|
Momodou
Denmark
11717 Posts |
 Posted - 27 Feb 2007 : 13:20:14
|
OPINION
HAS THE GPU REPORT DONE JUSTICE TO FOROYAA?
WHERE ARE ITS FACTS?
By Ousman Sillah
I want to respond to the claims made against the Foroyaa Newspaper as contained in The Gambia Press Union (GPU) "Report on Media Monitoring Exercise of the 27th January 2007 National Assembly elections."
Although the Foroyaa reaction to the said GPU report, in its publication of the 19th - 20th February 2007, has adequately addressed the issue, I still believe that there are some few very important points which need to be highlighted in order to expose the lack of objectivity and the inherent contradiction in the report vis a vis its own facts and conclusions.
This, however, is not in anyway an attempt to defend, for there is nothing factual in the report's conclusion to be defensive about. My only concern is centred around the fact that the GPU report has simply not done justice to the Foroyaa Newspaper on the issue of the coverage of the recently held National Assembly elections. This is pointedly a rebuttal aimed at putting things in proper perspective, so as to set the records straight.
I will, therefore, show the readers how the purported bias reporting by Foroyaa is even at variance with the facts provided by the data in the same GPU report. This will just go to show how this unsubstantiated negative conclusion is just a mere allegation that fundamentally negates the principles of objectivity required in journalism.
It is important to note that this exercise by the GPU had received financial support from the UNDP and is meant to support the democratic process.
The report indicated that the methodology applied was to engage three personnel who monitored the print and electronic media by filling out sheets as per news item or article, identify quantity and determining quality. It is also divided into pre-election and post-election assessments.
The report presented its own data in pictograms on what it refers to as Type of Coverage, size, size of item and quality.
1. Let's start with the graph under item 6.1 'Type of Coverage.'
Graph 8A pre-election (January 4-24), according to the report, monitors 'news, editorial, commentary, features, etc...., lumped together;
Pre-election Report (Jan. 4 - 24)
- The Foroyaa was recorded to have covered the scale of 1 for APRC, 9 for UDP, 2 for NADD, 1 for NRP and 4.5 for independents.
- The Point was recorded to have covered 8 for APRC, 4 for UDP, 3 for NADD, 1 for NRP and 3 for Independents.
- The Daily Observer gave 24 for APRC, 2 for UDP, 1 for NADD, none for NRP and 1 for Independents.
The report, under bullet points below, observes as its conclusion that;
- Only Foroyaa and The Point give reports on all political parties.
- Where UDP stories were published in the Daily Observer, they were mainly on arrest, detention/trial of candidates and there was no comment from party.
- The Daily Observer reports give more coverage to the APRC.
I now ask the readers who, according to this findings, did Foroyaa give more coverage to? Is it NADD? Is it not the UDP?
Under Post Election Report (Jan. 27 - Feb. 2);
-The Foroyaa was recorded to have given 8 for APRC, 3 for UDP, 1 for NADD, none for NRP and 1 for Independents.
-The Point has given none for the APRC, 2 for UDP, 1 for NADD, none for NRP and none for Independents.
-The Daily Observer has given 4 for APRC, 5 for UDP, 3 for NADD, non, for NRP and 1 for Independents.
Based on the above facts, the report then concludes;
'Post Election:
- The Foroyaa gives more coverage to the APRC
- 'The Daily Observer gives more coverage to the APRC although almost all news items are neutral or negative.
Can the readers see the discrepancies and the prejudice inherent in the conclusion the conclusion that Foroyaa was bias towards NADD?
Let's proceed to the findings on the pre-election interviews.
2. According to graph 8C, the monitoring of the interviews is thus;
- The Foroyaa gave 2.5 for APRC, 3 for UDP, 4 for NADD, 1 for GPDP, none for NRP and 3 for independents.
- The Point gave none for APRC, 1 for UDP and none for the rest.
- The Daily Observer gave 4 for APRC and none for the rest.
Based on the above findings, the report concludes as thus;
'Pre Election:
- Foroyaa interviewed candidates from almost all parties, Interviews are not reflective of number of candidates per party. There is a favourable slant toward NADD candidates.
- The Point interviews on the UDP were mainly the party leader's reactions to the arrest/ detention/ trial of the UDP candidates in Bakau and Basse.
- The Daily Observer only interviews APRC candidates.
'
The readers can now see that despite Foroyaa's efforts to interview candidates from almost all the parties, according to the findings, the conclusion is trying to negate this essential element of objectivity by accusing Foroyaa of biasness in favour of NADD. The pictogram shows that the Point covered only UDP and NADD whilst the Daily Observer presented APRC alone.
In fact, contrary to their findings which indicated 'interviews almost all,' the Foroyaa had indeed interviewed candidates from all the contesting parties, namely, the NRP, UDP, APRC and NADD. The NRP Candidate for Lower Nuimi (see No.10/2007 page 9). Mr. Hamat Bah of NRP was approached twice but he declined, because he was too busy. Foroyaa had even gone to the extent of interviewing a non contesting party, and that is the GPDP leader, as confirmed by the findings.
As for the post election interviews, graph 8D presents its findings as thus;
- The Foroyaa gave none for APRC, 1 for UDP, 2 for NADD none for NRP and none for the Independents.
- The Point has given 3 for APRC, 1 for UDP, 1 for NADD, none for NRP and non for Independents.
- The Daily Observer gave 3 for APRC and none for the rest.
In its footnote conclusion on the post election interview, the report states,
- Daily Observer interviews still favourable only to APRC
- Foroyaa does not interview APRC.
This last statement is at variance with the reality. Foroyaa published five interviews with APRC Candidates in its first two editions after the National Assembly elections. In No. 11/2007, Foroyaa published interviews with the APRC Candidates for Wuli West, Kombo North and Kombo South on page 6. In issue No.11112/2007, page 10, Foroyaa published interviews with the APRC Candidates for Central Baddibu and Bakau.
3. There is also what they called 'size of text' assessment in the monitoring exercise which, according to the report, is 'measured in centimetres square'.
Graph 9A on pre election reads;
- The Foroyaa gave 3000 for the APRC, 2500 for UDP, 2000 for NADD, 50 for GPDP, 100 for NRP and 1500 for independents.
- The Point has given 1500 for APRC, 2000 for UDP, 750 for NADD, non for GPDP, 100 for NRP and 500 for independents.
- The Daily Observer gave 4500 for APRC, 250 for UDP, none for NADD and 50 for NRP.
- The Daily Express gave 500 for APRC, 100 for NADD and none for the rest.
The report made no footnote observation on these findings.
Where is the slant of Foroyaa in favour of NADD?
As for graph 9B dealing with size of text on post election monitoring, it states;
- The Foroyaa gave 2000 for APRC, 1000 for UDP, 1100 for NADD, none for the rest.
- The Point gave 600 for APRC, 1000 for UDP, 1100 for NADD and none for the rest.
- The Daily Observer 1300 for APRC, 1200 for UDP, 899 for NADD, none for NRP and 500 for independents.
- The Daily Express has given the APRC 200 and none to the rest.
This above graph is also not accompanied by any comments from the author (s).
Where is the purported Foroyaa bias in favour of NADD?
4. There was also monitoring on what the report termed as 'size of item.'
Graph 9C presents 'size of item' on pre election report, also in centimeter terms, as follows;
- The Foroyaa provided 2750 for APRC, 2500 for UDP, 2250 for NADD, 100 for GPDP, 200 for NRP and 1500 for independents.
- Whereas the Point had 2250 for APRC, 1500 for UDP, 500 for NADD, 200 for NRP and 500 for the independents.
- The Daily Observer provided 2750 for APRC, 250 for UDP, none for NADD, none for NRP and 100 for Independents.
- The Daily Express has given 250 for APRC, 100 for NADD and non for the rest.
There is no foot note observation by the GPU monitors.
Where is Foroyaa's favourable slant towards NADD?
Graph 9D deals with 'size of item post election' and it reads;
- Foroyaa provided 200 for APRC, 1000 for UDP, 1250 for NADD, none for NRP and 750 for independents.
- The Point provided 750 for APRC, 1250 for UDP, 1500 for NADD, none for NRP and none for independents.
- Daily Observer has given 200 for APRC, 2000 for UDP, 1500 for NADD, none for NRP and 1250 for the independents.
Again, there were no footnote observations.
Where is the Foroyaa bias in favour of NADD against the other contesting parties?
5. There is also what the report refers to as 'Quality.' This it states, is determined by the 'positive, negative or neutral context of coverage. Now,' let us see what it has for us on this score.
Graph 10A of the report presents pre election 'Positive News findings as thus;
- Foroyaa gave APRC 30, UDP 30, NADD 200, NRP 2.5 and Independents 5.
- The Point gave APRC 20, UDP 15, NADD 10, NRP 2.5 and Independents 10.
- The Daily Observer gave APRC 55, UDP 1, NADD none, NRP none and the Independents 1.
The Daily Express gave 2.5 to APRC and none to the others.
As for Graph 10B on what the report terms "Positive Context Post Election.' It presents the findings as thus;
- The Foroyaa gave APRC 10, UDP 5, NADD 10, none for NRP and Independents 3.
- The Point gave APRC 5, UDP 4, NADD 4 and none for the rest.
- Daily Express gave APRC 1 and nothing for the rest.
However, observations were made as footnote for both graphs as thus;
- Across the board, APRC enjoys relatively more positive news than the other parties.
- The Daily Observer gives overwhelming positive coverage and context to the APRC.'
Looking at these graphs, does NADD enjoy more positive news and coverage from Foroyaa than the other parties?
6. On the part that deals with 'Negative News' Pre Election, Graph 10C presents its findings as thus;
- The Foroyaa gave APRC 4, UDP4, NADD1, GPDP1, NRP none and Independents 5.
- The point gave APRC 2, UDP 14, NADD 1 and none to the rest.
- The Daily Observer gave one for APRC, 3 for UDP, 1 for NADD, none for NRP and 1 for the Independents.
- The Daily Express gave 1 for APRC, none for UDP, 1 for NADD and none for the rest.
If one looks at this graph, one will not fail to see that all the four Newspapers gave NADD one point each, including the Foroyaa. So where is the Foroyaa slant towards NADD?
As for Graph 10D on 'Negative News Post Election', it shows;
- Foroyaa gave APRC 7, UDP 3, NADD 2.5 and none for the rest.
- The Point gave none for APRC, 2.5 for UDP,2.5 for NADD and none for the rest.
- Daily Observer gave none for APRC, 9 for UDP, 3 for NADD and none for NRP and Independents.
There was no observation from monitors under footnote.
6. The last monitoring mechanism was graph 10E which shows 'Neutral News Post Election.'
In this graph, the Foroyaa is the only newspaper shown to have scaled the highest point of what the report terms 'Neutral News Post Election and this was on the APRC. All the other newspapers according to the graph did not provide to any of the parties any 'Neutral News Post Election'.
This also is not followed by any comments from the author(s) of the reports.
However, even relying on all these facts which are contained in the said GPU Report on Media Monitoring Exercise of the 25th January 2007 National Assembly Elections, one will not fail to see, relatively, how the Foroyaa was trying to be objective and impartial in its presentations as well as extensive in its coverage. There is no evidence which shows or corroborates the allegations that the Foroyaa was bias towards the NADD party in terms of coverage and interviews of parties and candidates.
So my question, therefore, is which facts did the author(s) of the report rely on to come to the conclusion that cast aspersion on the neutrality and integrity of the Foroyaa.
In reality, the Foroyaa has made every effort to ensure that there is a balanced presentation in election coverage reports. There was a policy in place which compelled our reporters to bring stories of all contestants in a given constituency before publication is made.
The Foroyaa is not competing with any Newspaper in this country. It has its guiding principles, which it impresses on all its reporters. The reporters are asked to always strive to report the truth, in good faith and in the public interest. This is what the gatekeepers also safeguard. This is why in The Gambia, one cannot talk about objective reporting in the media without mentioning Foroyaa as a leading example.
On The Coverage Of NADD By Foroyaa
Out of the 5 candidates of NADD, 3 of them were interviewed and 2 meetings covered before elections.. There was non-coverage for the NADD candidate for Sandu constituency whose meetings were not reported and was also not interview. The NADD candidate for Wuli West was only covered once in an interviewed. Equally, the Wuli East candidate was also reported to be interviewed once. For the NADD Central Baddibou candidate, he was interviewed once and no meetings of his was covered. As for the NADD candidate for Serrekunda Central there was no interview but 2 of his meetings were covered. All these presentations were made in a balanced way.
It is a cardinal principle and requirement for Observers of any process, most especially journalists, to be driven in their engagement by the spirit of an open-mindedness and sans-prejudice. They should not harbour any preconceive notions about somebody or some thing in the absence of convincing evidence to conclude otherwise. Journalists, like other citizens, are also stakeholders in the political life of a country. As such, they may hold a certain view or a given impression of a government and can also support this or that political party. This is something that is normal. However, what is unacceptable and is unethical is for a journalist or Newspaper to allow taking open partisan inclinations or postures to reflect in its editorial or reporting as such a stance may interfere and compromise with objectivity, truthfulness, impartiality and serving the public interest.
The Foroyaa as well as the GPU and the other media houses may have people who support the UDP, NADD, APRC, NRP, GPDP or even be non-partisan. The proviso is, this support should not compromise or interfere with your work as a journalist or media institution.
Source: Foroyaa Newspaper Burning Issue
Issue No. 023/2007, 26-27 February 2007
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
Topic Locked
