Responsibility Of The Media
The recent fiasco which ultimately resulted in the suspension of the television programme “Crime Watch” served to bring into sharp focus an issue that is periodically dusted out and aired in the public forum: responsibility in media reporting.
In the most recent case of Crime Watch, the programme’s multiple airings of a grainy video of an underage, mentally challenged rape victim – which ironically took care not to show the perpetrator’s face while showing the victim’s face on ‘national television’ – was perhaps the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. For, despite the wild popularity of the show, and, some may say, its success in bringing information to the police, there had been a growing sense of public unease with the gory reality of some of the content, especially since the show was aired at a time when most children were still awake and might have been tuned in to the programme.
Crime Watch, however, is hardly the sole perpetrator of such offences. In the quest for the ‘scoop’ and audience ratings, there has been an ever-increasingly liberal interpretation by the media of the boundaries of acceptable reporting. Photographs of child victims in their coffins and dead bodies lying on roadways have many times been blazoned over the media. While ostensibly highlighting human grief, ignorance and bloodlust, it can equally serve to exploit victims and traumatise their families. Certainly, there must be some role here for the Telecommunications Authority. The Authority, which makes recommendations to the Minister for the granting of concessions and licences, is also bound, under its governing Act, to monitor and ensure compliance with the conditions set out in the said licences. Further, it must monitor and enforce the Act and Regulations.
Following the disturbing occurrence of the repeated airings of the rape footage on Crime Watch the Authority some days later wrote to the television station which shortly thereafter suspended the show, but it was a case of closing the door after the horse had bolted. Granted, though, the media industry worldwide, especially with the onset of cable television and the internet, is a difficult one to regulate and regulatory bodies everywhere are grappling with similar issues.
There is also a role for the media associations and Houses themselves. We are aware that the Media Association and the Publishers and Broadcasters Association, both of whom have Codes of Conduct, have condemned “Crime Watch’s” airing of the rape video. However, it is desirable that some additional form of self-regulation should be encouraged. Neither should individual media houses treat their editorial role casually, since upon them rests the responsibility for their company’s reputation and image.
The issue of media responsibility is a thorny one, and perhaps inextricably intertwined with freedom of the media. Worldwide, such issues are being debated. Here in T&T, as for anywhere in the world, it is right that such freedoms should be jealously guarded with the required level of responsibility. We are equally convinced that Trinidad and Tobago’s media is a strong one which has been able to withstand and overcome any attempts to curb these freedoms. It therefore becomes necessary for all who have a role to play to do their part to ensure that high standards are maintained at all times.
