Friday, January 16, 2009

Why can't Guyana set it's own standards?

However, PPP/C MP Gail Teixeira said that contrary to the image Norton was creating, the practice of broadcasting Parliamentary sittings live and unedited internationally was not the norm. She said that based on a survey conducted among Commonwealth countries only a few states legally require stations to broadcast the Parliamentary sessions. She identified states such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Samoa and the United Kingdom, as ones which have adopted this practice. She, however, pointed out that often these broadcasts are not live and that they suffer from low viewership.

>>> Mrs. Teixeira, we respectfully submit that it's time Guyana take the lead in an area where few have trod. Broadcasting Parliament would be an excellent idea, unless of course your Government is not too inclined on broadcasting the opposition members speeches and the heckling heard during debates, especially when Debbie Barks goes after Clement 'Black Cat' Rohee. Your Government is right. Maybe you need more time to craft how the Opposition will get 40 percent coverage in the House and the PPP/C 60 percent and how the NCN cameras would not show when the opposition walk outs. Confess Mrs. Teixeira. How much more time do you need to iron out these partisan issues?

1 comment:

  1. We disagree with broadcasting parliament live and unedited at this stage. We agree with the government that it is not worth the cost (though we think that the government has deliberated bloated the projected cost quoted in parliament). We believe what should be done is to have independent (as opposed to GINA edited) 'package programmes' for each parliamentary session done for both radio and television and have these broadcast X number of times on NCN radio and television each week. (Heavy emphasis on the "INDEPENDENT EDITING".