Some members of the public have expressed concern at what they describe as the inaction of the ACB to rein in renegade talk show hosts who they claim are inciting racial hatred. But some television station operators tell Stabroek News that the ACB has caused them to monitor more carefully the programmes being aired. Others cast doubt on the usefulness of the ACB whose procedure they say does not allow the stations it recommends to the Prime Minister for sanctioning, to state their case.

Other critics of the committee say that its reliance on moral suasion rather than sanctions is not effective, but this is a view which the ACB does not agree with. It points to successes in changing the types of movies being shown when children are among the viewing audience.

The ACB says that the public must be patient as it tackles the task of bringing order to the “Augean Stable” that is the local television industry, and persists in the view that moral suasion and encouraging the industry to set and maintain industry-wide standards is the way to go.

The ACB was established as a result of an agreement between President Bharrat Jagdeo and PNC/R leader, Desmond Hoyte, as an interim measure until new broadcast legislation could be enacted creating a broadcast authority. The Joint Committee on Radio Monopoly, Non-Partisan Boards and Broadcasting Legislation appointed by Jagdeo and Hoyte, recommended the authority’s creation.

The Leader of the Opposition and the private sector respectively nominated Ron Case and Carlton James to be members of the three-man committee and the Government nominated the chairman, Pat Dial. The Prime Minister officially announced their appointment on November 21 and for the rest of the year they met at various venues until they moved to their Duke Street, Kingston, location in March. They received their letters of appointment on January 2, 2002.

According to the Memorandum of Understanding President Jagdeo and Hoyte signed on November 7, 2001, as a result of an amendment to the Wireless Telegraphy Regulations, the committee is tasked with advising “the Minister with respect to compliance by Television Station Licensees with the terms and conditions Licences and to recommend such appropriate action in the event of failure by a Licensee to comply with such terms and conditions and to discharge other related functions.”

Within weeks of its commencing operations in March the ACB was spurred into action with the broadcast on a number of television stations of a tape by Andrew Douglas, one of the five February 23, prison escapees. Amid criticism for its reluctance to sanction the erring stations, the Prime Minister impressed on the committee that he needed advice on what action he should take. It responded and the Prime Minister duly released to the media its recommendations. The ACB is unaware if the Prime Minister followed its recommendations. Its members point out that they are required to advise but have no control over what the Minister does with the advice that is tendered. The MOU says, “.... That the Minister, in the exercise of his power pursuant to the Act and the Wireless Telegraphy Regulations made thereunder, with respect to Television Station Licences, will act in accordance with the advice tendered by the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting.”

The ACB came under scrutiny again following the broadcast of unchecked reports about the movements of the Minister of Home Affairs on October 31, when two bandits were reportedly killed by the police near to his Lamaha Gardens home.

The bandits had used a safe house only doors away from the minister’s home.

But Carlton James speaking for his colleagues on the ACB says the committee is both concerned and flattered that they are expected to clear up the anarchy that existed on the television over the past twelve years or more.

“It is fascinating and perhaps it’s a sort of oblique compliment to us that in a year or less we are expected to have turned around the anarchy of some twelve years or more of unregulated television. It is to our credit that we should also be regarded as the nemesis of talk show hosts.”

James says the Committee deals with the licensees in terms of their compliance with the conditions of their licences and described the conditions as a “blueprint for decency and at least basic standards for broadcasting.”

The ACB describes its functions as among other things being “tasked with monitoring, interacting with the stations in relation to what we have noticed, and trying to engender the type of environment which would, with the coming of the broadcast authority, have two key elements. One would be an industry association where the licensees themselves get together and work on standards and on common problems.”

James explains it would not only be about programming and standards as many of the licensees have concerns about outreach, permission to expand and duty-free concessions and a number of things which are outside the remit of the ACB but which are relevant if the licensees are to be comfortable.

As a result the committee feels that it should facilitate the formation of an industry association, which the industry must take the lead in establishing.

James also explains that before the committee decides on a recommendation for sanction, it would like the licensees to recognise a couple of things that many of them have not looked at for a long time.

“We think it is changing. For a long time many of them had, after they got their licences, never looked at that page [with the conditions] and never related it to anything that they did.”

James says because of that when they are caught out they use the excuse of having rented time out on their station so it’s not their responsibility.

Despite the firm stance the ACB takes, it has at no time been at the stage where it could be said that there was enmity between it and any of the owners.

“Clearly there are concerns at the fact that people are being monitored. People are never comfortable with change; people are never comfortable with regulations; which is really post facto; which is exactly what we are trying to do here.”

The ACB denies that it is only citing certain stations, as James explains that being even-handed does not mean dealing with a whole street when only a few households are being disruptive. He says that the problem is a few of the stations dealing with certain issues and in many cases not doing so with the dignity that they should. “It is not enough to say that ‘I have rented the time’...[as] it is important for licensees to realise that they have got to be a little more careful.”

Ron Case, another committee member, underlines this point, noting that it is the licensee who is ultimately responsible for what is broadcast on his station. He sees too that the complaint is made because those making it are unaware of the action the ACB has taken in relation to other stations.

James also refers to the difficulty posed when the licensee is also a politician. If the licensee is political, that person has access to a medium of communication that person is going to use.

He cites the level of vitriol coming from all sides of the political spectrum recently as an example of what he is talking about.

James points out that many of the persons to whom the stations rent time believe that their behaviour serves to further the cause of the party they support, but unfortunately they are doing the party’s cause a disservice.

He says in their consultations with the politicians at the highest levels the committee did not get the impression that they were sponsoring it or were comfortable with it.

The committee, according to James, continues “to cling to the position that a lot can be achieved by training and exposure because I am not sure how many people in the television industry have been trained.”

In support of James’ comments, Case makes the point that the hosts of most televisions programmes do not smile and are always morose and angry.

On another issue, James says the ACB is raising with the licensees the need for fairness and opportunity, explaining that some talk show hosts cut off with impunity any caller that disagrees with their position. He says that 90% of the time they cut them off and 10% of the time they insult them.

He says the licensees have to address the issue as to how to accommodate divergent views, pointing out that like the shopkeeper, the licensee cannot refuse to accommodate views if they are not in any way offensive.

PNCR executive member Deryck Bernard, who co-chaired the Joint Broadcast Committee, which recommended the establishment of the ACB, takes the same view as the ACB on some issues. But he believes that the ACB has allowed itself to be influenced by the government’s anxiety to regulate the industry.

Bernard says the intended function of the ACB is to encourage managers to behave responsibly and to nudge the industry towards self-regulation.

He says broadcast legislation around the world provides for self-regulation and no matter how high the standards are it is the industry which sets them. He says the retreat at which the ACB agreed to review its procedure was an attempt to improve relations between the committee and the stations. The retreat, he says, also had as an objective encouraging the stations to form an association. But he believes that this objective is not achievable at the present time.

With regard to the complaints about breaches, the committee says that those they receive are mostly from members of some group or the other complaining about some real or perceived slight to one of their members.

Dr Grantley Walrond, who oversees the operations at NBTV, Channel 9, believes that the committee’s procedures do not allow for due process for the broadcasters.

Following a retreat with the broadcasters, the ACB amended its procedure, no longer writing the stations about infringements. This concerns Dr Walrond, who says it is building up a dossier on the stations about the contents of which they are unaware.

The ACB monitors the broadcasts by stations in Georgetown between 7am - 10pm daily, including commercials. The objective of this exercise is to raise the level of the broadcasts to a qualitatively higher standard.

The stations outside of Georgetown are not monitored because of technical difficulties but they are being required to tape their programmes so that in the event of a complaint, the ACB could ask for a tape of the offending programme.

The ACB point out that the stations outside the city show few local programmes.

Walrond also complains that there is no agreement between the broadcasters and the ACB on what constitutes good taste as well as what constitutes an infringement of the licence. As an example he says that the ACB wrote his station complaining that it was in poor taste to show a dirty toilet seat when it aired a story of the poor conditions of a sanitary block of a school.

Both James and Case maintain that the point could be made without showing the toilet seat and that the fact that there was no objection from viewers is not an indication that it is acceptable but rather an indication of poor standards that the community accepts.

Dr Walrond says there is a clear need for standards which the industry must evolve and which it must be assisted in formulating and to which all must subscribe. The ACB points out that at the August seminar all the stations agreed on the desirability of self-regulation.

Dr Walrond says that the industry is currently at the “talk-show” stage in its development and that competition would perforce make the stations more responsible. He welcomes the proposal to set up a Broadcast Authority provided by new broadcast legislation but says it should be comprised of competent people whose politics are unquestionable. NBTV Channel 9 is one of the stations which carried the report about the Minister of Home Affairs and has since been injuncted from repeating the report. A number of the hosts of the talk shows it airs have been criticised for their on-air comments and the views they allow their audience to express.

The ACB has not been involved nor asked for its comments on the proposed legislation. However, it says that in the course of its work it has made a number of observations, which it will document and pass on to the authority when it comes into being.

Tony Vieira, who operates VCT Channel 28, shares Dr Walrond’s views about the ACB’s usefulness, telling Stabroek News that their activities have made no impact on his station’s operations. He too laments the procedures that the ACB used which did not provide for the stations to be given the opportunity to state their case before a recommendation was made to the Prime Minister that they be sanctioned.

Vieira, too, welcomes the proposed broadcasting authority, but wants the selection process provide for members to be appointed to the authority to be approved by a two-thirds parliamentary vote.

He says, too, that it is essential that the National Frequency Management Unit should be part of the remit of the broadcast authority if the state’s monopoly of radio is to be effectively broken.

Vieira explains that at present, the National Frequency Management Unit (NFMU) can allocate a frequency to an operator, who would then be licensed.

Vieira argues that the new legislation should provide for a broadcast authority to be responsible for granting permission for transmission in a certain area once it has determined there is a need for more transmissions and then to authorise the issuance of a frequency by the NFMU.

The Channel 28 operator also has strong views about what should be included as conditions of the broadcast licence. He says that the conditions should include the quality of the signal, the maximum time in any hour that should be allocated to commercials, standards with reference to some notion of good taste, and some reference as to the use of copyrighted material.

Vieira’s Channel 28 was criticised and sanctioned by the ACB for airing the tape by Andrew Douglas. He accepted that tape should not have been aired before providing the police with a copy and an opportunity to respond to the charges made by Douglas.

C N Sharma who operates CNS Channel 6 is also unhappy with the ACB, complaining that they write him every time he repeats an allegation made against the government. He believes that the ACB unfairly targets his station.

Martin Goolsarran, general manager of the state-owned GTV Channel 11, is one of those persons who believes the ACB has impacted favourably on its operations. ACB sanctioned Channel 11 for showing movies unfit for children at a time when they were part of the viewing audience.

The ACB claims that because of the activities the incidence of sexually explicit material being shown during daylight hours is minimal.

Goolsarran says that his station is trying to comply with the guidelines set out by the ACB, as his organisation has for a long time been concerned about such issues.

He said, too, that he welcomes the change to the ACB’s procedure, which now provides for the stations to be given an opportunity to dialogue with the ACB before it makes its recommendation to the Prime Minister.

Bram Persaud who operates NTN Channel 69, is another who says that the ACB has had a beneficial impact on his station’s operations. He says that it no longer shows “demo tapes” or those with other restrictions on public display. Kamini Persaud an executive from Multi Technology Television Channel 65 says her station because of the ACB is much more careful about monitoring the programmes aired by its producers. Like Goolsarran, she welcomes the changed ACB procedure, which allows more dialogue with the television stations.