T

HEY WERE on board and functioning from the beginning of this year but were officially presented to the Guyanese public by Prime Minister Sam Hinds on April 12. I am referring to the members of the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting (ACB).

Some teasingly say that it may have been more simple to let the acronym be in alphabetical order — ABC (Advisory Broadcasting Committee). To have the three-member committee finally in place is, of course, not a teasing but overdue serious business.

And the media professionals and the nation as a whole would expect them to demonstrate that required seriousness in all their endeavours while arrangements proceed for the creation, ultimately, but not later than 2003, of an independent Guyana Broadcasting Authority (GBA), something that’s a functioning and respected entity elsewhere in CARICOM.

It is time to rein in what has long been recognised as “the wild west” electronic media in Guyana that have been making such a mockery of the journalism profession, of freedom of the press, freedom of expression and freedom of information.

I very much have in mind from my own viewing experiences all the slander, criminal libel, gross misinformation and general abuse and misuse of what passes for “television” in Guyana, that could only have been sustained for far too long by a decadent political culture.

It is a culture that feeds on racism, racist politics, cowardice by those who know better but fail to speak up; false sense of nationalism and a low level of patriotism.

The three members of the ACB — Pat Dial (chairman), Ronald Case and Carlton James — are recognised by training, qualifications and experience to provide the quality of advice, as they sit like a virtual tribunal, to exercise initiatives, listen, investigate and make recommendations for ministerial action.

A creature of the so-called “dialogue process” at the highest political level — President Bharrat Jagdeo and Opposition Leader Desmond Hoyte — the members of the committee would be fully aware that the impartiality, competence and integrity they bring to bear in their work could have a most positive influence in the creation of the proposed independent Broadcasting Authority that will have statutory powers.

Expert recommendations

If they perform without fear or favour, as the saying goes, they may not only be obvious candidates for appointment to the coming Broadcasting Authority. Their work would supplement the recommendations of other experts, in and out of the Caribbean region, that are already available, as the drafting process of the legislation to create the Authority is, hopefully, expedited.

It is to be hoped that those involved in the arrangements to have the Authority in place, as soon as possible, would not waste time trying to recreate the wheel, but would inform themselves of what already exists in the rest of the Caribbean Community — Jamaica, Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago for example.

For their part, the ACB team, all quite familiar with the technical, cultural and political aspects of what’s really involved in their work, have some useful documents for reference and guidance.

For instance, the Media Code of Conduct that was approved for the March 2001 general election; a useful commentary on the Media Code by the Guyana Human Rights Association; reports by the Media Monitoring Unit that functioned within the Guyana Elections Commission; and, of course, the final and very incisive report of Caribbean journalists, Dwight Whylie of Jamaica and Harry Mayers of Barbados, entitled A Case of Dangerous Extremes.

Strangely, the agreement reached by Jagdeo and Hoyte in the establishment of the ACB makes it obligatory for the minister, under whose portfolio the committee falls, to implement its recommendations.

This is strange for the simple reason that any “advisory” body cannot be presumed to have equal or more powers than a cabinet minister of a legitimate, elected government as exists in Guyana.

Dangerous precedent

Therefore, while cognisance would of necessity have to be taken of the competence and integrity of the members of any such advisory committee — on broadcasting or anything else — it creates a dangerous precedent for democratic governance, under any party, for a cabinet minister to be expected to abide by the recommendations of an “advisory” committee.

Where in the rest of the Caribbean Community does such a precedent exist. Nowhere as far as I am aware, but I would like to be corrected. There is, however, a fundamental difference between what’s “advisory” and “obligatory”.

A cabinet minister of a legitimate government ought not to be placed in the difficult situation of being obliged to implement recommendations from an advisory body. That was a wrong decision by Jagdeo and Hoyte and one that should not be repeated in the appointment of any other “advisory” committee for any other sector of governance.

It is to be hoped that the experience and expertise of the three members of the ACB will guide them in recognising what’s the norm of governance in a democratic state when making their recommendations.

Of immediate concern must be not only the professionalism and integrity they bring to bear in analysing the content of broadcasting materials — news, views, talk shows, documentaries or others — but the punitive measures that would be relevant to ensure that violators are not allowed to continue their unprofessional practices, their gross insult to the profession of journalism and misuse of the airwaves that have made necessary the creation of the ACB and, in the near future, a Broadcasting Authority.

If appropriate sanctions are not implemented, wherever and whenever necessary, then all the complaints and reports to the ACB would be a waste of time, energy and money. And today’s abusers and violators would have the last laugh.

Or should I say continue to laugh, as they have recklessly been allowed to do by a combination of factors — opposition “politricks” that encourage and sustain violations; governmental weakness in timely and appropriate responses; shocking lack of action by the police and the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Also, what exists as a local media organisation, one that, when it is actually functioning, lacks the courage to take a principled stand in favour — not of a party or government but for the journalism profession and the nation.

Prime Minister Hinds was optimistic when presenting the ACB team. He was quoted as saying that the committee’s work might turn out to be an important contribution to the development of “cohesion and the maintenance of integrity of the nation”.

Well, time will tell. The committee’s success would depend to a large extent on the measure of co-operation it receives as much as its own preparedness to move swiftly to correct so much of what is wrong about broadcasting in Guyana.