Media (against) Development

In a previous editorial – “The Media and Development” carried in our daily edition on April 15, 2012, we traced the history of our media and its role in “development”. From being an arm of the colonial state imposing a hegemony over our ideas; through the turbulent 70s when the fledgling third world states tried to seize a measure of control; to the 90s and the present with the neo-liberal order stressing private ownership and private agendas.

With its overall ‘market fundamentalist’ premises, the private interests were somehow supposed to guarantee that the general public interests would be served. But while the premises of market fundamentalism has been questioned – and rejected – in the general economy, even in the developed world that foisted it on us, somehow the role of the media has escaped notice. Except, as we pointed out, recently in India.

There the new chairman of the Press Council (retired) Justice Markandey Katju has rekindled the debate on the role of the media in a developing country. He claimed the argument that the media was also a business and must pander to the lowest common denominator for profits “is degrading the media. The media is not an ordinary business that deals with commodities, it deals with ideas”.

For this reason, the media has been dubbed the “fourth leg” of a democratic polity. But just as the other three legs – the executive, the legislature and the judiciary – have controls so that they do not abuse their powers, he is insisting that controls have to be imposed over the media. What Justice Katju is concerned about is that in pursuit of profits, the media exploits the basest instincts of the people and fails them on two grounds.

Firstly there is the need for it to play the same role in educating the people as was done in 18th century Europe when the public media emerged as the ‘fourth estate’. By devoting 90 per cent coverage to sensationalism when 90 per cent of the people are poorly educated, the media is abdicating its responsibility to the people to provide information in the public interest.

Take, for instance, the question of health in what should be our period of transition from superstition towards rational, scientific ideas. Two of the major ailments in Guyana are diabetes and hypertension, both of which are impacted signally by poor dietary practices. If the media were to devote a 10th of its sensationalist coverage to this area, the country would witness a dramatic reduction in these silent killers. While the developed countries have sensationalist ‘rags’ they are wealthy enough to afford specialised magazines etc for sharing such vital information.

Secondly, and more directly the sensationalist coverage actively harms to the country by conveying an image that it is overrun with crime, depravities and corruption. Take the case of foreign investment – especially from our diaspora community – which is crucial to propelling our country out of the “poverty trap” into which we are stuck. Business is all about weighing risks: investors will not take chances in a country where crime, for instance, is presented as rampant. We have repeatedly pointed out the insidious role the Kaieteur News has played in creating the image of Guyana as a high-risk destination. Every Guyanese has relatives in New York who have funds and skills. Many of them would like to relocate to their native land.

Every Guyanese have also been told why they have not taken the plunge: the negative image presented by the Kaieteur News. In addition, its highly partisan political slant has contributed immensely to the deepening of cleavages in the society. Let us consider the matter of corruption: obviously it must be addressed. But one has to heed Justice Katju’s caution on the stage our country is at in its transition into a modern state. Instances of corruption must be identified, but the focus must be on implementing or introducing institutional safeguards rather than denouncing everyone as ‘evil’.