Advisory Committee on Broadcasting must act
Editorial
Stabroek News
May 27, 2002
Hot on the heels of the broadcast of the Andrew Douglas tape by VCT 28, WRHM 7 and NBTV 9 there was a public clamour for the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB) to review the broadcast and declare whether there had been a breach of the conditions of the licence recently granted to the stations.
Shortly after, the ACB created quite a rumpus by declaring that it would not pronounce on the tape. It asserted that if the ACB were to do the bidding of complainants in relation to sanctions against stations it would become "another combative force in the melee". The ACB contended that it was a force for "moral suasion" to get the stations to lift their standards of broadcasting. Established under the Post and Telegraph Act, the ACB has since been asked by Prime Minister Hinds, the minister with responsibility for the sector, to review its decision not to address the broadcasting of the Douglas tape.
The ACB was one of the fruits of the now suspended dialogue between President Jagdeo and Mr Hoyte and it was of particular interest to the government and its supporters in the wake of the unbridled vitriol and inflammatory statements that emanated from NBTV Channel 9 particularly in the period leading up to the 2001 general elections and thereafter.
The decision by Messrs Dial, Case and James to decline to pronounce on the propriety of the broadcast is puzzling in the light of the regulations underpinning their work. Under 23B of the regulations accompanying the act, the functions of the committee are defined as follows:
a) to advise the minister on compliance by licencees with the terms and conditions of licences or otherwise;
b) to recommend to the minister (Hinds) such appropriate action which may be taken including revocation of a licence, in the event of failure by a licencee to comply with the terms or conditions of the licence...;
c) any other function which may be requested by the minister and not inconsistent with the functions of the committee under the foregoing provisions of this paragraph".
Much the same is said by the ACB in its own document describing its functions where it is said inter alia that it is there to advise on the issuance and termination of licences, monitor the adherence to or breach of broadcast standards by licencees, receive and investigate public opinion or complaints on broadcast standards and advise on appropriate action in cases of violations of the conditions of the licence after due process of investigation.
The conditions of the licence which the ACB is expected to monitor include a responsibility on the part of the licencee to ensure that nothing is broadcast which offends "good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite racial hatred or incite to crime or to lead to public disorder or to be offensive to public feeling". There are other important conditions including the need for impartiality and accuracy in news programmes and preventing the abuse of religious beliefs but the condition in the preceding sentence is the one that the ACB would surely have had to consider in addressing whether the Douglas tape broadcast constituted an infringement of the stations' licences.
There is therefore, under the law, an irrefutable obligation for the ACB to act, otherwise, it is not fulfilling its mandate even at this early stage. It has much more than an advisory role as its title misleadingly suggests.
But there must also be some understanding of what the ACB is up against. It is attempting to be a sheriff in the broadcast equivalent of what is one of the most lawless towns in the legendary wild west. It can easily be overwhelmed by complaints of one sort or the other considering the volatile conditions of present day Guyana. Nevertheless, it must make a stand even if it has to choose carefully which cases it takes up. The Douglas tape, because of the spectre of brutal crime that is haunting the country, is certainly eminently suitable for the ACB to address.
While the content of the broadcast will be addressed editorially at a later date it was sufficiently disturbing to warrant greater care on the part of the broadcasters.
To have an escapee, who is at least an accessory to the murder of a prison guard and critical injury to another, appearing menacingly on TV for several minutes with a high-powered gun at the ready is a bit too much. Moreover, to allow him to portray himself in these politically unsettling times as a freedom fighter for his "African" brothers in prison is quite dangerous. There was also an unsubstantiated attack on the integrity of a policeman and others. So there was much in this broadcast that offered the ACB an opportunity to register its presence and make an impact. Whenever it does address this issue and others, it will have a very delicate balancing act to perform to ensure that it doesn't encroach on free speech.
In the afterglow of President Jagdeo's signing on Friday of the hemispheric Declaration of Chapultepec recognising the importance to a democratic state of the freedom of expression, it is important that nothing is done to curtail this fundamental right. The broadest possible definition should be applied to free speech. It is truly the lifeblood of a normal functioning society; letting all thoughts and views contend in the painstaking and arduous task of building a nation.
However, that free speech right comes with an onerous responsibility. Racially inflammatory speech and incitement to violence can wreak untold, bloody havoc.
The poisonous venom spewed out by Rwanda's infamous Radio Milles Collines primed thousands of Rwandans to turn mindlessly and violently against their brothers and sisters and everyone else. At the end of that orgy of violence 800,000 people or more had been killed. It is a lesson that rabid broadcasting can cause untold harm.
All parties in the previous Parliament had agreed unanimously that hate speech and racially inflammatory broadcasts were crimes and a law catering for this was passed. It is yet to be put to use but there is agreement across the political spectrum that such broadcasts are inimical to a society like ours.
South Africa's crisply written and refreshingly simple constitution makes the point tellingly in its Bill of Rights dealing with Freedom of Expression. It says that everyone has the right to free expression but this does not extend to "a) propaganda for war; b) incitement of imminent violence; or c) advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm".
There is much on our local TV that offends these areas. Certain appeals last year for persons to turn their weapons on the police, for help to ward off a non-existent attack on a certain political party headquarters and for certain persons to seek protection at a party's headquarters fall well within what could have had deadly consequences.
Self-regulation is what all of the TV stations and other media should be striving for. Where this fails, the task of ensuring that licencees are complying with the terms of their licences is traditionally the remit of a broadcasting authority. In the interim, while comprehensive legislation is organised, this important task falls to the ACB. Is it prepared to do its duty?