Dear Editor,
A decision to suspend Mr Sharma’s television broadcasting licence should be made by the supreme court and not by the office of the president. If such a trivial matter of infringement has to be handled by the president, it goes to show the ineffectiveness and the disadvantages of those who seek justice by the courts.
Also, Mr Sharma and like-minded Guyanese should realise that they need to take responsibility for the things they say on television. They must adhere to the framework of policies that govern the broadcasting network.
Although there is freedom of expression, one still has to be sensible in their opinions and views, and when it comes to journalism, it should be substantiated by adequate facts.
Mr Sharma and his workers should elevate their level of professionalism and journalism.
Yours faithfully,
(name and address
supplied)
Editor’s note
In other countries a decision to suspend a licence is made by an independent broadcasting authority. The government is still to introduce modern broadcasting legislation which would provide for the setting up of such an authority.
The owner of a television station is legally liable for any programme broadcast on his station and any statement made whether he knew of it or approved of it or not. That is why it is essential to have filtering mechanisms in place for talk shows that enable statements to be monitored before they are broadcast.
We have pointed this out previously on several occasions.
Even if television time is rented by the station owner to an independent producer as happens here, the owner remains liable for anything broadcast. The local television industry has not yet fully digested the implications of this legal position.
