The Commonwealth Observer Group (COG) is reiterating a call for the Antigua and Barbuda Service (ABS) be incorporated as a state-owned entity with an independent board of directors governing its policies, operations and programming noting this ‘could help mitigate some of the challenges regarding accessibility, fairness and bias’.
The COG, which monitored the April 30 general election in which Prime Minister Gaston Browne led his ruling Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party (ABLP) to a convincing 15-2 victory, has released its final report.
In it, the COG said that in 2023, it had recommended the incorporation of ABS as a state-owned entity, adding it is also now recommending a ‘need to depoliticise the media landscape. ‘…it must be free, fair and inclusive. There is an urgent requirement to strengthen the regulatory framework in this regard,’ the COG said, recommending ‘that consideration be given to reviving the media association, as this could provide a useful platform for co-ordination, professional development and the reinforcement of ethical standards across the sector.
‘As recommended by the 2018 and 2023 COGs in their reports, an independent and adequately funded media council or monitoring body should be established to provide oversight and enforcement of Section 36(1) of the ROPA (Representation of the People’s Act) (Amendment) 2001 and Section 62(3) of the ROPA (Amendment) 2002’.
The COG said it is recommending that ABS and other media be ‘encouraged to continue efforts to ensure balanced coverage and fair access for all political parties to strengthen editorial independence and public trust.’
According to the COG final report, a copy of which has been sent to the Antigua and Barbuda government, the media generally met its obligation to provide credible information in the weeks leading up to the April 30 general election ‘helping voters make informed decisions.
‘However, the highly polarised environment raised concerns about fairness and editorial independence, with the opposition complaining of bias and unfair treatment by the state-owned ABS.’
The COG said that the country has a dynamic media environment, with nearly 20 radio stations. It also has television, e-papers and online sites.
But some stakeholders the COG met with complained that ‘the candidates and their campaigns did not always get fair access to the media, and diverse and balanced viewpoints were not always reflected given the political affiliation and ideological alignment of the various media entities
‘ABS told the COG that once the writs of election were issued, it provided rate cards to the political parties and scheduled candidate interviews for ABS TV’s ‘Know Your Candidate’ programme.’
The report noted that all ABLP candidates took advantage of the opportunity to be interviewed. ‘However, after two UPP candidates were interviewed, the opposition party refused to participate further in the interviews, citing complaints from its candidates and supporters about the bias and combativeness displayed by the programme’s host and the negative slant of the news reports following their appearance.’
The report said that ‘ABS strongly rejected the allegations, stating that the host operated with a high degree of professionalism’.
The report noted that one week after nomination day, and 10 days ahead of the elections, the Antigua and Barbuda Electoral Commission (ABEC) published general elections media guidelines pursuant to the ROPA.
It said that these rules prohibit radio and television stations from preventing any political party or candidate nominated to run in the general elections from broadcasting information necessary to promote their campaigns.
The rules also prevent print media from blocking the publication of any print material to promote a campaign and require owners of electronic and print media to provide equitable allocation of time and space in a nondiscriminatory manner.
The guidelines also stipulate that media entities cannot charge more than the ordinary advertising rates for promoting political content. Violation of these rules would come with a penalty of EC$10,000 (One EC dollar=US$0.37 cents) upon conviction or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year.
But the report noted that the opposition had informed the COG that ‘it did not advertise on ABS entities because it had no confirmation that the ABLP was being made to pay for the advertising it was doing, and there was no guarantee of fairness.
‘The opposition party used other media channels for advertising, including The Observer, and pushed its messages out via social media,’ the report said, adding that the ‘UPP complained of a lack of balance in news coverage, and some private media personnel told the Group that denial of access to government officials was heightened during the election season, making it more difficult to balance their stories.
‘Private media also shared with the COG that there were some private media practitioners who were afraid of being victimised.’
But the report quoted ABS as saying that ‘it remained committed to providing balanced reporting and aimed to get opposition responses to stories where warranted, but noted a general distrust by those aligned with the opposition.
‘State-owned and private media entities played important roles in voter education, amplifying information provided by ABEC. Some private media practitioners expressed concerns about having to pay to access historical data from the Electoral Commission
‘The COG took note of the absence of any printed newspapers in Antigua and Barbuda, which traditionally had been a vital source of communication for elderly electors and those who do not use social media channels.’
The report also indicated that ‘there is no precedent for an election-specific code of conduct for the media, either private or government owned. Neither is there a single codified media code of ethics.
‘As noted, freedom of expression – including that of the press – is guaranteed in the Constitution and journalists are protected from arbitrary interference. These rights are qualified, meaning the state can impose restrictions in the interest of public order national security, reputation protection and the less-defined, morality.
‘ Journalists and media outlets are expected through individual articles of legislation to balance freedom of journalistic expression with public accountability and to refrain from harm or defamation through their publications,’ the report added.