The Thought Police

In George Orwell’s book “1984”, we hear of the “Thought Police”: those who would control not only the words and deeds of citizens, but their very thoughts. It appears that, in Guyana, we have in our midst some who are bent on pushing us in this direction. Ironically, this Thought Police brigade sits in the very institution that is supposed to combat ideological straitjacketing and thought regimentation – the media and the media association.

At a second level of irony, in the book “1984”, it was the government – “Big Brother” – that was behind the drive to bludgeon everyone’s thoughts into conformity with its agenda. But, here in Guyana, where “freedom of the press” is interpreted so widely as to practically give license to libel and slander, a section of the media has transmuted its freedom from a shield into a sword. Those who would not regurgitate its line, who would dare to have a different opinion on coverage of news, are ruthlessly derided and ridiculed. The question, of course, is what gives this clique the presumption that they are the arbiters of journalistic virtues?

The point was exemplified on a July 10 presentation of “Plain Talk”, hosted by Christopher Ram and featuring a “media” panel of Gordon Moseley (president of the media association), Adam Harris and Dennis Chabrol – past presidents and presently senior members of the association. While discussing media coverage of the current elections campaign, Mr Moseley introduced the notion of a “state-looking private media” and “how they twist things”. Egged on by the chortling host, the panel was asked to clarify the concept, amidst much snickering. Mr Harris then explicitly named TV Channel 28 and this newspaper, the Guyana Times, as exemplifying the “state-looking private media.”

And what exactly are the characteristics of this entity that it has provoked such derision and has been so self evidently deserving of scorn? Earlier in the program, Mr Chabrol had expatiated on the penchant of the state media to cover the social and other programs of the government and state. He contrasted this with his assertion that the public demands more salacious fare from the private media.

From his and his cohorts’ remarks, they not only accept this “pandering to the worst instincts of the herd”, but actually defend the lengths to which “tabloid” journalism could sink to be sensational. Murdoch’s News of the World’s phone interceptions were excused within this context. It would appear that the state and the “state-looking” media’s transgression is not being “sexy” enough. Coverage of the government’s activities, or even the plans of the opposition, was too boring. A sensational angle had to be found; or, as with the Murdoch school of journalism, manufactured.

Also implicit in the presentations of the “media experts” was the smug presumption that any positive coverage of the government’s activities was by definition a betrayal of journalistic principles of fairness. On the other hand, their consistently positive coverage and evaluations of the opposition’s more tendentious accusations against the government – and of their own muckraking – did not raise questions of bias. They were the sole arbiters of what constituted “fairness”, and this was to be adoption of an automatic anti-government line.

We disagree vehemently with this position, and believe that it is detrimental to the development of a harmonious society. This newspaper and its affiliate, TVG Channel 28, hold that, in our obligation to present the truth, there must be balanced coverage of all activities, including those of the government.  Our news must be comprehensive and proportionate. While our first loyalty is to our fellow citizens, and we must strive to make this significant, interesting and relevant, we cannot pander and exacerbate the baser instincts. While we must serve as an independent monitor of power, we cannot demean press freedom in frivolous use, or exploit it for commercial gain. Let us reject and condemn the agenda of the Thought Police and their Gestapo-like fifth columnists in the media.