European Platform of Regulatory Authorities

1. European Platform of Regulatory Authorities Working Group II: Rules to Provide Access to TV and Radio Programmes for People who are Aurally and Visually Impaired

2. Broadcasting Code of Practice on Disability and its Portrayal in the Broadcasting Media Presentation by Dr Kevin Aquilina Chief Executive Malta Broadcasting Authority 14th October 2004

3. Introduction This presentation will: • Introduce the Malta Broadcasting Authority’s Code of Practice on Disability and its Portrayal in the Broadcasting Media • Set out the historical context for the making of the Code • Explain the controversies leading to it

4. Introduction • Outline the vires of the Code • State the Code’s contents • Consider its impact on programming since the Code’s adoption

5. History of the Code • Came into being after the National Commission Persons With Disability complained on the negative portrayal of disabled people during fund-raising programmes • BA Advisory Committee on Quality & Ethics drew up the Code after various consultations were carried out with:

6. History of the Code • Broadcasters • Public • National Commission Persons With Disability • Code was adopted in December 2002 to mark the declaration of 2003 as the European Year for Persons with Disability

7. Criticisms against Fund Raising Programmes Four Main Criticisms Identified: 1. Negative Portrayal of Disability 2. Lack of positive portrayal of disability 3. Objectionable techniques used in portraying disability 4. The need to stress other priorities to money

8. Criticisms against Fund Raising Programmes 1. Negative Portrayal of Disability • Programmes considered to be an affront to human dignity • Stressed their helplessness • Showed the lack of parental responsibility and awareness of disability issues • Depicted the disabled as persons to be pitied

9. Criticisms continued • Depicted the disabled as super human persons • Programming adopted a patronising attitude • Otherness syndrome or the We vs. Them syndrome • Disability as tragic livelihood • Disabled persons as toys needing fixing

10. Criticisms continued • Lack of positive portrayal of disability • Lack of positive content in programming • Integration within society overlooked • Lack of education on the public’s part as to disability issues (stereotypes)

11. Criticisms continued • Objectionable techniques used in portraying disability • Repeating ad nauseam the same objectionable clips during the whole programme • Slow motion • Sensationalism

12. Criticisms continued 4. The need to stress other priorities to money • Money cannot solve all disability problems • Prizes offered to persons donating money shadowed the real scope of the programme • Money is not the solution to all disability problems • Propagation of long term harmful effects to disability issues

13. The Vires of the Code • Article 34 of the Broadcasting Act: complaints regarding unfair and unjust treatment • Article 13(2)(a) of the Broadcasting Act: good taste and decency • Third Schedule to the Broadcasting Act: advertising and teleshopping shall not prejudice respect for human dignity

14. Structure of the Code • Preamble • Part on Misrepresentation of Disabled People • Part on Broadcasters’ Responsibilities • Part on the Broadcasting Authority’s Responsibilities

15. The Code’s Preamble The Philosophy behind the Code • Respecting the Human Dignity of disables persons • Combating prejudice, stereotyping and ‘institutional’ discrimination • Avoiding focusing on the extraordinariness of disability

16. The Code’s Preamble • Even ‘politically correct’ designations of disability accentuate this condition • Disability is seen only from a biological or medical perspective rather than from a social-cultural point of view • Medical model of disability fails to address societal problems encountered by disabled persons

17. Misrepresentation of Disabled People • Negative terms and images of disabled people • Super human representation (victims; heroes) • Patronizing attitude which fosters stereotyping • Inaccurate and damaging terminology

18. Misrepresentation • Portrayal of impairment at the expense of a person’s other attributes • Lack of consultation about issues affecting the disabled persons’ lives • Ridiculing the disabled • Failure to check the accuracy of information prior to broadcast

19. Misrepresentation • Sensational portrayal of disability

20. Broadcasters’ Responsibilities • Need to be sensitive to attitudes outlined above • Should ensure inclusive representation in all forms of programming • Recruiting disabled persons as staff members and in drama programmes disabled actors should play the role of disabled persons

21. Broadcasters’ Responsibilities • Broadcasters should minimize common problems which impede the participation of the disabled in broadcasting activity • Broadcasters are responsible for the proper portrayal of disability on their medium and, where in doubt, should seek advice from the National Commission Persons with Disability

22. Broadcasters’ Responsibility • Broadcasters should follow this Code of Practice in terms of licence conditions • Broadcasters should refrain from over-emphasising disability and when they treat such subject they should do so with due dignity and fairness

23. Regulator’s Responsibilities • The regulator should entrust the National Commission Persons With Disability to draw up a Handbook to guide broadcasters • The regulator is to implement the provisions of the Code and to give publicity thereto • The regulator’s programme monitoring staff, when appointed, should possess a level of understanding of disability issues

24. Regulator’s Responsibilities • Forward to broadcasting stations a list of advisors on disability issues whom they can consult if and when in doubt in doubt • To reward good practice through programme awards • Disseminate reports on the portrayal of disabled people in the broadcasting media

25. Regulator’s Responsibilities • To assist the Institute of Journalists in its self-regulation approach in so far as disability matters are concerned

26. Conclusion • There has been a remarkable improvement in the portrayal of disability issues during fund raising programmes which followed the adoption of the Code • The Code and the process which lead to its formulation (consultation) brought about a high level of awareness amongst producers of disability issues

27. Conclusion • Producers are in constant contact with the National Commission Persons With Disability when preparing for such type of programmes • Standards have been raised and better quality programmes were produced in so far as disability issues are concerned

28. Conclusion • Since the Code was adopted, the Broadcasting Authority has not received one single complaint from the general public, persons with disability organizations or from the National Commission Persons With Disability

29. Thank you for your attention