Tweet
Interview by mi bonifidi brethren fram mi alma mater...
I am never comfortable with any form of censorship.... I get concenrend the moment that any one tries mentions censorship as tehr is a tendency once it is set in motion there is no holding it back.... I actually beleivethere are l;aws in place that can be used to procecute those that encourage violence throu solious lyrics....
Broadcasting Commission getting tough
published: Sunday | June 24, 2007
Dunn
Earl Moxam, Gleaner Writer
Elsewhere in today's paper, we report on plans by the Broadcasting Commission to apply its regulatory functions more stringently in the face of growing concerns about a lowering of broadcast standards in the electronic media. Dr. Hopeton Dunn, chairman of the Broadcasting Commission speaks with Earl Moxam about some of these issues.
Earl Moxam: Perhaps I should start by asking whether you are about to overregulate and strangle the freedom of expression of the private media in Jamaica. There seems to be some fears that the Broadcasting Commission might be about to get a bit too aggressive.
Hopeton Dunn: I don't think we have been aggressive enough and we are about to get very aggressive but not to stifle freedom of expression, but to stifle the deluge of deleterious and illegal content that is coming through the media, particularly through the electronic media; notwithstanding the good work of other people in the same media. I don't think there need be any fear for those who are engaged in the proper utilisation of their licences and also in the good management of the content, consistent with the terms of their licences.
Break down for me the kinds of material that are giving you cause for concern.
In the first instance, taking radio as the first point of departure: the inordinate volume of intolerable lyrics that come across, some of them promoting violence, straight out, some of them glamorising rape ... ; materials that glorify the use of the gun in a society that is virtually overrun in some communities by gun-related violence, and in circumstances where we are even seeing that violence playing itself out in schools. Now, should a broadcasting commission, even against the accusation of being aggressive, sit by and allow the airwaves to be taken over by those kinds of content? Not under the leadership that I have been asked to give (since February of this year)!
On the visual media side, the depictions that I see sometimes on cable channels are depictions of sexual simulation in prime time across the access bands for children - unencrypted content spilling out into public use of explicit sex channels which are allowed under the system, but under encryption; dancehall channels that leave very little to the imagination during prime time. Particularly content that is exposing and exploiting children; content shot sometimes at street dances or in the dance hall meant for an adult space but which for some reason, automatically gets recorded and transmitted during prime time on national airwaves!
That is not going to be allowed to continue!
Specifically, therefore, what is the plan to counter all of that?
The collective voice of this new commission is that we must crack down and put a stop, as far as possible, to this kind of content and try to see if in the process we can encourage a greater diversity of themes and issues, at a better-quality level in the broadcasting sector.
Let me ask you specifically about this practice of 'bleeping' that is carried out on radio where music with explicit language is used and some broadcasters believe they can get around any kind of prohibition by bleeping the relevant section.
Well, that is a way of trying to circumvent the regulations which prohibit expletives or illegal content on the air, and those are some of the things which we interpret in context. If the context suggests that it is going to be going in a certain direction, we will bring it to the attention of the broadcasters ... Let me cite you an instance of content: We now have a new category of music called 'rape lyrics' - lyrics which glorify violence against women.
But aren't you up against significant odds when some of the very policy makers themselves are so sucked into the culture that they are unable to make the distinction that they ought reasonably to make? Is that not a less-than-subtle endorsement of the culture that is being glorified in song?
I think it is; and I think that many of the songs that are being played by both political parties at campaign meetings run counter to many of the elements of the manifestos of those same parties, in respect of clean and decent content. Of course they are pandering to populist culture, and the need to connect and the Broadcasting Commis-sion doesn't have a remit over all spaces; our remit is confined to those that are transmitted over the air.
The reason I raise that as an example and speak of the policy makers is that ultimately the Broadcasting Commission answers to the policy makers and I wonder whether you feel at the moment that you have a free hand in doing what you are setting out to do.
There's a mixed answer to that. First, the Broadcasting Commission is appointed by the governor-general for a period of five years. that would span the period of a party in government and when the govern-ment changes, the Broadcasting Commission doesn't have to change according to the will of a minister because it is not the creature of a minister. That's the first thing which gives us some latitude and detachment ...
Second, the Broadcasting commis-sioners are appointed for five years and cannot be removed except by an affirmative action in Parliament. So, there is a certain security of tenure that empowers. So, regardless of which minister may come and which party may be in power, the responsibility of the Broadcasting Commission remains to carry out its duties through the officers appointed by the governor-general.
The areas where the commission is lacking are in the areas of the powers held by the commission to effectively carry out its work. The model that we operate under is a model that says this commission, though appointed by the governor-general, must, for reasons of sanctions against the offending licensee, make recommendations, particularly for the more serious ones, to a minister whose portfolio responsibility relates to the Broadcasting Commission and it's the minister who, acting upon the recommendation of the Broadcasting Commission then actually applies the sanction. That is problematic because there are moments when the politician is too preoccupied with constituency or other matters that doesn't allow for attention to that issue, not to mention the possibility that the particular minister may be disinclined to act in the way recommended by the Broadcasting Commission, for good reason ... That approach needs to change in line with global practice, where matters to do with sanctions are being accumulated as part of the power of the specialised regulator who has the additional countercheck of the licensee resorting to an appeal or to the courts.
,b>Is the role of the Office of Utilities Regulation closer to the model that you wish to have?
Yes the OUR itself is still not where the OUR wants to go, because the OUR, as you know, had to take the minister to court in order to establish certain rights and freedoms. Where I think we should draw the line is where the implementation of that policy is concerned; that should go to the regulator. For example, the present sanctions that we have allow us to issue warnings and get apologies; we can do that in our own right; we do not have to get the minister's approval for that. But where we see more serious breaches or repeat offences and we are recommending suspension of the licence, which is entirely appropriate in certain circumstances, that has to go to the minister. And when we are recommending (and we have never had occasion do that) revocation of a broadcast licence (although we have had occasion to do that on the cable side) then that has to go to the minister. One of the things that the Broadcasting Commission would like to acquire is the power and authority to impose financial sanctions, which gives us more flexibility between sanctions and also provides an opportunity for us to match the offence to the sanction that is imposed.
Can you itemise for me some of the conditions or circumstances which at the moment would lead you to recommenda suspension of or revocation of a licence?
We are not a censorship body, so we don't go into the stations and say "Don't play that" or "Don't play that". We give them a licence with some rules to follow, and if they breach the rules, then we apply sanctions. We say to them "Three strikes and you are out", to suspension or some other serious sanction, meaning that if you have offended once, and we have agreed that it is an offence; you have put your apology, you have offended again, we've raised it with you and you have apologised. On the third occasion, within a particular time frame, you come up automatically for consideration by he full commission on the basis of suspension.
And so, for a period (the offending station) would be off the air.
Off the air. And I can tell you that, in conformity with the approach of the commission, against the background that I have spoken about, we have one major broadcaster currently under serious consideration in respect of suspension; and it's not a wheel that is working only internally. The broadcaster has been made aware of this; the legal wheels have been put in train, and final determination will be made on the basis of a number of relevant factors. Another entity was called up, with its chairman in attendance, around breaches that also gave rise to notice of intention to suspend. In this particular case, it is a broadcaster who failed to provide slow tape to record what was being transmitted, and who has repeatedly had either expletives or inappropriate content escape on the air, and can't even provide us, on demand, tape that they should be keeping by broadcasting regulations to record what goes out. Now, that is not a proper operation of their licence and therefore, unless and until they settle those matters, they will be up for suspension. Fortunately, in that particular case, they were able to remedy the station and advise us accordingly within the time frame given, and therefore the order of an intention to recommend suspension has been put on hold.
Do you have a standard minimum and maximum time period for suspensions?
I believe the regulations specify ranges, but it is in the discretion of the minister which of those ranges would apply, but the commission would recommend a duration.
I am never comfortable with any form of censorship.... I get concenrend the moment that any one tries mentions censorship as tehr is a tendency once it is set in motion there is no holding it back.... I actually beleivethere are l;aws in place that can be used to procecute those that encourage violence throu solious lyrics....
Broadcasting Commission getting tough
published: Sunday | June 24, 2007
Dunn
Earl Moxam, Gleaner Writer
Elsewhere in today's paper, we report on plans by the Broadcasting Commission to apply its regulatory functions more stringently in the face of growing concerns about a lowering of broadcast standards in the electronic media. Dr. Hopeton Dunn, chairman of the Broadcasting Commission speaks with Earl Moxam about some of these issues.
Earl Moxam: Perhaps I should start by asking whether you are about to overregulate and strangle the freedom of expression of the private media in Jamaica. There seems to be some fears that the Broadcasting Commission might be about to get a bit too aggressive.
Hopeton Dunn: I don't think we have been aggressive enough and we are about to get very aggressive but not to stifle freedom of expression, but to stifle the deluge of deleterious and illegal content that is coming through the media, particularly through the electronic media; notwithstanding the good work of other people in the same media. I don't think there need be any fear for those who are engaged in the proper utilisation of their licences and also in the good management of the content, consistent with the terms of their licences.
Break down for me the kinds of material that are giving you cause for concern.
In the first instance, taking radio as the first point of departure: the inordinate volume of intolerable lyrics that come across, some of them promoting violence, straight out, some of them glamorising rape ... ; materials that glorify the use of the gun in a society that is virtually overrun in some communities by gun-related violence, and in circumstances where we are even seeing that violence playing itself out in schools. Now, should a broadcasting commission, even against the accusation of being aggressive, sit by and allow the airwaves to be taken over by those kinds of content? Not under the leadership that I have been asked to give (since February of this year)!
On the visual media side, the depictions that I see sometimes on cable channels are depictions of sexual simulation in prime time across the access bands for children - unencrypted content spilling out into public use of explicit sex channels which are allowed under the system, but under encryption; dancehall channels that leave very little to the imagination during prime time. Particularly content that is exposing and exploiting children; content shot sometimes at street dances or in the dance hall meant for an adult space but which for some reason, automatically gets recorded and transmitted during prime time on national airwaves!
That is not going to be allowed to continue!
Specifically, therefore, what is the plan to counter all of that?
The collective voice of this new commission is that we must crack down and put a stop, as far as possible, to this kind of content and try to see if in the process we can encourage a greater diversity of themes and issues, at a better-quality level in the broadcasting sector.
Let me ask you specifically about this practice of 'bleeping' that is carried out on radio where music with explicit language is used and some broadcasters believe they can get around any kind of prohibition by bleeping the relevant section.
Well, that is a way of trying to circumvent the regulations which prohibit expletives or illegal content on the air, and those are some of the things which we interpret in context. If the context suggests that it is going to be going in a certain direction, we will bring it to the attention of the broadcasters ... Let me cite you an instance of content: We now have a new category of music called 'rape lyrics' - lyrics which glorify violence against women.
But aren't you up against significant odds when some of the very policy makers themselves are so sucked into the culture that they are unable to make the distinction that they ought reasonably to make? Is that not a less-than-subtle endorsement of the culture that is being glorified in song?
I think it is; and I think that many of the songs that are being played by both political parties at campaign meetings run counter to many of the elements of the manifestos of those same parties, in respect of clean and decent content. Of course they are pandering to populist culture, and the need to connect and the Broadcasting Commis-sion doesn't have a remit over all spaces; our remit is confined to those that are transmitted over the air.
The reason I raise that as an example and speak of the policy makers is that ultimately the Broadcasting Commission answers to the policy makers and I wonder whether you feel at the moment that you have a free hand in doing what you are setting out to do.
There's a mixed answer to that. First, the Broadcasting Commission is appointed by the governor-general for a period of five years. that would span the period of a party in government and when the govern-ment changes, the Broadcasting Commission doesn't have to change according to the will of a minister because it is not the creature of a minister. That's the first thing which gives us some latitude and detachment ...
Second, the Broadcasting commis-sioners are appointed for five years and cannot be removed except by an affirmative action in Parliament. So, there is a certain security of tenure that empowers. So, regardless of which minister may come and which party may be in power, the responsibility of the Broadcasting Commission remains to carry out its duties through the officers appointed by the governor-general.
The areas where the commission is lacking are in the areas of the powers held by the commission to effectively carry out its work. The model that we operate under is a model that says this commission, though appointed by the governor-general, must, for reasons of sanctions against the offending licensee, make recommendations, particularly for the more serious ones, to a minister whose portfolio responsibility relates to the Broadcasting Commission and it's the minister who, acting upon the recommendation of the Broadcasting Commission then actually applies the sanction. That is problematic because there are moments when the politician is too preoccupied with constituency or other matters that doesn't allow for attention to that issue, not to mention the possibility that the particular minister may be disinclined to act in the way recommended by the Broadcasting Commission, for good reason ... That approach needs to change in line with global practice, where matters to do with sanctions are being accumulated as part of the power of the specialised regulator who has the additional countercheck of the licensee resorting to an appeal or to the courts.
,b>Is the role of the Office of Utilities Regulation closer to the model that you wish to have?
Yes the OUR itself is still not where the OUR wants to go, because the OUR, as you know, had to take the minister to court in order to establish certain rights and freedoms. Where I think we should draw the line is where the implementation of that policy is concerned; that should go to the regulator. For example, the present sanctions that we have allow us to issue warnings and get apologies; we can do that in our own right; we do not have to get the minister's approval for that. But where we see more serious breaches or repeat offences and we are recommending suspension of the licence, which is entirely appropriate in certain circumstances, that has to go to the minister. And when we are recommending (and we have never had occasion do that) revocation of a broadcast licence (although we have had occasion to do that on the cable side) then that has to go to the minister. One of the things that the Broadcasting Commission would like to acquire is the power and authority to impose financial sanctions, which gives us more flexibility between sanctions and also provides an opportunity for us to match the offence to the sanction that is imposed.
Can you itemise for me some of the conditions or circumstances which at the moment would lead you to recommenda suspension of or revocation of a licence?
We are not a censorship body, so we don't go into the stations and say "Don't play that" or "Don't play that". We give them a licence with some rules to follow, and if they breach the rules, then we apply sanctions. We say to them "Three strikes and you are out", to suspension or some other serious sanction, meaning that if you have offended once, and we have agreed that it is an offence; you have put your apology, you have offended again, we've raised it with you and you have apologised. On the third occasion, within a particular time frame, you come up automatically for consideration by he full commission on the basis of suspension.
And so, for a period (the offending station) would be off the air.
Off the air. And I can tell you that, in conformity with the approach of the commission, against the background that I have spoken about, we have one major broadcaster currently under serious consideration in respect of suspension; and it's not a wheel that is working only internally. The broadcaster has been made aware of this; the legal wheels have been put in train, and final determination will be made on the basis of a number of relevant factors. Another entity was called up, with its chairman in attendance, around breaches that also gave rise to notice of intention to suspend. In this particular case, it is a broadcaster who failed to provide slow tape to record what was being transmitted, and who has repeatedly had either expletives or inappropriate content escape on the air, and can't even provide us, on demand, tape that they should be keeping by broadcasting regulations to record what goes out. Now, that is not a proper operation of their licence and therefore, unless and until they settle those matters, they will be up for suspension. Fortunately, in that particular case, they were able to remedy the station and advise us accordingly within the time frame given, and therefore the order of an intention to recommend suspension has been put on hold.
Do you have a standard minimum and maximum time period for suspensions?
I believe the regulations specify ranges, but it is in the discretion of the minister which of those ranges would apply, but the commission would recommend a duration.
Comment