The Central Committee of Parliament is set to discuss a draft Media Policy on Thursday afternoon, the result of plans to regulate the way local media outlets operate that go back to the
start of this millennium in the since-dismantled Netherlands Antilles. The topic has proved a sensitive one among journalists on the islands who fear governments might misuse this to control the press.
Much of the current law proposal is directed at radio and television stations that are already licensed. It says the rules to be set for such may have no bearing on the content, yet at the same time that a broadcaster cannot transmit any programme of a predominantly one-sided political, religious or spiritual character.
The latter stipulation begs for clarification, because it could mean no programmes with only one guest and/or point of view. The licensees must also “to a reasonable extent” – whatever that is – include own productions of an informative, cultural- respectively educational nature, related particularly to St. Maarten.
There are other seemingly obvious restrictions regarding national security, public order, decency, etc., but it’s often still a matter of interpretation.
For the written press, the main ingredient is the establishment of a four-member Media Council to handle complaints regarding both journalism and advertising. The newspapers, radio stations and television broadcasters respectively are supposed to agree on one representative each, which in and of itself is a challenge due to the competitive rivalry between them.
However, the real issue is that these persons may not work with or for any of the institutions involved, which boils down to nobody actually active in the media being on board. This is not entirely in keeping with the idea of a self-policing independent press preferred in many democratic countries, while the fourth member is to come from local consumer organisations that currently don’t even exist.
The Council will handle complaints only if the media outlet in question failed to do so in a satisfactory manner. Other than issuing a warning for the future and announcing such publicly, the ordinance no longer contains the controversial administrative sanctions in the form of fines or otherwise as earlier versions did.
However, when it comes to advertising the Council apparently can tell businesses to no longer place messages deemed in violation of a code to be formulated for such. Here too, the devil is the details, as it’s about what people consider appropriate or not.
An important factor that also must be taken into account is the Internet with its websites, blogs, social media, electronic radio and video broadcasts, etc., that can target the local market not only from within St. Maarten, but also from elsewhere, including the French side. If they can’t be made to fall under the scope of the media policy it conceivably could lead to an unlevel playing field and consequently unfair competition.
All in all, while more ethical behaviour among the media on the island is probably desirable, efforts to have anybody but an impartial court impose such in specific cases constitute dicey undertakings at best, especially in a small community.
Silence may be golden, but freedom of speech is priceless.
