GECOM
MEDIA MONITORING:
SOME LESSONS TO BE LEARNT
By Prem Misir Ph.D.
Responsible reporting requires accuracy,
balance, and fundamental fairness, and a compliance with the
principles and ethics of journalism. In this vein, the first
Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Media Monitoring Project
prior to the 2001 election, was strategically timed to vitiate
the lunacy that passes for journalism in Guyana.
Today, many broadcasting stations and broadcasters
do not fulfill their civic and legal responsibilities. Broadcasters
have entered into an almost sacred pact with the public, given
that broadcasters obtain an exclusive use of public property
– the spectrum. In return, broadcasters agree to serve
the public interest.
However, precious few broadcasters comply
with the public interest principle, to the point where news
coverage and talk show content have lost meaningful dimensions.
Balanced and accurate news coverage and talk show materials
are such rare phenomena that they should be placed on the
endangered species list.
The GECOM Media Monitoring Unit (GMMU) Reports
prior to the 2001 election, while an important first step
to correct deficiencies in the broadcasting world, seemed
to have engaged, perhaps unwittingly, in methodological adventurism.
The mandate of the GMMU was to inform citizens
in a pre-election environment about the behavior of the media
and to inform the media themselves about their own behavior.
This being the case, then, GECOM had a serious responsibility
to present valid and reliable information. Validity and reliability
to ascertain scientific integrity of GMMU cannot be determined
merely by visiting GECOM’s offices, as was presumed
in the past. The GMMU reports presented for public dissemination,
in their own right, also must have details substantiating
their own scientific integrity. Visiting GECOM’s offices
should not be a prerequisite for determining scientific integrity.
The objective in evaluating the GMMU Reports
was to assess their worth based on the validity of the projects
as reported. The relevant literature, as related to the Caribbean
and Guyana, was not presented. The authors of these Reports,
also, should have synthesized the literature, related theoretical
models, their experiences, and their perceptions of the problem.
This synthesis is required, so as to provide a rationale for
this line of research.
GMMU’s methodology now will have to draw from several
disciplines. Future Reports emanating from GMMU must contain
an appropriate methodology section, and not merely a laundry
list of definitions styled as ‘methodology’, as
shown in previous reports. Providing mere definitions by themselves
does not constitute ‘research methodology’.
The consequence is that many methodological
questions would remain unanswered. For instance, in relation
to the previous GMMU reports, I am not convinced that the
coding used in the content analysis included the logic of
conceptualization and operationalization. Also, if a monitor
examined all news stories within a particular period, then
the monitor would need to give us a sample of them, so that
we can assess the appropriateness of the coding utilized.
GMMU needed to present all news items reviewed,
perhaps, appendicized, so we could have ascertained whether
they objectively pertain to the three categories used: political
parties, GECOM, or Government. The Reports did not provide
this information, essential for assessing and evaluating the
monitoring project.
In addition, we need to have a general working
agreement on the use of these terms. GMMU also needs to indicate
the operations utilized to measure these specific concepts.
In addition, the Methods section, also, should indicate the
standards used to classify news items into ‘positive’,
‘neutral’, and ‘negative’.
The Reports acknowledged relying on methods
used by media professionals in many monitoring projects worldwide.
The GMMU Reports may have very well done that, but these methods
were vaguely presented.
In any case, it is simplistic to conclude
that because GMMU’s method was previously applied in
Eastern Europe and elsewhere, it necessarily follows that
such a method can be fully utilized here. We constantly have
to refine and modify research methods to ensure that our research
design is appropriate for a new society. The previous GMMU
Reports did not demonstrate that this procedure was followed.
This research protocol must be applied in the future.
The GMMU Project in the 2001 election was based on a reactive
approach whereby the monitoring process was driven daily by
political party platforms and events, rather than the concerns
of voters. The information, therefore, generated in this process,
did not enable the voter to make an informed choice. The information
should have been grounded in voters’ concerns and issues.
The use of ‘Government’ with
regard to election-related matters in the news coverage, constituted
another problem. Outside of its legislative mandate, the Government
has no business in dabbling with election matters. The Government
does not contest an election, a political party does.
GMMU used ‘Government’ as a category
in the media monitoring process in Guyana. In fact, reputable
media monitoring bodies do not use ‘Government’
as a category in democracies.
Let me now address the state media in Guyana.
Unlike many countries experiencing transitional democracy,
Guyana is one of the few that has an abundance of private
media interspersed with the state media. Every day, the private
media attempt to evaluate the Government’s performance,
and this evaluation does not always comply with the norms
of objectivity and fundamental fairness.
The state media in this context have to continue
to promote nation-building projects.
Again, for the state media, no distinction
was made between reports on Governmental programs and projects,
and election-related items. Given this blurred distinction,
the GMMU erroneously suggested that the state media provided
a high positive coverage for the Government. This coverage
for Government seemed to include both facts for Governmental
projects mixed with election-related matters.
Media monitors need to understand the salient
role of the state media in Guyana, as they were the targets
of disparagement by previous GMMU Reports. The Voice of America,
Radio Marti, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, all funded
by the U.S. Congress, promote foreign policy positions of
U.S. Administrations. These are some of the U.S. state media
that collectively are a mouthpiece for U.S. foreign policy.
The Guyana state media are not that different. The Guyana
state media promote, among other functions, the nation building
policies, programs, and projects of Government.
Monitoring of the media during an election
campaign in Guyana, with a history of rigged elections, is
a politically sensitive activity. In order to apportion credibility
and integrity to this type of media project, it is absolutely
necessary, therefore, inter alia, to summarize the parameters
of the training program used, and to publicize the staff profiles
of the monitoring unit.
The GMMU Project’s integrity must be
discerned through its own transparent structure and functions.
Therefore, validity and reliability of any GMMU Project’s
findings will have to be determined through the public documents
issued, and not through conducted tours at GECOM’s Media
Monitoring Unit.
TOP
|
