The renewed push by the Broadcasting Commission to clean up the airwaves, as reported in yesterday's Sunday Gleaner, will no doubt be welcomed by persons concerned about the increasing incidents of gratuitous violence, profanity and soft porn in prime time in the electronic media.

But given its other responsibilities and the multiplicity of outlets, it is doubtful if the Broadcasting Commission has the resources to police effectively the many radio, free-to-air TV stations and cable channels available locally. The commission also has, as part of its mandate, responsibilities for monitoring the placement of commercials relative to content. That is, theirregulations indicating the number of commercials that is allowed to be aired within a specific time frame. Can the commission do all of this properly without unfairly focusing its attention on some entities more than others? It does not appear that it has been able to do so to date.

Also, it is not clear by what means the commission will determine the criteria to restrict the many potential avenues for offence. Debates over what constitutes decency have been conducted over many years and no doubt will be for many more to come. As the society's values change, words, images and actions which would have been scandalous to a previous generation are now quite acceptable today. Where there is no consensus as to what is obscene, what gives one group the right to censor what another may find entertaining?

Jamaican authorities have followed the example of monitoring agencies in other jurisdictions by insisting that television stations carry a rating system for programmes that are to be aired. The general aim is to protect children.

The challenge they and we have faced is that even with warnings as to the content of programmes, parents will not always be present to monitor what their children are viewing. Then there are the feeble attempts to edit profanity but air a film that may contain words deemed offensive. Yet, the viewer will be left in doubt as to what was said or is being said. So the next best move, some would argue, is to ban some far But proponents of a more liberal approach would object, arguing that they should not be denied the right to view what they want just because other people can't monitor their children properly. The encryption of some type of programming has been suggested but smart children can find their ways around this easily.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has often found itself caught on the horns of a dilemma as it tries to clean up American television. Unable to give a clear definition of decency for example, it has produced vague guidelines as to how broadcasting entities should operate. The chairman of Jamaica's Broadcasting Commission, Dr. Hopeton Dunn, should be wary of falling into the same bog.

The aims and objectives of the Broadcasting Commission are laudable but due care needs to be taken not to create unnecessary stumbling blocks to doing business, to stifle creativity or impose uneven restrictions on different entities. Country-wide standards must be applied equally across the board.