RECENTLY, before talk radio was captured by electioneering, a resident of an inner-city community told The Breakfast Club’s Beverley Manley that although she was pretty destitute she had to find the money to pay the cable bill because the television may be the only thing between her son and a murderous bullet on the mean streets she called home.

Never mind that he may be watching depictions of explicit violence or gratuitous sex. Never mind studies affirming a link between TV violence and anti-social behaviours in children and teenagers. She may not have heard about that sort of academic stuff anyway. But she knows how easy it is to get in harm’s way on the streets and so, she can take comfort in the TV as a parent.

I was reminded of the Breakfast Club discussion on some of the challenges of parenting, especially in poor, dehumanising communities, while thinking about the new rules of the Broadcasting Commission to reduce the amount of violent and sexual material to which our children are exposed on television every day.

The Broadcasting Commission, which regulates the broadcast sector (radio, television and cable) issued a directive August 8 that all licensed broadcasters will be obliged to observe a new ‘Children’s Code for Programming’ that will come into effect March 13, 2003.

Broadcasters will have to rate all programmes on the basis of violence, sexual content and language. They must not schedule material considered “potentially harmful” at a time when children can be reasonably expected to be in the audience and they must issue advisories on the nature of what the audience is about to see or hear.

The code and the companion ‘Charter for Children’s Programming’ have the unobjectionable goal of reducing the amount of sexual, violent and obscene material to which our children are exposed.

Recent research data compiled by Dr Maureen Samms-Vaughan, a child health and development expert at the University of the West Indies, show that children who watch TV for 20 hours or more per week are not doing well in school and show some behaviour disorders.

Further, a recent report by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry made a link between TV violence and violence in society in the US.

Noting that much of today’s television programming is violent, the report added that hundreds of studies of the effects of TV violence on children and teenagers have found that children may:

* Become “immune” to the horror of violence;

* Gradually accept violence as a way to solve problems;

* Imitate the violence they observe on television.

The impact of TV violence may be immediately evident in the child’s behaviour or may surface years later, and young people can even be affected when the family atmosphere shows no tendency toward violence, said the academy.

Since nearly all US programming is widely available on cable throughout Jamaica, it is reasonable to assume that our children are exposed to the same influences.

With the abysmal failure rates and the high incidence of violence in our schools and the society generally (the third highest murder rate in the world) it is understandable that policy makers, media practitioners, parents and the public should want to do something. At issue is whether the code is the right thing to do and whether the desired results will be achieved.

Marcia Forbes, general manager of TVJ, and Angela Patterson, general manager of CVM, say they endorse the principle of protecting children but argue that the code is “onerous” by demanding too much of the TV stations and “unfair” by demanding less of the cable operators. Concerns have also been expressed that requirements to ‘rate’ newscasts could be the thin edge of the wedge of censorship.

The burden argument rests on the requirement of the code that all broadcast material must carry a rating — from being suitable for general audiences to being suitable only for adult audiences — and that everything that goes out on air must carry a written and spoken advisory. This will obviously involve considerable production time and cost.

The ‘censorship’ argument stems from the requirement that “all programming, including newscast, broadcasts of sporting events…” must be rated.

Having spent much of my professional life in the broadcast sector I do share some of their concerns which I hope will be addressed through further dialogue among key stakeholders. For instance, it is just plain unwieldy to have every TV commercial going out on air with an advisory saying that it is suitable for this or that audience.

The same is true of newscasts and sporting events. By definition, a TV newscast in Jamaica will have some violent content and some sport, like boxing, is only about violence.

Having said that though, I believe that much greater professional care must be taken at the TV stations with the way footage of violence, blood, death and grief is presented in the nightly newscasts. Stories can be told with a lot more sensitivity while retaining editorial independence.

The ‘equity’ argument rests on the fact that cable operators are required only to rate each channel in their line-up and not each programme. Cordell Green, executive director of the Broadcasting Commission, noted that cable has to be treated differently from ‘free’ broadcasters for the obvious reason that cable is a subscription service, meaning that the consumer makes a conscious choice to purchase it.

Furthermore, he added, the code requires cable operators to package their offerings in tiers — from G for general audiences channels on the lowest tier to X-rated channels on the fourth tier.

But the reality is that most cable operators do not have the equipment in place to offer this kind of packaging. Furthermore, most of the channels offered are from the US where the ratings tend to be more ‘liberal’ that those proposed by the commission.

James T Hamilton, the noted US scholar who has written extensively on television violence and public policy, told a US Senate hearing on the issue that the US TV networks “frequently ‘under-labelled’ programmes”. For instance, a programme which a parents’ viewing group found to contain “gratuitous sex, explicit dialogue, violent content or obscene language” was given a TV-PG rating rather than the higher TV-14.

Audience surveys in Jamaica show that outside of the nightly news hour on TVJ and CVM, the combined audience for cable (all channels) rivals the local stations. Hence, if some shows that are not considered suitable for general audiences are available, without let or hindrance on cable, the commission may very well defeat its own objective.

This is not an argument to make life easier for the TV stations but to bring about some sort of parity in the way programmes are rated and scheduled.

In talking with some of the industry stakeholders this week I formed the impression that it is still possible to resolve some of the concerns before the code takes effect next year. I urge that the requirement to ‘rate’ newscasts be dropped.

Which brings me to my deepest concern and, this is, having a code at all. Let me be clear: I agree that parents should be helped to monitor what their children watch. I agree that ratings and advisories are essential to that process.

But I would be much happier with a code of self-regulation developed by the broadcast industry itself, in consultation with a wide range of civil society groups, rather than a directive from a government regulator.

As we make public policy in this area, let us remember that violence on television is not the only source for aggressive or violent behaviour, even if it is a significant contributor.

Further, parents have to take some responsibility for what their children watch and how much of it. Parents have to teach their children that violence is not the best way to solve problems. But, of course, the parent must first believe that to be true. We cannot take that for granted in today’s Jamaica.

Claude Robinson is senior fellow in the Research and Policy Group, Mona School of Business at UWI. crobin@uwimona.edu.jm