Daily Archives: March 17, 2013

Assuming three things: that ethnic tensions between Indians and Africans are worsening; that a significant contributor (some would say the main contributor) is politics; and that mainstream mass media remain a legitimising conduit for racial rhetoric, is it time for media leaders to agree on self-censorship in their coverage of racially provocative statements/events?

We have come through a divisive and desperate Tobago House of Assembly (THA) election which will be remembered for Hilton Sandys Calcutta ship announcement, the failure of his PNM party to censure him in an unprecedented way, and the Governmentunder the banner of the Tobago Organisation of the People (TOP)milking it for all its political poison. And thats only one very recent event. We wait in trepidation for local government and general elections.

The country is at a crossroads, saturated with discontent and resentment. Trauma at the loss of political reins is raw among some Africans and translatesin uniquely Trinidadian termsas Indians taking over, which in turn draws from the equally unique Trinidadian proverb Indians have land and money; Africans have political power.

The present Government, meanwhile, promised a coalition that represents and treats equally with all peoples but quickly turned into a UNC Government consumed with old racial prejudices and a rabid desire to equalise government patronage by unethical means. That the UNC found a new face and voice to spew old prejudices born of self-hate has been a handful of salt in racial wounds.

All this is happening in a climate of exceptional violence, short tempers, unending cries for justice, and plenty, plenty guns. Is it time, then, for mass media to prevent circulation of news that can potentially incite that which I will not name but which most of us fear?

Visit link:
Media self- censorship

Home national New rules needed for self-censorship: Supinya

Broadcasting

Opas Boonlom The Nation March 17, 2013 11:01 pm

She will float the proposal with the broadcasting committee on Monday, when they are scheduled to consider Channel 3s action for "Nuamek" series, she said.

The airing of Nuamek was abruptly suspended.

Supinya said the new rules are necessary given a similar action by Thai PBS, in abruptly ending the airing of the Fridays episode of the "Tob Jote Prathet Thai" (Answering Thailand's Questions).

"I believe that Thai PBS had knowledge of the programme detail. As such, it should not have made the decisionto prematurely stop the programme. Some contents are related to the lese majeste or national security laws, but these are screened by the editor. The decision could have been socially or politically motivated. Without the decision, the station may upset the public. But the decision clouds the media environment. Viewers benefits should also be taken into account," she said.

She also mentioned that the programme host, Pinyo Traisuriyathamma, could file a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission. Under the Constitutions Article 46, freedom of TV stations employees is to be protected against the station owners influence.

Read more:
New rules needed for self- censorship : Supinya

EDITORIAL

The broadcaster Thai PBS has taken a nasty fall, and is suffering deep injuries that may linger for a long time. Last Friday, even as technicians prepared to air the fifth part of a discussion on the monarchy on Tob Jote Thailand, station executives decided that self-censorship was a better part of valour than discretion. They moved the "Thai Monarchy Under the Constitution" topic to the rubbish bin and put on safe, unstimulating, uninteresting pap in its place.

The station claimed the discussion by well-known and thoughtful personalities was "sensitive". That may rank forever as the worst reason given for censorship. If topics are not sensitive, why discuss them? If not now, when? If not by respected and knowledgeable people, then by whom? And finally: If not on Thai PBS, where?

Censoring discussion of the great issues of the day will not make them disappear. Ignoring these issues will not solve them. Leaving them for later means more chance for error and a faulty solution at the last minute.

This is not what the public envisioned when Thai PBS went on the air in January 2008. In fact, expectations were just the opposite. Thai PBS began broadcasting in the wake of a disastrous military coup. The station was seen as a way to stimulate rational discussion of hugely controversial subjects. Its founders claimed Thai PBS would venture deeply into popular and intellectual issues where the other stations, heavy on soap operas and game shows, would never dare go.

The Thai PBS website, as of yesterday, was proudly proclaiming that as its greatest achievement, the station had co-organised Thailand's most celebrated traditional boat races. No doubt rowing is culturally important and physically invigorating. If that is true, the station needs different symbols.

The founding principle of Thai PBS was, and remains impressive. "Editorial independence and accountability are crucial to the role of Thai PBS as a public broadcaster," says its website. Independence was to be assured by the Board of Governors and the Audience Council. Neither of these worthy bodies was mentioned in the station's weak explanation of why Tob Jote Thailand was cancelled.

On the contrary, the station said that "executives" met and decided to cancel the broadcast. Programme host Pinyo Trisuriyadhamma was clearly upset. He and his team decided to stop producing the show. The public, he said, might not be confident about its integrity.

That comment is spot-on. For now, it appears that Thai PBS executives were stampeded into cancelling a perfectly rational, interesting debate because about 20 people held a protest rally outside the station's doors. The opinions of all viewers matter, but to turn weak-kneed at the sight of a tiny group of self-described patriots doesn't just challenge the integrity of Tob Jote Thailand, it risks the entire reputation and credibility of Thai PBS.

Thai PBS is "publicly funded", meaning taxes help pay for its operation. There was always fear that an over-reaching government would intimidate the station by threatening its funding. It is disappointing to learn that Thai PBS executives are even faster to censor the station than the government.

Here is the original post:
Lamentable censorship