That Broadcast Code

The Draft Code has come in for strong criticism from virtually every branch of the media. Yet Mr Gordon sweepingly dismissed every commentator who has opposed the Code. "I have listened closely to the argument that this code violates (press) freedom. I do not agree and I have heard no serious argument to suggest that it does," he told the audience at the Trinidad and Tobago Publishers and Broadcasters Association’s annual general meeting.

But such a statement suggests that Mr Gordon, whose main public cause recently has been promoting "principles of fairness," cannot have been listening closely or, if he was, not with an open mind. This newspaper has pointed to specific concepts in the Draft Code which are open to abuse. Newsday’s political reporter Sean Douglas has done a clause-by-clause comparison of the Green Paper on Media Reform (which Mr Gordon campaigned vociferously against) and the Draft Code. Douglas concluded that in certain respects the Draft Code was "much more forceful" than the Green Paper and even "tries to set editorial policy." So why did Gordon oppose the Green Paper then, but now has little or no problem with a Draft Code which seeks much the same ends?

Perhaps the first clue is given in his assertion that he "sees nothing sinister" in the Code. This is not a comment on the Code per se, but on Mr Gordon’s perception of the motives of the people behind the Code — to wit, the political appointees on the Telecommunications Board and, by extension, the Cabinet. Concomitantly, this would suggest that his motive for opposing an equally egregious Green Paper was that he did not trust the intentions of the UNC government — which is to say, Basdeo Panday and Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj. In hindsight, then, it seems that Gordon’s opposition to the Green Paper may have been a classic case of someone doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

Gordon also says he has not seen any serious argument against the Green Paper. But does his own argument stand up to scrutiny? He argues that the media cannot talk about accountability in relation to Government Ministers or police officers "and then preside over this erosion of good taste and civilised behaviour as though different rules apply."

But different rules do apply. Accountability in respect to Ministers and the police has to do with the use of public funds, adhering to the rule of law, even killing people. This hardly equates with "good taste" and "civilised behaviour" on the part of the media.

Gordon also went on to criticise the poor grammar, green verbs and incorrect pronunciation he has heard on airwaves, as well as "shocking" discussions about sex. But is it the proper function of a Draft Code to deal with such matters or is it the responsibility of media managers?

Clearly, Mr Gordon has either forgotten, or chosen to ignore, a fundamental rule of free speech — that, when you allow it, you are inevitably going to hear things you don’t like. In an ideal world, people would not abuse such freedoms. But we do not live in an ideal world, and we never will. And the reason civilised societies limit censorship is because a few offences against good taste are a small price to pay for the benefits of democracy. We hope, when the Telecommunications Board presents their re-drafted Code, it will reflect this principle.