VIEWPOINT
:
MEDIA LAWLESSNESS
By Prem Misir Ph.D.
Television talk show hosts are constantly
abusing the air waves. They are continuously violating the
terms and conditions for use of the electromagnetic spectrum.
This spectrum is a scarce national resource of Guyana, and
is not owned by any individual talk show host, television
station, or other agency. The licensee, invariably the owner
of the television station, agrees to comply with the terms
and conditions of the spectrum. The spectrum is issued under
license by the National Frequency Management Unit (NFMU).
Terms & conditions of the spectrum
What are these terms and conditions? The terms and conditions
sourced from the Office of the Prime Minister that has jurisdiction
over the NFMU are now presented.
The licensee
1. will ensure that programs do not offend good taste or decency,
or likely to incite racial hatred and crime, creating public
disorder, or distasteful to public feeling;
2. will ensure that programs are presented with accuracy and
impartiality;
3. will ensure that impartiality is sustained on matters of
political or industrial disagreement or pertaining to public
policy;
4. will ensure that responsibility is exercised with regard
to religious content and that no derogatory treatment of religious
beliefs and views entertained;
5. will ensure programs have a high standard;
6. will ensure that opportunities are available to the public
with regard to exposure to multiple views on matters of public
interest;
7. will ensure that the television broadcasting station operates
only on the frequencies assigned by the NFMU and for which
the license is issued, and only with the approved technical
equipment;
Dangerous mischief
The Independent Media Monitoring and Refereeing Panel’s
final report named A CASE OF DANGEROUS EXTREMES by Dwight
Whylie and Harry Mayers, monitored the media scene from February
1 through March 25, 2001 in Guyana. What did they find?
The report indicated that one of the talk show hosts displayed
a newspaper to the camera with the masthead concealed. This
paper’s headline cited the PPP/C as having contingency
plans to contain and neutralize the army if it created problems,
should the PPP/C win the 2001 election. The talk show host
referred to ‘contain’ and ‘neutralize’
as words of war. This report was a recycled allegation with
no evidence first published in the New Nation. The talk show
host never revealed the identity of the newspaper from which
he cited during the broadcast.
Whylie and Mayers deemed this broadcast as: “This is
dangerous mischief which violates many tenets of professional
journalism and several clauses of the Media Code of Conduct.”
Quite recently, one talk show host disseminated
lies, saying that ethnic cleansing was effected against Africans
at GECOM. This talk-show host later retracted his statements.
.
Another example of unethical broadcast journalism
happened just a few days ago when a talk show host said, “It’s
hit back time. That it’s one for one. That as Shaka
Blair was taken home to rest, someone felt it is time to kill
an Indian because a Black man was killed in his home village.”
Again, another talk show host said that Sergeant
Kooseram’s shooting was as a result of a triangular
love affair,” clearly indicating that this talk show
host has some knowledge of the killing. This is now, indeed,
a matter for the police to seek out the information from this
talk show host, in order to apprehend Kooseram’s killer(s).
The first three examples violate the Representation of the
People’s Amendment Act, No. 1 of 2001 of Guyana. This
law was intended ‘to prohibit person/political parties
to incite racial or ethnic violence or hatred’.. Against
this background, only the licensee of the television station
through which the talk show host/producer operates, is culpable
for violations to the terms and conditions in the use of the
spectrum. The time for legal action is now.
Advisory Committee on Broadcasting
Most Codes of Ethics in broadcast journalism require journalists
to collect and report information of importance and interest
to the public accurately, honestly, and impartially. Talk
show hosts’ main purpose of presenting an opinion or
commentary is to inform the public and help them to make judgments
on the issues of the day. Talk show hosts’ opinions
and commentaries must be held to the same standards of accuracy
with regard to facts as news reports. Clearly, Codes of Ethics
in journalism support Whylie’s position, which talk-show
hosts in not providing evidence for their remarks, violate
the public trust.
The public is invited to scrutinize the television programs,
identifying anything that is offensive. Having identified
the offensive material, the individual can report it in writing
to the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB) located at
93 Duke Street, Kingston Georgetown. The ACB then reviews
the complaint and confers with the relevant personnel at the
television broadcasting station. Subsequently, the ACB makes
a recommendation to the Office of the Prime Minister which,
in turn, will advise the licensee of the television station
on outcome of the complaint. The ACB is one step toward eliminating
media lawlessness!!!
TOP
|
