GEORGETOWN, Guyana - The apparent end to a long-standing rift between the Bharrat Jagdeo administration and Guyana's leading newspaper along with the tabling of proposals to reform libel laws in Jamaica set a positive framework for the Caribbean observance of World Press Freedom Day (WPFD) here.

CLAUDE ROBINSON

Days before the Caribbean Media and Communication Conference convened here for its May 1-3 assembly, it was announced that the Guyana government would resume state advertising in Stabroek News, ending a ban initiated in November 2006. Estimates put the cost to the paper at more than US $150,000, not an insignificant sum in a small economy, with a large number of advertising-supported media.

The prohibition was widely regarded as punishment for what government officials called hostile and partisan journalism by the editors of the newspaper. Most other observers dismissed the administration's claim, insisting that the newspaper was doing its duty as a professional news organisation.

Meanwhile, an opinion survey reported in Stabroek News (April 30) said that a majority of Guyanese support the government's decision to resume advertising. Some 82 per cent of respondents said that withholding advertising was against freedom of the press. The majority "feel no media should be punished for what it writes as long as it is within the law", said the Stabroek News report of the poll findings.

The poll reflected views across Guyana's often tense racial divide which is often the prism through which issues are discussed.

President Jagdeo's reversal of his earlier hard line position was in response by extensive lobbying by regional and other media interests who also asked other CARICOM heads of government to intervene on their behalf. And the timing of the announcement was widely believed to be to mute anticipated criticism from the WPFD delegates.

Earlier, President Jagdeo had declined an invitation to deliver the keynote address and state-owned media agencies have been absent from the deliberations, scheduling their own alternative event Friday.
Interestingly though, prime minister Sam Hinds made a brief appearance at the conference venue and mingled with participants before the session got underway Thursday morning.

Withholding of state advertising and use of import laws to restrict access to newsprint have long been among the weapons used by some governments to get a pliant press. It is high time such practices cease in a region famous for having a free press on par with any other region in the world.

But while the resumption of advertising in the newspaper was widely hailed by conference participants as a sign of improving relations between the government and the private media in Guyana there are several issues of concern, suggesting that there may be still some rocky times ahead.

One is the four-month suspension of broadcasting of Channel 6 (CNS) TV. The station was drawn over the coals for a broadcast in which a caller threatened death to the president. To make matters worse, the offending broadcast was repeated even after objections had been raised.

By accounts of many Guyanese and other professional media workers familiar with the broadcast, the material had crossed the legal borderline. However, some argued that a four-month suspension was disproportionate to the transgression and also that due process was not followed in coming to the decision.

Guyana is the only CARICOM country where the state retains a monopoly in radio licences. Now that the advertising issue has been resolved, Guyanese practitioners at the conference indicated that freeing up the airwaves will be the next battle line between themselves and the government.

LIBEL REFORM

The annual UNESCO observance of May 2 as World Press Freedom Day has been celebrated by Caribbean media managers and practitioners since 1998 when the first Caribbean Media Conference was held in Jamaica. The conference has been supported by UNESCO and the various regional media and training institutions.

At that time, the burning agenda item was the push for reform of libel laws following some large awards for damages against the Gleaner for libel including defaming former tourism minister Anthony Abrahams who won substantial damages.

Against that background it was not surprising that delegates welcomed news that the Bruce Golding administration had received and tabled in parliament the report of a committee headed by former high court judge, Hugh Small, into reforming Jamaica's libel and slander laws. .
As part of his new approach to governance, Mr Golding had promised, even before he was elected, to "modernise the laws relating to libel and slander so that those engaged in corruption can be more easily exposed and brought to justice". He said a review of the libel and slander laws would remove the wall of protection for wrongdoers.

Among other reforms, the Small Committee recommended abolition of criminal libel, saying: "This offence originated in mediaeval times when defamation law was used to restrict freedom of expression and long before our contemporary commitment to the protection of human rights developed."

The Committee also recommended that a jury no longer determine damages. The jury should determine guilt, but damages would be determined by the judge.

The committee also proposed that the period in which a libel action might be brought be reduced to one year. The limitation period is currently six years. "The committee thinks that, in Jamaica, there should be a reduction of the six-year limitation period since persons who bring defamation actions from a genuine wish to vindicate their reputations should be encouraged to do so at the earliest possible opportunity," the report read.

Media interests have long argued that many elements of the current legislation are a hindrance to investigative journalism thus restricting the capacity of the media to adequately perform their watch dog role in the society. The threat of potentially ruinous libel suits was said to have a chilling effect on the press.

The report will now either be debated in the House or sent to a committee of Parliament for further examination. If they are accepted and passed into law, some of the constraints will be eased but this cannot and must not be seen as an invitation for open attacks on public officials or private citizens. Reputations still matter.

And the media must remember that their primary role in democratic governance is to act as a watch dog on public officials. We are neither cheerleaders nor character assassins.

Further, media should affirm their own commitment to the prevailing concept of responsible journalism confirmed by several judicial decisions, including a Jamaican case Bonnick v Morris and Gleaner Company2003 and Reynolds v Times of London 1999 in which the Privy Council affirmed the concept of responsible journalism, giving the Press a sort of qualified privilege to criticise public officials as long as they acted responsibly.

One way of demonstrating this would be adoption an industry-wide code of professional practice and complaints authority to convince the society that they are serious about serving the public interest and not engaging in settling personal or political scores.

Claude Robinson is senior research fellow in the Mona School of Business, UWI. kcr@cwjamaica.com

University Players gear up for Césaire's A Tempest

Anita Baker gives the best she's got at St Lucia Jazz Fest

VP Records scoops up Mighty's Cornerstone