U.S Ambassador blasts the use of the term Opposition media to describe the independent media in Guyana. US Ambassador D. Brent Hardt. IPI also raised an issue I have long found perplexing: the use of the term “opposition media” to describe any media institution that is not controlled by the government. This is indeed a demeaning term that fails to do justice to the vital role that an independent media must play in a modern, democratic society. The use of this appellation is also inaccurate. Anyone who reads or watches independent media in Guyana will see that there are letters to the editor supportive of the government, columns that advocate government positions, and generally balanced reporting on actions of government. By contrast, in the state-owned and state-run media, which should hold itself up to an even higher standard of balance by virtue of its being funded by taxpayers, one hardly ever sees a letter to the editor or a column supportive of the opposition or critical of the government. In fact, the public reads about instructions being passed by the government to state-run television criticizing staff for airing statements by an opposition party directly after the government’s position was presented, and indicating that such presentations were only to be aired late at night when viewership was lowest. Such censorship is not only wrong, but completely unnecessary for a government that is more than capable of defending and articulating its views on a fair playing field of public opinion. As the distinguished U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once observed: Censorship reflects a societys lack of confidence in itself.
Posted on: Sat, 03 May 2014 13:18:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015