MEDIA-VENEZUELA :
Controversy Over New Broadcasting Regulations
Humberto Márquez
Humberto Márquez
[excerpts]
CARACAS, Nov 16 (IPS) - A draft law on "social responsibility in broadcasting" is seen by the Venezuelan government and its supporters as a tool for protecting children from inappropriate programming and bolstering independent media.
But the opposition movement, with which the country's powerful private media are closely aligned, regards it as an instrument for President Hugo Chávez to intimidate the media and exercise control over society.
The bill made it through the first hurdle in parliament last year with the votes of the ruling coalition majority, which holds 87 of the 165 seats in Congress.
In October, it moved into the second and final debate, where it is being discussed clause by clause amidst the same polarisation that has divided Venezuelan society between supporters and opponents of the left-leaning Chávez for the past few years.
Venezuela's current legislation on broadcasting dates back to 1941, although it has been frequently amended.
According to Information Minister Andrés Izarra, the bill is based on four central pillars, including "the respect that the hosts of TV and radio programmes should offer, and the broadcasting of episodes containing sex and violence at appropriate times of day, to protect children."
The other two are the aim of "forming citizens who are critical of media content," and fomenting the creation of a national "broadcasting industry that is in line with the model of socioeconomic change that the country is experiencing."
That is a reference to Chávez's "peaceful social revolution", which has included a wide range of social programmes, like an adult literacy drive, job training and microcredit programmes for the poor, soup kitchens and subsidised food products, and campaigns that have brought health care, including dental coverage, to slum neighbourhoods.
The purpose of the bill, according to the government, is "to establish the social responsibility of the providers of radio and TV and related services," in order to strengthen democracy, peace, human rights, culture, health and development, in keeping with the constitution and the national laws, especially the one that specifically protects children and adolescents. ...
But the opposition movement, with which the country's powerful private media are closely aligned, regards it as an instrument for President Hugo Chávez to intimidate the media and exercise control over society.
The bill made it through the first hurdle in parliament last year with the votes of the ruling coalition majority, which holds 87 of the 165 seats in Congress.
In October, it moved into the second and final debate, where it is being discussed clause by clause amidst the same polarisation that has divided Venezuelan society between supporters and opponents of the left-leaning Chávez for the past few years.
Venezuela's current legislation on broadcasting dates back to 1941, although it has been frequently amended.
According to Information Minister Andrés Izarra, the bill is based on four central pillars, including "the respect that the hosts of TV and radio programmes should offer, and the broadcasting of episodes containing sex and violence at appropriate times of day, to protect children."
The other two are the aim of "forming citizens who are critical of media content," and fomenting the creation of a national "broadcasting industry that is in line with the model of socioeconomic change that the country is experiencing."
That is a reference to Chávez's "peaceful social revolution", which has included a wide range of social programmes, like an adult literacy drive, job training and microcredit programmes for the poor, soup kitchens and subsidised food products, and campaigns that have brought health care, including dental coverage, to slum neighbourhoods.
The purpose of the bill, according to the government, is "to establish the social responsibility of the providers of radio and TV and related services," in order to strengthen democracy, peace, human rights, culture, health and development, in keeping with the constitution and the national laws, especially the one that specifically protects children and adolescents. ...
... Among other things, the new law would create a "family viewing time" when "adult-oriented" programming would be banned.
It would also grant the state and local communities broadcasting space on every channel; provide facilities to independent producers; set up an oversight body; create hefty fines for those who violate the new regulations; and allow authorities to temporarily or permanently close down stations found to be repeat offenders.
Izarra said that according to the bill, "60 percent of TV programming must be made by independent producers, which will give rise to a state policy of support for the development of a national broadcasting industry."
The ruling coalition lawmakers argue that TV programming must no longer remain a monopoly of a handful of families, which have controlled the main TV stations for decades. The three leading networks have 70 percent of the audience. ...
It would also grant the state and local communities broadcasting space on every channel; provide facilities to independent producers; set up an oversight body; create hefty fines for those who violate the new regulations; and allow authorities to temporarily or permanently close down stations found to be repeat offenders.
Izarra said that according to the bill, "60 percent of TV programming must be made by independent producers, which will give rise to a state policy of support for the development of a national broadcasting industry."
The ruling coalition lawmakers argue that TV programming must no longer remain a monopoly of a handful of families, which have controlled the main TV stations for decades. The three leading networks have 70 percent of the audience. ...
... Under the new system, severe restrictions will be in effect from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, and lighter restrictions until 11:00 PM. After that, broadcasters will enjoy wider freedom to air adult programming.
Critics claim that under the new measure, the oversight bodies could block or punish the broadcasting of live news coverage of events like the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York.
But governing coalition legislator Desirée Santos told IPS that the bill would not "establish prior censorship under any circumstances. The idea is simply for the media, which will be able to broadcast live whenever they wish, not to make sensationalist use of images or sounds to exploit people's morbid fascination in time slots dedicated to the education of children and adolescents."
Critics claim that under the new measure, the oversight bodies could block or punish the broadcasting of live news coverage of events like the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York.
But governing coalition legislator Desirée Santos told IPS that the bill would not "establish prior censorship under any circumstances. The idea is simply for the media, which will be able to broadcast live whenever they wish, not to make sensationalist use of images or sounds to exploit people's morbid fascination in time slots dedicated to the education of children and adolescents."
However, communications expert Antonio Pasquali, who heads the Committee for Radio and Television as a Public Service, a local non-governmental organisation, described the bill as "totalitarian". ...
...
Marcelino Bisbal, director of graduate studies in communications at the Andrés Bello Catholic University, also believes that the bill is "authoritarian and un-democratic", and that the state is trying to create "a legal instrument to control a space in which dissent is still possible." ...
Marcelino Bisbal, director of graduate studies in communications at the Andrés Bello Catholic University, also believes that the bill is "authoritarian and un-democratic", and that the state is trying to create "a legal instrument to control a space in which dissent is still possible." ...
...
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression said the bill does not live up to international standards of protection for freedom of expression ...
No comments:
Post a Comment