CENSORSHIP OF LIVE BROADCASTS

After nearly three years of discussion, the Parliament finally seems to have decided that it will broadcast its proceedings live. However, there still seems to be some confusion over what constitutes a “live” broadcast. According to Dr Keith Rowley, who chaired the Joint Select Committee on live broadcasts, certain limitations should be placed on the television cameras. The committee wants a “minimal delay” and will not allow transmission of disorderly conduct, clashes, and sleeping or yawning Members of Parliament.

Now the question of a minimal delay is a flexible matter. It sometimes happens that comments are made in Parliament which the House Speaker or the Senate president order expunged. It is possible that MPs may make comments which are libellous (or would be outside Parliament) or false or simply scurrilous. In such a situation, it may be wise for the presiding officer to have the option to delete the comments from the Hansard record although, as JSC member Dr Roodal Moonilal pointed out, there is a contradiction between the persons in the public gallery being privy to everything that happens in the chamber while members of the wider viewing audience will be denied the same privilege.

Far less acceptable is the committee’s recommendation that certain shots of MPs be edited — or, to use a more accurate term, censored. Clearly, what the committee intends is that citizens who tune in to the live broadcast will see a sanitised version of Parliament, rather than the real picture. Perhaps Dr Rowley himself is reluctant to have his crosstalk broadcast or shots of him reading while other MPs are speaking. It could be argued that the real business of Parliament is the contributions of those speakers who are on their legs, and everything else is irrelevant. But such an argument takes a very narrow view of Parliament. The fact is, a main motive for the MPs in the Lower and Upper House wanting to have their proceedings broadcast live is so that they can raise their public profiles.

But doing so carries with it certain responsibilities and, indeed, penalties. By seeking to restrict visual coverage, the JSC committee is trying to avoid the downside that comes with live broadcasts. Parliamentarians, who have the term “Honourable” attached to their names, may now feel a greater responsibility to live up to that title. They may also feel more pressure to pay attention to the issues being discussed, and to make their own contributions more pithy, relevant and interesting. In other words, what is a downside for the parliamentarians is a plus for the public.

No doubt the live broadcasts will tempt some parliamentarians to play more to the gallery than they already do. But public opinion is a hard judge, and the TV cameras will help reveal our MPs as men and women of straw or substance. But that will only happen if a true picture of the Parliamentary proceedings is broadcast. If, on the other hand, these broadcasts are limited to talking heads, then the committee can rest assured that the public, as they have always done, will turn to the edited versions of journalists to get a true picture of the Parliament.