Telecomms authority rush to judgment
Terrence Farrell
Trinidad Express
Sunday, March 8th 2009 The Telecommunications Authority issued a media release on March 5th 2009 two days after the widespread rumours concerning children in a container at the port. The Authority expressed its 'dismay' with the reporting by 'certain radio and television broadcasters' which misled the 'entire nation' and contributed to the "shutdown of essential services to the public in Trinidad and Tobago, misuse of the security services and loss of revenue" and "may have involved public mischief on the part of the broadcasting stations involved".
There are several questions TATT must answer for the public and for the broadcasters it is 'hastening' to regulate.
1. How was this matter brought to the attention of the Authority? Was there a complaint by members of the public, or the government, or some institution of civil society in respect of the media reports on the day? [We know now that at least the Government lodged a complaint with TATT].
2. Did TATT have reason to believe that the broadcasters started the rumours on the matter? In other words, did the rumours originate at any of the nation's broadcasters?
3. If the answer to this is 'No', did any broadcaster, having received an unconfirmed report or rumour, immediately generate a newscast suggesting that the rumours were factual?
4. If the Police Service was called into action, was it in response to media broadcasts or in response to reports made directly to the Police Service? In other words, did the Police act on information that it received from persons other than the media?
5. If the Port was shut down, was it in response to media broadcasts or was it at the request of the Police or other security services?
6. What essential services -water, electricity, airports, natural gas-were impacted (shut down) as a result of media broadcasts? Who lost revenue and how much?
7. Did broadcasters make contact with the Police Service prior to the issuance of their broadcasts? Did the Police inform the media that the reports or rumours were under investigation?
8. Did the broadcasters make contact with the Port prior to the issuance of their broadcasts? Did the Port inform the media that the reports or rumours were under investigation?
9. What were the contents of the broadcasts made on radio and television? Did the newscasts represent that the 'rumours' were true or did the news indicate that the security services and Port were investigating reports which had come to them on the matter?
10. What specifically in the reports was 'false and misleading'?
TATT continues to mislead itself about the so-called 'accuracy' of news. Is a news report 'inaccurate' if the report is that a matter is under investigation by the Police or security services and it subsequently turns out that the matter was non-existent or a hoax?
All of the questions above, and more, should have been the subject of careful review, analysis and discussion at the Authority using tapes and transcripts of the newscasts in question and interviews with the broadcasters, a process that with a prudent and responsible regulator, would take days if not weeks. Even if the Authority had the answers to those questions, it would have needed to consider whether it should issue a release as it did, with a claim that an issue which it acknowledges it had not yet investigated highlights the "urgent need for promulgation of the Code". So, did the Board of the Authority convene and agree to issue the media release, or was this done at the instance of the management alone? Was the line minister consulted?
We are frankly appalled by TATT's rush to judgment, its hyperbole, and its thinly veiled threats to broadcasters in its media release. TATT wants to hasten to bring the Draft Broadcasting Code to Parliament. This media house commented at length on both versions of the Draft Code (see
www.onecaribbeanmedia.net). This episode will only lend credence to the view that (1) the Authority will not act prudently and independently but will respond to pressures and agendas intent on restricting freedom of expression in our society; (2) it does not understand its role as a broadcasting regulator and seems to see itself as some kind of 'national editor' for the entire media industry, and (3) it does not have the wisdom, patience and scrupulous attention to due process that is required of a regulator of editorial content matters which impinge on our constitutional rights to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.
Let us be clear. We hold no brief for irresponsible journalism wherever it is to be found. It may well have been that 'certain radio and television broadcasters' erred badly on Tuesday last (our stations were definitely not among them). But a responsible regulator must investigate thoroughly, consult widely, and then apply the rules and the sanctions it is charged with applying. TATT did none of that. Instead it rushed to judgment and rushed to print with its media release.
We have no doubt that TATT will quickly deposit its very flawed Draft Code into the eager arms of certain parliamentarians who will then proceed to ramajay on the media, perhaps using this case as an 'example' of why the media needs to be controlled and otherwise brought to heel. It is not beyond Parliament to pass patently flawed legislation, though the Draft Code will certainly need a special majority. We wait to see just how Third World and backward we will be with this matter, and whether Parliament will blithely place the management of critical constitutional rights in the hands of the woefully inexperienced regulators at TATT.
(Dr Farrell is the CEO of One Caribbean Media (OCM) of which the Express is a unit).
( Martin Daly is travelling and was unable to submit his column. He
returns next week)