Tatt draft policy

Broadcasters in Trinidad and Tobago may soon have to stop saying “Oh God!” as an expression of exasperation, regret or astonishment. And cartoons may be banned entirely. These are just two of the implications of the Telecommunications Authority’s Draft National Broadcasting Code. Published last Monday in a seven-page supplement in this newspaper, the Draft Code reflects a paternalistic perspective which is embarrassing in a society seeking First World status and which has just inaugurated a first-stage Caribbean Court of Justice.

While the above examples will probably not happen, they are the logical implications of clauses 3.48 and 3.26 of the Draft Code, which says, “Programme-makers shall not make casual, the use of names, words, or symbols regarded as sacred by religious or faith groups.” The other clause says that broadcasters shall not transmit “material that suggests that violence does not injure people or have consequences for the perpetrator as well as the victim”.

The code does give a token nod to fundamental rights. Acknowledging freedom of thought and expression and press freedom, the draft states, “The Broadcasting Code does not seek to abrogate, abridge or authorise the abrogation, abridgement or infringement of these freedoms.” But much of the document, even if well-intentioned, does in fact threaten to do exactly what the Authority says it doesn’t want to do. Many of the clauses, for example, ban indecent material. But the TATT defines “indecent” as “offending against socially acceptable standards”. But who is to decide what are socially acceptable standards? And, even if there is a consensus, there are situations where socially acceptable standards are ethically suspect.

The code also bans the broadcast of “disturbing or offensive material before 11:30 pm”. Again the issue of definitions arises. Over the Carnival, TV6 broadcast several times a BBC documentary titled “Do Condoms Kill?” which would have been quite offensive to many Roman Catholics. The code also bans the use of “derogatory language” in respect to any religious or faith belief. But, for believers, any trenchant criticism of their faith is, by definition, derogatory. And why, if the TATT is adhering to a principle, does it not also warn against derogatory language against the belief in science or secularism?

The code also devotes many clauses to the protection of children. On the face of it, this seems justifiable. But there is an ideological assumption behind many of these clauses — to wit, that the State, and not parents, should decide what children may and may not see. “Children must be protected from any psychological trauma,” the draft states. But the psychological assumptions behind this statement are vacuous, and such vacuity informs much of the draft, as when it says “A balance needs to be struck between the demands of truth and the dangers of desensitising individuals.”

The only area where the drafters seem to have got things right is in their recommendation that stations give warnings or explanations when airing programmes which contain material that may offend certain people. Such persons then have the ability to turn off their radios or TV sets — an ability that the TATT board members seem to grossly underestimate. Since this is only a draft, we assume that the TATT is amenable to changing clauses when presented with reasonable arguments by the interested parties. Such arguments, in our view, must lead to considerable rewriting of the Code.