Parliament vs HBO

IN CALLING for live televised coverage of parliamentary proceedings, Independent Senator Prof Ramesh Deosaran has revived an old issue that may be worth the airing of a fresh debate. In piloting his motion on Wednesday, Prof Deosaran declared that parliamentarians are "prisoners of the mass media" and pointed out that too many times much of what transpires in Parliament never sees the light of day in either the print or electronic media. Speaking as a parliamentarian himself, one understands Prof Deosaran's point of view; indeed it may well be that his sentiments are shared by the majority of members of both Houses who would like to see their contributions reported more fulsomely in the media. Whatever the merits of his case, however, we think it is unfortunate that the Independent Senator should see parliamentarians as "prisoners of the privately-owned mass media" which carries the indictment of a deliberate attempt on the part of the media to suppress or contain their speeches in the Parliament. We reject such an indictment. It is our view that the media as a whole recognise the importance of reporting on debates and decisions of the nation's Parliament and that they manage to keep the country adequately informed about the important matters that are debated there.

Still, in light of Prof Deosaran's criticisms, it remains up to media houses to review their coverage of parliamentary proceedings and take whatever action or measures they may see fit. And that comes down to the crux of the matter. Media houses must remain free to decide how they will treat various issues that come before Parliament in light of other newsworthy events at home and across the globe competing for the limited space in their daily newspapers or broadcasts. We do not believe that Prof Deosaran would want to abridge that freedom in any way. We need hardly point out the critical importance which the media gives to the presentation of the annual Budget and the debate which follows. This is a vital exercise in the conduct of the people's business, outlining the Government's policies, its programme of revenue and expenditure for the following year, its fiscal measures and what it hopes to achieve in the short, medium and even long term. Not only is the Budget Speech published by the media in full the next day, but the contributions of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are carried in extenso. The contributions of members on the Budget are also reported in considerable detail. Prof Deosaran is candid enough to concede that "not all parliamentarians’ contributions are gems of wisdom." On that point he will certainly get no argument from us. And we expect no contradiction from him when we express our disappointment, even dismay, at the empty, repetitive and predictable antics that now pass for debates in Parliament.

But the Independent Senator's motion to have parliamentary proceedings covered live by television does not raise a fresh issue. Indeed, during the 50s and 60s the debates were aired on the State-owned television station but eventually the broadcasts suffered from a declining response by viewers who felt the need for better "entertainment." Indeed, MPs themselves objected to the TV cameraman looking for some variety to lift the boredom of the speechmakers by roving around the chamber, often catching members taking a quiet snooze or assiduously picking their noses. Eventually the broadcasts died a natural and merciful death. Now Prof Deosaran wants to revive them. His intentions may be commendable, but what attraction would the verbiage of Parliament now have against the offerings of HBO, Cinemax, Starz, the Westerns Channel, DVD....yes, you guessed it.