#paulalindo

[prilindo]

Commentary on Ian Alleyne and Crime Watch II

This second article was the one that I sent to the Express and the Guardian as a response from my class with regard to what we saw as the possible consequences to the whole situation with respect to journalism in Trinidad & Tobago. It was never printed by either paper. Please let me know what your opinions are.

After Crime Watch, what comes next?

Dear Editor,

I am a student enrolled in UWI’s Certificate in Journalism programme, and our class has been closely following the discussions surrounding the programme Crime Watch.  As journalism students, the recent outcry about the show, hosted by Ian Alleyne, and its implications for journalism in Trinidad and Tobago are of great concern to us.  As such, we feel that we need to make a contribution to the on-going discussion about our chosen profession.

On October 25th and 26th 2011, Mr. Alleyne aired a video showing the rape of a 13-year-old girl.  In total the video was shown four times, at 6 pm and 11 pm on both days.  This incident, coming on top of other controversial videos which had been aired on the programme, has sparked public outrage.  Complaints have been made to the Telecommunications Authority of Trinidad and Tobago (TATT), who have in turn sent the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has called for a criminal investigation into the matter.  The Media Association of Trinidad and Tobago (MATT) and the Trinidad and Tobago Publishers and Broadcasters Association (TTPBA) have also publicly condemned Mr. Alleyne’s actions.

In a statement released on November 11, 2011, Mrs. Shida Bolai, Chief Executive Officer of Caribbean Communications Network Limited (CCN), announced that the programme had been suspended until further notice and that, in light of the recent complaints made against it, a full review into all aspects of the program had been launched.  

Our class agrees that TV6 must take responsibility for what was being shown on Crime Watch. 

One Caribbean Media Limited (OCM) has a “Statement of Editorial Principles and Operational Guidelines” by which TV6, as a subsidiary of OCM, should certainly be abiding.  These guidelines speak to observance of the 9 pm to 5 am period during which adult content may be aired, shielding children from inappropriate material, protection of children, the respect for people’s privacy and the gathering of information within the framework of respect for the laws of the land.  Ian Alleyne had clearly violated the Guidelines more than once, yet TV6 did nothing to stop him. 

Among our greatest concerns, however, is the fact that this show is not the only instance where inappropriate content has been presented.  For example, recently pictures of the late Muammar Gadaffi’s body were shown on the front page of some newspapers. We feel that this is yet another example of inappropriate media content that helps to arouse public outrage, and to cause journalists to lose credibility.

As the Crime Watch was being discussed, TATT called for a further round of consultations on a Draft National Broadcasting Code.  We know that objections were raised to the original draft of the code, and that local media houses felt that the Government was trying to limit their right to freedom of speech in certain situations.  This is definitely an important issue for journalists, who are traditionally regarded as watchdogs of the society.  Journalists have reason to be fearful of having any Government regulation in place that could be detrimental to this function. 

We also recognise, however, that the current situation with Crime Watch and Mr. Alleyne has decreased the media’s already low level of credibility with the Trinidad and Tobago public, and with the Government.  In light of the flouting of OCM’s own guidelines, which was allowed to go un-checked by TV6 and OCM, and also of other examples of the publication of inappropriate content in different media, we know that some members of the public are now asking whether the media should be allowed to self-regulate or if they need to be controlled in some measure by the Government,.

Our class has been wondering whether this debacle has made it clear to the media houses that there is a need for self-regulation, before the Government decides that it must intercede in the public’s interest.

We feel that situations similar to what happened with Crime Watch cannot be allowed to happen again.  However, we are naturally reluctant to suggest that there should be undue Government interference in the practice of journalism. 

In our opinion therefore, it might be best for the media industry to agree to common principles and standards that would facilitate self-regulation.  

We would like to suggest that representatives of the media industry come together now, and formulate an industry code of their own, possibly using the draft National Broadcast Code as a starting point, to ensure that all journalists in Trinidad and Tobago will understand that there are principles and standards to which they will all be held, not by the Government, but by their peers.  MATT and the Media Complaints Council should have an input in drafting the Code, and should have more power afforded to them.  The public must also be informed about these standards, so that they too can call attention to any breaches of the code which they identify - as they did in the case of Crime Watch and CCN TV6. 

Moreover, all media houses, as well as MATT, should immediately and publicly censure individual journalists and media houses which go against the standards outlined in the code.  There should be no need in future for such an outpouring of public outrage before a clear statement is made by the media industry that the industry as a whole condemns media practitioners who do not live up to these standards.  When it is deemed necessary, TATT may enforce official sanctions against those who break the rules.

We believe that this process can lead to the establishment of an industry code with which all media houses may be satisfied. The establishment of such a code will also contribute to an increased level of confidence from the public whom journalists are supposed to serve, as well as raising the standard of journalism produced in Trinidad and Tobago.

Respectfully, Paula Lindo,

(Student, UWI Certificate in Journalism programme.)

[prilindo]

Commentary on Ian Alleyne and Crime Watch

This article was the first one I wrote after public outcry began against the programme "Crime Watch", hosted by Ian Alleyne, after the airing of a clip of a child being raped. By the time I finished writing it though, the complaints by the public had led to Mr. Alleyne  and his show being suspended.

What can we say about the host of Crime Watch, Ian Alleyne? While he seems to fill a vital need in the society, we cannot agree with his methods of doing so.  He is a hero to many people who feel that the Government and protective services have failed them, and that only Mr. Alleyne seeks justice on their behalf.  He investigates cases and produces visible results.  Others despise his methods but think that he is needed.   His admirers perceive him as being fearless, as going where others, including the police, dare not go.

But does Mr. Alleyne really have to carry out the investigations in the manner that he does? And should he be showing the public the images that he gathers during his investigations?  Seeing him poking fingers into bullet holes, showing body parts being scraped off the road and unedited tapes of children being raped – how does this benefit us as a society?

Society is ruled by laws and codes which set out ways in which persons living in the society should behave.  Journalists also usually abide by principles set by the media houses to which they belong.  We may argue that Mr. Alleyne is not a journalist so much as the star of a reality show, and so shouldn’t be held to the same standards that journalists are.  But, he IS bound by the laws of the country.  Shouldn’t he also be bound, at least, by basic standards of human decency? 

Mr. Alleyne continually says that he is on national television which, he implies, gives a level of credibility to what he does. Let’s look, however, at the laws of this country and the ethical code of the television station on which his programme airs, both of which should govern his conduct as a broadcaster.

With reference to the video clip aired on Crime Watch on October 25th and 26th, 2011, which showed the rape of an underage child, Mr. Alleyne broke the laws set out under The Sexual Offences Act of Trinidad & Tobago, as this prohibits the publication or broadcasting of anything which is likely to lead to the possible identification of a person who is a victim of a sexual offence under the Act.  The clip can be described as child pornography, as neither the girl’s face nor naked body was screened in any way.  Even if Mr. Alleyne was not aware of this law, what was TV6 thinking to allow the video to be aired? 

One Caribbean Media Limited (OCM) also has a “Statement of Editorial Principles and Operational Guidelines” by which TV6, as a subsidiary of OCM, should certainly be abiding.

As journalism students, we’re being taught that behaving ethically demands that there should be a balance between giving the public the whole truth and minimizing the harm done to those involved.  Minimizing harm usually includes showing compassion to victims of crimes and the family members of the victims.  Where was Mr. Alleyne’s compassion when he showed a child’s face and naked body on national television for everyone, including children, to see?  Where was it when he showed the body parts of a woman strewn across the highway without the permission of her family?

TV6 must also take responsibility for what is shown on Crime Watch.  The OCM guidelines state that “there should be strict observance of the television watershed in the interest of children viewers”.  TV6 violates this code by allowing Mr. Alleyne’s show, with its many instances of inappropriate material, to air at 6 p.m. on weekdays, when children are likely to be watching. 

The OCM guidelines assert that “Children are the most vulnerable sector of our population.  We accept extra responsibility for their welfare.  Protection of their rights is a cornerstone of our commitment not to exploit them… Extra editorial judgment should be exercised in the publication of details where a victim’s identity might be adduced.”  Obviously the station didn’t remember that clause when they allowed Mr. Alleyne to air the video clip referred to above.

The guidelines also say that “We enter people’s private lives with their agreement” with regards to privacy, but this was not done when Mr. Alleyne aired the footage of the dismembered woman without the permission of her family.

OCM’s Statement of Principles also declares that “as professional journalists, we understand that the power of the media is not our personal power… information should be gathered within the framework of respect for the laws of the land”.  Do the persons who allow Mr. Alleyne’s programme to air remember this clause at all? 

Since OCM states, finally, that they recognize the right of the public to query their performance, we urge them to “accept their responsibility to observe the laws, regulations and norms that guide their behavior and operations” and impose some limits on Mr. Ian Alleyne or remove him in the public’s interest.