|
Dated: 01 November 2002
Monday, January 13, 2003 is D-Day for the media. It’s the day that the Broadcasting Commission’s Code of regulation goes into effect, and already there are rumblings from the regulated about the regulators and the regulations.
In a December 1 address at an awards ceremony for a member of the nursing community, General Manager of Television Jamaica (TVJ), Mrs. Marcia Forbes – herself a qualified midwife – focused on the Children’s Programming Code being instituted by the Commission.
Emphasising that she was “not against the idea of a Code for Children’s Programming”, the station’s General Manager noted, however that “this code goes too far and is impractical.” She disclosed that radio stations have not been able to find a way in which the Code can sensibly be implemented, and further lamented the “unfair manner in which free to air television is being treated as compared to cable.”
“While cable television is allowed to pretty much show whatever they want, whenever they want, free to air television is burdened with numerous restrictions and regulations. The Commission,” Mrs Forbes charged, “is intent on removing the mote from the eyes of free to air television, while the huge beam in the eyes of cable TV is being ignored.”
This, however, is definitely not the case, say Executive Director of the Broadcasting Commission, Cordel Green, and Assistant Director Ms. Sonia Gill.
Regarding cable television, Ms Gill pointed out that all of the licensed cable providers come under the purview of the Commission’s Code of Regulations. “No category is excluded,” she emphasised, adding that the Code has an entire section that speaks to subscriber television.
She explained that cable providers are mandated to rate the channels rather than individual programmes. “Those channels that carry adult range of material — eg., Cinemax, HBO and Showtime – are rated ‘A’ and therefore the cable providers will be required to put a filter on such channels. This means that subscribers will have to specifically apply for those channels for them to come into their homes.” she said.
“The Code is not a highly technical document … it simply requires all licensed media to fall in line with the regulations that are set out. The concerns are violence, inappropriate sexual content and use of language, therefore these are graded. For example, with sex, it is graded according to “no sex”, mild sex”, “explicit sex” and based on the grade then the appropriate advisories are to be issued,” Ms. Gill outlined.
She also noted that the purpose of the programme is taken into account, whether it is being aired for scientific, educational or journalistic reasons. She noted that a dildo, for example, might be used to show the correct way to put on a condom, “however, you would not expect the reporter to put the dildo in her mouth …,” she said.
A passionate Cordel Green spoke at length about the mission of the Commission, stating that “we are not a commission interested in strangling people with regulations, quite the contrary. We have a public function to operate in the interest of the public.”
Green noted that the Code, which is neither “arbitrary nor capricious” has been in the public domain from October 2001 and prior to that, several meetings had been held with the Media Association of Jamaica (MAJ), and those issues that had been brought to the table had been dealt with. “We met with the association as recently as July or August this year and there was no communication from them about the Code being impractical. There were concerns re news and commercials and those were modified,” he said.
The Commission’s Executive Director said that regarding the radio issue, “although we didn’t share the MAJ’s view that the Code as it stands would pose a problem for radio, it was decided that there was no harm if the Code reflected separately for radio. We agreed that in a further revision to make a distinction between radio and television.
“Our suggestion was that you could take the Code, look at the level of violence in the lyrics of a song, for example, and rate it. The Media Association,” he noted, “did not come to the table with any practical alternative. We told them: if you have any any alternative suggestion, send it to us. Nothing has come,” Green stated.
Green however, described all meetings with the media representitives as “progressive” and disclosed that the Broadcasting Commission had hosted a media seminar with consultants from the UK-based Independent Television Commission. “We found out that our Code is a miniscule part of what they have devised in the UK. Our Code doesn’t even begin to look at a whole range of issues from gender to politics. And these are issues that media will have to look at, they will not be ignored.”
The Executive Director emphasised that there was no objection to the media coming up with regulations. “The industry can, in fact co-regulate, as long as the regulations are credible,” he stated.
Responding to the charge that the Code “goes too far,” Green dismissed it totally. “Far from it. The Code has not gone too far,” he defended, adding for good measure, “it is in fact backward.” His position was, that in a country with “the levels of violence as ours and our children not displaying basic good manners and civility”, then it could well be said that the Code needed to be more stringent.
“The Code is no different from PALS … from community policing… from what the talk show hosts are doing. The fact is that our children are being exposed to too much violence and we have to find a way to protect them.”
Green explained that the Code seeks to give clearer guidelines for all players in the industry. It helps broadcasters to rate programmes and decide on what advisories to give. And these advisories, Ms Gill noted, must be given at various intervals during the programme, not just at the beginning.
“Section 30 prohibits the transmission of a number of matters: anything indecent or profane, incites violence, criminal activity, or offends good taste. All we are asking is that the stations rate the programmes, schedule them at appropriate times and give advisories. We are not trying to take away the rights of adults to view certain types of material. The Code is saying, be conscious in what you are doing and always ask yourself for what audience is the programme suitable.
“The real problem, however,” Green noted, “is that there is not a sincere acceptance that something needs to be done. Some persons act as if these concerns are not real concerns. Yet … at a recent conference for media practitioners, held in Milan, the topic was Media, Violence and the Challenge to Modern Societies. The communique out of that confab to the UN Secretary General was that at the 2003 UN summit in Broadcasting, the topic Media and Violence must be on the agenda. Why is it,” he asked, “that in Jamaica it is taking a Broadcasting Commission in the year 2002 to deal with this issue in a Code?”
According to Green, there is a feeling in some quarters that it is “not inappropriate for our children to watch Soaps, but at the same time we have a problem with them getting pregnant and loose sex.”
The Code deems that 9:00 pm is a suitable time for free to air television to carry material dealing with adult content. “Not that we are saying that there is anything magical about 9:00 pm, it’s just that we are doing everything to protect children from the risk of exposure and by that time we figure that there will be adult supervision at home,” he noted.
In closing, the Commission’s Executive Director stated, “We have to recognise that it takes a village to raise children to be civil and media characterises that village more than any thing else. It is quite sad,” he noted, “that it takes a Broadcasting Commission in the year 2002 to say to people you need to put up advisories for your programmes.”
|
