Ian Boyne

It would be a cold day in hell when the Bruce Golding-led Government yanks the operating licence from the owners of NewsTalk 93 FM. Forget about all the hysteria and hype being created over the recommendation by the Broadcasting Commission to do so. Golding is too politically savvy and media-sensitive to incur the wrath of the lethally powerful media fraternity.

When the smoke clears, NewsTalk 93 would have attracted enormous free publicity and Dr Kingsley 'Ragashanti' Stewart is likely to end up with more listeners to his grassroots morning show. But the controversy over the decision of the Broadcasting Commission to recommend a suspension of licence to the information minister has again highlighted our penchant for red herring, shadow-boxing, sloppy analysis, rumour-mongering and conspiracy theories. It is as though we have a phobia for rational, patient analysis.

The media themselves are a prime example of this. Editorials in both The Gleaner and the Sunday Herald provide an excellent demonstration of this. The case involves a complaint by the commission that on two occasions talk show host Ragashanti egregiously breached broadcasting regulations by abusing a fellow staffer at the university, and for using and facilitating derogatory language in reference to people of Indian descent. The station accepted that it breached the guidelines in both instances, and no one who has read the transcripts could have a moment's doubt that that was so.

Indeed, any sane person would be appalled that any person could use the airwaves that way and could have gone on for as long without any intervention by anyone at the station. Ragashanti himself has admitted that he was wrong. There is no need for me even to repeat the shockingly vulgar and abusive language which was used to describe a woman with whom the host had a disagreement.

In poor taste

Kingsley 'Ragashanti' Stewart - File

Indeed, the Sunday Herald in its editorial last week, 'Broadcasting Commission heavy-handed in decision on NewsTalk', admits that in the case of the discussion about people of Indian descent (arguably the lesser of the two offences) "having read the transcript … we are indeed convinced that it was in poor taste and indeed the station should be penalised". The paper considered the breach so significant that it expresses the view that the station should not just be warned, but penalised.

The Sunday Herald tells us that, "According to the chairman of the commission, Dr Hopeton Dunn, the management of the station did not provide convincing evidence that it has taken tangible steps to prevent a recurrence and to show its commitment to responsible journalism." The paper goes on to say, significantly, "We remain unshakeable in our commitment to responsible journalism and abhor those among us who think otherwise."

But then, amazingly, the paper goes on to record this stunning lapse in logic: "But equally we take umbrage that the station should be closed because of the action of one member of staff." It then goes on to a non sequitur and irrelevant statement that "we believe there is room within the framework of free expression for controversial issues to be discussed without fear of those in authority who might wish to arrogate, based on any regulation of whatever antiquity, some notion that they are the vanguard of public taste."

First, the issue is not simply about a breach by one host doing one programme on a 24-hour station. It is precisely about what the editorial quoted the chairman as saying and to which it gave its full endorsement: The view that it is reasonable that "tangible steps" be taken to prevent any recurrence of the breach.

My understanding from the Broadcasting Commission and its highly articulate executive director, Cordel Green, is that what informed the commission's decision to recommend the suspension of the licence was not the breaches themselves, but the alleged failure on the part of the management of NewsTalk 93 to put in place satisfactory measures to prevent their recurrence. No discussion about the commission's 'heavy-handed' approach can take place outside that context.

Irrelevant blindsiding

All talk about 'commissars' locking down free media because of subjective and class-driven biases about tastes; about middle-class people fighting against poor people and their language, or talk about colleagues of Ragashanti wanting to use the breaches to press their agenda of getting rid of the former street boy turned lecturer, is just irrelevant blindsiding and diversionary rhetoric. It totally misses the heart of the issue.

My questions are: If there is a legitimate broadcasting authority which has established that egregious breaches have been committed - and this is not being contested - then can it responsibly allow that station to continue to operate knowing that no commitment has been shown to prevent their recurrence? How can the right of the Jamaican people, including poor, defenceless grassroots people, be protected against vulgar abuse, and how can ethnic groups protect themselves from the airwaves being used to perpetuate prejudice and ridicule against them if the regulators who are supposed to protect the public interests are intimidated by powerful media interests?

Now, let me make it clear that I have not determined that the management of NewsTalk 93 has shown disregard for the public interests and have not been willing to put in place the measures to prevent the recurrence of breaches. I don't have the evidence that Anthony Abrahams and Gordon Shirley, whose public responsibility I have no reason to doubt, are not willing to satisfy the demands of the commission beyond the on-air apology. But what I am saying is that the discussion of the issue must take place within that context and outside of the host of speculations and conspiracy theories in which it is now encased.

Not an end in itself

Everything hinges on whether the NewsTalk management showed willingness to take the remedial action necessary to protect people's reputations and to shield them from abuse. The press must realise that its vaunted and much-proclaimed inalienable right to freedom is not an end in itself, and is not disconnected from its responsibility to protect the rights of people.

The right to freedom of the press is not the right to the big owners of the press and those of who write and broadcast to 'trace off' and 'cuss out' those who offend them.

There is an arrogance and hubris which media people exhibit and which have been very clear to me in this present controversy. We in the media who talk about accountability and responsibility seem not to be prepared to be accountable to anyone. We arrogate the right to police ourselves, while lambasting governments for having the police to police themselves. But I digress.

Locking down a media outlet should only be contemplated under extreme circumstances.

What we might argue is that the Broadcasting Commission should have given the station more time and used moral suasion longer to try to get the management to see that measures simply have to be put in place to prevent the recurrence of the breaches. I am not even focusing on whether NewsTalk, in light of the severity of the breach against my fellow Jamaican sister who was savagely abused, should not have voluntarily suspended Ragashanti, whether or not he is a big money earner for the station. After all, some things must be more important than money and media ratings - certainly for media people who like to lecture politicians about principle.

Absolute right

But to me that is secondary to the overarching issue of the measures media houses take to ensure that the rights of Jamaicans are not abused and that people's right not to be defamed is protected. So the issue of what is to be done is the crucial one. In my view, no commission worth its salt could just ignore the fact that a station does not have adequate means of responsibly carrying out the terms of its licence - if this is, in fact, the case.

While I have personally been the butt of criticism on Raga's show and have been criticised by him more consistently than perhaps any other single individual, I have always ignored him, for I believe that is his absolute right. Ragashanti is a generally responsible broadcaster, and is not characteristically disrespectful on air. Forget whether his language is coarse. He speaks the language of the people. There is nothing vulgar about patois in itself. I dissociate myself from any crew who wants to see him off the air because he is too grassroots and 'chat too bad'. I don't have the view that we should protect our children from listening to people like Ragashanti.

I have found Ragashanti to be generally responsible and fair. He is a good youth with a good heart who should not be written off. The fact that he has attacked me so often does not prevent me, as a free-speech libertarian, to defend his right to speak his mind forcefully.

Would be tremendous loss

Anthony Abrahams also has a distinguished history of responsible journalism. He has made an enormous contribution to Jamaican journalism, hosts one of the finest programmes on the air (the Breakfast Club) and has refused to participate in the dumbing down of talk shows by facilitating serious intellectual exchange. It would be a tremendous loss if NewsTalk 93 were closed. But we can't take the cavalier position of The Gleaner editorial on Wednesday ('Folly at the Broadcasting Commission') which admits that "it is still not clear, however, whether the management of the station has a code of conduct", and yet all the commission should have done is to issue a "severe and public reprimand".

NewsTalk has to receive more than just a public reprimand and it has to do more than issue on-air apologies. It must give us, the Jamaican people, the assurance that it respects us enough that it has the electronic and other features to protect us from abuse by its hosts. This is non-negotiable. If this incident serves to make all media houses more conscious of standards, then the controversy would have done a world of good.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist who may be reached at ianboyne1@yahoo.com.