts to the coalition’s victory herald a frightening scenario…..” Indeed, there are other instances in the editorial where death, mayhem and destruction is macabrely sensationalized, but we feel that the above example will suffice for now, as we do not want to run the risk of reproducing the whole sordid piece to make our point. The point is that taken in its entirety or by sections (paragraphs), the editorial is in clear breach of Section B 2(C) of the MCC which states inter alia that, “Gratuitous publication of…inflammatory language for sensational purposes is unacceptable” 35
Staff members of the MMU are of the collective opinion that the editorial measured by any journalism standard, much less the MCC, was politically extremist and telegraphed a pernicious and sinister intent to create unnecessary fear, tension and insecurity in the country. In every respect also, it was antithetical to good order, peace and stability – the pre-requisites for a smooth and trouble-free elections process.
Editorial For more than one reason, the Guyana Chronicle Newspaper editorial of March 14, 2015, captioned, “Participatory leadership”came under scrutiny by the MMU. The Unit observed that the writer of the leader penned a discursive narrative touching on a number of issues, which for the most part was scathingly critical of the PNC and AFC, on one hand, and highly praiseworthy of former president, Dr. CheddiJagan and the PPP/C, on the other. Nothing is wrong with that. Commendably, the writer, in the latter paragraphs of the editorial, provided examples where the PPP/C and the opposition political parties worked together in the best interest of the country. However, inexplicably, it all fell apart in the final paragraph, where it was written, “The hardcore veterans whose charter includes utilization of all the Machiavellian strategies contained in the diabolical X-13 Plan are making the nation cry rivers of blood while the voice of reason has been silenced in the thunder of the canons that devastate the nation’s hope for a brighter future.” In vain we tried to figure out the connecting thread between the preceding paragraphs in the editorial and the gist of the final one as quoted above. For us, the last paragraph represented a quantum shift by the writer, from keeping within the bounds of propriety to bizarrely nose-diving into the pits of the unsubstantiated and inflammatory. Moreover, quite disturbingly, the language used in the final paragraph is expressed in the present tense, giving the impression as it is, that the country is currently in some kind of dystopian state of internal upheaval spawned by bloodletting (“…the nation cry rivers of blood…”), when, in fact, such a scenario is far removed from reality. The Unit further noted that there was an uncanny similarity with the view expressed in the final paragraph of the editorial and the “Cry river of blood” theme imbedded in the newspaper’s March 10, 2015 editorial. It gives one the ineluctable impression that the newspaper’s editorial writer(s) has/have a fiendish fascination, nay, obsession, with extolling narratives of societal mayhem and gore, unmindful of the potential negative consequences of such indelicate penmanship. And in light of this observation, we asked ourselves the question: What does the management of the Guyana Chronicle Newspaper hope to gain by sanctioning the publication of editorial views/opinions intended to drive fear of a violent kind into the minds of citizens? 36
Altogether, the Unit concluded that the editorial, or more specifically, the highlighted part thereof was spurious, unsubstantiated, and inflammatory, and should have been excised from the leader in keeping with Section B 2(C) and E (2) of the MCC, which separately forbid publication in the media of inflammatory language and unsubstantiated statements. We take this afforded opportunity to remind the management of the Guyana Chronicle Newspaper that their editorials essentially are seen as reflective of the views of their establishment, and it’s their responsibility as an arm of the state media to promote sustained goodwill, social peace, and national unity, particularly now, when the country is in elections mode, with all that that portends.
Letter A letter published in the Friday, March 13, 2015 issue of the Guyana Chronicle Newspaper captioned: “In support of Mr. Jagdeo’s comments at Babu John” written by someone using the nom-de-plume of “Concerned Guyanese” attracted the attention of the MMU. In sum, the writer attempts to resurrect an allegation first uttered by former president, Dr. BharratJagdeo, at BabuJaan, on Sunday, March 8, 2015. In this instance, the writer trenchantly states that on Elections Day in 2011, an unnamed PNC supporter in Campbellville “…was heard loudly saying that it was time to get out and mobilize PNC supporters to get rid of the illegal Coolie Government…”[para. 6]. He/she then goes on further down in the letter to state that the unnamed Afro-Guyanese PNC supporter “…is believed to be using his connections and money in trying to again recruit exmilitary Guyanese from Georgia, Tennessee, New Jersey, and New York to come and to push harder this time and to be prepared for violence…”[para.8]. And finally, in the last paragraph of the letter, the writer issued this bleak warning: “God help us all. Especially the IndoGuyanese, Chinese-Guyanese, Portuguese-Guyanese, Amerindian-Guyanese and Guyanese of mixed races if the PNC wins.” Firstly, it is inexplicable that after the widespread public criticisms which followed the initial allegation made by the country’s former president that the Guyana Chronicle Newspaper would display a seeming lack of concern for the known sensitivities that surround the hot-button topic of race within our electoral environment. This disregard is patently evident by the provision of space in its letters column for a resurrection of the issue, which, in our estimation, can only serve to further arouse ethnic emotions. Secondly, the writer alleged - as quoted above - that the PNC supporter “…was heard…” which, at first blush, suggests the regurgitating of secondhand information. Thirdly, after identifying the PNC supporter as an Afro-Guyanese, the writer stated that the said supporter “…is believed…” implying that the allegation made is based on either hearsay, or speculation, or both, rather than on incontrovertible facts. Here again, the allegation is unsubstantiated and, to boot, downright inflammatory, taking into consideration the specter of ‘violence’ insidiously inserted into it. 37
Fourthly, where the writer states in the final paragraph, “God help us….if the PNC wins” [see full quote above] it is most noticeable that the only racial group left out of the spread is Afro-Guyanese. Certainly, this was not an oversight, since throughout the letter there is a subtle conflating by the writer of Afro-Guyanese with the PNC, as typified by the alleged PNC African supporter narrative. Generally speaking, any average reader is influenced by the context within which information is communicated to him/her through the media. For most of us, context is everything. In this regard, the Unit is convinced that the foremost logical conclusion any reasonable person will arrive at after reading the final paragraph of the letter, is that the writer is sending an invidiously coded hate message to the other races in the country to beware of a PNC (read Afro-Guyanese) victory at the coming elections [even though he/she is misinformed that the PNC, as a political party, on its own, is not contesting the 2015 polls]. The MMU’s deconstruction of this artifice in letter-form, led us to the informed conclusion that the letter as published, was unsubstantiated, inflammatory, and racially divisive, and its publication in the Guyana Chronicle Newspaper contravened Sections B (1), B 2 (C), and B (4) of the MCC.
38
STABROEK NEWS
POLITCAL PARTIES GOVT POS
EDITORIALS LETTERS COLUMNS GENERAL NEWS CARTOONS
EDITORIALS, APNU+AFC POS, 10, 3% EDITORIALS, PPP/C NEU, 33, 10%
PPP/C
NEG
NEU
POS
COLUMNS, PPP/C NEU, 51.0, 11%
POS
NEG
NEU
183
20.5
0
86.5
33
10
4
0
8.6
206
51
44.5
239.5
64.9
103.5
113.4
105.8
1.8
131.4
8.3
8.8
109.3
51
45.4
25.9
81.7
761.7
428.3
618.7
373.9
232.1
285.6
1138.6
180.3
371.7
0
60
0
45
111
0
84
0
0
EDITORIALS, GOVT NEU, 20.5, 6%
EDITORIALS, GOVT NEG, 183, 53%
LETTERS, LETTERS, LETTERS, GOVT LETTERS LETTERS, APNU+AFC GOVT NEG, 206.0, COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD APNU+AFC NEU, 105.8, POS, 8.6, MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 22% NEG, 11%113.4, 1% 12% LETTERS, GOVT NEU, 51.0, 5% LETTERS, APNU+AFC POS, 103.5, LETTERS, PPP/C 11% POS, 44.5, 5% LETTERS, PPP/C LETTERS, PPP/C NEG, 239.5, NEU, 64.9, 7% 26% GENERAL GENERAL GENERAL NEWS NEWS, COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES NEWS, (%) FOR THE PERIOD APNU+AFC MARCH APNU+AFC 1 – 31. 2015 GENERAL NEG, 180.32, NEU, 371.68, NEWS, 4% 8% APNU+AFC
COLUMNS, COLUMNS, COLUMNS APNU+AFC GOVT NEG, COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD NEU, 81.7, 18% 131.4, 28% COLUMNS, MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 APNU+AFC COLUMNS, NEG, 25.9, 5% GOVT NEU, COLUMNS, 8.3, 2% APNU+AFC POS, 45.4, 10%
NEU
5.5
EDITORIALS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 EDITORIALS, EDITORIALS, GOVT POS,APNU+AFC 5.5, 2% NEG, 4, 1%
EDITORIALS, PPP/C NEG, 86.5, 25%
NEG
APNU/AFC
POS, 1138.55, 26%
COLUMNS, PPP/C POS, 8.8, 2% COLUMNS,
GENERAL NEWS, PPP/C NEU, 285.55, 7%
PPP/C NEG, 109.3, 24%
39
GENERAL NEWS, PPP/C NEG, 232.13, 5%
GENERAL NEWS, GOVT POS, 761.71, GENERAL 17% NEWS, GOVT
NEG, 428.27, 10% GENERAL NEWS, GOVT NEU, 618.71, 14% GENERAL NEWS, PPP/C POS, 373.9, 9%
CARTOONS, CARTOONS CARTOONS, GOVT NEG, COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD APNU+AFC 60.0, 20% MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 POS, 84.0, 28%
ADVERTISEMENTS TOTAL COLUMN INCHES FOR THE PERIOD ADVERTISEME MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 NTS, APNU+AFC, ADVERTISEME 942.0 NTS, PPP/C,
CARTOONS, PPP/C POS, 45.0, 15%
873.0
CARTOONS, PPP/C NEG, 111.0, 37%
Observations/ Analysis During the course of this reporting period, the Editorials of the Stabroek News churned out figures from which coverage for the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC, was calculated in the following manner: the Government and the APNU+AFC received small amounts of positive coverage, while the PPP/C did not register any like measurable coverage. APNU+AFC’s share of positive coverage was roughly double that of the Government. In terms of negative coverage, the Government got a significant amount of negative publicity, the PPP/C was the recipient of a large amount of same, and the APNU+AFC came in for a relatively minor amount of negative coverage. APNU+AFC was the only entity that gained net positive coverage in a ratio of over 2:1. Dissimilarly, the Government accumulated a negative to positive ratio of coverage of 33:1, while the PPP/C’s coverage devoid of any measurable positive coverage was overwhelmingly negative. The figures from the Letters Columnelicited information that the Government got a small amount of positive coverage from the letters published by the newspaper, the PPP/C got a fairly moderate amount, and the APNU+AFC received a relatively large amount of like coverage. APNU+AFC’s share of positive coverage was approximately 2 times the combined positive coverage calculated for the Government and the PPP/C. all 3 entities – Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC – scored heavily in the negative columns, with the PPP/C attracting the most negative publicity, followed closely by the Government, with APNU+AFC bringing up the rear. All 3 entities ended up with net negative coverage in this section of the newspaper. APNU+AFC’s net negative coverage was slight. However, the Government’s negative to positive ratio of coverage was almost 24:1, and the PPP/C’s just a little over 5:1. Opinions expressed in the Newspaper’s Columnsresulted in coverage calculated for the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC, in the following way: the Government and the PPP/C received small amounts of positive publicity, while APNU+AFC came in for a relatively small amount of same. 40
APNU+AFC got the most positive coverage, followed in descending order by the PPP/C and the Government. Comparatively, APNU+AFC’s share of positive coverage doubled the combined shares of the Government and PPP/C. At the individual level, APNU+AFC’s share of positive coverage was 5 times the PPP/C, and 25 times that recorded for the Government. On the negative side, the Government and the PPP/C attracted large dosages of negative publicity, while the APNU+AFC gained a moderate amount of negative coverage. The Government suffered the most negative coverage, followed by the PPP/C, with APNU+AFC in the cellar position. Comparatively, the Government’s share of negative coverage was 5 times more than the APNU+AFC’s, while the PPP/C’s coverage was 4 times the APNU+AFC’s. All told, the Government and the PPP/C were the recipients of net negative coverage, while the APNU+AFC was the recipient of net positive coverage. The General News section of the newspaper provided coverage for the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC, in the following manner: On the positive side, all 3 entities –Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC – were the recipients of large amounts of positive publicity, with the APNU+AFC gaining the most, followed by the Government, with the PPP/C, in the cellar position. The positive coverage calculated for APNU+AFC approximated the combined positive coverage calculated for the Government and the PPP/C. Comparatively, the Government secured twice more positive coverage than the PPP/C, while APNU+AFC’s share of positive coverage dwarfed the PPP/C’s share by a margin of 3:1. On the negative side, all 3 entities were apportioned large servings of negative publicity, with the Government attracting the most, followed by the PPP/C, then APNU+AFC, in that order. Comparatively, the Government’s share of negative coverage was almost twice that of PPP/C, and just over double that of APNU+AFC. All told, all 3 entities were the recipients of net positive publicity in this section of the newspaper. From the Newspaper’s Cartoons, no measurable positive coverage was calculated for the Government; a modest amount was observed for the PPP/C, and a relatively large amount was observed and calculated for the APNU+AFC. The PPP/C and the Government suffered from large amounts of negative publicity. The PPP/C came in for the most, followed by the Government. APNU+AFC did not register any measurable coverage from the newspaper’s Cartoons. All told, the Government and the PPP/C ended up with net negative publicity, while APNU+AFC was the recipient of net positive publicity.
41
GUYANA TIMES
POLITCAL PARTIES (in column inches)
CATEGORY
GOVT POS
EDITORIALS LETTERS COLUMNS GENERAL NEWS
PPP/C
NEG
NEU
POS
NEG
0.5
12
4
79.7
10
92.6
5.2
25.9
184
7.8
108.8
9.7
595
68.6
10.8
0
3
40
0
24.3
122.3
421.5
13.8
1663.5
97
878.2
1054.6
31.7
306.3
905.1
942.1
365.1
COLUMNS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
COLUMNS, APNU+AFC POS, 122.3, 19%
EDITORIALS, GOVT NEU, 23.5, 10%
EDITORIALS, APNU+AFC POS, 4, 2% EDITORIALS, PPP/C NEU, 12, 5% LETTERS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 LETTERS, PPP/C POS, 184.0, 17%
COLUMNS, APNU+AFC NEG, 421.5, 66% COLUMNS, APNU+AFC NEU, 13.8, 2%
COLUMNS, PPP/C NEU, 24.3, 4%
EDITORIALS, PPP/C POS, 51, 23%
COLUMNS, PPP/C POS, 40.0, 6%
COLUMNS, GOVT POS, 10.8, 2% COLUMNS, GOVT NEU, 3.0, 1%
GENERAL NEWS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 GENERAL NEWS, APNU+AFC NEU, 365.05, 6% GENERAL NEWS, APNU+AFC NEG, 942.12, 15%
LETTERS, PPP/C NEG, 7.8, 1% LETTERS, PPP/C NEU, 108.8, 10%
LETTERS, APNU+AFC NEG, 595.0, 54%
NEU
51
EDITORIALS, APNU+AFC NEG, 79.7, 36%
LETTERS, APNU+AFC NEU, 68.6, 6%
NEG
23.5
EDITORIALS, GOVT POS, 44, 20%
LETTERS, GOVT POS, 92.6, 8%
POS
0
EDITORIALS, APNU+AFC NEU, 10, 4%
LETTERS, GOVT NEU, 25.9, 2%
NEU
44
EDITORIALS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
LETTERS, GOVT NEG, 5.2, 1%
APNU/AFC
GENERAL NEWS, APNU+AFC POS, 905.14, 15% NEWS, GENERAL PPP/C NEU, 306.32, 5%
LETTERS, APNU+AFC POS, 9.7, 1%
42
GENERAL NEWS, GOVT POS, 1663.5, 27% GENERAL NEWS, PPP/C POS, 1054.62, 17%
GENERAL NEWS, GOVT NEG, 97, 1% GENERAL NEWS, GOVT NEU, 878.2, 14%
ADVERTISEMENTS TOTAL COLUMN INCHES FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 ADVERTISEMENTS, PPP/C, 907.5 ADVERTISEMENTS, APNU+AFC, 355.5
Observations/ Analysis From the opinions articulated by the writer(s) of the Editorials of the Guyana Times Newspaper, over the duration of this reporting period, the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC were profiled in the following manner: all 3 entities received positive coverage in varying amounts. The Government received a modest amount of positive coverage, the PPP/C gained a large amount of same, and the APNU+AFC attracted a relatively small amount of positive publicity. The PPP/C gained the largest share of positive coverage, followed by the Government, with the APNU+AFC bringing up the rear in last position. Comparatively, the Government received exactly 11 times more positive coverage than the APNU+AFC, while the PPP/C gained a not so considerable more positive coverage than the Government, but significantly more than the APNU+AFC by a margin of almost 13:1. On the negative side, only the APNU+AFC was the recipient of negative publicity, attracting a large amount of same. The negative coverage calculated for the APNU+AFC, resulted in the coalition registering a negative to positive ratio of coverage of approximately 20:1. In the Letters Column, the PPP/C and the Government attracted large amounts of positive publicity, while the APNU+AFC gained a relatively minuscule amount of same. The PPP/C gained the lion’s share of positive coverage, followed by the Government, with APNU+AFC trailing in last position. The PPP/C’s share of positive coverage was approximately double the Government’s share, and 26 times the APNU+AFC’s. In the negative columns, the APNU+AFC was the recipient of a considerably large amount of negative coverage while the Government and the PPP/C attracted relatively meagre amounts of same. The APNU+AFC’s share of negative coverage was 76 times more the same coverage absorbed by the PPP/C, 114 times that of the Government, and in excess of 45 times that of the Government and PPP/C, combined. The opinions expressed in the Newspaper’s Columns for this reporting period, serve to provide the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC with the following coverage: the Government received a small amount of positive coverage, the PPP/C gained a moderate amount of positive publicity, and 43
the APNU+AFC was the recipient of a large amount of positive coverage. Comparatively, the APNU+AFC’s share of positive coverage was 3 times more than the PPP/C’s, and 11 times that of the Government. In the negative columns, neither the Government nor the PPP/C, registered measurable coverage. However, the APNU+AFC was the recipient of a significantly large serving of negative publicity. This resulted in the APNU+AFC, unlike the Government and the PPP/C, ending up with net negative coverage, typified by a negative to positive ratio of a little more than 3:1. The General News section of the Newspaper churned out figures which showed that the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC, gained significantly large amounts of positive coverage. The Government gained the most, followed by the PPP/C, then APNU+AFC, in that order. On the negative side, the Government took in a large amount of negative coverage, the PPP/C a modest amount of same, and the APNU+AFC, an extremely copious amount. In fact, APNU+AFC’s share of negative coverage in this section of the newspaper, was almost 8 times that of the Government, nearly 28 times that of the PPP/C, and double that of the Government and PPP/C, combined. Also, the APNU+AFC’s share of negative coverage resulted in the coalition overall, being the only entity to register net negative coverage.
Comments News Report The MMU’s attention was drawn to an article published in the Guyana Times Newspaper on Monday, March 6, 2015, captioned “Granger pushes envelope on incitement” (pg.14). In the article, it is alleged that the leader of the opposition coalition political parties, APNU+AFC, told a large rally in Linden on Saturday, March 14, 2015 that it was the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) that had killed ex-soldier, Courtney Crum-Ewing. After carefully going through the article in its entirety, the Unit found three (3) instances where Mr. Granger was directly quoted by the newspaper. The first and second quotes are found in paragraph 3 and states as follows: “I feel hurt. I feel wounded… Courtney was the first to fall” and “He was killed because he had a bullhorn in his hand…was executing his constitutional rights and was silenced.” The third quote is found in paragraph 4. The paragraph reads: Granger said he was deeply hurt over Crum-Ewing’s murder and pointed fingers directly at the governing party for the man’s execution as he told the persons gathered that he was convinced Crum-Ewing’s death was the result of the actions of the “rulers of darkness.” [Emphasis ours].
44
The Unit found in the above evidence that the reporter who wrote the article fallaciously construed the term “rulers of darkness” allegedly used by Mr. Granger to mean the PPP/C, because nowhere in the article is Mr. Granger quoted as saying in direct language that the PPP/C killed Courtney Crum-Ewing. Based on all that has been outlined, the Unit’s conclusion is that the headline of the article was deliberately sensationalist, misleading and inflammatory. Further, it was obvious that in the accompanying story, Mr. Granger’s remarks were ingeniously distorted to fit the agenda of the article, which to all intents and purposes, was to deceive from the ‘get-go.’ The publication of this article by the Guyana Times Newspaper violated Section I of the MCC, which states that, “The media acknowledge that the deliberate distortion of reality so as to lead the public to a particular understanding of events and issues, without regard for reality, can poison the processes of democracy and therefore should not be done.”
45
KAIETEUR NEWS
POLITCAL PARTIES (in column inches)
CATEGORY
GOVT POS
EDITORIALS LETTERS COLUMNS GENERAL NEWS CARTOONS
NEG
PPP/C NEU
POS
NEG
NEU
POS
NEG
NEU
13
44.3
12.5
0
9
1.5
0
2
0
65.3
150.5
47.1
100.5
418.4
18.3
113.1
148
109.3
187.5
85
42.5
4
275
82.9
181.8
169.3
147.3
1021.6
640.2
934.6
295.4
312
278
771.2
55.4
502.3
0
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EDITORIALS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES(%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 - 31, 2015 EDITORIALS, GOVT
EDITORIALS, APNU+AFC NEG,POS, 2, 13, 16% 2%
APNU+AFC
LETTERS, APNU+AFC NEU, 109.3, 9% LETTERS,
EDITORIALS, GOVT NEG, 44.25, 54%
LETTERS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 LETTERS, GOVT POS, 65.3, 5%
APNU+AFC NEG, 148.0, 13%
EDITORIALS, PPP/C NEU, 1.5, 2%
LETTERS, GOVT NEG, 150.5, 13% LETTERS, GOVT NEU, 47.1, 4%
LETTERS, APNU+AFC POS, 113.1, 10%
EDITORIALS, PPP/C NEG, 9, 11% EDITORIALS, GOVT NEU, 12.5, 15%
LETTERS, PPP/C NEU, 18.3, 1%
LETTERS, PPP/C NEG, 418.4, 36%
GENERAL GENERAL GENERAL GENERAL NEWS NEWS, NEWS, NEWS, COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD APNU+AFC APNU+AFC APNU+AFC MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 NEG, 55.37, NEU, 502.25, POS, 1% 11% 771.15, 16%
COLUMNS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD COLUMNS, MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 COLUMNS, APNU/AFC GOVT POS, NEU, 147.3, 187.5, 16% 13% COLUMNS, COLUMNS, GOVT NEG, APNU/AFC COLUMNS, 85.0, 7% NEG, 169.3, GOVT NEU, 14% 42.5, 4% COLUMNS, COLUMNS, COLUMNS, PPP/C NEU, APNU/AFC PPP/C NEG, 82.9, 7% POS, 181.8, 275.0, 23% 16%
46
GENERAL NEWS, PPP/C NEU, 278, 6% GENERAL NEWS, PPP/C NEG,GENERAL 312.02, NEWS, 7% PPP/C POS, 295.35, 6%
LETTERS, PPP/C POS, 100.5, 9%
GENERAL NEWS, GOVT POS, 1021.6, 21% GENERAL NEWS, GOVT NEG, 640.17, 13% GENERAL NEWS, GOVT NEU, 934.6, 19%
CARTOONS COVERAGE IN PERCENTAGES (%) FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015
ADVERTISEMENTS TOTAL COLUMN INCHES FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 – 31. 2015 ADVERTISEME NTS, ADVERTISEME APNU+AFC, NTS, PPP/C, 1179.0 885.0
CARTOONS, GOVT NEG , 35.0, 100%
Observations/ Analysis The opinions expressed in the Editorials of the Newspaper for the period under review, resulted in the following coverage for the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC: the Government was the only entity that garnered measurable positive publicity from the offerings of the editorial team. The Government also came in for a moderate amount of negative publicity from the editorials, while the PPP/C and APNU+AFC were given relatively small amounts of the same publicity. The negative coverage that the Government suffered in this section of the newspaper far outweighed the positive publicity it received. In fact, the Government’s negative to positive ratio of coverage from the editorials was more than 3:1. Comparatively, the Government’s negative coverage was approximately 5 times more the same coverage calculated for the PPP/C, and 22 times that of APNU+AFC. From the Letters Column, the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC, all received large amounts of positive coverage from the expressed opinions contained in the letters published by the newspaper, over the past month. The APNU+AFC received the most positive coverage, closely followed by the PPP/C, with the Government bringing up the rear. On the negative side, all 3 entities –Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC – received consistently large amounts of negative coverage, with the PPP/C receiving the most, followed by the Government, with the APNU+AFC, closely behind. The PPP/C’s negative coverage was roughly 3 times more the same coverage calculated separately for the Government and APNU+AFC. The Newspaper’s Columnistsprovided commentary during the course of this reporting period which reflected on the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC, in the following way: The Government and the APNU+AFC gained large amounts of positive coverage, while the PPP/C acquired a relatively minuscule amount of same. Though the Government garnered the lion’s share of positive coverage, the APNU+AFC’s share of the same 47
type of coverage was only just less of what the Government got. The negative columns showed that all 3 entities –Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC – were the recipients of negative coverage, with the PPP/C gaining the most, followed by APNU+AFC, then the Government, in that order. Unlike the Government and APNU+AFC, whose coverage resulted in net positive coverage, the PPP/C’s coverage was mostly negative. In fact, the PPP/C’s negative to positive coverage was in the vicinity of 69:1. The General News section of the Newspaper generated figures which showed that the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC, were served with generous amounts of positive publicity, with the Government getting the most, followed by the APNU+AFC, then the PPP/C, in that order. In similar fashion, all 3 entities –Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC – attracted large amounts of negative publicity. However, in this instance, the Government received the most, followed by the PPP/C, then APNU+AFC. The quantum of negative publicity the PPP/C received resulted in the party getting net negative publicity overall, while the Government and APNU+AFC gained net positive coverage from their individual spreads of coverage. All told, the Government received twice the amount of negative coverage given to the PPP/C and 11 times the same coverage given to APNU+AFC. The PPP/C’s negative coverage was more than 5 times the negative coverage accumulated by APNU+AFC. For this reporting period, the Newspaper’s Cartoonsdepicted the Government in a moderately negative way, while the PPP/C and APNU+AFC did not attract measurable coverage of any kind.
Comments
News Report The MMU takes issue with the banner headline carried on the front page of the Tuesday, March 10, 2015 edition of the Kaieteur News Newspaper, captioned “Rohee endorses Jagdeo statement that PPP is a ‘coolie people’ party.” The accompanying story under the same caption is printed inside of the newspaper (on page 9). At first glance, the headline conveys the impression that former president, Dr. BharratJagdeo made a quotable statement that the PPP is a ‘coolie people’ party. This impression is further buttressed by the third paragraph of the article, which states that, “Jagdeo made this statement on Sunday when he spoke at the memorial service held in honour of former President and founder member of the PPP, the late Dr. CheddiJagan at BabuJaan, Corentyne, Berbice.” The Unit is in possession of an unedited recording of the referenced speech, and despite playing and re-playing it on several occasions, we did not hear anywhere in Dr. Jagdeo’s speech the comments attributed to him by the newspaper, simply because they were never uttered by him, or, for that matter, anyone who gave speeches at the event. 48
Interestingly, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the article, Dr. Jagdeo is quoted as saying that in the last elections, people in African villages were urged to vote and throw out the ‘coolie people’. This is true and correct, since we pellucidly heard the remarks in the recording, but at no time, and we repeat, at no time did the former president say that the PPP is a ‘coolie people’ party. In light of our investigation of the reported statement attributed to Dr. Jagdeo by the newspaper, we found in the first place, that the headline as prominently displayed on the front page of the newspaper, was sensationalist, deliberately deceptive, and racially divisive. The Unit also found that there was a glaring disconnect between the caption of the story and the supporting content, which suggests that it was the overriding intention of the newspaper to misrepresent and distort. Also, what was most troubling was the obvious agenda of the headline, which to all intents and purposes was crafted and tailored to generate feelings of racial alienation, disgust, and ill-will amongst Guyanese towards the PPP, and to generally sow further ethnic discord in the society. The Unit being solely guided by the MCC, sees the publication of the article by the Kaieteur News as a clear violation of Sections B (1), E (3), H, and I of the Code. In light of the above, we take this opportunity to advise the management of Kaieteur News Newspaper to in future desist from engaging in such racially divisive actions, which have the potential to derail genuine national efforts aimed at forging peaceful social relationships between and amongst all ethnic/racial groupings in the country, especially so, in this period of electioneering, when the issue of race historically tends to predominate political and social discourses in the public domain. Apropos, it is our informed view that the issue of race, at this time, has to be treated with editorial caution and utmost sensitivity, since, as we all know, public discussions on the topic shapes and influences to a large extent, voters’ opinions, and ultimately, the choices they make on elections day.
49
General Comments In light of the widespread public attention generated by the speech given by Dr. BharratJagdeo, former President of Guyana, at the Memorial Ceremony for the 18th death anniversary for the late Dr. CheddiJagan, former President of Guyana, and founder-leader of the PPP/C, held at BabuJaan, Corentyne, Berbice, on Sunday, March 8, 2015, the Unit wishes to make the following comments: At the outset, we would like to first of all clarify for all those media stakeholders and concerned citizens, who called the Unit subsequent to the delivery of the speech, to advise/suggest that the MMU publicly make known its position on the matter, that the Unit cannot, and would not go beyond its remit, which is limited to the monitoring of media content. We will not arbitrarily involve ourselves, nor allow ourselves to be cajoled, coerced, or brow-beaten into getting needlessly entangled in public controversies, save and except when what is in the public domain is disseminated through the media. The adoption of this approach by the Unit has served well in the past to insulate us from the danger of unwittingly becoming sidetracked by partisan public issues; issues which rightly fall within the purview of more appropriate constitutional and legal entities. Indeed, our non-interventionist approach to public issues guarantee that our credibility and integrity remain intact, having due respect forthe trust and confidence reposed in us by the local media fraternity to be steadfastly objective and non-partisan at all times,in the discharge of our main duties. During the evening of Monday, March 9, 2015, Dr. Jagdeo’s speech was re-played in its entirety on national television (NCN TV), hence, ipso facto, the MMU’s right to a public position on the matter. At this point, the Unit wishes to first reproduce that part of the speech which stirred significant negative public reactions, before we make any comments. The controversial part of the speech reads as follows:
“…but they consistently, they shout about racism of the PPP, but they practise racism. They whisper campaigns. In the last elections they went to some of the Afro- Guyanese villages and beat some drums at 6 O’clock in the morning and say let us throw out these coolie people. Get up, go out and vote, throw out the coolie people. That’s the kind of language they use. Anybody from our party who uses that sort of language, we will kick them out. This is our approach.” [Source: NCN TV, March 9, 2015]. After reviewing the remarks made, the Unit took the position that it was obvious that Dr. Jagdeo was using a racial mobilization incident that allegedly occurred during the 2011 elections [which, for the record, was the first time such details were ever publicly disclosed by anyone from the ruling PPP/C, the opposition political parties, local civil society, international elections observers, or the media] to make the point that racism will not 50
be tolerated by his political party, the PPP/C. On the face of it, this is salutary. However, what was palpably disconcerting about the remarks made, is where they were uttered, the occasion on which they were stated, and the immediate receptors of the message. It would be counterintuitive to view Dr. Jagdeo’s comments in isolation from the environment in which they were uttered. At close up, he was speaking in a known PPP/C stronghold, before a predominantly East Indian audience, and, to boot, in a highly-charged political and ethnic environment. Taking into consideration the historically and politically influenced divisions that persists up to now between Africans and East Indians in this country, and which are usually more pronounced during elections periods, the Unit came to the conclusion that the anecdotal illustration used by Dr. Jagdeo to make his point about racism, boomeranged disastrously, since it came over as a calculated exploitation, for political purposes, of the known fears and insecurities of one section of the population – East Indians. It is within the foregoing context that the Unit verily concluded that the remarks made by Dr. Jagdeo were racially divisive (probably, not intentionally), and should have been edited by all sections of the media that broadcast or printed the remarks verbatim. The airing/publication of the comments as is, was a breach of Section B (1) of the MCC, which states inter alia, that the media should “…refrain from publishing or broadcasting any matter with the potential for, or likelihood of promoting or inciting hatred of any kind (including ethnic and political hatred)…” The unit observed that two (2) television stations aired Dr. Jagdeo’s speech in- extenso, whilst one (1) newspaper and some on-line news sites carried only the excerpted part as quoted above. At the same time, we also observed that many media houses from both the state and private media shied away from reproducing the full speech or the contentious part thereof. The actions of these media houses should not go un-mentioned, hence we unhesitatingly take a quality time out to commend them for their nous and adherence, in this instance, to the MCC
General Observations The statistics that appear in the Tables and Charts of this Report provide a ‘bird’s eye’ view of the varied coverage provided over the past month to the Government, and the two (2) main political competitors – PPP/C and APNU+AFC – that have publicly declared their intentions of taking part in the upcoming elections. The numbers as calculated, presented and interpreted by the Unit did not paint a roseate picture of the extant media landscape. It was a picture spoilt by the numerous documented instances of inequitable coverage given primarily to the two main political contestants in the forthcoming polls, by various sections of the print and broadcast media. For us here at the Unit, the many instances of unacceptably huge imbalances between positive and negative coverage calculated for the two main political contestants, especially in news reports, only served to validate public perceptions of the political leanings of some media houses. This observed behavior goes against the venerated journalistic notion of facilitating a level playing field for 51
political parties to communicate their views and policies on issues to the public. Media houses – in both the State and private media - may do well to note this observation, and, in future, make committed efforts to dispel any negative public perceptions of their neutrality (or lack thereof). Generally, the Unit’s monitoring of the media over the past month, revealed that adherence to the standards set forth in the MCC was, and might well remain in the foreseeable future, a herculean challenge for reporters, editors and publishers. We arrived at this conclusion after observing the trend of low reporting standards that has taken root and mushroomed in the interregnum between the last elections and the present. Importantly, it is significant to note at this point, that representatives from all the leading media houses in the country who signed-on to the MCC, knew that they were voluntarily committing their media houses to abide by an agreed set of reporting guidelines or standards. This troth is recalled in light of the disconcerting trend of lax reporting standards and unethical journalism practices that were unearthed by the Unit. For example, the lack of balance in news reports was trendy, in vogue, and compelled the Unit’s attention because of its pervasiveness in both the broadcast and print media during this first month of our monitoring regimen. We got the distinct impression that balanced reporting has become the nemesis of our media corps. The evidence abounds that there is negligible, if indeed any attempt being made by media houses to achieve balance in their news reporting to the public. Still on the issue of news reporting, it was most disturbing to observe that opinionated news-reporting is now the new norm. Sadly enough, although this degenerate form of news reporting is at variance to every known Professional Journalism Code of Ethics, never mind the MCC, our reporters have embraced the practice with abandon. Lest it was merely glossed over, conveniently forgotten, or deliberately jettisoned by signatories to the MCC, for whatever reason(s), which we do not care to speculate on at this time, we take this opportunity to reproduce Section F (4) of the Code which pellucidly states that, “News and comment must be clearly identified to avoid confusion amongst readers, viewers and listeners.” By highlighting this adjuration, the Unit hopes that from henceforth the stricture is complied with in letter and spirit by those responsible for news dissemination to the public, and that they do not allow the politics of the day to trump their professionalism. This being our first Report for this elections season, in the interest of goodwill, we will not go the full length of publicly identifying those media houses that were overtly guilty of engaging in the practice, however, if the habit continues unabated, we will not hesitate in our next Report to name media houses and provide the evidence of their deviant behavior. A cursory sweep of the more serious infringements of the MCC committed by media houses over the duration of this reporting period showed that the violations included, but were not limited to the following: peddling of unsubstantiated information, misrepresentation/distortion of facts, and publication/airing of language that was inflammatory, racially divisive/inciting. In the broadcast media, the Voice of the People program aired on CNS Ch. 6 was cited for the unrestrained use of inflammatory language. And, across in the print media, citations were the order of the day for the Guyana Chronicle Newspaper for the publication of two (2) editorials that were 52
blatantly inflammatory, and a letter that was deemed racially divisive; the Guyana Times Newspaper for publishing an article that was inflammatory and a distortion of facts; and, the Kaieteur News Newspaper,for the publication of an article that was racially divisive and distorted. The citations stated above represented just those instances where the Unit sought to publicly highlight media content which, we thought, has the potential to impact the electoral process in a negative way by being excessively racist, or, otherwise, unacceptably inflammatory to the point of having implications for national security. There were numerous other breaches of the MCC by media houses during this first month of our reporting. For example, the publishing of Opinion Polls by sections of the print and broadcast media, that did not meet the criteria as set forth in Section M of the Code. However, we prudently chose not to highlight all of the breaches we encountered, since, if we were to catalogue same, it would require probably another ten (10) pages of this Report to enumerate. In an earnest attempt to minimize verbosity, we decided to make public just the egregious ones, as examples of the detritus that is being daily disseminated through the media to the Guyanese public, even as the country prepares to go to elections in a few weekstime. Encouragingly, in the midst of the disappointing scenario that we’ve articulated as it relates to the current state of the media in the country, there was one bright spot that buoyed the spirit and which is worthy of mention. The on-line news website, I-NEWS, for us, showed the way forward in the execution of fair, balanced and accurate journalism. The website has set standards in news reporting that sections of the print and broadcast media may do well to emulate. It provided news that was not tainted by any discernible political bias, was factual, and non-opinionated. We conclude this Report by stating that there seems to be a swelling antipathy towards good journalism practices by our current crop of media practitioners, bar a few exceptions, and that, on the face of it, there’s awhole lot of work ahead for local journalists, if they seriously desire to (re)establish a close working relationship with the basic standards of professional journalism.
Lavern Pinto Manager Media Monitoring Unit 53