At an historic joint press conference of President Bharrat Jagdeo and Leader of the Opposition Desmond Hoyte it was announced and an Agreement signed that in keeping with the recommendation of one of the Joint Committees a Broadcast Advisory Committee was to be established. Its membership would be appointed respectively by the Government, the Opposition and the Private Sector. The committee would be advisory to the Prime Minister Sam Hinds whose portfolio includes broadcasting regulation.

The committee was duly appointed with Pat Dial as Chairman and Ron Case and Carlton James as the other members.

In view of the current confused and conflictual situation in the field, this development appeared to mark a significant advance. Alas, we are now told that the Committee cannot be made operational until next year because there are no funds. Is this not a project which could qualify for contingency funding? There is the real risk that this may be perceived as a delaying tactic.

Even more surprising is the recent reported disclosure of the Cabinet Secretary that the Cabinet has appointed a committee, perhaps no less than a Cabinet Sub-Committee, to decide on the mandate or field of work of the Broadcast Advisory Committee. How was the membership of the Dial Committee appointed if there was no clear idea as to its work - which is not to say that the membership is not well qualified and experienced. What must one make of all this? Maybe it all fits into the pattern of frivolities of what the ad men call this festive season.

Far more disturbing is the apparent intention to restrict the Committee's work in large part to the re-establishment of the media monitoring unit which functioned as part of GECOM during the election. The committee may also be entrusted with advising on the increasingly unacceptable position of a state monopoly in radio. Both issues indeed require urgent attention. At the time of the election certain newscasts and talk shows came close to tearing the society apart. So it would be valuable to reinstate the monitoring unit.

However, these issues are only a small part of the "overhaul" of the broadcast media which is necessary if the media are to serve the Guyanese nation with the entertainment and education and information required for social and economic development. It must be hoped that the Prime Minister will soon clarify that the scope of the Committee is not limited to monitoring for taste.

TV, like Topsy, just grew up. One must acknowledge the pioneer work of Anthony Vieira and later Rex Mc Kay. These have been real achievements. TV has given a necessary external dimension to the Guyanese mind. It is no small thing although we now take it for granted that in far flung parts of this country we can see global events like September ll as they happen. Internally, it has provided - although sometimes irresponsibly exploited - a channel for the ventilation of grievances.

But also there is much that is unsatisfactory. There is too heavy a dependence on foreign programmes which slowly but surely destroy an emerging national identity. Newscasts ramble on with little attempt to edit to a fixed period. Overall the local content, where there is such, is too Georgetowny and urbanised. The rest of the country only gets a look in in times of disaster. There is little systematic attempt to discover and utilise talent in the fields of acting and music, the use of such talent being limited to the brief compass of TV advertisements. Some advertisements, especially for shows of overseas origin, border on obscenity. Other advertisements are of doubtful literacy. There seem to be no rules as to frequency of use in the use of advertisements, some ads are repeated so often as to move beyond persuasion to pressure.

TV transmitters and masts are permitted to be established in densely populated areas without any regard for the risks of radiation to health (In Rome, Italy the Vatican has been under pressure this year to remove its transmitters in view of the observed harmful effects of radiation on health).

What is to be done? There is implicit agreement that there will continue into the future a mixed system consisting of government owned and privately owned media and that all such media will depend for their operations on funds generated by the sale of time for some programmes and for advertisements and announcements. It is also implicitly recognised that privately owned media will be entitled to make an acceptable level of profit on investment.

Is it not desirable that such licenced operations be asked to make available a small percentage of their broadcast time for public service broadcasting? The case for such a condition for licensing TV and radio stations is based on an analogy with the conditions imposed including payment of royalties for the exploitation of natural resources whether it be commercial or forest. In the case of the forest concession the condition (in addition to payment of fees and royalties) may require replanting or selective cutting to ensure regrowth. The contention first made decades ago in the Massey report on Canadian Broadcasting and recently revived is that the frequencies available to a State are a limited natural resource. As with other resources its exploitation should directly benefit the community which owns it.

Time so made available would be utilised for public service broadcasts including entertainment utilising local talent, cultural and educational shows including adult education and information and comment. Such public service programming, it is suggested, might be produced by each station or by voluntary groups whose programme production costs might be funded by the Broadcast Authority from radio and TV stations licence fees and licence fees on TV sets. Thus a drama group with appropriate expertise could produce local or regional or international plays funded by the authority for performance in the public sector slots of television or radio or the University of Guyana could further develop off campus distance learning towards the award of certificates and diplomas and eventually degrees- as is now being done by well established universities in the UK and the USA.The analogy with the exploitation of a natural resource is relevant also on another issue. The forest concessionaire might be asked to provide infrastructure. Similarly the licensing of a new radio station might as one condition require the establishment of an additional signal to reach through if necessary to remote communities not now served.

Those are some of the considerations among others on which the Advisory Committee might be asked to advise and which might be incorporated in the long delayed legislation. It is unlikely that the Committee could complete its work in the three month period now envisaged. The committee should invite memoranda or arrange hearings, seek the assistance of other experts and be enabled to visit other parts of the country and to meet with viewers and listeners. To facilitate the exercise its report may be in two parts, an interim report on the immediate issues, while sustained consideration is given to other issues of the kind raised herein.