New committee a major step towards broadcast legislation
A MAJOR step towards the promulgation of long overdue controversial broadcast legislation was taken Wednesday. It happened at an open forum in Hotel Tower, Georgetown, where President Bharrat Jagdeo and Information Minister Moses Nagamootoo met with broadcasters and others concerned to discuss the way forward for the legislating. Guyana Information Services (GIS) reported that, after more than three hours of discussion centred around a previously drafted bill, a consensus was achieved to appoint a small technical committee which would entertain proposals from broadcasters and study models of appointment processes in other countries. The seven-member group, to be chaired by Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Information, Dr Prem Misir, will reconvene after one month to talk over the proposals. President Jagdeo, at the opening, declared that the law is as vital as the financial sector, agriculture and mining laws to the development of the nation. "We do not want to control what you (journalists) say and how you say it. All we are interested in is that the content may be used to further the process of development," he assured. Mr Jagdeo said "hate speech" and, on some occasions, blatant racism, is being propagated under the guise of freedom of speech. The crux of the issue lies with constituting a regulatory body which will allow persons to be "comfortable" and "fair" in enforcing broadcast laws, he said. "Most of us would agree on the content and the regulations that have been enshrined in broadcast legislation around the world...(but) it's the issue as to who controls the regulatory authority that would be the key..." he observed. The President acknowledged that the question of how the members of any broadcast authority are appointed is crucial in ensuring the perception of its political impartiality. He called for an exploration of ideas to allow for a comprehensive draft that will address the concerns of all the stakeholders. Minister Nagamootoo, in his remarks, said the purpose of the caucus was to attain the widest possible involvement and collaboration between all those persons in the broadcast media, whether directly or indirectly and others in Government who have the task of serving the public interest and promulgating the statute. The Minister recalled that, over the past 30 years, broadcasters, lawmakers and politicians, as well as experts, propagandists and critics have contributed to the search for an appropriate enactment to regulate and enhance the quality of broadcasting in independent Guyana. According to him, the advent of television helped to intensify the effort, especially since 1993 when he commissioned two separate studies into the state of the Guyana media and received recommendations on how to establish order and professional standards. Nagamootoo said those early efforts have not been wasted as they "formed the basis for discussion, sometimes acrimonious and always controversial." "They helped us to define our interests and to fight for them. They brought to the table a body of ideas for quality broadcasting and opened several cycles of debate and introspection. "They laid bare our weaknesses and forced us to strive for improvements. All together, they contributed towards a climate of free speech, openness and tolerance. "They informed and enhanced our democracy..." he reported. "The initial outright hostility towards and resistance to any regulation gave way, for a while, to fears and suspicions. But the survival instinct blended into a new mood for cooperation, which has produced what we see here today - a community of diverse interests sharing a resolve to bring into existence not any kind of law but a quality law that will bring gains to broadcasters and the public," Nagamootoo told the gathering. He remembered presenting to Cabinet, in May 1996, a State paper on broadcasting policy guidelines as a philosophical basis for consideration of a broadcasting law for Guyana. Nagamootoo noted that the question is often asked:"Why do we need a broadcasting law?" He said the answer was given, in 1969, when Mr Kit Nascimento, a media consultant, submitted to the then Cabinet, innovative proposals on the subject. The Minister said the common view, then and now, is that the airwaves or electromagnetic spectrum utilised by a broadcaster is a severely limited national resource which belongs to the nation and, as such, to the people. Nagamootoo argued that there can be no personal or private use of it nor should it be utilised indiscriminately. He said the usage of broadcasting frequencies has to be the subject of a licence which should be for a fixed period and issued under certain strict conditions. Broadcasters (those who operate television and radio stations) use the public airwaves in a way which gives them ready access to an audience which pays only for the equipment to receive and not for the service itself, the Minister pointed out. "Precisely for this reason, they should be required by the public to operate with a sense of responsibility to their audience," he stressed, adding that the responsibilities are exercised through adherence to the terms of a licence granted by the regulator on behalf of the public. "For this, we need policy, rules and regulations..." Minister Nagamootoo said. Resource panelists were media consultants Nascimento and Mr Hugh Cholomondely, Attorney-at-Law and member of the Board of Directors of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited, Mr Hubert Rodney and head of the National Frequency Management Unit, Mr Seo Persaud. Nascimento, who was one of the main contributors at the seminar, said, in today's world of almost instant communication across and within national borders, legislation will inevitably "play catch up" with the technology. Legislating for broadcasting to serve the public good while preserving free speech is both a difficult and time consuming task (and) defining with any certainty what the public wants or should receive is almost an impossible task," he confessed. However, Nascimento said a good Broadcast Act will spell out as comprehensively as possible all aspects of broadcasting expected of the broadcaster in an effort to provide for the public interest and convenience. He said it will guarantee that competing commercial interests for broadcast licences are dealt with fairly and objectively, understanding the criteria by which they are to be judged. "It is a complex and difficult task. It is legislation which will need constant review and change," he agreed. Cholmondeley cautioned that, with the convergence of the functions of television, telephone and computer, there is a danger any legislation would be irrelevant to new technologies. Words such as "broadcast" are already obsolete and recent laws worldwide make no mention of such "outdated" terminology. Cholmondeley's contention was that, as long as licence fees were not paid to the existing authority, the National Frequency Management Unit (NFMU) would continue to get its funding and direction from the Government. Rodney, who specialises in broadcast laws, submitted that any legislation must first address the tenets of the country's Constitution. He said it must first address the tenets of the national charter and also look at rivalry in a very small market where broadcasters fear that regulation will add more capital costs. Misir concluded that the discourse was useful, though disjointed but promised that the recommendations out of it will be considered together with the previous draft of the Act as the basis of the committee's mandate. He felt the discussants should have had a more holistic approach, addressing more particularly how a Broadcasting Authority is legally created. Misir said they all need to know how it will adopt regulatory powers and streamline the operations of television and radio stations as the entity itself would not be able to do it without links to other units. He emphasised that the public must play a vital part in determining how licences are granted and renewed. Programming is another important area for public involvement in determining the policies governing such production and broadcasting. "We also need to look at the law and policy on specific types of programming, like broadcast journalism, political broadcasting, children's television programmes and things like criticisms, ridicule and humour relating to individuals and groups," the Permanent Secretary said. In his view, the legislation should provide for a national public inspectorate file which the public is allowed to peruse for documents relevant to television and radio stations. "This legislation is not only about broadcasting, its about the public. Broadcasting has to operate in the interest of the public," Misir maintained. He said it would necessitate the establishment of a commission which monitors and introduces standards in broadcasting countrywide. Some broadcasters were convinced the Act will serve to regulate the industry and accommodate the development of new technology but said that must be through fair play with specific criteria giving way to clean competition. TV station owners have no automatic right to use the nation's electromagnetic spectrum that is linked to a national resource. "Because you are in mass communications that privilege requires you to give a service in the public interest," Misir stated. Others were in agreement with this point but said a grace period, of as much as 15 years, was needed to put their operations in order when the Act would have come into effect. Mr Enrico Woolford of Capitol News said there must be space for local programming to prosper. "If we are going to import canned sardines, the local bangamary industry will never develop," he warned. Mr Tony Vieira said the local public is enjoying foreign programmes at no charge and it has made their lives a little easier.
 Follow the goings-on in Guyana
|