While Mr Oscar Clarke’s points concerning the lack of correspondence between some provisions of the draft Broadcasting Bill and the Report of the Joint Committee on Radio Monopoly, etc, are well taken, it has to be said that the defects of the bill go beyond this. As Mr Hugh Cholmondeley pointed out in a letter published in our Wednesday edition, the report was too limited in its scope to provide a basis on which to draft legislation in the first instance; however, as he also observed, it is still not too late to remedy the draft’s deficiencies. One certainly would not wish, therefore, for the broadcasting debate to be shunted into a political siding where the bill is matched clause for clause with the report and the other issues in relation to it are ignored; what one is looking for at this stage is a review of all those areas which are a source of concern.

The good news is that the Government has placed the draft bill in the public arena for debate, and hopefully they will not be tempted to curtail the discussion out of a misplaced sense of urgency. On this occasion they need to give the public time to reflect, if only because the issues are complex and in some respects, technical, requiring preliminary explanation from those with expertise in the field. This is certainly not a piece of legislation which lends itself to off-the-top-of-the-head opinions, and as such, therefore, it is to be hoped that both they and the main opposition party will listen to those who qualify as experts in the field with an open mind, and not dismiss out of hand their informed advice.

One of the things Mr Cholmondelely did say in his letter was that the transitional nature of this draft legislation should be recognized, and that the “problems that the Bill seeks to address should be framed against the backdrop of accelerating technological change.” Specifically it should not do damage “to future legislative efforts that aim to deal with the much more complex issues of communications, telecommunications and information technology policy.”

This is a point of which our politicians should take note; as was said at the workshop on the bill involving media practitioners held last Saturday, we are still fighting with a broadcasting bill, while other Caribbean territories have moved ahead and are looking at telecommunications legislation.

This is a technical area, of course. What the public would have a more immediate interest in - not to mention media workers themselves - is the matter of the autonomy of the proposed Broadcasting Authority. While everyone agrees in principle that such a body should be autonomous, representative and free from political direction, how that is to be achieved in practice is likely to be a source of disagreement.

In our edition yesterday, Mr Christopher Nascimento outlined some of the proposals which had been made in this regard, and what the possibilities were. He also raised questions in relation to ensuring autonomy which the Committee on Radio Monopoly, Non-Partisan Boards and Broadcasting Legislation had not addressed. One of these was the matter of the duration of appointments for its members, and he cited the case of the US Federal Communications Commission, whose appointments “exceed the period of presidential elections to insure against political influence on [its] composition.” If we can secure agreement between the sides on the matter of the authority - and, it should be added, the state-owned media - then reaching accord on other areas should not be an insuperable problem.

This draft bill is a test case for how the politicians from the two major parties, as well as stakeholders and the viewing/listening public can debate an important issue with the minimum of rancour. The ultimate aim is to produce a piece of legislation which is broadly satisfactory to the major interest groups, and which provides a workable framework for broadcasting in this country. To achieve that end the politicians must be prepared, as stated above, to listen to those who are authorities in the field and take on board their suggestions; to listen in general to contrary views; and above all, to evince a preparedness to compromise. The media’s duty is to facilitate the debate in an atmosphere of rationality which discourages recrimination.

If that can be done, we will have achieved more than an acceptable broadcasting bill.