Media Monitoring Unit finds Gov't receives 56 times more negative than positive coverage from the Stabroek News

The Media Monitoring Unit (MMU), which has been recently resuscitated and falls under the rubric of the Guyana Elections Commission, has presented its first report which illustrates the imbalances in the political reporting in Guyana. The report found both the Stabroek and Kaieteur News to be highly imbalanced in the level of negative coverage of the government in comparison to the opposition

STABROEK NEWS

The MMU in its analysis of the Stabroek News found that the Government was disproportionally projected with precisely 56 times more negative than positive coverage. “And apart from the amounts of negative coverage observed and measured for the PPP/C and APNU, none of the other Political Parties (i.e. AFC, JFAP and TUF) received any measurable coverage.”
It found too that the newspaper’s Columnists depicted the Government with around 7 times more negative than positive publicity and amongst the Political Parties, APNU garnered the most positive coverage followed by AFC and PPP/C, in that order.
“On the negative side, the PPP/C was doused with the largest amount of negative publicity, followed by APNU and AFC.”
The MMU reports that “Amongst the Political Parties, APNU gained the highest amount of positive publicity, followed in order by the AFC, PPP/C, JFAP and TUF”

KAIETEUR NEWS

As it relates to the Kaieteur News it was found that the editorials of the Kaieteur News “adorned” the Government with almost three times more negative than positive publicity.
“Amongst the Political Parties, the PPP/C was given small amounts of positive and neutral coverage, while APNU collected a small amount of neutral.”
In terms of the KN’s letters column, the Government scored approximately five times more negative than positive coverage, whilst from the ranks of Political Parties, the following coverage was observed and measured: APNU gained the highest amount of positive coverage, followed by PPP/C and AFC in that order.
“On the negative side, the PPP/C led the way, followed by APNU and AFC…The PPP/C collected a negative to positive ratio of coverage that was 19:1; while APNU’s negative to positive ratio was substantially smaller at approximately 5:1. The AFC’s coverage revealed a positive to negative ratio of coverage that was around 2:1.”
As it relates to the Columnists the MMU stated that they distilled on the Government approximately more negative than positive coverage.
“Amongst the Political Parties, the AFC was the recipient of the most positive coverage, followed by PPP/C and APNU…The PPP/C collected the largest accumulation of negative publicity, and was followed by AFC and APNU, in that order.”
It found too that the coverage given to the PPP/C by the newspaper’s columnists resulted in a spread of information received by the public that was 16 times more negative than positive.
“In similar fashion, APNU was the recipient of a spread of coverage that was 9 times more negative than positive, while the AFC’s coverage showed a spread that was slightly more negative than positive.”
The report found too that “amongst the Political Parties, the AFC secured the highest amount of positive coverage, followed by APNU and PPP/C, in that order…Contrastingly, the PPP/C attracted the most negative reportage, followed by AFC, APNU and TUF…The PPP/C also accumulated appreciably more negative than positive coverage from the news reports in the newspaper, while APNU’s positive to negative coverage was 4:1, and AFC more than 2:1. PPP/C and TUF were the only parties with net negative coverage.”