Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

MMU flays Kaieteur News for negative coverage of Govt

…says Stabroek News favours Opposition
The Kaieteur News came in for a strong bashing from the Media Monitoring Unit (MMU) of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) for the

Kaieteur News Publisher Glenn Lall infront of the Kaieteur News building on Saffon Street, Charlestown, Georgetown

Kaieteur News Publisher Glenn Lall infront of the Kaieteur News building on Saffon Street, Charlestown, Georgetown

reports and the opinions expressed in the newspaper’s elections coverage for the period under review.
The revelations were made as the MMU released its first report on the local media’s coverage of elections-related issues here.
Some media houses were criticised for what was described as the “swelling antipathy towards good journalism practices” and the lowering of standards.
The MMU therefore called on all media operatives to uphold their journalism ethics and principles in carrying out their mandates, while noting that some currently being exercised were of low standards.

 

Kaieteur News’ bias
The Kaieteur News was singled out for its negative coverage in several areas.
The negative coverage that the Government suffered in the Kaieteur News far outweighed the positive publicity it received.
In fact, the Government’s negative to positive ratio of coverage from the editorials was more than 3:1.
Comparatively, the Government’s negative coverage was approximately five times more the same coverage calculated for the People’s Progressive

Kaieteur News Editor Adam Harris

Kaieteur News Editor
Adam Harris

Party/Civic (PPP/C), and 22 times that of A Partnership for National Unity+Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC).
The Unit also called on Kaieteur News, CNS Channel 6 and the National Communications Network (NCN) for their skewed coverage.

 

Stabroek News
favours Opposition
The Stabroek News was heavily criticized in the report.
According to the MMU, during the course of the reporting period, the editorials of the Stabroek News churned out figures from which coverage for the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC was calculated in the following manner:
The Government and the APNU+AFC received small amounts of positive coverage, while the PPP/C did not register any like measurable coverage. APNU+AFC’s share of positive coverage was roughly double that of the Government.
In terms of negative coverage, the Government got a significant amount of negative publicity, the PPP/C was the recipient of a large amount of same, and the APNU+AFC came in for a relatively minor amount of negative coverage.
APNU+AFC was the only entity that gained net positive coverage in a ratio of over 2:1.
Dissimilarly, the Government accumulated a negative to positive ratio of coverage of 33:1, while the PPP/C’s coverage devoid of any measurable positive coverage was overwhelmingly negative.

Guyana Times/TVG
For the Guyana Times, the MMU cited just one “infraction” in a story carried on the APNU+AFC rally in Linden.
According to the MMU, for the month of March, the news team of Guyana Times’ sister company Television Guyana (TVG), through the Evening News/Morning News, provided coverage for the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC, with all three entities receiving large amounts of positive coverage.
While the Government attracted the most coverage, the APNU+AFC was second for the most positive coverage, followed by the PPP/C.

Kaieteur News Senior Reporter Leonard Gildharie

Kaieteur News Senior Reporter Leonard Gildharie

According to figures provided by media watchdog, the Evening News/Morning News gave the coalition an overall 60 per cent of positive coverage in the newscast, while the PPP/C had received 57.2 per cent.
From the talk shows and interviews aired on the channel over the past month, the Government got a small amount of positive coverage, the PPP/C a modest amount of the coverage, and the APNU+AFC, a small amount.
All three entities – Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC – realised net positive coverage in this category of programming.
According to the Report,  in “the opinions articulated by the writer(s) of the editorials of the Guyana Times, over the duration of this reporting period, the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC were profiled in the following manner: all three entities received positive coverage in varying amounts”.
The Government received a modest amount of positive coverage, the PPP/C gained a large amount of same, and the APNU+AFC attracted a relatively small amount of positive publicity.
The PPP/C gained the largest share of positive coverage, followed by the Government, with the APNU+AFC bringing up in the cellar.
Comparatively, the Government received exactly 11 times more positive coverage than the APNU+AFC, while the PPP/C gained a not-so considerable more positive coverage than the Government, but significantly more than the APNU/AFC by a margin of almost 13:1.
The general news section of the newspaper churned out figures which showed that the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC, gained significantly large amounts of positive coverage.
The Government gained the most, followed by the PPP/C, then APNU+AFC, in that order. On the negative side, the Government took in a large amount of negative coverage, the PPP/C a modest amount of same, and the APNU+AFC, a copious amount, the MMU said.
The APNU/AFC’s share of negative coverage in this section of the newspaper was more than that of the Government, more than that of the PPP/C, and more than the Government and PPP/C.

 

Guyana Chronicle
According to the MMU, the state-owned Guyana Chronicle gave the Government in excess of two times the positive coverage taken in by the PPP/C and nearly nine times the same coverage absorbed by APNU+AFC.
The PPP/C’s positive coverage was approximately three times APNU+AFC’s positive coverage. In the negative columns, the Government and the PPP/C captured comparably small amounts of negative coverage, while the APNU+AFC gained a significantly large amount of like coverage.
The APNU+AFC’s negative coverage was almost 157 times more than the Government’s, and 191 times more than the PPP/C. “All told, the Government’s positive to negative ratio of coverage was 416: 1; the PPP/C’s positive to negative ratio was 194:1.
The APNU+AFC suffered net negative coverage in a negative to positive ratio of just over 3:1,” the report said.

Replies sorted oldest to newest

MMU: Times distorted Granger’s remarks for own agenda

Apr 8, 2015
11

The Media Monitoring Unit says the Guyana Times distorted remarks on the death of Courtney Crum-Ewing made by APNU’s David Granger at the Linden rally to “fit the agenda of the article, which to all intents and purposes, was to deceive from the ‘get-go.’”

See excerpt

News Report

The MMU’s attention was drawn to an article published in the Guyana Times Newspaper on Monday, March 6, 2015, captioned “Granger pushes envelope on incitement” (pg.14).
In the article, it is alleged that the leader of the opposition coalition political parties, APNU+AFC, told a large rally in Linden on Saturday, March 14, 2015 that it was the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) that had killed ex-soldier, Courtney Crum-Ewing.
After carefully going through the article in its entirety, the Unit found three (3) instances where Mr. Granger was directly quoted by the newspaper. The first and second quotes are found in paragraph 3 and states as follows: “I feel hurt. I feel wounded… Courtney was the first to fall” and “He was killed because he had a bullhorn in his hand…was executing his constitutional rights and was silenced.” The third quote is found in paragraph 4. The paragraph reads: Granger said he was deeply hurt over Crum-Ewing’s murder and pointed fingers directly at the governing party for the man’s execution as he told the persons gathered that he was convinced Crum-Ewing’s death was the result of the actions of the “rulers of darkness.” [Emphasis ours].
The Unit found in the above evidence that the reporter who wrote the article fallaciously construed the term “rulers of darkness” allegedly used by Mr. Granger to mean the PPP/C, because nowhere in the article is Mr. Granger quoted as saying in direct language that the PPP/C killed Courtney Crum-Ewing.
Based on all that has been outlined, the Unit’s conclusion is that the headline of the article was deliberately sensationalist, misleading and inflammatory. Further, it was obvious that in the accompanying story, Mr. Granger’s remarks were ingeniously distorted to fit the agenda of the article, which to all intents and purposes, was to deceive from the ‘get-go.’
The publication of this article by the Guyana Times Newspaper violated Section I of the MCC, which states that, “The media acknowledge that the deliberate distortion of reality so as to lead the public to a particular understanding of events and issues, without regard for reality, can poison the processes of democracy and therefore should not be done.”

The Unit also noted that in general news coverage for the month of March “APNU+AFC’s share of negative coverage in this section of the newspaper, was almost 8 times that of the Government, nearly 28 times that of the PPP/C, and double that of the Government and PPP/C, combined. Also, the APNU+AFC’s share of negative coverage resulted in the coalition overall, being the only entity to register net negative coverage.”

 

http://gtmosquito.com/mozzy-ne...arks-for-own-agenda/

Mars

Jagdeo’s Babu Jaan remarks racially divisive – Media Monitoring Unit

April 9, 2015 | By | Filed Under News 

After reviewing a broadcast of the speech made by former President Bharrat Jagdeo at Port Mourant

Former President, Bharrat Jagdeo

Former President, Bharrat Jagdeo

last month, the Media Monitoring Unit (MMU) of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) says the remarks he made were racially divisive. The MMU, on Tuesday made public its first report on the media’s coverage of the election campaign where it addressed the public outcry over Jagdeo’s delivery at a Memorial Ceremony held for former President and founder-leader of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), Dr. Cheddi Jagan. Noting that Jagdeo’s delivery at the Corentyne, Berbice memorial site on March 8, last, had been broadcast on national television, National Communications Network (NCN), the MMU said that this opened the way for it to address the matter. The report on the March 1 to March 31 period, focused on part of Jagdeo’s speech which it noted stirred significant negative public reactions. The controversial part of the speech it focused on reads “…but they consistently, they shout about racism of the PPP, but they practise racism. They whisper campaigns. In the last elections they went to some of the Afro- Guyanese villages and beat some drums at 6 o’clock in the morning and say let us throw out these coolie people. Get up, go out and vote, throw out the coolie people. That’s the kind of language they use. Anybody from our party who uses that sort of language, we will kick them out. This is our approach.” The MMU said that this was sourced from NCN TV which broadcast Jagdeo’s entire speech the following day. After reviewing the remarks made, the Unit took the position that it was obvious that Jagdeo was using a racial mobilization incident that allegedly occurred during the 2011 elections to make the point that racism will not be tolerated by his political party, the PPP/C. For the record, the MMU said that Jagdeo’s speech was the first time such details were ever publicly disclosed by anyone from the ruling PPP/C, the opposition political parties, local civil society, international elections observers, or the media. The body noted that on the face of it, this is salutary. “However, what was palpably disconcerting about the remarks made is where they were uttered, the occasion on which they were stated, and the immediate receptors of the message.” The MMU is of the view that it would be counter intuitive to view Dr. Jagdeo’s comments in isolation from the environment in which they were uttered. “At close up, he was speaking in a known PPP/C stronghold, before a predominantly East Indian audience, and, to boot, in a highly-charged political and ethnic environment,” it said. “Taking into consideration the historically and politically influenced divisions that persists up to now between Africans and East Indians in this country, and which are usually more pronounced during elections periods, the Unit came to the conclusion that the anecdotal illustration used by Dr. Jagdeo to make his point about racism, boomeranged disastrously, since it came over as a calculated exploitation, for political purposes, of the known fears and insecurities of one section of the population – East Indians.” The Unit added that it is within the foregoing context, that it concluded that the remarks made by Jagdeo “were racially divisive and should have been edited by all sections of the media that broadcast or printed the remarks verbatim. The media was reminded that the airing/publication of the comments as is, was a breach of Section B (1) of the Media Code of Conduct (MCC), which among other things state, that the media should “…refrain from publishing or broadcasting any matter with the potential for, or likelihood of promoting or inciting hatred of any kind (including ethnic and political hatred)…” The unit said that it observed that two television stations aired Jagdeo’s speech in full, while one newspaper and some online news sites carried only the excerpted part. It noted that many media houses from both the state and private media shied away from reproducing the full speech or the contentious part thereof. “The actions of these media houses should not go unmentioned, hence,` we unhesitatingly take a quality time out to commend them for their nous and adherence, in this instance, to the MCC,” the body ended.

Mitwah

 

8 minutes ago

MMU flays Kaieteur News for negative coverage of Govt

…says Stabroek News favours Opposition
The Kaieteur News came in for a strong bashing from the Media Monitoring Unit (MMU) of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) for the

Kaieteur News Publisher Glenn Lall infront of the Kaieteur News building on Saffon Street, Charlestown, Georgetown

Kaieteur News Publisher Glenn Lall infront of the Kaieteur News building on Saffon Street, Charlestown, Georgetown

reports and the opinions expressed in the newspaper’s elections coverage for the period under review.
The revelations were made as the MMU released its first report on the local media’s coverage of elections-related issues here.
Some media houses were criticised for what was described as the “swelling antipathy towards good journalism practices” and the lowering of standards.
The MMU therefore called on all media operatives to uphold their journalism ethics and principles in carrying out their mandates, while noting that some currently being exercised were of low standards.

FM

According to figures provided by media watchdog, the Evening News/Morning News gave the coalition an overall 60 per cent of positive coverage in the newscast, while the PPP/C had received 57.2 per cent.
From the talk shows and interviews aired on the channel over the past month, the Government got a small amount of positive coverage, the PPP/C a modest amount of the coverage, and the APNU+AFC, a small amount.
All three entities – Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC – realised net positive coverage in this category of programming.
According to the Report,  in “the opinions articulated by the writer(s) of the editorials of the Guyana Times, over the duration of this reporting period, the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC were profiled in the following manner: all three entities received positive coverage in varying amounts”.
The Government received a modest amount of positive coverage, the PPP/C gained a large amount of same, and the APNU+AFC attracted a relatively small amount of positive publicity.
The PPP/C gained the largest share of positive coverage, followed by the Government, with the APNU+AFC bringing up in the cellar.
Comparatively, the Government received exactly 11 times more positive coverage than the APNU+AFC, while the PPP/C gained a not-so considerable more positive coverage than the Government, but significantly more than the APNU/AFC by a margin of almost 13:1.
The general news section of the newspaper churned out figures which showed that the Government, PPP/C and APNU+AFC, gained significantly large amounts of positive coverage.
The Government gained the most, followed by the PPP/C, then APNU+AFC, in that order. On the negative side, the Government took in a large amount of negative coverage, the PPP/C a modest amount of same, and the APNU+AFC, a copious amount, the MMU said.
The APNU/AFC’s share of negative coverage in this section of the newspaper was more than that of the Government, more than that of the PPP/C, and more than the Government and PPP/C.

 

FM

Media monitors cite Chronicle’s ‘sordid’ editorial

Apr 8, 2015
14

GECOM’s Media Monitoring Unit in its first report has cited the Guyana Chronicle for a “sordid” editorial from March 10 that was “politically extremist and telegraphed a pernicious and sinister intent to create unnecessary fear, tension and insecurity in the country”.

“The MMU takes issue with the editorial department of the newspaper for the general tone of the editorial, the unsubstantiated allegations made therein, and its unmistakably inflammatory nature.
For starters, it did not miss our attention that in a somewhat devious ploy to justify what came after, the editorial started off by making specious and unsubstantiated allegations of a violent nature against the opposition political parties, namely APNU and AFC. The writer then goes on to conjure up a frightening sanguinary portent of the nation’s future should the aforementioned two opposition political parties accede to government after the forthcoming elections. This prediction by the writer is evident from the following chilling and wholly ill-conceived remarks (para. 4): “Cry a river of blood for our country, and for the annihilation of hope for peace in the nation as headlines scream the death-knell of the nations flowers while fountains of champagne celebrate the death of the innocents, because man’s inhumanity to man knows no boundaries, nor loyalties to kith, kin, or country; but only to the id and the ego – and the egomaniacs proliferate; and history resounds with the cries of their victims.”
The Unit noted that the writer left no doubt in the minds of readers as to who are the supposed perpetrators of this imaginary Guyanese pogrom, because in the preceding paragraph to one quoted above, it is clearly stated that, “The celebrations and toasts to the coalition’s victory herald a frightening scenario…..”
Indeed, there are other instances in the editorial where death, mayhem and destruction is macabrely sensationalized, but we feel that the above example will suffice for now, as we do not want to run the risk of reproducing the whole sordid piece to make our point. ”

The MMU also notes that the state funded Chronicle’s editorials resulted in a disproportionate negative to positive ratio of coverage of 141:1 for the APNU/AFC; The APNU+AFC’s negative coverage for general news “was almost 157 times more than the Government’s, and 191 times more than the PPP/C. All told, the Government’s positive to negative ratio of coverage was 416: 1; the PPP/C’s positive to negative ratio was 194:1.”

The unit cites another editorial from March 14  which read, “The hardcore veterans whose charter includes utilization of all the Machiavellian strategies contained in the diabolical X-13 Plan are making the nation cry rivers of blood while the voice of reason has been silenced in the thunder of the canons that devastate the nation’s hope for a brighter future.”

It notes , “quite disturbingly, the language used in the final paragraph is expressed in the present tense, giving the impression as it is, that the country is currently in some kind of dystopian state of internal upheaval spawned by bloodletting (“…the nation cry rivers of blood…&rdquo, when, in fact, such a scenario is far removed from reality..”

 

 

http://gtmosquito.com/mozzy-ne...es-sordid-editorial/

Mars
Originally Posted by yuji22:

 

8 minutes ago

MMU flays Kaieteur News for negative coverage of Govt

…says Stabroek News favours Opposition
The Kaieteur News came in for a strong bashing from the Media Monitoring Unit (MMU) of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) for the

Kaieteur News Publisher Glenn Lall infront of the Kaieteur News building on Saffon Street, Charlestown, Georgetown

Kaieteur News Publisher Glenn Lall infront of the Kaieteur News building on Saffon Street, Charlestown, Georgetown

reports and the opinions expressed in the newspaper’s elections coverage for the period under review.
The revelations were made as the MMU released its first report on the local media’s coverage of elections-related issues here.
Some media houses were criticised for what was described as the “swelling antipathy towards good journalism practices” and the lowering of standards.
The MMU therefore called on all media operatives to uphold their journalism ethics and principles in carrying out their mandates, while noting that some currently being exercised were of low standards.

 

FM

Jagdeo’s Babu Jaan remarks racially divisive – Media Monitoring Unit

April 9, 2015 | By | Filed Under News 

After reviewing a broadcast of the speech made by former President Bharrat Jagdeo at Port Mourant

Former President, Bharrat Jagdeo

Former President, Bharrat Jagdeo

last month, the Media Monitoring Unit (MMU) of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) says the remarks he made were racially divisive. The MMU, on Tuesday made public its first report on the media’s coverage of the election campaign where it addressed the public outcry over Jagdeo’s delivery at a Memorial Ceremony held for former President and founder-leader of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), Dr. Cheddi Jagan. Noting that Jagdeo’s delivery at the Corentyne, Berbice memorial site on March 8, last, had been broadcast on national television, National Communications Network (NCN), the MMU said that this opened the way for it to address the matter. The report on the March 1 to March 31 period, focused on part of Jagdeo’s speech which it noted stirred significant negative public reactions. The controversial part of the speech it focused on reads “…but they consistently, they shout about racism of the PPP, but they practise racism. They whisper campaigns. In the last elections they went to some of the Afro- Guyanese villages and beat some drums at 6 o’clock in the morning and say let us throw out these coolie people. Get up, go out and vote, throw out the coolie people. That’s the kind of language they use. Anybody from our party who uses that sort of language, we will kick them out. This is our approach.” The MMU said that this was sourced from NCN TV which broadcast Jagdeo’s entire speech the following day. After reviewing the remarks made, the Unit took the position that it was obvious that Jagdeo was using a racial mobilization incident that allegedly occurred during the 2011 elections to make the point that racism will not be tolerated by his political party, the PPP/C. For the record, the MMU said that Jagdeo’s speech was the first time such details were ever publicly disclosed by anyone from the ruling PPP/C, the opposition political parties, local civil society, international elections observers, or the media. The body noted that on the face of it, this is salutary. “However, what was palpably disconcerting about the remarks made is where they were uttered, the occasion on which they were stated, and the immediate receptors of the message.” The MMU is of the view that it would be counter intuitive to view Dr. Jagdeo’s comments in isolation from the environment in which they were uttered. “At close up, he was speaking in a known PPP/C stronghold, before a predominantly East Indian audience, and, to boot, in a highly-charged political and ethnic environment,” it said. “Taking into consideration the historically and politically influenced divisions that persists up to now between Africans and East Indians in this country, and which are usually more pronounced during elections periods, the Unit came to the conclusion that the anecdotal illustration used by Dr. Jagdeo to make his point about racism, boomeranged disastrously, since it came over as a calculated exploitation, for political purposes, of the known fears and insecurities of one section of the population – East Indians.” The Unit added that it is within the foregoing context, that it concluded that the remarks made by Jagdeo “were racially divisive and should have been edited by all sections of the media that broadcast or printed the remarks verbatim. The media was reminded that the airing/publication of the comments as is, was a breach of Section B (1) of the Media Code of Conduct (MCC), which among other things state, that the media should “…refrain from publishing or broadcasting any matter with the potential for, or likelihood of promoting or inciting hatred of any kind (including ethnic and political hatred)…” The unit said that it observed that two television stations aired Jagdeo’s speech in full, while one newspaper and some online news sites carried only the excerpted part. It noted that many media houses from both the state and private media shied away from reproducing the full speech or the contentious part thereof. “The actions of these media houses should not go unmentioned, hence,` we unhesitatingly take a quality time out to commend them for their nous and adherence, in this instance, to the MCC,” the body ended.

Mitwah

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×