Media slams draft Broadcast Code

Top broadcast media personnel heavily criticised the proposed draft Broadcast Code during the Telecommunications Authority of Trinidad and Tobago’s first stakeholder consultation at the National Library yesterday. The consensus among the audience seemed to be that the whole process of formulating and entrenching the code was too accelerated. They complained that since the document was only available for three days, they were not given enough time to peruse the draft and analyse its contents in order to make adequate contributions at the consultation.  

One of the main concerns about the code was the perceived propensity toward censorship, and the infringement of fundamental liberties and enshrined constitutional rights, such as freedom of the press and speech among others. Several sections of the code were highlighted as being too confining or too vague, and open to various interpretations. Bernard Pantin of Direct TV was very critical of the draft, saying the language was “poorly constructed.” He said there are already laws in place to deal with issues, such as obscene language and libel, and the law courts will decide who has broken the law. Therefore, he said, no one has the right to restrict speech.

He contrasted the code with the practices of developed countries like the United States, where regulatory institutions are very careful about censorship and other restraints with respect to the media and the individual. He said while there are “well-intentioned concerns” about the broadcast sector, he warned, “this document is carrying us close to Chavez’s Venezuela.” He called for the draft to be withdrawn and reformulated with initial input from the broadcasters. Brian Knight of Radio Vision Ltd (Power 102 FM) surmised that the restraints put under the heading “Invasion of Privacy” could hinder good investigative journalism. Like Pantin, he believed current “laws on defamation are sufficient to prevent broadcasters from defaming people without good reason.

Such matters should be left for the courts to decide.” Knight also said, “the concern for ‘viewers’ identifying violence on the screen with their own lives and so becoming ‘unreasonably fearful’ could deny viewers or readers the reality of violence in their own society and so, not sufficiently alert them to the dangers of the society in which they live.” He cautioned, “This could easily be interpreted as an attempt to shield the Government from criticism for the real violence of the society.” The session was one of several scheduled to take place throughout the country within the next  few weeks.